The entrance is on the side opposite the fine church, which, with

the school-house and grounds, fills that portion of the spacious

quadrangle. On entering, between two houses of larger dimensions,

(one being appropriated to the use of the director, the other to the

normal school, in which the future teachers of Mettray are trained

in their work,) the visitor is a little startled at the view of a

large ship with all its spars and rigging, moored in the solid earth.

This is intended for the instruction of boys who manifest a taste

for the sea. The view of the whole is most pleasing. Every cottage

bears an inscription on its front, which on inspection makes known

the interesting fact that each building is the donation of the

individual lady or gentleman whose name is inscribed thereon, or of

some benevolent association. Thus the expenses of building, usually

so great as in many instances to render such a foundation hopeless,

are here readily and piously assumed by various benefactors. The

manifest advantages of these separate buildings, each adapted for

the occupation of some thirty to thirty-five boys, will appear in

the sequel. In the architecture,[281] all is of the simplest kind;

for it is thought best not to awaken luxurious tastes or habits

among a class destined to earn their living by the sweat of their

brow. The boys are not crowded together in large masses, but enjoy

a free and open circulation of air, conducive to health and energy;

and the inmates of each cottage are under the permanent government

of a director and sub-director, who are regarded as the fathers of

the household, and live with them, eating, sleeping, etc., in the

same house, and to whom the boys become devotedly attached, and they

thus enjoy, so far as it is possible, the blessing of the family

relations. Sisters also are there, in their separate apartments

adjacent to the church, prepared to nurse the sick in the infirmary,

and to give their invaluable influences and aid, especially to the

little ones, on every proper occasion.

The village is adapted to receive seven hundred boys,[282] from seven

or eight years of age and upward. The "colony," as it is termed, is

chiefly agricultural, but many of the children, from various causes,

being better adapted to indoor employments, are applied to trades,

and in winter, when the farm work is interrupted, all the boys are

employed in the shops, to acquire the art of manufacturing their

own tools. In these shops, where, as we have said, the boys are

permanently associated in separate families, they are taught to be

tailors, shoemakers, carpenters, blacksmiths, agricultural instrument

manufacturers--in short, any or every trade that may be made useful

or profitable.

In the rear of the village are the farm buildings, the stables,

cow-houses, etc. etc., with the gymnasium and a small pond of running

water for bathing and swimming. Further on is the cemetery, with

its alleys of cypress and well-kept gardens, (for gardening is a

prominent branch of industry here;) and we may well imagine that

nothing is neglected to beautify the surroundings of the honored tomb

of their first benefactor, and of the lowly graves of the departed

who were once their companions. Flowers--beautiful flowers--are

strewed everywhere, and with their fragrance seem to hallow the

sacred place.

Neither walls nor ditches nor any means of restraint or confinement

are resorted to for the compulsory seclusion of these seven hundred

juvenile culprits, who have all been adjudged as fit subjects for

this penitentiary; yet escape is so rare as to be almost unknown.

As we entered the square, the boys, ranging from seven or eight to

twenty years of age, were enjoying their midday recreations--leaping,

playing, laughing, or shouting at their pleasure. Within a few

minutes, at the sound of a clarionet, their sports suddenly ceased,

and a moment later, at a second call, they separated, each to join

his "family" at its allotted ground, to prepare to march; and then

a lively quick-step was heard. This was the signal of the band,

composed of their comrades most expert in music, who had meantime

taken their post near the centre of the square, at which the various

groups, joined by their two directors, filed off cheerily, each

to its home. The musicians then laid aside their instruments and

hastened after their companions. They partake of their frugal but

wholesome and cheerful meals in the second story of their respective

cottages, accompanied by their directors, and in the evening, when

the last repast is ended, the tables are expertly suspended against

the walls, and a single row of hammocks, which were laid aside after

the same fashion before breakfast, are again placed in order for

the night. The rooms are perfectly well ventilated, and there is a

great gain in economy from this double arrangement. After each meal

there is recreation, and the hour being past, music again recalls

each family to the square, from which, to the sound of lively airs,

they move off in high spirits to their various employments. Here goes

a class of farmers, there are the gardeners, and further on, the

carters, etc. etc., all on their way to the farm, while the lesser

numbers of shoemakers, tailors, and others turn their steps in the

direction of their various shops, and a goodly class wind their way

to the school. Thus the children are accustomed to repair to their

allotted labor as if on a holiday. Music salutes their departure, and

its notes leave a joyous impression on the mind. The lower floors of

the cottages are all occupied as workshops.

From this brief sketch may be inferred the regularity that prevails

in the colony. Every thing is done to habituate the boys to a

willing and cheerful performance of their duty. No harshness is

permitted that might again chill these young hearts, that have once

been abandoned to vice before they were capable of discrimination.

The system of rewards is quite original, and serves its purpose

admirably. For grave offences confinement in a cell is the only

punishment found necessary. Lying is regarded as the worst of faults.

Within the narrow limits prescribed for this article it would be

impossible to give any adequate account of an institution which,

wherever it is known, is recognized as being equalled only by such

others as most closely obey its spirit and maxims. Its founders

have aimed, so far as possible, to restore and cultivate the family

affections, prematurely shattered through vicious examples, by

dividing, as we have seen, into groups this large mass of youthful

humanity, and forming them into families under regulations tending

to establish a sincere and lasting attachment among its members.

In their respective cottages they live and work together, in the

interchange of mutual kindness and regard, and are inspired with

the idea that each, in a certain sense, is responsible for the good

conduct, the respectability, the happiness, of his brothers. The

ever-ready sympathy and motherly counsels of the sisters must not be

forgotten. The directors at Mettray are, thus far, laymen; but in

many other like institutions it has been found impossible to dispense

with the aid of religious orders. In this country we should be

obliged to have recourse to them for want of laymen possessed of the

needful qualifications; for they must give their entire lives to the

work.

The success achieved by this institution during its thirty years'

existence in the entire reformation of the youths subjected to its

wise and wholesome discipline, is unexampled. The statistical tables

of France, unsurpassed in exactness, inform us that an average of

96.81% of the youth brought up at Mettray are restored to society,

thoroughly reformed, and continue to fulfil their parts in life as

useful citizens. They are usually detained in the colony to the

age of twenty-one, when suitable situations having been provided,

according to the trade of each, they are allowed to depart. Still, a

sort of guardianship is maintained for years over those within reach;

and the young men who find employment among the neighboring farmers

are expected to pass the Sundays at their old home; a privilege which

they relish in the highest degree. Nearly half their number engage in

agricultural work. Others enter the army or navy, in both of which

several have attained honorable distinction. Many are married, and

present good examples in domestic life. An honorary association has

been formed, which affords additional incentives to good conduct

after leaving Mettray. Two years of an irreproachable life entitles

each who merits it to a diploma; and this secures him a membership.

It is really difficult to do justice to this admirable institution

without being suspected of exaggeration. To understand the

wonder-working power of the wisdom that pervades it, that transforms

the juvenile criminal into a sober-minded, industrious, and devout

man, it must be seen and closely scrutinized. Christian education has

taken the place of the penal code, and the boy is "trained in the way

he should go," on the firm basis of religious principles of faith and

practice. The general expression beaming on every countenance, of

cheerful confidence, even of the gentle and affectionate temper that

prevails, affords an affecting contrast to that of the newly-arrived

boy, fresh from the haunts of vice. His pale and haggard looks

betray evil propensities, as well as wasted health. His little

heart is already filled with hatred, restrained only by the fear

that he betrays, either by attempts at a hypocritical humility or an

impudent daring. Years pass on, and this incipient wild beast becomes

benevolent, frank, and good.

* * * * *

Within a few years a kindred institution has grown up, adjoining

the village, but skilfully concealed from the public gaze by thick

shrubbery. This is the "Paternal Home," for the reformation of

the disobedient sons of families in the higher walks of life. A

close white wall, behind which trees and climbing vines appear, is

pierced in the centre by an equally close door. A small bell-pull

is touched, and the visitor enters a pretty court laid out with

flowers and shrubs. Through this the home appears at the distance of

a few paces. We enter a narrow hall, furnished with simple elegance.

Doors on either side lead into small rooms, containing a bed, table,

book-case, etc. Engravings representing some generous or noble action

adorn the walls. As the youth becomes more docile and studious, a

singing bird in a cage is given him for a companion; and, finally,

he is permitted to occupy two rooms. During all this period, the

boy is made to understand that he is the object of the tenderest

affection of his family, who inflict the greatest pain upon their own

feelings in subjecting him to this temporary punishment, which is

solely for his own good. Professors attend him, and continue, without

interruption, the collegiate course which has been interrupted, and

he has the daily benefit of fresh air on foot, or on horseback,

attended by a professor.

It must be understood that this sojourn at the Paternal Home is

unknown to all but the family. M. Demetz alone is made acquainted

with his name.[283] To others who approach him, he is simply Mr.

A----, B----, or C----. Gradually this isolation produces its

effects--and the intractable spirit in this seclusion begins to

meditate, to reflect, to examine himself--to condemn his former

vices, and to love the studies that alleviate the weariness of

solitude. Two or three months usually suffice to effect this

favorable change. He finds relief in occupation, and as he carries on

the course of the classes he has left, he begins to take an interest

in competition. Let it not be imagined that this seclusion, though

severe, is allowed to affect the health of the recluse. This would be

entirely to misunderstand the parental foresight of the founder. The

boys take long walks in the country, each in turn, as we have said,

accompanied by a professor. They visit the neighboring farms, and

sometimes enter a cottage on a visit of charity; practise gymnastics,

or take lessons in fencing and when their conduct is unexceptionable,

they are invited to dine with M. Demetz. If, after returning home,

they are tempted to relapse into bad habits, they are sent back

again, but to a more austere _régime_. Such is the effect produced by

this system, at once tender and severe, that very often his former

pupils request of M. Demetz the privilege of again passing a few days

of calmness in peaceful retreat, or to finish some task that demands

seclusion, at the Paternal Home. To them, the retreat where they were

restored to a sense of duty is really a home of the heart, and the

hand that raised them up is blessed as that of the father, who spared

neither severity nor tenderness for their complete restoration. What

wonder that he is the object of their devoted affection? Is there no

American capable of imitating such a model?

FOOTNOTES:

[280] Viscount Bretiznières de Courteilles.

[281] The church only is handsomely decorated.

[282] Insubordinate female children are confided by the government

to the care of the Sisters of the Good Shepherd, in their vast

establishment at Angers, where they are subject to rules similar to

those at Mettray, and with at least an equal success.

[283] The chapel is so constructed that, though each individual is in

full view of the altar and the priests, not one of the recluses can

have even a glimpse of another. Two brothers once passed some time in

this house, and neither was aware of the proximity of the other.

THE FIRST ŒCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN.

NUMBER SEVEN.

The preamble and first four chapters of the dogmatic constitution _de

Fide Catholica_ having been irrevocably disposed of in the public

session held on Low-Sunday, are now before your readers and the world.

The withdrawal of the veil of secrecy from this portion of the

_schema_ has removed from the eyes of many, the scales of doubt and

misgiving, blinded as they were by the repeated statements of certain

newspaper correspondents; and as future decrees come to light, they

will equally confound the pretensions of the false prophets, and

amply reward the patient hope of the faithful.

The Vatican Council took a fresh start on the following Friday, April

29th. In the general congregation of that day, the fathers passed

from faith to discipline, and began to discuss the reformed _schema_

on the _Little Catechism_.

After the mass, which was said by the Archbishop of Corfu, the

council was addressed by Mgr. Wierzchleyski, Archbishop of Leopoli,

in Galician Poland, who spoke in the name of the deputation on

discipline, of which he is a distinguished member.

Speeches were afterward made by the Cardinal Archbishop of Bordeaux,

Cardinal Rauscher of Vienna, and by the Bishops of Guastalla,

Saluzzo, and St. Augustine, Florida.

The next morning, Saturday, the 30th, the discussion was resumed.

The Archbishop of Avignon, and the Bishops of Luçon and Parma

made some remarks on the general features of the _schema_. These

prelates were followed by the distinguished Bishop Von Ketteler of

Mayence, the Bishops of Plymouth and of Clifton in England, and the

Bishop of Trèves in Germany; all of whom confined themselves to

some particular points of the document. Bishop Von Ketteler, who

belongs to a baronial family in Germany, before becoming a chief in

the church militant, served his country with distinction as colonel

in the German army. He must be at least six feet high, has quite a

soldierly bearing, and is concise and to the point in his remarks.

The last speaker was the Bishop of Seckau in Germany, a member of the

deputation.

As the rules of the council authorize the members of the deputation

to reply to the observations of the fathers at any stage of the

discussion, the committee avail themselves of that privilege by

making the final speech, which in ecclesiastical convocations, as

well as in civil meetings, is generally the most telling one.

At the conclusion of the remarks by the Bishop of Seckau, the

president declared that the debate on the _Little Catechism_ was

closed, and that the vote would be taken on the following Wednesday,

on all the amendments proposed.

In the congregation of Wednesday, May 4th, the Bishop of Tyre and

Sidon celebrated mass in the peculiar and impressive form of the

Maronite rite. The president asked the prayers of the fathers for

the venerable Bishop of Evreux in France, who died in his seventieth

year, and survived only two days after returning home from the

council.

Permission was granted to nine foreign bishops to return to their

sees. Among them were the Bishops of Arichat and Charlottetown, in

British America. The regular business commenced with a second speech

by the Bishop of Seckau, who reviewed all the amendments proposed

in the preceding congregation. The final vote was then taken on

the _Little Catechism_ as a whole. Each bishop voted _viva voce_.

The term _placet_ was used by the prelates who gave unqualified

approbation to it; _placet juxta modum_ by those who had some

modification to propose, while assenting to its general features;

and _non placet_ by those who dissented from the measure. The total

number of votes given was 591.

The _Little Catechism_, which has received no small share of public

attention, now "lies over" till the final seal of approbation is

stamped upon it at the next public session.

The general congregations were resumed on the 13th. After the usual

religious exercises, leave of absence without the obligation of

returning was granted to the following prelates:

The Bishop of Gezira, Mesopotamia, Syriac rite; the Bishop of

Merida, Venezuela, South America; the Bishop of Ferns, Ireland;

the Bishop of Goulbourne, Australia; the Bishop of Puno, Peru;

the Bishop of Santiago, Chili; the Archbishop of Marasce,

Cilicia, Armenian rite; and the Bishop of Mardin, Chaldea,

Armenian rite.

The oral discussion then commenced on the great and fundamental

question _de Romani Pontificis Primatu et Infallibilitate_, which is

comprised in a preamble and four chapters, and which forms the first

part of the dogmatic constitution _de Ecclesia Christi_.

These four chapters had already passed through several manipulations

before being submitted to oral discussion. First, the text had been

distributed to the fathers, who in due course of time transmitted

their observations upon it to the deputation _de fide_. These

observations were then maturely examined by the members of the

deputation, and a printed report of their views on them was sent to

the residence of each bishop.

The Bishop of Poitiers, in the name of the deputation, opened the

discussion with a lucid exposition and vindication of the substance

and form of the text. With this lengthy and learned speech closed the

congregation of the 13th.

Next day, the debate was resumed. The Venerable Constantine Patrizzi,

Cardinal Vicar of Rome, and, with the exception of Cardinal Mattei,

the oldest member of the Sacred College, commenced the discussion. He

was followed by the Archbishop of San Francisco, United States; the

Archbishop of Messina, Sicily; the Archbishop of Catania, Italy; the

Bishop of Dijon, France; the Bishop of Vesprim, Hungary; the Bishop

of Zamora, Spain, and the Bishop of Patti, kingdom of Naples.

On Tuesday, the 17th, Archbishop Dechamps, Primate of Belgium,

addressed the fathers in the name of the deputation. Speeches were

also delivered by the Bishops of St. Brieux, France; Santo Gallo,

Switzerland, and of Rottenburg, Würtemberg. The president announced

the death of the Bishop of Olinda, in Brazil, and recommended him to

the prayers of the council.

Wednesday, the 18th. The Archbishop of Saragossa opened the

discussion, representing the deputation. The other speakers in the

congregation were all cardinals, namely, Cardinal Schwarzenberg,

Archbishop of Prague, Bohemia; Cardinal Donnet, of Bordeaux, and

Cardinal Rauscher, of Vienna.

Thursday, the 19th. Cardinal Cullen of Dublin was the first speaker,

and was succeeded by the Cardinal Archbishop of Valladolid, Spain,

and by the Greek-Melchite Patriarch of Antioch.

Friday, the 20th. The Primate of Hungary had the advantage of the

opening speech. The venerable Dr. McHale came next. "The Lion of

the fold of Juda," as he is called, looks as _hale_ as a man of

forty-five, though he is a bishop since 1825. The Archbishops of

Corfu and Paris occupied the pulpit during the remainder of the

session.

Saturday, the 21st. Bishop Leahy, of Cashel, reviewed some of the

preceding speeches as a delegate of the deputation, and was followed

by the Bishops of Strasburg, Forli, and Castellamare, Italy.

Intense and unwavering interest was manifested in each of the

foregoing congregations, both on account of the grave character of

the subjects under deliberation, and the eminent prelates that took

part in the discussion. I wish that, together with the names, I were

permitted to give also the living words which fell from the lips of

these learned and eloquent prelates. They would prove to you that

the Christian oratory of the fourth and fifth centuries is reëchoed

in the nineteenth, and that it is confined to no nation, but extends

over the length and breadth of the Catholic world.

The longest speech yet pronounced in the council was delivered by the

Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin, who spoke for an hour and forty-two

minutes. Its length was the more remarkable, as Cardinal Cullen

trusted to his memory, and illustrated his discourse by an abundance

of facts and figures.

It is well known that all the bishops not only have the same faith,

but speak the same language in council; and, with the exception of

the orientals, and members of religious orders, they wear the same

episcopal garb. Yet it is worthy of remark that, in spite of this

uniformity in dress and language and outward mien, scarcely has a

prelate opened his mouth from the pulpit when his nationality is at

once discovered. He utters his _shibboleth_, which reveals him to his

brethren as soon as Ephraim was betrayed to Galaad.

You will hear a bishop whisper to his neighbor, That speaker belongs

to the Spanish family of nations. He hails either from the mother

country or from one of her ancient colonies of South America, or

Mexico, or Cuba. How does he know? He forms his judgment not merely

from the little green tuft you see on the crown of the speaker's

_birettum_ or cap, but chiefly from his pronunciation. He will detect

the Spaniard at once by his guttural sound of _qui_, and his lisping

_placet_, besides many other peculiarities of utterance.

The Spaniards and their South American and Mexican cousins, though

models of episcopal gravity, have not acquired the reputation in

the council of being generally the best models of elocution. Their

delivery is said to be sometimes indistinct, and their pronunciation

so peculiar that, like the rose in the wilderness, they waste the

odor of their wisdom on the desert air. Gems of thought fall, indeed,

in profusion from their lips, but they escape occasionally in the too

rapid current of words.

There are several bishops of Spanish origin, however, who have

distinguished themselves alike by distinctness of utterance and by

a remarkable fluency. Among others, I might mention the Bishop of

Guamango, in Peru, and the Bishops of Havana, and S. Concezione, in

Chili.

The next speaker is evidently an Italian. You know it from the

musical sentences, which flow from his lips in such a smooth and

measured strain that he almost appears to be reciting a select piece

of Virgilian poetry. He might seem, were not his classical style so

natural to him, to be aiming at making a good impression not only on

your mind and heart, but also on your ear. Whenever the letter _c_

is followed by _e_ or _i_, he gives it the soft sound of _ch_, as in

our English word _cheerful_; and he is careful to soften down every

word which would sound harsh or grating. Sometimes, indeed, a prelate

of another country will adopt for the nonce the Roman style of

pronunciation; but nobody is deceived. Jacob's voice is recognized,

though he tries to clothe his words in the form of his brother's.

It is almost impossible for an Italian bishop to make a speech

without a formal introduction and peroration, either because of his

respect for his hearers or for the great classical masters. He may

protest he will be brief, but that word has a relative meaning. But

it must be admitted that, for delicacy and refinement of thought, for

fecundity of ideas, and clearness of exposition, some of the Italians

have seldom been surpassed.

The prelate now before you, as you can tell at once, belongs to

the Teutonic family. He is an Austrian, or Prussian, or Bavarian,

or perhaps a Hungarian. The German pronounces _g_ hard before _e_

or _i_, contrary to the usual practice of Latin speakers. He makes

_sch_ soft before the same vowels, pronouncing, for instance, the

word _schema_ as if it were spelled without a _c_. Hence the gravity

of the English-speaking bishops is occasionally relaxed, on hearing

_schematis_ sound as if it were written _shame it is_.

The German is more tame in delivery than either the Italian or the

Spaniard. His colder climate tends to subdue his gestures, as well

as to moderate his sensibility. He is not so fond of dealing in

compliments as the Italian speakers, but goes at once _in medias

res_. He is generally short and precise, and more inclined to appeal

to your head than to your heart. At the same time, religious and

logical, the sublime superstructure of his faith is built upon the

solid foundation of common sense.

If a French prelate were not known by his _rabat_, he would be easily

distinguished by his utterance of Latin. He has a strong tendency

to shorten the infinitive in the second conjugation, and to lay a

particular stress on the last syllable. There is indeed no bishop

in the council who is so readily recognized by his voice as the

Frenchman. Every one can say to him what the Jews said to St. Peter:

"Surely thou art one of them, for thy speech doth discover thee."

But, like Peter, he has no reason to be ashamed of the discovery; for

his speech is not less pleasant than peculiar. He is no exception

to the cultivated taste of his countrymen. He is generally well

understood, because he speaks distinctly, and listened to with

pleasure, because to solid learning he unites an animated and a

nervous style.

For obvious reasons, a continental writer would be the fittest person

to pronounce a correct judgment on the style and Latinity of the

English-speaking prelates of the council.

I will venture, however, an observation. Though the style of the

American, English, and Irish prelates may have less claim to merit

for polish and studied classical Latinity, their discourses will

certainly compare favorably with those of their episcopal brethren

from other parts in strength of argument, in clearness of expression,

as well as in their telling effect upon their discriminating audience.

The bishops of these countries adopt what is called the parliamentary

style. They are usually concise, and always practical. They are in

earnest. They look and talk like men fresh from the battle-field

of the world, who have formidable enemies to contend with, and

come before the council well stocked with experimental knowledge.

They content themselves with a brief statement of the measure they

propose, and a summary of the reasons best calculated to support it,

without occupying the council with elaborate disquisitions.

The number of English, Irish, and American bishops up to the present,

who have delivered oral discourses before the Vatican Council is

comparatively small. It must not, however, be inferred from this

that the other prelates of these nations have all remained inactive

spectators, for many of them have handed in written observations on

the subjects under deliberation.

The following are the English-speaking fathers who, up to the present

date, (June 2d,) have addressed the council:

Archbishops Spalding, Kenrick, and Purcell, and Bishops Whelan and

Verot, United States; Archbishop Connolly, Nova Scotia; Archbishop

Manning, and Bishops Ullathorne, Vaughan, Clifford, and Errington,

England; Cardinal Cullen, and Bishops Leahy, McEvilly, and Keane,

Ireland.

None of the Scotch or Australian bishops have as yet spoken.

Three hundred years have elapsed since the close of the Council of

Trent. Of the two hundred and seventy bishops who assisted at that

council, only four were from the British Isles, of whom three were

Irish and one English; and we think it doubtful if these three Irish

bishops spoke the English language.

The Council of the Vatican has upward of one hundred and twenty

English-speaking prelates, representing not only Great Britain and

Ireland, but also the United States, British America, Oceanica, and

the East Indies; and should the twentieth œcumenical council be

called within the course of another century, judging from the past,

it is not unlikely that the English tongue will then be what the

Italian is to-day--the language of the majority.

Comparisons have been drawn between the Council of the Vatican and

the United States Congress. Perhaps it would be easier to point out

the lines of divergence than those of resemblance between these two

deliberative bodies.

As to the relative ages of the members of the Council and the members

of Congress, the former are decidedly in advance of the latter.

I have taken the pains to refer to the _Annuario Pontificio_ for

1870, which gives the age of nearly all the bishops of the Catholic

world. From this book I learn that the oldest bishop in the council

is in his eighty-fifth year, while the youngest bishop, the Vicar

Apostolic of North Carolina, is thirty-five. The Archbishop of Lima,

who was prevented by infirmities from coming to Rome, is the dean

of the entire episcopacy, being now in his ninety-sixth year. Thus

we see that both extremes of age meet on the American continent;

North America having the youngest, and South America the oldest

representative of the episcopal hierarchy.

Of the thousand bishops now in the church, fully three fourths are

between the ages of fifty-five and ninety-six. The ages of the other

fourth range between thirty-five and fifty-five. Scarcely half a

dozen of these prelates are more advanced in years than the Holy

Father, who yet exhibits more physical endurance and mental activity

than any bishop ten years his junior.

So much for a comparison as to age. Next as to the speeches in both

assemblies. The bishops embrace a wider field in their discourses

than our senators. They are circumscribed by no limits of country.

They make laws which bind the consciences of two hundred millions of

souls--Europeans, Americans, Australians, Asiatics, and Africans;

while Congress legislates for scarcely one fifth that number, and

these confined within a portion of a single continent. Hence, in this

single aspect of the case, the great ecclesiastical synod as far

excels the Federal Congress of the United States as Congress itself

surpasses the New York Legislature, or this latter the city council.

The speeches of the Vatican Council are usually much shorter than

those delivered in Congress. The addresses of the fathers seldom

exceed half an hour,[284] except those of the members of the

deputations, whose remarks generally embrace a critical analysis

of the questions before the council and a review of the amendments

proposed by the bishops, usually occupying about the space of an

hour. The reason for this brevity is obvious. No prelate would wish

to be guilty of the bad taste of occupying unnecessarily the precious

time of his brother bishops. He is fully convinced, on ascending the

pulpit, that every word he says will be carefully weighed in the

balance by a discriminating body of judges, who are influenced only

by sound logic, and not by plausible rhetoric.

Besides their brevity, perhaps I might also add that the speeches

of the fathers are characterized by more personal independence,

sincerity, and earnestness of tone, than those of our legislators in

Washington, while it must be admitted that public opinion commonly

attributes to the episcopal character a higher order of virtue.

Yet, apart from this consideration, we may find a reason for this

difference in the fact that our national representatives have more

temptations to sin against singleness of purpose than the prelates

of the council. Besides the members on the floor of the House and

Senate, there are often well-filled galleries ready to hiss or

to applaud, according to the prejudices of the day, and we know

how human nature dreads the finger of scorn and loves the popular

plaudits. There is a political party which must be sustained _per fas

et nefas_, and though last, not least, there are dear constituents to

be pleased.

The fathers of the council have no such temptations to withdraw them

from the strict line of duty which conscience dictates. All their

general congregations are so many secret sessions. There are no

frowning or fawning galleries to allure or to intimidate. There is no

party lash hanging over the bishops' heads; for they have no private

measures to propose in behalf of their "constituents." Indeed, one of

the rules of the council requires that every bill brought before it

must necessarily affect the general interests of the church, and not

the special wants of any particular diocese or country.

The consoling unanimity which marked the public session held on

Low-Sunday, seems to have put an effectual quietus on the erratic

correspondent of the London _Times_; for he no longer, like another

Cassandra, utters his prophetic warnings to the council, since the

fathers, on the occasion alluded to, by a single breath demolished

all his previous predictions about the threatened rupture of the

assemblage.

Directed, no doubt, to view every thing in Rome with distorted

vision, this writer literally fulfilled his instructions. If he

met bishops walking to St. Peter's, he would despise them as a

contemptible set. Should they prefer to ride, they were, in his

estimation, pampered prelates crushing poor pedestrians under their

Juggernaut. Should a _schema_ be approved by the bishops after a

brief discussion, they were pronounced by our seer a packed jury,

the obsequious slaves of the pope. If the discussion happened to be

prolonged, he would solemnly announce to his readers the existence of

an incipient schism among the fathers. The truth is, the gentleman

could never ascend high enough to comprehend the true character of

the bishops. He could not associate in his mind independence of

thought and the fullest freedom of debate with a profound reverence

for the Holy Father.

Upon every question, from the beginning of the council, there has

been prolonged and animated discussion. A council necessarily

supposes discussion ever since that of Jerusalem. Deprive an

œcumenical synod of the privilege of debate, and you strip it at

once of its true character and the bishops of their manhood. No stone

was left unturned that the whole truth might be brought to light.

But if there has been "_in dubiis libertas_," there has been also

"_in necessariis unitas_." There is no Colenso in the Council of

the Vatican. With regard to doctrines of the Catholic faith already

promulgated, there has not been a whisper of dissent. A bishop might

as well attempt to pull down the immortal dome of Michael Angelo

suspended over his head, as touch with profane hands a single stone

of the glorious edifice of Catholic faith.

There has been also "_in omnibus caritas_." Never was more dignity

manifest in any deliberative assembly. A single glance at the council

in session, from one of the side galleries, would at once impress the

beholder not only with the majesty of the spectacle, but also with

the mutual respect which the members exhibit toward each other, and

the patient attention with which the speakers are listened to, often

under a trying ordeal of several hours' continuous session. As for

violent scenes, there have been none, except in the imagination of

some correspondents; nor bantering, nor personalities; nor collisions

between the presidents and speakers. Since the commencement of the

discussion on the present _schema_, upward of sixty fathers have

already spoken, only one of whom was called to order--and he at the

end of his discourse, because, in the judgment of the president,

he had broached a subject foreign to the debate. In a word, there

is learning without ostentation; difference of sentiment without

animosity; respect without severity; liberty of discussion without

the license of vituperation.

May 23d, the congregations were resumed. The opening speech was

delivered by the Armenian Patriarch. The Bishops of Mayence,

Angoulême, and Grenoble occupied the attention of the fathers during

the remainder of the session.

On the following day, permanent leave of absence was granted to

eight prelates, among whom were two Canadians, namely, the Bishop

of St. Hyacinthe, and the coadjutor of Dr. Cooke, Bishop of Three

Rivers, lately deceased. The council was then addressed by the Bishop

of Sion, Switzerland, one of the deputation, and by the Bishops of

Urgel, Spain, S. Concezione, Chili, and Guastalla, Italy.

In the congregation of the 25th, England and Ireland had the whole

field to themselves, the only speakers being Archbishop Manning,

and Bishops Clifford and McEvilly. Dr. Manning's reputation as

an English speaker is established wherever the English language

prevails. His Latin oration in the council, which was but three

minutes shorter than that of his eminence of Dublin, exhibited the

same energy of thought and the same discriminating choice of words

which are so striking a feature of his public discourses. Dr. Manning

has a commanding figure. His fleshless face is the personification

of asceticism. His sunken eyes pierce you as well as his words.

He has a high, well-developed forehead, which appears still more

prominent on account of partial baldness. His favorite, almost his

only gesture, is the darting of his forefinger in a sloping direction

from his body, and which might seem awkward in others, but in him

is quite natural, and gives a peculiar force to his expressions.

His countenance, even in the heat of an argument, remains almost as

unimpassioned as a statue. He knows admirably well how to employ to

the best advantage his voice, as well as his words. When he wishes to

gain a strong point, he rallies his choicest battalion of words, to

each of which he assigns the most effective position; then his voice,

swelling with the occasion, imparts to them an energy and a power

difficult to resist.

The next congregation, the sixtieth from the opening of the council,

was held on the 28th, the speakers being the Bishops of Ratisbonne,

St. Augustine, Csanad and Gran Varadin in Hungary, and Coutance

in France. At the close, the president announced that the fathers

henceforth would meet at half-past eight A.M. instead of nine.

The fathers assembled again on the 30th. The Archbishop of Baltimore

delivered the opening speech, which lasted about fifty minutes.

He spoke without the aid of manuscript, confiding in his faithful

and tenacious memory. He was succeeded by the Bishops of Le Puy in

France, Bâle in Switzerland, Sutri and Saluzzo, Italy, Constantina,

Algiers, and the Vicar Apostolic of Quilon, on the coast of Malabar.

The following day, indefinite leave of absence was granted to

Bishops Demers of Vancouver, and Hennessy of Dubuque, and the newly

consecrated Bishop of Alton was permitted to remain at home. The

Archbishop of Utrecht commenced the debate, being the first of the

bishops of Holland that has addressed the council; the other speakers

were the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Bishop of Trajanopolis,

the Archbishop of Cincinnati, who spoke without notes, and the

Archbishop of Halifax. The death of the saintly and apostolic

Archbishop Odin, of New Orleans, was announced. The venerable prelate

finished his course among his kindred near Lyons, on the auspicious

festival of the Ascension.

The sixty-third general congregation was held on the 2d of June. The

speakers were the Archbishop of Fogaras, Transylvania, Roumenian

rite, and the Bishops of Moulins, Bosnia, Chartres and Tanes.

At the close of the session, the death of the Rt. Rev. Thomas Grant,

Bishop of Southwark, England, was announced. Dr. Grant was born of

English parents in Ligny, in the diocese of Arras, France, November

25th, 1816, and was promoted to the episcopal dignity June 22d, 1851.

He was much esteemed by his English brethren in the episcopacy for

his profound learning and solid judgment, as well as for his amiable

disposition. He was one of the deputation on oriental rites.

Thus far, fourteen general congregations have been held on the

four first chapters of the _Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of

Christ_. Sixty-one fathers have already spoken on the general aspects

of the question, leaving forty-nine prelates who have declared their

intention to speak on the same subject. As soon as the draught of the

_schema in general_ has been sufficiently discussed, the debate will

commence on each particular chapter.

As our readers would like, no doubt, to form a more intimate

acquaintance with the venerable bishops now assembled in council,

especially with those who play a more conspicuous part in its

deliberations, we propose in the present number to give a brief

sketch of a few of the twenty-four fathers who constitute the

committee on faith.

It is quite unnecessary to our present purpose to speak of the

two American prelates belonging to this deputation, namely, the

Archbishops of Baltimore and San Francisco, who are well known in

the United States, and whose learning, zeal, and piety are not only

gratefully acknowledged at home, but fully appreciated here, as the

merited honors conferred upon them testify.

We will commence with Aloysius, Cardinal Bilio, president of the

deputation on faith, and one of the five presiding officers of the

council. He was born May 25th, 1826, at Alexandria, the celebrated

fortified town of Piedmont, which of late years has played so

important a part in the history of northern Italy. His father

was of a noble family. At the early age of fourteen the youth,

already remarkable for great piety and a maturity of character

beyond his years, asked to be admitted into the congregation of St.

Paul, founded by the venerable Antonio Zaccaria. He was received

as a student and postulant, and devoted himself to study with an

earnestness which soon broke down his health, apparently never very

strong. He was obliged to suspend his studies for several years. In

fact, for a time it was thought his health never would rally. At

last, however, he did recover, and at once returned to the purpose

from which his mind and heart had never wandered. Having finished

his course and received ordination, he was made in turn professor of

Greek, of rhetoric, and of mental philosophy in the college of Parma,

and afterward in the university of the same city.

It is the custom of the religious orders and congregations which

devote themselves either entirely or in great part to teaching, first

by a long and thorough course of study to prepare carefully their

younger members for future labors in the professorial chair, and

then in their early years of teaching to appoint them from one chair

to another, through the whole cycle, perhaps. So Father Bilio was

sent from Parma to Caravaggio, and then to Naples, occupying various

chairs, and finally was made professor of theology and canon law in

the Barnabite College at Rome. His professorships were for the world

outside his congregation. Within it, his brethren recognized his

high personal qualifications, and elected him to various offices in

their congregation, until at length he was made assistant-general.

Rome could not fail to appreciate qualities and talents like those of

this learned and exemplary, religious and able man. He was pressed

into service in many of the departments for transacting religious

affairs, and finally, June 23d, 1866, he was named cardinal. He

presided over one of the sub-commissions of theologians, who studied

out and prepared the draughts for the council, and he is, as was said

in a former number, chairman of the special committee or deputation

of twenty-four prelates to treat of all matters relating to faith.

With the single exception of Cardinal Bonaparte, Cardinal Bilio is

the youngest member of the Sacred College.

France, the eldest daughter of the church, is represented in the

deputation by Bishop Pie of Poitiers, and Archbishop Regnier of

Cambrai.

Louis Francis Desiré Edward Pie was born at Pontgouin, in the diocese

of Chartres, the 26th of September, 1815. Ordained priest in 1839, he

exercised at first the functions of curate of the cathedral church

of Chartres; and in 1845, the bishop of that diocese appointed him

vicar-general, notwithstanding his comparative youth.

From that period, the young priest was ranked among the most

distinguished preachers of France, and was heard with great success

in different cities of that country. His panegyric of Joan of Arc,

which he preached at Orleans, is one of his best discourses.

Named Bishop of Poitiers under the presidency, he took possession

of his see in December, 1849. He was then only in his thirty-fourth

year, an unusually early age for conferring the mitre in Europe.

Bishop Pie directed his eloquence and zeal on various occasions

against two sorts of adversaries: those who sap the foundations of

faith itself by reducing every thing to naturalism, both in religion

and society; and those who attempt to weaken Catholicity by the ruin

of the temporal power. Against the former the bishop issued three

_Synodal Instructions on the Principal Errors of the Present Time_.

Against the latter he wrote, three years before the last Italian

revolution, his _Synodal Instruction on Rome considered as the See of

the Papacy_, in which he ably refuted the sophistries of those who

sought the demolition of the temporal power.

Those best acquainted with the Bishop of Poitiers say that his pulpit

oratory is characterized by an authority, brilliancy, and force of

argument worthy of St. Hilary, whose successor he is.

In personal appearance Bishop Pie is prepossessing. His round,

full face without a wrinkle, and his auburn hair, make him seem

much younger than he really is. Though stout, and even inclined to

corpulency, he is quick and active in his movements.

He speaks with admiration of the late Bishop of Boston, with whom

he studied at St. Sulpice, Paris. The Sulpician fathers have been

accustomed to select as catechists in the parochial church some of

their ablest and most promising students. To both seminarians a class

was assigned, and the Bishop of Poitiers says that his American

friend, afterward Bishop Fitzpatrick, always excelled in his position.

Emmanuel Garcia Gil, Archbishop of Saragossa, in Spain, was born in

St. Salvador, March 14th, 1802.

Having completed his literary studies in his native city, he passed

through his philosophical and theological course in the diocesan

seminary of De Lugo. In 1825, he entered the order of St. Dominic,

in which he made his religious profession November 1st, 1826.

He was ordained the following year, and immediately after the

responsible position of professor of philosophy and theology in the

convents of the order at De Lugo and Compostello was assigned to him.

Expelled in 1835 from Spain, with all the members of his order, he

soon returned to his post at De Lugo, where for thirteen years he

filled the chair of philosophy and divinity in the seminary of which

he was successively director and vice-rector.

Having subsequently devoted himself to the more active pursuits of

the ministry, he labored with great success in preaching the word of

God, and in the administration of the sacraments.

Appointed to the see of Badajoz in December, 1853, he was consecrated

in the city of De Lugo by the Archbishop of Compostello; and five

years later, at the request of the Spanish government, he was

transferred to the archiepiscopal see of Saragossa.

Among his fellow-members of the Committee on Faith, Mgr. Garcia Gil

has the merited reputation of being profoundly conversant with the

writings of his great master, the "Angel of the Schools," and hence

is called among them the St. Thomas of the deputation.

Another prominent member of the committee is Mgr. Hassoun, Patriarch

of Cilicia for the Armenians. He was born in Constantinople, June

13th, 1809, of Armenian parents. He passed through his elementary

course in his native city, and completed his studies in Rome, where,

in 1832, he obtained the degree of doctor of divinity. A few months

later, having been ordained priest, and named apostolic missionary,

he was sent to Smyrna, where he devoted himself to the Armenian

Christians of that city. Removed thence to Constantinople, Father

Hassoun exercised the ministry in several churches, and filled the

office of chancellor in the archiepiscopal palace. Chosen by the

primate as vicar-general and visitor of the diocese and province, the

young Armenian priest was unanimously elected by the assembly of his

nation civil prefect of the Armenian church, in which office he was

confirmed by the Ottoman Porte.

In 1842, he was appointed coadjutor to the Primate of Constantinople,

with the right of succession; and on the death of the latter, in

1846, he was chosen to fill the vacant see.

On the 16th of September, 1866, the Armenian archbishops and bishops

assembled in council proclaimed Mgr. Hassoun Patriarch of Cilicia,

with the title of Anthony Peter IX. The holy see confirmed the

nomination, and decided that in future the patriarchal see of Cilicia

and the archi-primatial see of Constantinople, which hitherto were

separate and independent, should form one patriarchate, under the

title of Patriarchate of Cilicia, with residence at Constantinople.

By his exertions the episcopal hierarchy was reëstablished in 1850

in the ecclesiastical province of Constantinople, and a special see

for the Armenians erected in Persia. He has succeeded in building

in the Turkish capital, and endowing a seminary to serve for the

whole ecclesiastical province. In 1843, Mgr. Hassoun founded the

first female convent in the same capital; and we may well imagine

the degree of pious audacity that was required to plant this colony

of virgins in the midst of the sultan's seraglios. This institution

is devoted to the education of young girls, and to the instruction

of women abandoning schism. The convent has sixty nuns, who educate

three hundred poor girls, besides some resident scholars.

The patriarch, by an imperial firman, is charged with all the civil

and ecclesiastical affairs of the Armenians who are subjects of the

Ottoman empire. He gratefully acknowledges the kind disposition

always manifested toward him by the government of the Sublime Porte,

which has extended to him every facility for carrying out the works

of his ministry.

Victor Augustus Isidore Dechamps, one of the most prominent members

of the deputation _de fide_, was born at Melle, Eastern Flanders, in

the château of Scailmont, December 16th, 1810. His early education

was intrusted to private tutors, under the eyes of his father, who

was a laureate of the ancient University of Louvain. He afterward

completed his studies of humanity and philosophy with his brother

Adolph, who was successively Belgian minister of foreign affairs and

minister of state.

In the national movement, from which sprung the independence of

Belgium, the two brothers, though yet young, distinguished themselves

as publicists during this glorious epoch of patriotism.

In 1832, M. Dechamps entered the seminary of Tournai, studied

afterward in the Catholic university of Mechlin, and concluded

his theological course at Louvain, where he was ordained priest,

December, 1834, by Cardinal Sterckx.

Having soon after joined the Redemptorist congregation, Father

Dechamps made his novitiate in 1835. Five years later, his career

as a preacher began, and in this capacity he greatly distinguished

himself.

After the death of Queen Louise of Belgium, in obedience to the

express desire of that pious princess, he was charged with the

religious instruction of the royal princes, and of the Princess

Charlotte. Rev. Father Dechamps was named Bishop of Namur, September,

1865. Two years later, he was transferred to the archdiocese of

Mechlin, in which Brussels is included; and since the opening of

the council he has been elevated by the holy see to the primacy of

Belgium.

Monsgr. Dechamps has written several valuable works, the most

important of which are: 1st. _The Free Examination of the Truth

of Faith_; 2d. _The Divinity of Jesus Christ_; 3d. _The Religious

Question resolved by Facts; or, Certainty in Matters of Religion_;

4th. _Pius IX. and Contemporary Errors_; 5th. _The New Eve, or,

Mother of Life_, all of which have been translated into most of the

languages of Europe.

The style of Archbishop Dechamps is calm, concise, and profound,

blended with an attractive unction. His round and pleasing

countenance bears upon it the stamp of intellect and energy. Like so

many of his gifted countrymen, the prelate of Mechlin unites in his

person the mental activity of the Frenchman with the solidity of the

German.

John Baptist Simor, Archbishop of Strigonium and Primate of Hungary,

was born August 24th, 1813, in the ancient Hungarian city of

Fehervar, which is memorable in history as being the place where the

kings of Hungary were formerly crowned and buried.

He pursued his philosophical course in the archiepiscopal lyceum of

Magy-Szombat, and his course of theology in the University of Vienna,

which honored him with the title of doctor of sacred theology. After

the successful completion of his studies, he was ordained priest of

the archdiocese of Strigonium in 1836.

Appointed, first, assistant pastor of a church in Pesth, Father

Simor soon after received a professor's chair in the university of

that city, and subsequently filled several responsible positions,

both in the government of souls and in instructing the more advanced

candidates for the ministry in a higher course of theology.

On the 29th of June, 1857, he was consecrated Bishop of Györ, and ten

years later, on the demise of Cardinal Scilovszky, Bishop Simor was

chosen to succeed that eminent prelate as Prince-Primate of Hungary

and Archbishop of Strigonium.

Besides his ecclesiastical eminence, the Primate of Hungary has had

distinguished state honors conferred on him. He is the first member

of the king's privy council. By established law, the ceremony of

crowning the king devolves exclusively on the primate. Otherwise

the coronation is not considered legitimate. The Bishop of Veszprim

crowns the queen. The present Emperor, Francis Joseph of Austria,

received the crown of the kingdom of Hungary from the hands of

Archbishop Simor, on the vigil of Pentecost, 1867, in the presence

of an immense assembly of people from all parts of the kingdom. The

primate is moreover _ex-officio_ chief secretary and chancellor of

the sovereign of Hungary. He is also first magistrate of the county

or department of Strigonium. Hungary contains fifty-two of these

departments, each presided over by a chief magistrate.

He has also a seat in the general assembly or parliament of Hungary,

a privilege which is enjoyed in common with him by every Catholic

bishop of the kingdom. Many other prerogatives were inherent in the

primatial dignity till they were swept away by the revolution of 1848.

Monsgr. Simor informed us that the faithful of his diocese number

a million of souls, comprising three distinct nationalities,

Hungarians, Sclaves, and Germans, who speak as many distinct

languages.

The primate is consequently obliged, in the visitation of his

diocese, to employ these three tongues. In corresponding with his

clergy, whether Hungarian, Sclavonic, or German, he invariably uses

Latin, of which he is a perfect master, and which, till a recent

date, was the common language of the greater part of Hungary.

ROME, June 2, 1870.

* * * * *

We add to the remarks of our correspondent the following items of

information concerning the doings of the council since the date of

his letter. Between June 2d and June 18th ten general congregations

were held. The preface, and the first two chapters of the _schema_

on the Roman Pontiff, were voted on and adopted; the discussion of

the third chapter, was closed, and on the 15th of June the discussion

of the fourth chapter, concerning the infallibility of the Roman

Pontiff, was opened. At that date, seventy-four fathers had inscribed

their names as intending to speak, and this number had been increased

to one hundred at the general congregation of June 18th.

FOOTNOTE:

[284] The speeches on the _Primacy and Infallibility of the Roman

Pontiff_ have exceeded in length those delivered on the preceding

subjects, their average duration having been forty-three minutes up

to the present date, June 2d.

FOREIGN LITERARY NOTES.

Within the past six months the literary bulletins of France, England,

and Germany are full of notices of new works on the subject of the

Apostle St. Paul and his writings. One of the latest in England

is by Dr. Arnold, who--Anglican as he is--takes direct issue with

an opinion of the French rationalist Renan, which on its first

appearance gave great gratification to the Protestant world. In his

work on St. Paul, Renan said in his flippant way:

"After having been for three hundred years, thanks to

Protestantism, the Christian doctor _par excellence_, Paul is

now coming to the end of his reign."

On this remarkable opinion, Dr. Arnold thus comments:

"Precisely the contrary, I venture to think, is the judgment

to which a true criticism of men and things leads us. The

Protestantism which has so used and abused St. Paul is coming

to an end; its organizations, strong and active as they look,

are touched with the finger of death; its fundamental ideas,

sounding forth still every week from thousands of pulpits,

have in them no significance and no power for the progressive

thought of humanity. But the reign of the real St. Paul is only

beginning; his fundamental ideas, disengaged from the elaborate

misconceptions with which Protestantism has overlaid them, will

have an influence in the future greater than any which they

have yet had--an influence proportioned to their correspondence

with a number of the deepest and most permanent facts of human

nature itself."--_From St. Paul and Protestantism, by Matthew

Arnold._

* * * * *

One of the most important events of the reign of Louis XIV., and,

indeed, in the entire religious history of France, was the assembly

of the clergy of France in the year 1682. Numerous works have been

written and published concerning it, the best and most exhaustive of

which are the two last. In 1868, M. Charles Gérin, a judge of the

Civil Tribunal of the Seine, published his _Recherches Historiques

sur l'Assemblée du Clergé de France de 1682_. The author brought

to his task great learning, decided ability, and an industry that

proved itself by the number of original documents from the public

archives for the first time presented by him. The result of M.

Gérin's labors was generally accepted in France as final. With

this verdict, however, Monseigneur Maret, Bishop of Sura, did not

agree, and protested against it in his work, _Du Concile et de la

Paix religieuse_, intimating therein that the documents cited in

M. Gérin's book needed fresh revision and interpretation, which

they should receive. This announcement was naturally accepted as

signifying that a new work on the assembly of 1682 might be looked

for. That was indeed its signification, and early in 1870 appeared

an announcement of the publishers, Didier & Co., Paris, of a book

entitled, _L'Assemblée du Clergé de France de 1682 d'après des

documents dont un grand nombre inconnus jusqu'à ce jour_. Par l'Abbé

Jules-Théodose Loyson, Docteur et Professeur en Sorbonne. 8vo,

530 pages. To this, Judge Gérin soon replied in his _Une Nouvelle

Apologie du Gallicanisme, Réponse à M. l'Abbé Loyson_. Outside of the

historical statements concerning the events attending the assembly

of 1682, these works are, in fact, a rather animated polemical

discussion of the questions of the temporal power and the papal

infallibility.

* * * * *

When St. Patrick entered upon his great apostolic work in Ireland,

he was careful not to offend the attachment borne by his converts

to their ancient national traditions, the songs of their bards, and

the laws by which they were governed. On the contrary, he advised

Lacighaise, king of the country, to have reduced to writing all the

ancient judicial decisions, and, with the aid of two other bishops,

commenced the work himself. To the body of laws thus collected was

given the title of _Senchus Mor_, (collection of ancient knowledge.)

Written A.D. 440, this book served as the Irish code before the

departure of the Romans, and was in legal force up to the period of

the accession of James I., traces of its influence being to this

day plainly visible. The most authentic manuscripts containing the

_Senchus Mor_ formerly belonged to an English literary amateur, and

through the efforts of Edmund Burke were acquired by the English

government. Their publication was commenced in 1852, and has been

resumed, as we perceive by the following announcement: _Ancient Laws

of Ireland. Senchus Mor._ Part II. Edited by W. Neilson Hancock,

LL.D., and the Rev. Thaddeus O'Mahony. Dublin: Printed for Her

Majesty's Stationery Office. 1870. 8vo.

* * * * *

Some curious information and revolting details concerning the

continuation of the slave-trade in Africa are furnished in a work

lately published at Paris, _La Traite Orientale_. The Mussulman

still needs slaves and concubines, and three great slave marts still

exist to supply them. These are the Island of Zanzibar, the southern

portion of Egypt, and Arabia. At Zanzibar a healthy man sells for

$42, while the women bring $80, and more, if good-looking.

* * * * *

During the past ten years the history, geography, and topography

of the biblical countries have been studied with immense activity,

and the best travellers and scholars of Germany, France, Italy, and

England have contributed their offerings to the common fund of our

knowledge concerning these most interesting regions. Successful

research on the banks of the Euphrates and the Tigris, the Nile and

the Jordan, not to speak of many other points, have all in turn

confirmed the perfect veracity of the writers of the Old and of the

New Testament. And to these, the broken walls, the palaces, the

towers, and the sculptures of Babylon, of Nineveh, of Persepolis, of

Jerusalem, and of Samaria, rising in testimony of the truth from the

gathered ruins of ages, bear also their testimony. A learned German

ecclesiastic, Dr. Gratz, uniting and fusing all the information

on this subject, composed an admirable geographical history of

oriental and occidental countries, with special reference to the

biblical period. Dr. Allioli, the celebrated scriptural commentator,

recommended the work of Dr. Gratz as marked by so much erudition

and exactness that the readers of his commentary are recommended

to it for information on all points touching biblical localities.

An excellent French translation of Dr. Gratz's work has just been

published: _Théâtre des Evénements racontés dans les divines

Ecritures, ou l'ancien et le nouvel Orient étudié au point de vue de

la Bible et de L'Eglise_. 2 vols. 8vo.

* * * * *

Here are two new works on the Council of Trent: _Histoire du Concile

de Trente_, par M. Baguenault de Puchesse; 1 vol. 8vo. _Journal

du Concile de Trente, rédigé par un secrétaire Vénitien présant

aux sessions de 1562 à 1563._ This Venetian secretary was Antonio

Milledonne, attached to the embassy sent to the Council of Trent by

the republic of Venice. To the diary of the secretary, which forms

the body of the latter publication, are added several original

documents of the period heretofore unpublished, among them a summary

of the dispatches of the Venetian ambassadors to the council. M.

Baschet, the editor, suggests that the publication of the French

diplomatic dispatches relative to the council would be of the highest

interest. These dispatches would certainly form one of the most

curious literary monuments of the sixteenth century, and, in point of

fact, the history of the latter period of the council cannot well be

written without them.

* * * * *

Baron Hübner, formerly Austrian Ambassador at Paris and at Rome, and

well known in the diplomatic and literary world, has just presented

the fruit of many years' labor among the state archives of Paris,

Vienna, Florence, Venice, Simancas, and the Vatican, in the shape

of a work entitled _Sixte Quint_; 3 vols. 8vo. Written on an epoch

already well investigated, and upon a life which has been the subject

of many pens, Baron Hübner's life of Pope Sixtus V. is by far the

most remarkable and the most trustworthy we have had. And yet it is

not perhaps exact to call his work a life of Sixtus V. The author

does not so style it, and takes up Cardinal Montalto at the conclave

where he is elected pope. He scarcely refers retrospectively to the

early years of his life, and pays not the slightest attention to

the semi-fabulous stories which tradition has interwoven with the

name of the great Sixtus. If he finds documentary evidence for

any part of them, he gives it. If not, silence falls upon them. At

the outset of his work he merely mentions the three great names

connected with histories of Sixtus--Leti, Tempesti, and Ranke. But he

merely mentions them, and in no case quotes them. As to more modern

historians of Sixtus--Segretain and Dumesnil, for instance--he does

not appear to have the slightest idea of their existence. Baron

Hübner has written his work exclusively from original materials, and

appears to have used them conscientiously and with excellent judgment.

* * * * *

For nearly ten months an animated historico-ecclesiastical discussion

has been going on in France, which, according to the reports of

literary journals, has passed the stage of "_vive polémique_," and

reached that described as "_la controverse passionée_." The subject

matter of the discussion is Pope Honorius. Father Gratry (of the

Oratory) led off with a pamphlet entitled, _Mgr. l'Evêque d'Orléans

et Mgr. l'Archevêque de Malines_, and gave the texts of three

councils which condemned Honorius, and the confirmation of their

sentence by Pope St. Leo II. To this came a reply by M. Chantrel,

_Le Pape Honorius, Première Lettre à M. l'Abbé Gratry_, in which he

presented an abridged text of the letters of Honorius and testimony

in his favor. Archbishop Dechamps also answered Father Gratry in _La

Question d'Honorius_, citing an interesting passage from St. Alphonse

de Liguori. Then, in its numbers of the 10th and 25th January, and

10th February, _Le Correspondant_ gave an extract from the fourth

volume (not yet published) of the _Histoire des Conciles_, by Bishop

Héfelé, in which the prelate-author is severe on Honorius. Father

Colombier, on the contrary, defends the orthodoxy of the incriminated

letters of Honorius in a series of articles published in the _Etudes

Religieuses, Historiques, et Littéraires_. Dom Guéranger also treated

the question in his _Défense de l'Eglise Romaine contre les Erreurs

du R. P. Gratry_, published in the _Revue du Monde Catholique_.

Then comes _L'Univers_ with a letter from M. Amédée de Margerie,

Professor at Nancy, in defence of Honorius. We can merely enumerate

other defenders of Honorius who have entered the lists. They are

the Abbé Constantin, (_Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques_,) the

editors of the _Civilta Cattolica_, Canon Lefebre, (_Revue Catholique

de Louvain_,) Abbé Larroque, Abbé Bélet, Father Roque, and Father

Ramière. The _Avenir Catholique_ endeavors to demonstrate that

Honorius wrote the letters in dispute not as pope, but as a simple

doctor. M. Léon Gautier published a series of articles on the

question of infallibility, the last of which is specially devoted

to Honorius. These articles collected have lately been published by

Palmé in a pamphlet, entitled _L'Infaillibilité devant la Raison,

la Foi et l'Histoire_. Then comes a second letter from Bishop

Dechamps, and, finally, the Bishop of Strasburg issues an energetic

condemnation of the letters of Father Gratry.

* * * * *

The history of the city of Milan is, in Italian history, one of great

importance; for it is the history of Lombardy, and of nearly all of

the north of Italy. Of chronicles and histories of the great Lombard

city there were many, but none so good in its day as the four large

and beautiful volumes of the Chevalier Rosmini de Roveredo, which is

now in its turn surpassed and superseded by the admirable work of

Cusani, _Storia di Milano, dall' origine ai nostri giorni_. Vols. I.

à V. à 8vo, Milano, 1861-1869.

* * * * *

Ricotti's great work on the history of the Piedmontese monarchy

still approaches completion. The sixth volume, just out, brings the

work down to the end of the seventeenth century. The _Storia della

Monarchia Piemontese_ is no mere dry record of dates; but presents

an animated picture of the legal, intellectual, social, and artistic

life of Piedmont at the different epochs of its existence.

* * * * *

Professor Ferdinando Ranalli's new work on the history of the fine

arts, _Storia delle Belle Arti in Italia_, 3 vols., attracts much

attention.

* * * * *

Professor Ciavarini, of Florence, has published an interesting work

on the philosophy of Galileo, _Della Filosofia del Galilei_, and

on his scientific method. The Italian press does not vomit forth

the flood of yellow-covered literature with which some countries

are afflicted; but the number of serious and meritorious works in

history, literature, and science constantly published would surprise

most persons who suppose that the Italian mind is at a stand-still.

* * * * *

Almost simultaneously in Germany and in England appear two works on

the Epistles to the Corinthians by St. Clement of Rome. They are

_Clementis Romani ad Corinthios Epistola_, by J. C. M. Laurent,

published at Leipsic; and _S. Clement of Rome: the Two Epistles to

the Corinthians_, a revised text with introduction and notes, by J.

B. Lightfoot. They are mainly valuable for their discussion as to the

merits of the texts of the various MSS.

* * * * *

The most interesting archæological discovery of our age, incomparable

for its antiquity and its historic and philological interest, is

unquestionably the one lately made by M. Clermont-Ganneau, dragoman

of the consulate of France at Jerusalem. It is that of a Hebrew

inscription of the year 896 before Christ, cut on a monolith

by order of Mescha, King of Moab, a contemporary of the kings

Joram and Josaphat. The stone on which the inscription is graven

is in dimension three feet four inches by about two feet. The

inscription itself is in thirty-four lines, each line containing

from thirty-three to thirty-five letters. It is said that there is

no known Hebrew monument comparable in antiquity with this. M. le

Comte de Vogüé lately presented a memoir concerning it to the French

Academy of Inscriptions and Belles-Lettres, which is now published

by Baudry, Paris: _La Stèle de Mesa, Roi de Moab, 896 avant Jésus

Christ_.

NEW PUBLICATIONS.

LIFTING THE VEIL. New York: Charles Scribner & Co. 1870. Pp.

200.

This book was probably suggested by _Gates Ajar_. It is an attempt

to say something about the future state of the human race. In some

respects the volume is more valuable than Miss Phelps's endeavor

to convey an idea of the happiness of paradise. It is not so

materialistic. Yet both works are very defective, because of the

simple fact that neither of the authors know any thing of that which

makes heaven to be heaven--the beatific vision. Their highest ideal

is perfect intellectual contentment, with unimpeded exercise of our

natural capacities and the companionship of our friends and our

blessed Saviour. Yet it is encouraging to see that Protestants are

writing such books as these. They are the expression of the deepest

wants of the human soul. They prove that the Protestantism of to-day

has failed to answer these wants. If we were not already perfectly

convinced, they would convince us, that when the truth is adequately

presented to these souls, they will gladly accept it.

* * * * *

PASSAGES FROM THE ENGLISH NOTE-BOOKS OF NATHANIEL HAWTHORNE.

Boston: Fields, Osgood & Co. 1870. 2 vols.

One great charm of these two volumes lies in the fact that they were

never written for publication. But we regret the omission of certain

passages. The editor of the volumes thought it wise to withhold

a portion of the notes which were afterward absorbed into one or

another of the romances or papers in _Our Old Home_. Yet surely it

would have been a pleasure to contrast the rough sketch contained

in his notes with the elaborate and finely-finished picture which

Mr. Hawthorne afterward presented to the public. The editor tells

us that these cartoons were carefully finished even "at the first

stroke." However, the volumes will always be valuable, because they

give a clear insight of their author's character. If one writes his

every-day impressions of places, persons, and events, he gives the

world a picture of his mind. Thus when these series of notes are

completed by the notes upon America and Italy, we shall be enabled

to form a far truer estimate of this distinguished American writer

than we could possibly do from those works which have given him a

name in literature, both in his own country and in more critical and

fastidious England.

* * * * *

HIDDEN SAINTS: LIFE OF SŒUR MARIE. New York: D. & J. Sadlier

& Co. 1870. Pp. 215.

In many respects this is a useful contribution to our Catholic

literature. It tells the story of a workwoman who attained a very

high degree of Christian perfection. In its matter, the book reminds

one of _Marie-Eustelle Harpain_, but it does not greatly resemble

it in its composition. A religious biography can do good in two

ways. It can edify the readers with the history of remarkable piety

and virtue. And it can also elevate and refine our minds, if it be

written in pure and correct English. Unfortunately, this biography

does not possess this character. Its very title is an example of a

fault which is frequently seen throughout the volume. It is the "Life

of _Sœur Marie_," not Sister Mary. When this good girl addresses

her director, she does not say "Father," but it must be "_Mon Père_,"

and without the accent to which that word is lawfully entitled.

Surely it is absurd affectation to ruin a beautiful thought and a

good English sentence by mixing with it two or three French words.

But this is not the only fault of the volume. It speaks of "promises

of milk and water," an expression which contains no definite idea.

It informs us that Sister Mary "went _straight_ to church." Who

can tell whether the author intends to say that she went to church

_immediately_ or went there by the most direct way? Then, too, if

this book be intended to form one of a series of biographies of

persons who are not canonized, why call them "Hidden _Saints_"? The

holy see has always wished us to be most careful in the use of this

word. But these faults do not destroy the value of the book. They

are only blemishes, and in a future edition we hope to find them

completely removed.

* * * * *

MARION. A Tale of French Society under the Old Régime.

Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Co. 1870. Pp. 176.

Marion is a woman of "stiff figure, bony hands, bloodshot eyes, and

innumerable wrinkles, always reminding one of stories about vampires

and ghouls." (P. 4.) This sentence gives a fair idea of the style and

literary value of this novel. It is filled with similar nonsensical

and overdrawn descriptions. We must, therefore, beg leave to differ

from the very modest opinion expressed in the preface, that the book

has a character "which stamps it as one that the young may read with

profit." On the contrary, it is a shame that such a story should be

translated and allowed to live in another language than the one in

which it was originally written. However, we will do it justice.

There is one mark of common sense about the book. It is this--both

the author and translator have concealed their names.

* * * * *

THOMAS FRANCIS MEAGHER. By Captain W. F. Lyons. New York: D. &

J. Sadlier. 1870. Pp. 357.

We do not believe the sentiment which Shakespeare has put in the

mouth of Mark Antony, that

"The evil which men do lives after them;

The good is oft interred with their bones."

It is not true that men delight in recalling the faults of their

fellow-men; and especially do the dead claim our forgiveness and

compassion. We are truly sorry, therefore, to find in this volume

speeches which reflect no credit from a literary point of view upon

General Meagher, and which, moreover, contain doctrines most clearly

condemned by the Catholic Church. Out of respect to the many good

qualities of Meagher, we wish to forget his faults. We would wish

also to remember, and we wish his countrymen to remember, his manly

virtues. But until the speech beginning on page 280 of this volume

is omitted, we cannot recommend this book to the Catholic public, or

consider it a worthy monument of Thomas Francis Meagher.

* * * * *

HISTORY OF THE FOUNDATION OF THE ORDER OF THE VISITATION.

Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Co. 1870. Pp. 271.

Few books issued by Catholic publishers are more interesting and

useful than this history of the Order of the Visitation. Besides the

history of their foundation, it contains the lives of several members

of the order; among them Mademoiselle De La Fayette, a relative of

the general so distinguished in our war for independence. The book

merits a wide circulation.

* * * * *

ALASKA AND ITS RESOURCES; By W. H. Dall. Boston: Lee & Shepard.

1870.

Mr. Dall was "the director of the scientific corps of the late

Western Union Telegraph Expedition." His book is the result of great

industry, and is highly creditable to him every way. Those who desire

to know something worth knowing about this singular region will find

this work very interesting. The writer says in his introduction

that he "has specially endeavored to convey as much information as

his scope would allow in regard to the native inhabitants, history,

and resources of the country. This end," he adds, "has been kept

steadily in view, perhaps, at the risk of dulness." We think he has

succeeded admirably, and have no fear whatever that any one capable

of appreciating the book is likely to find it dull.

* * * * *

PARADISE OF THE EARTH. Translated from the French of Abbé

Sanson by Rev. F. Ignatius Sisk. Baltimore: John Murphy & Co.

New York: Catholic Publication Society. 1870. Pp. 528.

This book was originally written for religious, though we presume it

is now intended to have a wider circulation. The means of finding

happiness is treated under a two-fold head: First, Removal of

obstacles; second, Practice of the solid virtues. The chapters which

treat of the mortification of the passions are carefully written.

Indeed, the author has wished to present the teaching of the saints

and doctors of the church rather than his own opinions.

* * * * *

LORETTO; OR THE CHOICE. By George H. Miles. New and enlarged

edition. Baltimore: Kelly, Piet & Co. 1870. Pp. 371.

This story presents a very fair picture of Southern Catholic society.

The characters in it are mostly well conceived. They are not

impossible persons. Nothing extraordinary happens to any one of them.

They speak in a natural manner. The plot, too, though simple, is

very pleasingly developed, and the interest of the reader constantly

maintained. For all these good qualities, so rare in modern works of

fiction, the book deserves a hearty recommendation. But beyond all

this, the story merits praise for the sound principles of morality

which appear on every page, and which the author presents in a manner

at once pleasing and truthful.

* * * * *

DEVOTION TO THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS. By Secondo Franco, S.J.

Baltimore: John Murphy & Co. 1870. Pp. 305.

This manual of devotion makes a very handsome appearance in its dress

of blue and gold. Its object is to explain clearly the essence of

the worship of the Sacred Heart. Yet this book is not in any sense a

controversial work. It is written for devout Catholics. It will be

of service to any one who wishes to gain a knowledge of the interior

life of our Redeemer by studying his sacred heart. The book is filled

with fervent sentences and devout aspirations, which will help the

reader to become like Him "who was meek and humble of heart."

* * * * *

BEECH BLUFF: A Tale of the South. By Fannie Warner.

Philadelphia. P. F. Cunningham.

In this volume we have what purports to be the experience of a

Northern lady in the sunny South, during a three years' residence

as governess in the State of Georgia. The tale, which is written in

a pleasing and natural style, is entirely free from all sensational

incidents, and has a strong under-current of sound practical

Catholicity. It will be none the less acceptable to many as being

descriptive of a phase of society which is now (happily, in some

respects) "among the things that were."

* * * * *

WONDERS OF ARCHITECTURE. Translated from the French of M.

Lefevre. To which is added a chapter on English Architecture.

By R. Donald, 1 vol. 12mo. New York: Charles Scribner & Co.

1870.

A beautiful little book, containing illustrations of some of the

finest creations of the great architects of the world. It is both

entertaining and instructive.

THE

CATHOLIC WORLD.

VOL. XI., No. 66.--SEPTEMBER, 1870.

HEREDITARY GENIUS.[285]

Mr. Galton is what in these days is called a _scientist_, or

cultivator of the physical sciences, whose pretension is to confine

themselves strictly to the field of the sciences as distinguished

from science; to assert nothing but positive facts and the laws of

their production and operation, ascertained by careful observation

and experiment, and induction therefrom. Their aim would seem to

be to explain all the facts or phenomena of the universe by means

of second causes, and to prove that man is properly classed with

animals, or is only an animal developed or completed, not an animal

transformed and specificated by a rational soul, which is defined by

the church to be _forma corporis_.

Between the scientists and philosophers, or those who cultivate not

the special sciences, but the science of the sciences, and determine

the principles to which the several special sciences must be referred

in order to have any scientific character or value, there is a

long-standing quarrel, which grows fiercer and more embittered every

day. We are far from pretending that the positivists or Comtists have

mastered all the so-called special sciences; but they represent truly

the aims and tendencies of the scientists, and of what by a strange

misnomer is called philosophy; so-called, it would seem, because

philosophy it is not. Philosophy is the science of principles, as say

the Greeks, or of _first_ principles, as say the Latins, and after

them the modern Latinized nations. But Herbert Spencer, Stuart Mill,

and the late Sir William Hamilton, the ablest representatives of

philosophy as generally received by the English-speaking world, agree

with the Comtists or positivists in rejecting first principles from

the domain of science, and in relegating theology and metaphysics

to the region of the unknown and the unknowable. Their labors

consequently result, as Sir William Hamilton himself somewhere

admits, in universal nescience, or, as we say, absolute nihilism or

nullism.

This result is not accidental, but follows necessarily from what

is called the Baconian method, which the scientists follow, and

which is, in scholastic language, concluding the universal from

the particular. Now, in the logic we learned as a school-boy, and

adhere to in our old age, this is simply impossible. To every valid

argument it is necessary that one of the premises, called the major

premise, be a universal principle. Yet the scientists discard the

universal from their premises, and from two or more particulars,

or particular facts, profess to draw a valid universal conclusion,

as if any conclusion broader than the premises could be valid! The

physico-theologians are so infatuated with the Baconian method that

they attempt, from certain facts which they discover in the physical

world, to conclude, by way of induction, the being and attributes of

God, as if any thing concluded from particular facts could be any

thing but a particular fact. Hence, the aforenamed authors, with

Professor Huxley at their tail, as well as Kant in his _Kritik der

Reinen Vernunft_, have proved as clearly and as conclusively as any

thing can be proved that a causative force, or causality, cannot

be concluded by way either of induction or of deduction from any

empirical facts, or facts of which observation can take note. Yet the

validity of every induction rests on the reality of the relation of

cause and effect, and the fact that the cause actually produces the

effect.

Yet our scientists pretend that they can, from the observation and

analysis of facts, induce a law, and a law that will hold good

beyond the particulars observed and analyzed. But they do not obtain

any law at all; and the laws of nature, about which they talk so

learnedly, are not laws, but simply facts. Bring a piece of wax to

the fire and it melts, hence it is said to be a law that wax so

brought in proximate relation with fire will melt; but this law

is only the particular fact observed, and the facts to which you

apply it are the identical facts from which you have obtained it.

The investigation, in all cases where the scientists profess to

seek the law, is simply an investigation to find out and establish

the identity of the facts, and what they call the law is only the

assertion of that identity, and never extends to facts not identical,

or to dissimilar facts.

Take mathematics; as far as the scientist can admit mathematics, they

are simply identical propositions piled on identical propositions,

and the only difference between Newton and a plough-boy is, that

Newton detects identity where the plough-boy does not. Take what is

called the law of gravitation; it is nothing but the statement of a

fact, or a class of facts observed, and the most that it tells us is,

that if the facts are identical, they are identical--that is, they

bear such and such relations to one another. But let your positivist

attempt to explain transcendental mathematics, and he is all at

sea, if he does not borrow from the ideal science or philosophy

which he professes to discard. How will the geometrician explain his

infinitely extended lines, or lines that may be infinitely extended?

A line is made up of a succession of points, and therefore of parts,

and nothing which is made up of parts is infinite. The line may be

increased or diminished by the addition or subtraction of points, but

the infinite cannot be either increased or diminished. Whence does

the mind get this idea of infinity? The geometrician tells us the

line may be infinitely extended--that is, it is infinitely possible;

but it cannot be so unless there is an infinite ground on which it

can be projected. An infinitely possible line can be asserted only

by asserting the infinitely real, and therefore the mind, unless

it had the intuition of the infinitely real, could not conceive of

a line as capable of infinite extension. Hence the ancients never

assert either the infinitely possible or the infinite real. There is

in all Gentile science, or Gentile philosophy, no conception of the

infinite; there is only the conception of the indefinite.

This same reasoning disposes of the infinite divisibility of matter

still taught in our text-books. The infinite divisibility of matter

is an infinite absurdity; for it implies an infinity of parts or

numbers, which is really a contradiction in terms. We know nothing

that better illustrates the unsoundness of the method of the

scientists. Here is a piece of matter. Can you not divide it into

two equal parts? Certainly. Can you do the same by either of the

halves? Yes. And by the quarters. Yes. And thus on _ad infinitum_?

Where, then, is the absurdity? None as long as you deal with only

finite quantities. The absurdity is in the fact that the infinite

divisibility of matter implies an infinity of parts; and an infinity

of parts, an infinity of numbers; and numbers and every series of

numbers may be increased by addition, and diminished by subtraction.

An infinite series is impossible.

The moment the scientists leave the domain of particulars or positive

facts, and attempt to induce from them a law, their induction

is of no value. Take geology. The geologist finds in that small

portion of the globe which he has examined certain facts, from

which he concludes that the globe is millions and millions of ages

old. Is his conclusion scientific? Not at all. If the globe was in

the beginning in a certain state, and if the structural and other

changes which are now going on have been going on at the same rate

from the beginning--neither of which suppositions is provable--then

the conclusion is valid; not otherwise. Sir Charles Lyell, if we

recollect aright, calculated that, at the present rate, it must

have taken at least a hundred and fifty thousand years to form the

delta of the Mississippi. Officers of the United States army have

calculated that a little over four thousand years would suffice.

So of the antiquity of man on the globe. The scientist finds what he

takes to be human bones in a cave along with the bones of certain

long since extinct species of animals, and concludes that man was

contemporary with the said extinct species of animals; therefore

man existed on the globe many, nobody can say how many, thousand

years ago. But two things render the conclusion uncertain. It is

not certain from the fact that their bones are found together that

man and these animals were contemporary; and the date when these

animals became extinct, if extinct they are, is not ascertained

nor ascertainable. They have discovered traces in Switzerland of

lacustrian habitations; but these prove nothing, because history

itself mentions "the dwellers on the lakes," and the oldest history

accepted by the scientists is not many thousand years old. Sir

Charles Lyell finds, or supposes he finds, stone knives and axes,

or what he takes to be stone knives and axes, deeply embedded in

the earth in the valley of a river, though at some distance from

its present bed; and thence concludes the presence of man on the

earth for a period wholly irreconcilable with the received biblical

chronology. But supposing the facts to be as alleged, they do not

prove any thing, because we cannot say what changes by floods or

other causes have taken place in the soil of the locality, even

during the period of authentic history. Others conclude from the

same facts that men were primitively savages, or ignorant of the use

of iron. But the most they prove is that, at some unknown period,

certain parts of Europe were inhabited by a people who used stone

knives and axes; but whether because ignorant of iron, or because

unable from their poverty or their distance from places where they

were manufactured to procure similar iron utensils, they give us no

information. Instances enough are recorded in history of the use of

stone knives by a people who possessed knives made of iron. Because

in our day some Indian tribes use bows and arrows, are we to conclude

that fire-arms are unknown in our age of the world?

What the scientists offer as proof is seldom any proof at all. If

an hypothesis they invent explains the known facts of a case, they

assert it as proved, and therefore true. What fun would they not make

of theologians and philosophers, if they reasoned as loosely as they

do themselves? Before we can conclude an hypothesis is true because

it explains the known facts in the case, we must prove, 1st, that

there are and can be no facts in the case not known; and, 2d, that

there is no other possible hypothesis on which they can be explained.

We do not say the theories of the scientists with regard to the

antiquity of the globe and of man on its surface, nor that any of the

geological and astronomical hypotheses they set forth are absolutely

false; we only say that their alleged facts and reasonings do not

prove them. The few facts known might be placed in a very different

light by the possibly unknown facts; and there are conceivable any

number of other hypotheses which would equally well explain the facts

that are known.

The book before us on _Hereditary Genius_ admirably illustrates

the insufficiency of the method and the defective logic of the

scientists. Mr. Galton, its author, belongs to the school of

which such men as Herbert Spencer, Darwin, Sir John Lubbock, and

Professor Huxley are British chiefs, men who disdain to recognize a

self-existent Creator, and who see no difficulty in supposing the

universe self-evolved from nothing, or in tracing intelligence, will,

generous affection, and heroic effort to the mechanical, chemical,

and electrical arrangement and combination of the particles of brute

matter. Mr. Galton has written his book, he says, p. 1, to show

"that a man's natural abilities are derived from inheritance,

under exactly the same limitations as are the form and the

physical features of the whole organic world. Consequently, as

it is easy, notwithstanding those limitations, to obtain by

careful selection a permanent breed of dogs or horses, gifted

with peculiar powers of running, or of doing any thing else,

so it would be quite practicable to produce a highly-gifted

race [breed] of men by judicious marriages during several

consecutive generations."

Mr. Galton, with an air of the most perfect innocence in the world,

places man in the category of plants and animals, and in principle

simply reproduces for our instruction the _Man-Plant_, from which

there is but a step to the _Man-Machine_ of the cynical Lamettrie,

the atheistical professor of mathematics in the university of

Berlin, and friend of Frederick the Great. The attempt to prove

it is a subtle attempt to prove, in the name of science, that the

soul, if soul there be, is generated as well as the body, and that

a man's natural abilities are derived through generation from his

organization. The author from first to last gives no hint that his

doctrine is at war with Christian theology, with the freedom of the

human will, or man's moral responsibility for his conduct, or that

it excludes all morality, all virtue, and all sin, and recognizes

only physical good or evil. He would no doubt reply to this that

science is science, facts are facts, and he is under no obligation to

consider what theological doctrines they do or do not contradict; for

nothing can be true that contradicts science or is opposed to facts.

That is opposed to actual facts, or that contradicts real science,

conceded; for one truth can never contradict another. But the author

is bound to consider whether a theory or hypothesis which contradicts

the deepest and most cherished beliefs of mankind in all ages and

nations, and in which is the key to universal history, is really

science, or really is sustained by facts. The presumption, as say

the lawyers, is against it, and for its acceptance it requires the

clearest and the most irrefragable proofs, and we are not sure that

even any proofs would be enough to overcome the presumptions against

it, founded as they are on reasons as strong and as conclusive as it

is in any case possible for the human mind to have. The assertion

that man's natural abilities originate in his organization, and

therefore that we may obtain a peculiar breed of men, as we can

obtain a peculiar breed of dogs or horses, is revolting to the

deepest convictions and the holiest and most irrepressible instincts

of every man, except a scientist, and certainly can be reasonably

received only on evidence that excludes the possibility of a rational

doubt.

Mr. Galton proves, or attempts to prove, his theory by what he

no doubt calls an appeal to facts. He takes from a biographical

dictionary the names of a few hundreds of men, chiefly Englishmen,

during the last two centuries, who have been distinguished as

statesmen, lawyers, judges, divines, authors, etc., and finds that

in a great majority of cases, as far as is known, they have sprung

from families of more than average ability, and, in some cases, from

families which have had some one or more members distinguished for

several consecutive generations. This is really all the proof Mr.

Galton brings to prove his thesis; and if he has not adduced more, it

is fair to conclude that it is because no more was to be had.

But the evidence is far from being conclusive. Even if it be true

that the majority of eminent men spring from families more or less

distinguished, it does not necessarily follow that they derive their

eminent abilities by inheritance; for in those same families, born

of the same parents, we find other members whose abilities are in no

way remarkable, and in no sense above the common level. In a family

of half a dozen or a dozen members one will be distinguished and

rise to eminence, while the others will remain very ordinary people.

Of the Bonaparte family no member approaches in genius the first

Napoleon, except the present emperor of the French. Why these marked

differences in the children of the same blood, the same breed, the

same parents and ancestors? If Mr. Galton explains the inferiority of

the five or the eleven by considerations external or independent of

race or breed, why may not the superiority of the one be explained

by causes alike independent of breed? Why are the natural abilities

of my brothers inferior to mine, since we are all born of the same

parents? If a man's natural abilities are derived by inheritance from

organization, why am I superior to them? Every day we meet occasion

to ask similar questions. This fact proves that there are causes

at work, on which man's eminence or want of eminence depends, of

which Mr. Galton's theory takes no note, which escape the greatest

scientists, and at best can be only conjectured. But conjecture is

not science.

This is not all. As far as known, very eminent men have sprung from

parents of very ordinary natural abilities, as of social position.

The founders of dynasties and noble families have seldom had

distinguished progenitors, and are usually not only the first but

the greatest of their line. The present Sir Robert Peel cannot be

named alongside of his really eminent father, nor the present Duke

of Wellington be compared with his father, the Iron Duke. There is

no greater name in history than that of St. Augustine, the eminent

father and doctor of the church, a man beside whom in genius and

depth, and greatness of mind as well as tenderness of heart, your

Platos and Aristotles appear like men of only ordinary stature;

yet, though his mother was eminent for her sanctity, his parents do

not appear to have been gifted with any extraordinary mental power.

Instances are not rare, especially among the saints, of great men

who have, so to speak, sprung from nothing. Among the popes we may

mention Sixtus Quintus, and Hildebrand, St. Gregory VII.; and among

eminent churchmen we may mention St. Thomas of Canterbury, Cardinal

Ximenes, and Cardinal Wolsey. The greatest and most gifted of our own

statesmen have sprung from undistinguished parents, as Washington,

the elder Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, Webster, Calhoun.

Who dares pretend that every saint has had a saint for a father or

mother; that every eminent theologian or philosopher has had any

eminent theologian or philosopher for his father; or that every

eminent artist, whether in painting, architecture, sculpture, or

music, has been the son or grandson of an eminent artist?

Then, again, who can say how much of a great man's greatness is due

to his natural abilities with which he was born, and how much is due

to the force of example, to family tradition, to education, to his

own application, and the concurrence of circumstances? It is in no

man's power to tell, nor in any scientist's power to ascertain. It is

a common remark that great men in general owe their greatness chiefly

to their mothers, and that, in the great majority of cases known,

eminent men have had gifted mothers. This, if a fact, is against

Mr. Galton's theory; for the father, not the mother, transmits the

hereditary character of the offspring, the hereditary qualities of

the line, if the physiologists are to be believed. Hence nobility in

all civilized nations follows the father, not the mother. The fact of

great men owing their greatness more to the mother is explained by

her greater influence in forming the mind, in moulding the character,

in stimulating and directing the exercise of her son's faculties,

than that of the father. It is as educator in the largest sense that

the mother forms her son's character and influences his destiny. It

is her womanly instincts, affection, and care and vigilance, her

ready sympathy, her love, her tenderness, and power to inspire a

noble ambition, kindle high and generous aspirations in the breast of

her son, that do the work.

Even if it were uniformly true that great men have always descended

from parents remarkable for their natural abilities, Mr. Galton's

theory that genius is hereditary could not be concluded with

scientific certainty. The hereditary transmission of genius might

indeed seem probable; but, on the empirical principles of the

scientists, it could not be asserted. All that could be asserted

would be the relation of concomitance or of juxtaposition, not the

relation of cause and effect. The relation of cause and effect

is not and cannot, as the scientists tell us, be empirically

apprehended. How can they know that the genius of the son is derived

hereditarily from the greatness of his progenitors? From the

juxtaposition or concomitance of two facts empirically apprehended

there is no possible logic by which it can be inferred that the

one is the cause of the other. Hence, Mr. Herbert Spencer, Stuart

Mill, Sir William Hamilton, Professor Huxley, and the positivists

follow Hume, and relegate, as we said, causes to the region of the

unknowable. In fact, the scientists, if they speak of the relation

of cause and effect, mean by it only the relation of juxtaposition

in the order of precedence and consequence. Hence, on their own

principles, though the facts they assert and describe may be true,

none of their conclusions from them, or hypotheses to explain them,

have or can have any scientific validity. For, after all, there may

be a real cause on which the facts depend, and which demands an

entirely different explanation from the one which the scientists

offer.

We refuse, therefore, to accept Mr. Galton's hypothesis that genius

is hereditary, because the facts he adduces are not all the facts

in the case, because there are facts which are not consistent with

it, and because he does not show and cannot show that it is the only

hypothesis possible for the explanation even of the facts which he

alleges. Even his friendly and able reviewer, Dr. Meredith Clymer,

concludes his admirable analysis by saying, "A larger induction is

necessary before any final decision can be had on the merits of the

question." This is the verdict of one of the most scientific minds

in the United States, and it is the Scotch verdict, not proven. Yet

Mr. Galton would have us accept his theory as science, and on its

strength set aside the teachings of revelation and the universal

beliefs of mankind. This is the way of all non-Christian scientists

of the day, and it is because the church refuses to accept their

unverified and unverifiable hypotheses, and condemns them for

asserting them as true, that they accuse her of being hostile to

modern science. They make certain investigations, ascertain certain

facts, imagine certain hypotheses, which are nothing but conjectures,

put them forth as science, and then demand that she accept them, and

give up her faith so far as incompatible with them. A very reasonable

demand indeed!

Press these proud scientists closely, and they will own that _as yet_

their sciences are only tentative, that _as yet_ they are not in a

condition to prove absolutely their theories, or to verify their

conjectures, but they are in hopes they soon will be. At present,

science is only in its infancy, it has only just entered upon the

true method of investigation; but it is every day making surprising

progress, and there is no telling what marvellous conclusions it

will soon arrive at. All this might pass, if it did not concern

matters of life and death, heaven and hell. The questions involved

are too serious to be sported with, too pressing to wait the slow

and uncertain solutions of the tentative science which, during six

thousand years, has really made no progress in solving them. The

scientists retard science when they ask from it the solution, either

affirmative or negative, of questions which confessedly lie not in

its province, and dishonor and degrade it when they put forth as

science their crude conjectures, or their unverified and unverifiable

hypotheses. They, not we, are the real enemies of science, though it

would require a miracle to make them see it. Deluded mortals! they

start with assumptions that exclude the very possibility of science,

and then insist that what they assert or deny shall be accepted

by theologians and philosophers as established with scientific

certainty! Surely the apostle must have had them in mind when he said

of certain men that, "esteeming themselves wise, they became fools."

Genius is not hereditary in Mr. Galton's sense, nor are a man's

natural abilities derived by inheritance in the way he would have us

believe; for both belong to the soul, not to the body; and the soul

is created, not generated. Only the body is generated, and only in

what is generated is there natural inheritance. All the facts Mr.

Galton adduces we are prepared to admit; but we deny his explanation.

We accept, with slight qualifications, his views as summed up by Dr.

Clymer in the following passage:

"The doctrine of the pretensions of natural equality in

intellect, which teaches that the sole agencies in creating

differences between boy and boy, and man and man, are

steady application and moral effort, is daily contradicted

by the experiences of the nursery, schools, universities,

and professional careers. There is a definite limit to the

muscular powers of every man, which he cannot by any training

or exertion overpass. It is only the novice gymnast who,

noting his rapid daily gain of strength and skill, believes

in illimitable development; but he learns in time that his

maximum performance becomes a rigidly-determinate quantity.

The same is true of the experience of the student in the

working of his mental powers. The eager boy at the outset of

his career is astonished at his rapid progress; he thinks for

a while that every thing is within his grasp; but he too soon

finds his place among his fellows; he can beat such and such

of his mates, and run on equal terms with others, while there

will be always some whose intellectual and physical feats he

cannot approach. The same experience awaits him when he enters

a larger field of competition in the battle of life; let him

work with all his diligence, he cannot reach his object; let

him have opportunities, he cannot profit by them; he tries

and is tried, and he finally learns his gauge--what he can

do, and what lies beyond his capacity. He has been taught the

hard lesson of his weakness and his strength; he comes to rate

himself as the world rates him; and he salves his wounded

ambition with the conviction that he is doing all his nature

allows him. An evidence of the enormous inequality between

the intellectual capacity of men is shown in the prodigious

differences in the number of marks obtained by those who gain

mathematical honors at the University of Cambridge, England. Of

the four hundred or four hundred and fifty students who take

their degrees each year, about one hundred succeed in gaining

honors in mathematics, and these are ranged in strict order of

merit. Forty of them have the title of 'wrangler,' and to be

even a low wrangler is a creditable thing. The distinction of

being the first in this list of honors, or 'senior wrangler'

of the year, means a great deal more than being the foremost

mathematician of four hundred or four hundred and fifty men

taken at haphazard. Fully one half the wranglers have been boys

of mark at their schools. The senior wrangler of the year is

the chief of these as regards mathematics. The youths start on

their three-years' race fairly, and their run is stimulated by

powerful inducements; at the end they are examined rigorously

for five and a half hours a day for eight days. The marks are

then added up, and the candidates strictly rated in a scale of

merit. The precise number of marks got by the senior wrangler,

in one of the three years given by Mr. Galton, is 7634; by

the second wrangler, 4123; and by the lowest man in the list

of honors, 237. The senior wrangler, consequently, had nearly

twice as many marks as the second, and more than thirty-two

times as many as the lowest man. In the other examinations

given, the results do not materially differ. The senior

wrangler may, therefore, be set down as having thirty-two

times the ability of the lowest men on the lists; or, as Mr.

Galton puts it, 'he would be able to grapple with problems

more than thirty-two times as difficult; or, when dealing with

subjects of the same difficulty, but intelligible to all, would

comprehend them more rapidly in, perhaps, the square-root of

that proportion.' But the mathematical powers of the ultimate

man on the honors-list, which are so low when compared with

those of the foremost man, are above mediocrity when compared

with the gifts of Englishmen generally; for, though the

examination places one hundred honor-men above him, it puts no

less than three hundred 'poll-men' below him. Admitting that

two hundred out of three hundred have refused to work hard

enough to earn honors, there will remain one hundred who, had

they done their possible, never could have got them.

"The same striking intellectual differences between man and man

are found in whatever way ability may be tested, whether in

statesmanship, generalship, literature, science, poetry, art.

The evidence furnished by Mr. Galton's book goes to show in how

small degree eminence in any class of intellectual powers can

be considered as due to purely special faculties. It is the

result of concentrated efforts made by men widely gifted--of

grand human animals; of natures born to achieve greatness."

We are far from pretending that all men are born with equal

abilities, and that all souls are created with equal possibilities,

or that every child comes into the world a genius in germ. We believe

that all men are born with equal natural rights, and that all should

be equal before the law, however various and unequal may be their

acquired or adventitious rights; but that is all the equality we

believe in. No special effort or training in the world, under the

influence of the most favorable circumstances, can make every child

a St. Augustine, a St. Thomas, a Bossuet, a Newton, a Leibnitz,

a Julius Cæsar, a Wellington, a Napoleon. As one star differeth

from another in glory, so does one soul differ from another in its

capacities on earth as well as in its blessedness in heaven. Here we

have no quarrel with Mr. Galton. We are by no means believers in the

late Robert Owen's doctrine, that you can make all men equal if you

will only surround them from birth with the same circumstances, and

enable them to live in parallelograms.

We are prepared to go even farther, and to recognize that the

distinction between noble and ignoble, gentle and simple, recognized

in all ages and by all nations, is not wholly unfounded. There is

as great a variety and as great an inequality in families as in

individuals. Aristocracy is not a pure prejudice; and though it has

no political privileges in this country, yet it exists here no less

than elsewhere, and it is well for us that it does. No greater evil

could befall any country than to have no distinguished families

rising, generation after generation, above the common level; no born

leaders of the people, who stand head and shoulders above the rest;

and the great objection to democracy is, that it tends to bring

all down to a general average, and to place the administration of

public interests in the hands of a low mediocrity, as our American

experience, in some measure, proves. The demand of the age for

equality of conditions and possessions is most mischievous. If all

were equally rich, all would be equally poor; and if all were at the

top of society, society would have no bottom, and would be only a

bottomless pit. If there were none devoted to learning, no strength

and energy of character above the multitude, society would be without

leaders, and would soon fall to pieces, as an army of privates

without officers.

There is no doubt that there are noble lines, and the descendants of

noble ancestors do, as a rule, though not invariably, surpass the

descendants of plebeian or undistinguished lines. The Stanleys, for

instance, have been distinguished in British history for at least

fifteen generations. The present Earl Derby, the fifteenth earl

of his house, is hardly inferior to his gifted father, and nobly

sustains the honors of his house. We expect more from the child of

a good family than from the child of a family of no account, and

hold that birth is never to be decried or treated as a matter of no

importance. But we count it so chiefly because it secures better

breeding, and subjection to higher, nobler, and purer formative

influences, from the earliest moment. Example and family traditions

are of immense reach in forming the character, and it is not a little

to have constantly presented to the consideration of the child the

distinguished ability, the eminent worth and noble deeds of a long

line of illustrious ancestors, especially in an age and country

where blood is highly esteemed, and the honorable pride of family is

cultivated. The honor and esteem in which a family has been held for

its dignity and worth through several generations is a capital, an

outfit for the son, secures him, in starting, the advantage of less

well-born competitors, and all the aid in advance of a high position

and the good-will of the community. More is exacted of him than of

them; he is early made to feel that _noblesse oblige_, and that

failure would in his case be dishonor. He is thereby stimulated to

greater effort to succeed.

Yet we deny not that there is something else than all this in blood.

A man's genius belongs to his soul, and is no more inherited than

the soul itself. But man is not all soul, any more than he is all

body; body and soul are in close and mysterious relation, and in this

life neither acts without the other. The man's natural abilities are

psychical, not physical, and are not inherited, because the soul is

created, not generated; but their external manifestation may depend,

in a measure, on organization, and organization is inherited. Mr.

Galton's facts may, then, be admitted without our being obliged to

accept his theory. The brain is generally considered by physiologists

as the organ of the mind, and it may be so, without implying that the

brain secretes thought, will, affection, as the liver secretes bile,

or the stomach secretes the gastric juice.

The soul is distinct from the body, and is its _form_, its life, or

its vivifying and informing principle; yet it uses the body as the

organ of its action. Hence, De Bonald defines man, an intelligence

that serves himself by organs, not an intelligence served by organs,

as Plato said. The activity is in the soul, not in the organs. The

organ we call the eye does not see; the soul sees by means of the

eye. So of the ear, the smell, the taste, the touch. We speak of the

five senses; but we should speak more correctly if we spoke, not of

five senses, but of five organs of sense; for the sense is psychical,

and is one like the soul that senses through the organs. In like

manner, the brain appears to be the organ of the mind, through which,

together with the several nerves that centre in it, the mind performs

its various operations of thinking, willing, reasoning, remembering,

reflecting, etc. The nature of the relation of the soul, which is

one, simple, and immaterial, with a material body with its various

organs, nervous and ganglionic systems, is a mystery which we cannot

explain. Yet we cannot doubt that there is a reciprocal action and

reaction of the soul and body, or, at least, the bodily organs can

and do offer, at times, an obstacle to the external action of the

soul. I cannot by my will raise my arm, if it be paralyzed, though

my psychical power to will to raise it is not thereby affected. If

the organs of seeing and hearing, the eye and the ear, are injured

or originally defective, my external sight and hearing are thereby

injured or rendered defective; but not in other psychical relations,

as evinced by the fact that when the physical defect is removed,

or the physical injury is cured, the soul finds no difficulty in

manifesting its ordinary power of seeing or hearing. So we may say

of the other organs of sense, and of the body generally, in so far

as it is the organ of the soul, or used by the soul in its external

display or manifestation of its powers.