Catholics, would be a suicidal act, and the surest means of defeating its own ends. Its mandatories, therefore, must look only to the advancement of Liberal principles; common justice must be justice for Liberals only; every consideration opposed to the realization of the Radical programme, no matter how conducive it may be to the moral and material good of the country, must be set aside. In proof of our theory, it is only necessary to read the accounts of the examinations which Liberal candidates have undergone at the meetings of the Association. To go to Mass or attend Easter duties was pronounced a disqualification for political distinction. In April of last year the caucus rejected for a senatorial election three candidates; two because convicted of having been to confession; a third for having contributed to the building of a church, nothwithstanding that he was able to prove satisfactorily that he had only done so as a commercial speculation, and that personally he never entered a place of worship. At another election two candidates presented themselves before the Association, whose only possible claims to a seat in the Chamber, were based upon the intensity of their hatred of religion, neither offering to bring forward any other test of capacity as a legislator. The choice eventually fell upon the President of the Society "La Libre Penseé," although his opponent eloquently pleaded that he also had a stake in that noble society, and, moreover, that he had two sons, neither of whom had ever been baptized? It is hardly necessary to say more upon this subject, and our readers will no longer be surprised that an administration composed of such despicable individuals is not likely to give proof of any great ability in the management of affairs. What precedes will be sufficient to show whither Belgium Liberalism is tending, and in what utter ruin it must involve the country if it is ever successful in attaining its ends. We can conceive of no system of despotism more crushing than this, no more complete destruction of all that constitutes the true and healthy life of a nation. Local and provincial liberties, the greatest safeguard of political freedom, have, as we have seen, been virtually annulled; the real force of Representative Government has been paralyzed, and its benefits transformed by reason of the encroachments of the Liberal Associations upon rights of the elector. Yet this is only a first step; the designs of Freemasonry extend over a much wider field, and are directed towards the establishment of a far more complete dominion, not only over men's actions, but over their minds and souls. The negro under the most cruel of masters, the most oppressed serf in the darkest province of Russia, was a free man compared with what the peoples of the Continent will become, unless they arouse themselves and throw off the iron yoke which modern Liberalism

the

is fastening around them. The tyranny which it seeks to establish is more harsh and grinding than any the world has yet witnessed; it is one that seeks to interfere with what men think and say as much as with what they do; its aim is to take the child from the custody of its parents, to stamp out alike largeness of principle and individuality of character, to reduce free nations to the veriest associations of slaves, curbed under one degrading and inexorable law. Reverence of God, loyalty to men, honour, virtue, are all vain words; are ignored, if not prohibited, in the godless creed which it is sought to substitute for the ancient precepts of Christianity; the equality which it writes on its banner is not that which would raise us by directing the human mind to imitate what is higher and nobler, but what would fain lower everything to one dead, unworthy level; its fraternity would develop hatred; its liberty we have seen means slavery. Catholics are then called upon to defend the noblest of causes; they stand, almost alone, the advocates of liberty and the true rights of man. The old type of Liberalism, in Belgium as in France, is fast disappearing, its followers are rapidly dwindling under the exigencies of the New School, and the struggle is being concentrated between Radicals and Catholics. Upon the latter devolves the task for the future of upholding not only their faith, but the independence of their country, and its political and municipal liberties. It is well, perhaps, that it should be so; now that the contest has been confined to its real issues, we may hope that a day will arrive when the triumph of the religious party will prove once for all that in the modern state true progress can only be made in maintaining the union of Government and Religion, and that those who are now unwittingly forging the chains with which the Secret Societies seek to bind them, will finally acknowledge that a recognition of the rights of God is the only guarantee for the security of those of man.

ART VIII.-THE DAYS OF CREATION. A REPLY.

THE article in the DUBLIN REVIEW of last April, entitled "The Days of the Week and the Days of Creation," has evoked a sharp controversy and a voluminous correspondence in the pages of the Tablet. Some critics have expressed their doubts and fears regarding the orthodoxy of the writer. It is not necessary I should enter into any explanation on this point; such fears can only be entertained by persons who are unacquainted with the decisions of the Church, the writings of S. Augustine, and the

liberty allowed by the Church and by theologians on all questions connected with the history of Creation, concerning which the Church has not thought fit to pronounce an authoritative judgment. The subject treated of in the essay is one about which the Fathers of the Church and Catholic theologians have freely adopted distinct and even opposite views. There is no attempt in the essay to dogmatize, or to claim for the views therein expressed any further assent than what may be gained by the arguments by which they are supported. Much less is there any wish to forestall or gainsay any decision which the Catholic Church may at any future time think proper to pronounce on the questions treated of in the essay, the Catholic Church being the one divinely constituted and authoritative judge of the true meaning of every portion of Holy Writ. Apart from the question of orthodoxy or heterodoxy, objections have been raised of a more legitimate nature against the explanation given in the Article. Several correspondents have complained that the theory is set forth without sufficient proof being advanced in its support. It seems, at all events, in the opinion of some that my proofs lack clearness this I will endeavour to supply. A correspondent, who signs himself "M.," writes to the Tablet on the 28th of May :

While recognizing the Bishop's explanation to be quite admissible as an hypothesis, there are not a few who will desire some more distinct proof than the article in the DUBLIN REVIEW affords, that his theory is correct. "When it is said (the Bishop writes) that certain works were performed on certain days of the week, nothing more is implied than that those days are consecrated to the memory of the works referred to." Now, passing by the question whether or not anything more is implied, there is some difficulty about discovering on what precise argument, or arguments, the Bishop relies to demonstrate that this at least is implied.

The argument on which I rely is twofold. First, I have endeavoured to prove that the words of Moses admit of being so interpreted; therefore, the proposed interpretation may be the true one. Secondly, I have adduced a large body of evidence to show that, while this interpretation removes all ground of conflict between the words of Moses and modern science, it harmonizes, in a most striking manner, with all that we know of the office, the character, and the mission of Moses, with the manners and customs of the people amongst whom he lived and for whose instruction and guidance he wrote, with the particular class of errors and dangers against which he had to contend, and the truths he had to impress upon his people; it is, moreover, in harmony with science as it was in the days when Moses wrote, and VOL. VI. NO. II. [Third Series.]

LL

in which he was learned. A similar mass of evidence has never been adduced in support of any one of the various other interpretations which have hitherto been proposed. Since, therefore, the words of Moses may be so interpreted, and since, when so interpreted, they are found on the one hand to avoid all collision with scientific facts, whilst on the other hand they are shown on independent evidence to be in wonderful harmony with the persons, manners, customs, and other circumstances of the time when they were written, there is certainly grave reason for concluding that the proposed meaning is the one intended by Moses himself. The argument may not amount to a demonstration; indeed, it may be doubted whether demonstration is possible in a question of this nature, but the evidence is strong in itself, and certainly stronger than that adduced in support of any other interpretation.

In order to show that the words of Moses may be interpreted in the manner indicated, I have had to establish two propositions. The first is this: That if a statement asserting that a given event took place on a certain day forms part of an historical narrative, the ordinary usage of language requires us to accept that statement in its literal sense, and as fixing the date on which that event occurred; but that it is otherwise if the statement occurs, not in an historical, but in a ritual connection, as, for instance, in a calendar of festivals, or in a liturgy, or in a sacred hymn; for in such cases nothing more need be implied than that the event is commemorated on the day specified. This rule of interpretation is supported in the essay by examples, the force of which has remained unchallenged. Opponents of the essay have restricted their objections to my second proposition—viz., that the language of Moses regarding the six days of Creation does not form part of an historical narrative, but occurs in a sacred hymn or a ritual ordinance. This proposition is supported in the essay both by the authority of learned men and by internal evidence. Some further proofs I will adduce presently; but first I shall endeavour to remove what seems to be a misconception of my meaning when I have spoken of the words of Moses having been used in a ritual connection. "We are told," writes the same correspondent "M.," "that the hymn with which Genesis opens was connected in some way with the Jewish ritual. Is there no scrap of evidence to show that the Jews did commemorate by some ritualistic observance the creation of light? A festival in the Jewish Calendar, entitled 'The Epiphany' (of light), would seem the most suitable complement of this dedication of Moses."

I have included under the term "ritual" all statements having reference to, or arising out of, the religious observances of a people, in contradistinction to statements that are strictly historical.

Thus the heathen dedication of the days of the week to the sun and planets-the names of Sun-day, Moon-day, Mars-day, &c.— is neither an historical nor astronomical arrangement. It was made for reasons connected with the idolatrous rites of the peoples. Hence, I call it a ritual arrangement. In like manner, and for a similar reason, I have designated as a ritual arrangement the dedication made by Moses. I am not aware that any special festival among the heathens took its rise from the fact of the first day of the week having been dedicated to the sun: why, then, should anything of the kind be sought for as a complement to the dedication made by Moses? Each dedication was a work complete in itself, and there it ended. "Well, what came of it?” inquires "M." I reply that the heathen dedication of each day of the week to a false divinity became a powerful means of keeping alive idolatry amongst the people. The counter dedication of Moses was a powerful agent in the contrary direction. Nothing more was expected to come of it, and nothing did. A festival of "The Epiphany" of light would not have been a fit complement of the dedication of Moses. The great truth that Moses at all times was anxious to press on the minds of the people was, that God is the Creator of all things. He would not refer to God as Creator of some particular thing (such as light), unless there were some special reason for doing so. The special reason in the case of the dedication of the days of the week is obvious, because (as explained in the essay) in no other way could he dedicate each day of the week to the true God, and at the same time distinguish one day from the other.

Turning to the objections directed against the assertion that the words of Moses regarding the six days do not occur in an historical but in a ritual connection; Exodus, it is urged, is beyond doubt an historical book, and in Exodus we read (xx. 11):"In six days the Lord made heaven and earth and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day, therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day and sanctified it." The answer is, that Exodus is indeed an historical book, but it contains other things besides history. The Canticle of Moses, for instance, which is inserted in chapter xv., is undoubtedly poetry, and must be construed according to the rules of poetry. Many ritual ordinances are recorded in Exodus, and these (like the Canticle) do not change their character because they happen to be recorded in a book of history. Exodus is not a history of the Creation of the world, but of the deliverance of the Israelites out of Egypt. Amongst other things it records the promulgation of the ten commandments, one of which enjoins that the seventh day of the week shall be kept holy. It is a ritual ordinance, a special covenant between God and the Jewish people, which