should have been better able therefore to understand their exact bearing, if he had directly explained how he harmonizes them with the teaching of such Acts as the "Mirari vos," the "Quantâ curâ," the Syllabus. If our readers will look at the Papal utterances which we inserted in our last number from pp. 487 to 493, they will see how intense is the Holy Father's earnestness against the errors of "Liberal Catholicism." And this earnestness is the more remarkable, because on a superficial glance it would appear, that at this moment the Church's imminent perils come from quite an opposite direction. Prince Bismarck's persecution would have been reprobated by Montalembert, with fully as great severity as by F. Ramière himself: and yet this is the time chosen by Pius IX. for expressing with special emphasis his sense of the danger involved in the "Liberal Catholic" tenets. We do not see what other inference can be drawn from this circumstance, except that there is some special venom latent in those tenets some special venom, which even in these days of Cæsarism retains its virus, but which the pressure of Cæsarism may possibly tempt Catholics to under-estimate.

It may be objected perhaps to our general line of argument, that we have not shown what sufficient ground of opposition to Cæsarism is afforded by our own doctrine. We quite admit that this is so; and we hope in our next article on the subject amply to supply the omission. But in our present paper (as we have so often said) our main business has been to comment on Dr. Mivart; and we think we have shown, that his theory at all events sets forth no basis whatever of opposition to Cæsarism. In the first place (so we have argued) Dr. Mivart himself cannot consistently maintain, that the State may in no case enact laws which shall militate against the conscience of individuals. But in the second place, even were this never permissible-nevertheless, without putting forth any militation whatever against conscience, an enemy of Catholicity might (as we pointed out) exercise a more detestable and crushing tyranny over the Church, even than that now rampant in Germany.

It so happens however, that one particular form, which might be assumed by the objection to which we refer, has been treated quite recently by F. O'Reilly in the "Irish Monthly"; and it may be serviceable to reprint his reply. English Catholics for the most part keenly sympathize with the efforts made by the Holy Father, that Spain shall be permitted to retain the inestimable blessing of Catholic unity. But how is it consistent, asks an objector, that Catholics shall wish a Catholic government to forbid the freedom of Protestant VOL. XXVII.-NO. LIII. [New Series.]

D

worship, while they complain energetically if a Protestant government forbid the freedom of Catholic worship? F. O'Reilly, without mentioning the particular case of Spain, thus replies to the general objection: the italics throughout being his own (February, 1876, pp. 170–172) :—

The position of a Catholic Government of a Catholic country with reference to the Catholic religion is totally different from that of a Protestant Government even of a Protestant country, with reference to the Protestant religion; or rather [to] any phase of Protestantism; for there is in reality no such Religion, true or false, as the Protestant Religion, any more than there is such a Religion as common Christianity. There may be Protestant Religions, in the plural number, there is not one in the singular. But this by the way. The great reason of this difference of positions of Catholic and Protestant Governments with reference to the Catholic Religion and any Protestant Religion is, that the Catholic Religion is presented as a Divinely revealed Religion committed to the care of a Divinely instituted and Infallible Church, which Church definitely declares the details of belief and practice contained in the Revelation, superadding her own laws and ordinances in virtue of her own Divinely revealed commission; while each particular form of Protestantism is confessedly a digest of dogmas and practices said to be contained in the Christian revelation, but made by fallible men according to their lights, with the addition of laws and ordinances enacted by themselves without the semblance of any such Divine commission as is claimed by the Catholic Church. If any of them do pretend to a Divine commission, they do not pretend to be infallible in claiming it, nor to have the guarantee of any infallible person or body for their possession of it.

A Catholic Government recognizes the Divine Revelation of the Catholic Religion and the Divine institution and commission of the Catholic Church, both of which are likewise recognized by the Catholic people. A Protestant Government embraces a particular set of theological opinions-to give them the most respectable name that I can-and charters, in some shape, the body of divines who hold those opinions. The Protestant Government does not any more than the Catholic attribute infallibility to itself. The Protestant Government does not acknowledge infallibility in the pastors who propound those particular doctrines which distinguish the sect. The whole status of the religion comes from the divines and the Government, a great deal of it from the latter, and the Government exercises a very effectual supervision over doctrines and discipline. In the one case the Government accepts a religion presented as divine and divinely provided with all religious appliances, and absolutely repudiating all subordination to the State-the Religion, I say, and its professors too, as such—in the other the State sets its seal on a Religion which, as to its particular form, is unmistakably a human institution. As I remarked in a preceding paper, Anglicans do not pretend to believe with Divine Faith that Anglicanism-which is, after all, among the best of the sects called Protestant-is as to its particular doctrines and form the true Religion.

It comes to this, then, that each particular form of Protestantism, and the

whole of Protestantism as contra-distinguished to Catholicity, is but a set of opinions. Whatever may be the actual adhesion of kings or people to them, their outward status is that of opinions, as they are avowedly fallible explanations of, or deductions from, the Christian Revelation. Now, surely there is the greatest difference between exclusively protecting and maintaining a Religion presented as revealed by God, and as proposed in detail by an Infallible Church, and similarly protecting and maintaining a Religion which in its distinctive shape is the work of those who hold it or of some among them.

Add to this that all Protestants admit in effect the right of private judgment, not perhaps always under that name, nor in the same extravagant way as some of the first Reformers, but in reality and in substance. For they all deny a permanent infallible authority, and all take their respective systems of belief from a comprehensive, complicated mass of revelation, obscure in many parts, and open to discussion about its real meaning in many others; all, I say, take their system of belief from this revelation as they understand it. If controversies arise, these are left unsettled, or are settled either by each man for himself or at the best by an accommodating assent to the decision of some conventional tribunal for the sake of outward concord. Here we have private judgment without any mistake. Now, I say, once private judgment is admitted in the formation of systems of belief, the attempt to deny to Catholics the right of understanding revelation otherwise than Protestants understand it, and of professing and preaching conformably to their system, is arbitrary and inconsistent. In the same revelation which Protestants claim to explain according to their respective lights, Catholics see the institution of an Infallible Church from which the details of doctrine are to be accepted, and from this Church they do accept their doctrines. In this what business have Protestants to stop them? Certainly none.

It is with keen regret that we have found ourselves, throughout the preceding pages, in sustained opposition to one, for whom we feel such very great respect and gratitude as Dr. Mivart. But his very eminence, and the extent of his services to Catholicity, will be sure to invest with special authority whatever he may say; and on this question we have the misfortune to differ from him, not in this or that incidental particular, but on a fundamental doctrine which few can exceed in practical importance. We trust we have not spoken in a tone of undue confidence. We feel strongly indeed, and have from time to time said, that we are far from clear we may not have importantly misunderstood him. Even if this has not been so we should still express our criticism with much diffidence, if the question were merely between the accuracy of his reasoning or observation and the accuracy of our own. But our conviction is, that the teaching of the Holy See is fundamentally opposed to the theory which we understand

D%

Dr. Mivart to uphold. And our dissent from that theory therefore rests on very far stronger ground, than on any confidence we could feel in the correctness of our own private speculation on the grave matters at issue.

Since the preceding went to press, we have seen an article in the "Fraser" of June, bearing Mr. Froude's initials, from which it is well worth our while to make an extract. It powerfully illustrates what has been said by Mr. Lilly and other Catholics, as regards the contrast which this age presents to earlier times, in its prevalent political and personal ideal. In medieval times, says M. Périn, the ideal was self-sacrifice: now the ideal is self-enjoyment. So Mr. Froude; whose words are the more remarkable, because no one will suspect him of Catholic proclivities.

In other ages the human race was contented with less ambitious aspirations; the present world was considered at its best to be a scene of disappointments. The noblest efforts were often doomed to failure; the noblest life was not to be rewarded with happiness. At the hearts of all men of high and sensitive nature there was an impassioned longing after things which the world did not contain and could not give them. They had set before themselves as the supreme object of desire something else than material prosperity. Life to them was not enjoyment, but sacrifice. They moved about in an atmosphere of existence unrealized, yet more real to their imagination than the most palpable objects of their senses. They looked out on nature to perceive in it a something far more deeply interfused than what they could see or handle. They looked beyond them for some other more sure abiding-place. They were contented with poverty. They despised the pleasures and dreaded the temptations of overmuch prosperity. The bank notes which a man was able to accumulate were no indications that his life had been profitably spent. They were satisfied to do their very best in such department of duty as had fallen to them, looking for their reward rather in the work which they accomplished than in the payment which the world assigned to them. Hence arose martyrs of religion, martyrs of science, martyrs of patriotism, martyrs of love, martyrs of destiny. Their victory was most complete when it was won at the sacrifice of themselves.

We have changed all that. It has been discovered that the ancient theories of life were unproductive. Society, before the days of enlightenment, continued stationary. The children walked in the ways of their fathers. They consecrated their fathers' errors by mistaken reverence. They forgot that each generation, as the inheritor of the accumulated knowledge of the past, was necessarily wiser than the generations which preceded it. We prefer realities to dreams; we limit our aspirations to what is practical; and, abandoning the phantoms which deluded our fathers, attending

to the real nature of our situation and manfully endeavouring to make the best of it, we advance where before we stood still; we work for earthly reward; and nature is kind, and if we are punctual in attention to facts she never fails to honour the bills which we draw upon her. Our fathers imagined themselves a little lower than the angels. We are contented to be ignorant whether our descent be celestial or common to us and the beasts that perish. We are creatures of a day. The earth is the only home of which we have real knowledge; but we can make it a very comfortable place if we duly attend to the conditions of it, and to the limits of our own powers. Religion thus becomes vague. It is divorced from our practice, and becomes an opinion. Poetry grows languid, and Art grows commonplace; and though we would gladly preserve both art and poetry as materials of amusement, the splendid rewards which society is ready to furnish still fail to prevent creative genius from withering. On the other hand, we have steam-ships and telegraphs; our merchant fleets cover the seas; our great continents are reticulated with railways, and the products of all climes and countries are distributed for the enjoyment of each (pp. 692–3).

ART. II.-CREMATION.

Julian the Apostate, Letter to Arsaces, Satrap of Armenia. (Op. Ep. xlix.) Muratori, de Ant. Christianor. Sepulchris, in the Anecdot. Græca. Disq. iii. Naples. 1776.

Ueber das Verbrennen der Leichen, Abhandl. der Berlin, Akad. d. Wiss. Jahrgang. 1849.

Cremation. By Sir HENRY THOMPSON.

Cremation of the Dead. By W. EASSIE. London. 1875.

WE suppose that every one who watches the movements

of his own mind must have noticed, not without some humiliation, to what extraordinary fluctuations we are subject in all senses, but in none more than in the varying estimates we make of the relative importance of ideas or topics of thought. And similarly, or rather by consequence, we have only to take up the newspapers, which contain a faithful transcript of the ephemeral ideas of society, to perceive the same characteristic in the common mind of the public. At one time there is what is called a "run" upon social questions, at another politics, literature, art, science, commerce, theology, in short, any conceivable subject, from "Shakespeare

to the "musical glasses," spirit-rapping to skating