phrase) the religion of the Irish people is by mixed education ;* that without mixed education, no degree of secular instruction, and no familiarity with

Page 246 he said: "I believe, as I said the other day, that mixed education is gradually enlightening the mass of the people, and that if we give it up we give up the only hope of weaning the Irish from Popery. But I cannot venture openly to profess this opinion. I cannot support the Education Board as an instrument of conversion. I have to fight its battle with one hand, and that my best, tied behind me." Page 247" With all its defects, we must adhere to the system of mixed education." An attempt was made (if we remember right in the Times) to show that Dr. Whately meant only, that education and enlightenment would gradually open the eyes of the people, and that then they would adopt the system which he believed to be true. This was ingenious, but disingenuous. Whoever reads his own words will see that he said, over and over again, that education, so far from injuring the Catholic Church in Ireland, would strengthen it, unless it were mixed education, and if it were mixed education it would undermine it. Thus he said, p. 246 --" What I fear is a measure which, though not avowedly sectarian, may be so practically. I fear that a grant may be offered to any patron who will provide such secular education as the Government shall approve, leaving him to furnish such religious education as he may himself approve. If this be done the schools in Roman Catholic districts will be so many hotbeds of bigotry and religious animosity." By these last ugly words Whately of course meant "earnest Catholic religion.' But no words could more strongly express his conviction, that no degree of secular education would "undermine the Catholic religion, unless it were mixed education. That was his one hope, and, as he was convinced, the only hope, of "undermining" the religion of the Irish Catholics. Again, in page 245, he says, "Only two things are necessary; one is, that Government should adhere resolutely, not only on its measures, but by its appointments, in the selection of [Protestant] bishops, as well as in making Parliamentary grants, to the system of mixed education." In page 244 he says of his own religious books, which he had managed to get the Catholic members of the Board to accept (and of which he always said publicly, that they were in accordance with the principles of the national system, the first of which was to preclude all possibility of proselytism), "they contain so much that is inconsistent with the spirit of Romanism, that it is difficult to suppose a person well acquainted with them can be a thorough-going Roman Catholic. His trust in the infallibility [of the Church], the foundation on which his whole system of faith is built, is at an end." What makes this case much stronger is that he was here speaking of his "extracts" from Scripture. Now, it was exactly these extracts which we used to be told were chosen, because there was nothing in them to which any one could object. Well, Dr. Whately himself tells us that his object in making these selections was, to suggest to the Catholic scholars disbelief in "the foundations on which their whole system of faith is built," and that this was the principal way in which he believed that he was undermining the whole fabric of their faith. He was confessedly a far-sighted man, and he saw that no degree of mere instruction, whether in secular learning or in Holy Scripture, would endanger their faith, as long as it was given in a Catholic school, by Catholic teachers, and united with Catholic devotions, acts of faith, hope, and charity, &c., &c., but that, if given in a mixed school, it would undermine their religion. It was because he was no longer allowed to enforce the use of this very book in all national schools for Catholic children that he resigned his place on the Board.

Scripture, would do any harm to the Catholic religion, and that so long as mixed education was maintained, there was little to fear from any other concession which it might be necessary to make to the Catholics, for that by it their religion would be gradually "undermined." This important fact should never be allowed to sleep fas est ab hoste doceri. Above all, it is a sufficient answer to those Protestants who tell us, often in good faith, that the proposed plans of mixed education are not intended to be, and need not be, any blow to the Catholic religion. Every Catholic who is liable to meet such persons should have Dr. Whately's words by heart, ready prepared as an answer to them.

And this answers also a suggestion of the Spectator that it is not fair to speak of the proposed plan of mixed schools as a penal law against the Catholic religion, because "a Protestant nation, though it should always endeavour to meet the views of the Roman Catholics it contains, must obviously solve its own educational problems with a view to the wants of the majority, and not to the wants of the minority." This is true; and the Spectator, with its usual fairness, does not deny that it would be a "grievance," a " misfortune" to Catholics if the Protestant majority were to establish a school rate in support of mixed schools. But surely when, as this writer admits, that grievance and misfortune is threatened, not because Protestants bonâ fide believe that a mixed system is, on the whole, best for their own children, but because they believe it will be an injury to the Roman Catholic religion, no proof of an animus of persecution could be more formal and complete. The penal laws themselves were less so; for the penal laws, while they were intended to strike down the Catholic religion, inflicted loss and inconvenience only upon Catholics, whereas, in this case, the Spectator admits that men are willing to sacrifice for their own children the mode of education which they believe to be best for them, only that they may obtain an excuse for inflicting on our children one which we know to be destructive to them. In this case, therefore, people are confessedly desiring to make a great personal sacrifice in order to injure us.

It cannot be too much to say, that if the most important Irish questions are now to be decided by the Imperial Parliament, not (as Mr. Gladstone promised last year) so as to meet the wishes of the Irish people, but expressly and intentionally so as to "undermine" that religion, which, as the Irish people have shown a thousand times, they value more than their lives, the very worst spirit of times past will be proved to be still dominant. Still, as then, Ireland will be governed, not so as to meet its own highest and best aspirations, but so as to gratify the lowest passions of its English masters. We therefore deliberately declare, that this question of mixed or denominational education in Ireland seems to us to be, before all others, that upon which it depends, whether the Union is to be in future maintained merely as a matter of might against right, or whether, like the union of Scotland with England, it is to be a bargain just and beneficial to both parties.* It has been the

The Spectator objects to Dr. Ullathorne's calling the proposed mixed schools "godless." It is, however, merely a quotation from that stanch Protestant Sir R. H. Inglis, who applied it to mixed education in Ireland.

opinion of some thoughtful men that between a Protestant nation and a Catholic nation no really just and beneficial union, upon terms at all approaching to equality can exist for any length of time; but that between such nations the only permanent connection must be that of ascendency and subjection, such as has been too long exemplified in the past history of Ireland. Their reason has been, that the hatred of Protestants against the Catholic religion is such, as to make any other permanent union impossible, and that, whenever it was attempted, it would be sure to lead to something like a religious war between the two. Mr. Gladstone is now trying a great practical experiment-he is bringing this opinion to the test of experience. If experience proves that the hatred of Englishmen against the Catholic religion is so deep-seated that they are ready to sacrifice for themselves in England the system ef education which they believe to be the best, rather than allow Catholic Ireland to enjoy the benefit of it, that opinion will have been confirmed by the test of experiment: and just men of all nations will feel, that the hope of just government in Ireland must be given up, until some providential change shall put within her power a final separation from England.

Joannis Baptista Franzelin e Societate Jesu in Collegio Romano S. Theologia Professoris Tractatus de Deo Trino Secundum Personas. Roma et Taurini apud P. Marietti. 1869.

HOSE of our readers who have had the privilege of "sitting under "

of this treatise. The name of the great master is sufficient guarantee of the quality of the work to all who have heard him. Such will picture him in fancy as he sits in the theological chair of the Roman College of the Jesuits, striving with earnest eloquence to force into the heads of his manytongued audience an understanding of truths whose inmost depths his own eye seems to pierce undazzled.

But every lover of sound and solid theology will heartily welcome this third instalment of the learned professor's Cursus. The volume is distinguished by the same characteristics as marked the two treatises before published-" De Sacramentis in Genere" and "De Eucharistiâ." There is the same profoundness and accuracy of thought; the same exactness and fulness of learning; the same critical and exegetical power; the same sound and wary orthodoxy; the same pervasive yet unobtrusive piety; the same unity and completeness of treatment. In short, Father Franzelin is a theologian omnibus numeris absolutus, and his treatise "De Deo Trino," bears witness to the fact on every page.

As a specimen of theological criticism, the fourth Thesis (p. 38 et seq.), in which the authenticity of the "Three Heavenly Witnesses" (1 John v. 7), is demonstrated, leaves nothing to be desired. The tenth and eleventh Theses (p. 138 et seq.), on the faith and language of the ante

Nicene Fathers, are at once an admirable specimen of exegesis, and have a special value at this time in connection with unsound theories of development. So again the full treatment of that most beautiful and delicate question-de Inhabitatione Spiritus Sancti-(p. 557 et seq.), evidently undertaken by the author in order to dissipate the darkness which hangs over the point in some recent popular text-books, is most valuable in itself; as well as instructive as an example of the folly of attempting to study the Fathers without theological training, and of the danger of halfknowledge.

And here we are brought, by a natural transition, to speak of a point to which attention has already been called in our former notice of Father Franzelin (DUBLIN REVIEW, July, 1869, p. 222). The present writer has always regarded the method of our author as his most distinguishing characteristic, and one which marks the advent of a new era in theology. The older scholastics used Scripture and Fathers too sparingly; among the followers of Petavius, history and criticism pushed theology proper into the background; in Suarez the philosophical and positive elements are found side by side, but independent of each other. It has been left for the theologians of our own and future times to harmonize, amalgamate, and unify the loci theologici. It is from this point of view that we especially rejoice in the labours of the illustrious professor. From the first page to the last of all his works, he keeps consistently before his eyes the great principle, that theology is the science of revelation; and that consequently not only doctrine itself (quod sit), but the understanding of doctrine (quid sit), and deductions from doctrine (quomodo sit) are all to be sought in the one authoritative source, which includes all others, viz., Catholic Tradition. And thus philosophy in the hands of Father Franzelin becomes not so much the handmaiden of theology as her daughter, and wears the dress and features of the superior science. "Sicut vero hoc alterum (he writes in the advertisement to de Sacram. in Gen.), QUOD ITA EST, constat auctoritate verbi Dei, ita etiam investigatio rationum QUOMODO SIT, in Sacrâ theologiâ potissimum peragitur deductione ex ipso Dei verbo, ut in Ecclesia et ab Ecclesia Christi (assistente Spiritu veritatis) custoditur, prædicatur, explicatur." As in so many other cases error has been the occasion of a more profound apprehension and exact analysis of truth, so here the aberrations of the school of Günther and Froschammer have given a direction to the studies of orthodox theologians and philosophers. What F. Kleutgen has done for philosophy F. Franzelin is doing for theology ; and in the treatise before us he has constantly in view the tenets of the rationalising Catholics of Munich and Tubingen.

From what we have said it will be apparent how valuable would be a treatise on the method of theological science from the pen of our author. He has promised a contribution to the literature of this subject, and we sincerely hope that his duties at the Council may not prevent the carrying out of his intention at an early date.

We may add, for the sake of those who have the lithographed sheets of the treatise "De Deo Trino," that the printed edition is enriched with a copious, and (as far as we have looked) an accurate index.

Du Pape et Du Concile, ou Doctrine Complète de S. ALPHONSE DE LIGUORI sur ce double Sujet. Traités traduits classés et annotés par le P. Jules Jacques, C.SS.R. Casterman, Tournai. HE publication of this collection of S. Alphonsus de Liguori's various treatises on the Pope and on General Councils is most opportune. While all eyes are turned towards Rome, it is well that the clergy and educated laity should thus be enabled to learn, what one so high in esteem for sanctity and learning as S. Alphonsus thought on these subjects. It is a happy coincidence, too, that this volume should have appeared in the same language and at the same time as the Pastoral Letter of the Bishop of Orleans.

That letter came from one so greatly admired for his eloquence and zeal that it made much more impression on men's minds than its contents alone could account for; especially among the laity, who have never given a special study to the questions of which it treats. Among some few an impression actually exists, that the illustrious French Bishop has defended the cause of moderation and of the ancient traditions of the Church against, as it is maintained, the extreme theories of a few theologians and the hasty speculations of some intemperate laymen.

We recommend those who have received this impression to purchase and read attentively the volume before us.

In the excellent Introduction which has been prefixed to his translation by P. Jacques, they will find in what esteem S. Alphonsus and his writings are held by the Church. To quote but one passage from the bull of his canonization, having reference to the very treatises which compose this volume, Gregory XVI. has said: "(The Saint) wrote many books for the maintenance of the rights of this Apostolic See; in them we admire an extraordinary vigour of argument, a vast and varied learning, singular proofs of his solicitude for the Church, and a rare zeal for religion." Passing to the writings of the Saint thus solemnly praised, the reader will find that S. Alphonsus maintains, with all the erudition of a doctor and the earnestness of a saint, propositions exactly contrary to those of the Bishop of Orleans. The latter, although he professes not to discuss in any way the infallibility of the Pope but only the opportuneness of its definition, yet continually assumes that hitherto it is not held generally in the Church. He speaks as if the definition would introduce a new rule of faith.*

S. Alphonsus, on the contrary, maintains with Suavez and Bellarmin that the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope is proxima fidei, closely allied to what is of faith; that it is the ancient and almost universally

* Mais avec la nouvelle règle de foi, ne semblerait-il pas aux fidèles qu'il n'y a plus qu'un juge réel? (§ xii.).

VOL. XIV.-NO. XXVII. [New Series.]

R