entirely disapprove of the course which would be taken by my reviewer. As to the first matter, it would indeed be natural to expect that out of the multitude of men who have repudiated Christianity, a certain proportion should repudiate also those rules respecting the sexual relations which are founded upon it. But if it should at any time happen that the advocates of license become the majority, and the social relations, as to sex, of Greece and Rome for a time reappear, it is difficult to see why Christians should be less able to hold their own in this matter now than during the first three centuries, when they were not certainly deficient in virtue. Instead, then, of regarding the considerations my critic cites (p. 17) from me as "mockeries and insults," I should really expect that the prevailing license would stimulate and intensify the feelings of those who remained Christians, in opposition to the more common practice of their day; and though, of course, many individuals would fall into habits which, under a system of severe sexual morality, they would avoid, nevertheless the state of the then existing moral atmosphere would render their actions less culpable as more excusable, and the amount of real virtue, on the whole, be no jot or tittle less; moreover, we should never forget that there would ultimately come into play the great effect of vigorous

reaction.

As to suicide, I should think it absurd indeed, and extremely unwise as well as horribly revolting and unjust, to treat poor Mr. Lionel Tollemache, on account of his advocacy of Euthanasia, as "a public enemy of the most dangerous kind," or to visit him "by the law with just that amount of severity which the public sentiment will bear," regretting I could not give him "a much severer punishment."

As to those who deny the existence of conscience in effect (for I know no one in England who does so in terms), I would inflict on them no worse punishment than getting them to read what I consider the most conclusive arguments on the other side.

As to the proselytizers of Autitheistic sects, of which I suppose my friend (if he will allow me to call him so) Mr. Frederick Harrison may be taken as a type, I certainly should not dream of seeking to inflame the passions of an ignorant populace to "clamour for his forcible repression," nor should I sympathize intensely with, for I should intensely detest and heartily disapprove of any penal laws that might be enacted for his chastisement. In our religiously divided condition I should think a persecution of Atheists not only unjust but in the

highest degree impolitic, and calculated to do very great disservice to the cause of Theism.

In all these cases, as also in the case of the Communistic propaganda, I am convinced that in the open air of liberty and free discussion there is safety; it is by the closing down and shutting in of noxious exhalations from free access to atmospheric influences that those malignant fevers are generated which may decimate our citizens.

My critic, if I may venture to say so, seems to me to be too timorous, and to have too little confidence in his fellow-men and the process of social evolution, or even in his very religion and the course of Divine Providence. Trusting firmly myself in all of these, I have no fear of the free play of thought and full discussion, and I remain profoundly convinced that, "under the circumstances of modern times," peace and safety are alone to be found in giving the fullest and the widest scope to Liberty of Conscience.

ST. GEORGE MIVART.

[In the preceding paper Dr. Mivart has seriously misunderstood us on a matter of some little importance; and on finding that such is the case, he has very handsomely permitted us so far to transgress our engagement with him, as to insert a few words of explanation. His misconception relates to the kind of atheistical propagandism, which (we think), if attempted, ought to be repressed by law.

We first (p. 26) supposed a knot of atheists to combine, for the purpose of diffusing among the masses a conviction, that free love, and again, that murder of the sick, the infirm, the suffering, and the old-are laudable practices. We are sure the vast majority of Englishmen will agree with us as a matter of course in holding, that such propagandism should be "visited with precisely that degree of severity which may be found most successful" in crushing it.

We

Secondly (pp. 30-32) we supposed a different case. supposed a knot of atheists to combine,-not as yet for the purpose of recommending particular practices of immorality, -but for the purpose of diffusing among the masses a conviction, that no such verities are cognizable as the existence of God or of moral obligation; and that man's only reasonable pursuit on earth is to obtain for himself the greatest amount he can of pleasure and enjoyment. We hold that this is virtually equivalent to the former case. If (which God forbid!) such tenets really penetrated and sank into and obtained possession of the popular mind, they would quite unspeakably

debase the national character, they would engender every kind of hideous immorality, and would produce the rapid disorganization and dissolution of society. If any such propagandism then were attempted as we are here supposing,and if it assumed such dimensions as to render it really formidable-it would be of extreme moment, that that hatred of atheism, which we believe still to animate the great body of Englishmen, should be stimulated to the very uttermost by every legitimate method; that their heart no less than their head should be earnestly enlisted on the side of God; and that the irreligious agitation should be vigorously repressed by the strong hand of the law. Moreover, we have a firm belief that such would be the wish and feeling of Englishmen in general. But it is an entirely different question, whether the law could wisely interfere with the freest discussion, among philosophically cultured men, of whatever theories may be broached, favourable or adverse to religion and morality. Dr. Mivart credits us with an affirmative answer to this question; but on the contrary we are convinced that, in the present most unhappy condition of philosophical thought, vastly more harm than good would accrue from any attempt at such interference.

We think the whole course of our argument implied, that we did not in any way protest against the existent freedom of philosophical discussion. We were dealing throughout with cases of combined aggression against "the religious instinct and feeling now prevalent in England" (p. 32); and we were supposing some body of active proselytizers to aim, in vigorous and widely-extended concert, at direct influence over the popular mind. Had it once occurred to us that we might be laying ourselves open to such a misconception as that which we are here rectifying, we should have taken care to add an express explanatory sentence.]

INDEX.

A FEW WORDS ON FESSLER, 182-197: previous statements on Mgr.
Fessler's treatise, 182; correspondence in the Tablet, 183; replies to
our reviewer, 187; were the Pope and his advisers aware of the Bishop's
statements concerning the Syllabus, 189; our critic fails to prove that
they were, 189; we always had the highest opinion of the treatise, 190;
purport of the treatise, 190; in places we observe what we may call
minimizing rhetoric, 191; H. I. D. R's misconception of the Bishop's
purpose in his treatise, 192; the Holy Father's eulogy upon the treatise,
193; bearing of the Pope's Brief on the authority of the Syllabus, 195;
propositions which H. I. D. R. must prove, 196; parting words of
remonstrance, 197.-

ANGLICANISM IN AUSTRALIA, 368-399: the intensely national character of
Anglicanism, 368; Bishop Fisher's speech against the king's spiritual
supremacy, 369; opposition of the Catholic hierarchy to Henry VIII.
and to Elizabeth, 371; the servile character of the first Anglican
Bishops, 372; the dependence of Anglicanism upon the State, 374 ;
its judicial blindness, 375; the infamous lives of its early Bishops, 375;
as Anglicanism is in England so it is in Australia, 376; Dr. Barker on
Protestantism, 377; on differences in the interpretations of Scripture,
378; Protestant estimate of the Bible, 380; identity of Dr. Barker's
opinions with those of the ancient Pagans, 381; analysis of Maitland's
"Dark Ages," 384; that work completely refutes Dr. Barker's state-
ments, 385; the high estimation in which the Scriptures were held in
the "dark ages," 386; Dr. Wilson on the broadcast scattering of the
Holy Scriptures, 387; the Early Fathers made the Scriptures their
constant study, 389; and every page of the monastic literature of the
Middle Ages proves an intimate knowledge of the Scriptures, 390;
Dr. Barker's misrepresentation of the reason of the Pope's supremacy,
391; Dean Milman's reason for that supremacy, 391; all the early
Christians, and even many of the Pagans, acknowledged the Pope as
the head of the Church, 393; Dr. Barker's attention drawn to the Acts
of the Council of Chalcedon, 395; difficulty in thinking he believes all
he asserts, 397; the terrible changes in religious matters which have
fallen upon England since the so-called Reformation, 398; consolation
in the hope that the persecution which Catholics are now enduring in
many countries will but herald a brighter day, 399.
2 P

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

Argyll (Duke of), What the Turks are, and How we have been helping them,
reviewed, 499.

Article on Miracles in the Church Quarterly Review, noticed, 244.
AUSTIN'S (Mr. A.) HUMAN TRAGEDY, 155-182: happy inspiration of the
author in naming his work, 155; his success in fixing upon our own
time for the date of his poem, 156; analysis of the work, 156; its
opening stanzas, 158; the love of Godfrid and Olive, 159; the human
weakness pourtrayed in the first act, 161; result of an absence of
religious feeling, 161; the second act the best of the four, 162;
"Madonna's Child," the gentle Olympia, 163; the keynote of the poem,
164; Love and Nature the only two enduring powers according to the
author, 164; beautiful description of the Madonna, 165; Olympia's
passionate appeal for Godfrid, 167; they part, and Olympia becomes a
Sister of Charity, 168; the death of Olive, 169; the improvement in
the style of the present over the first edition, 169; we are introduced to
Garibaldi and his followers, 169; the content of the Romans with the
Pontifical Government, 170; Mr. Austin's account of the storming of
Monte Rotondo unworthy of him, 171; still more is his language towards
the Papal Zouaves, 172; his account of the battle of Mentana unjust,
173; the bravery of the Papal troops acknowledged by the French, 174;
Godfrid is wounded and again meets with Olympia, 175; improbability
of the account of their journey to Paris, 176; their death, 176; the
change in the character of Godfrid during the poem, 177; his bitter
anguish for his want of faith, 179; what he might have been if he had
had but faith, 180; Love, Religion, Country, and Mankind constitute
the motive powers which influence all our noblest emotions, 181; but it
is their four Protagonists that evolve the story of the "Human Tragedy,"

181.

Austin (Mr. A.), The Human Tragedy, reviewed, 155.

BAKER'S (F.) "SANCTA SOPHIA," 337-367: "Contemplation" the domi-
nant topic in the works under review, 337; it is the sovereign act of
the heart of man, 337; prayer the natural sequence of a knowledge of
the Supreme Being, 338; it differs from all other intellectual acts, 339 ;
it is spiritual discipline, 340; F. Baker on the custodia cordis, 341; of
"Spiritual Discretion," 343; on mental prayer, 344; sustained mental
prayer is a special grace of the Holy Ghost, 346; F. Baker on Contem-
plation, 347; it is a great and a "perfect" state of prayer, 348; there
is no method of acquiring it, 349; a pure contemplative an impossibi-
lity, 350; the conditions of a contemplative life, 351; it means perfect
abstraction from worldly thoughts and cares, 353; Contemplation
begins with meditation, 354; mental prayer is the actuation of a soul
towards God, 356; F. Baker on Discourse, 358; "composition of
place" a prelude to mental prayer, 360; on a deficiency of imagination,
361;
the difference between the doctrine of F. Baker on Meditation
and that of the Quietists, 363; the condemned propositions of Fénélon,
364; the striking character of F. Baker's work, 365; spiritual results
of the Middle Ages, 366; conclusion, 367.