omists, and particularly the socialists, never treat ex professo of this important subject. They often, it is true, speak of the education of children-Mr. Accolas has just enlightened us on this subject—and on the rights of woman, and her adaptation to all civil and social purposes. Some sects among them speak of marriage; all of them rave on population, the intercourse of the sexes, etc. But to lay down firm principles on the three relations of father, mother, and child; to attentively consider whether reason can contradict the injunctions of divine revelation, can defy the precepts of the Divine law; to seriously reflect on the immense importance that particular families have had, in all ages, on various states and nations (as M. Le Play has done in France in his Monographies de Familles); all this and many other considerations are regarded by them as of no account in what they call political economy. It may be said generally that the human family is desecrated, yea, dishonored, in all these modern systems. They wish to improve on Christianity, of which, however, they never speak; and most of their theories, if successfully realized, would go to the instant weakening, first, and then to the total breaking asunder of all social ties. What would have become before this of the human family in case the ravings of the philosophers of this and the previous century had become facts, actualized in any nation whatever?

Though most of these utopias have been rejected as impracticable by the good sense yet left among men, is it not lamentable to see the wretched state, physical and moral, of a large number of human families in all our great manufacturing centres? Except when and where the Catholic Church intervenes the moral decline among operatives soon becomes unmistakable, and the road to degradation is plain before them. It has required strong parliamentary measures of repression in England to correct disgraceful evils of this kind, brought on by prevalent theories of political economy.

The Church, on the other side, has always been most attentive to keep unimpaired the dignity and sacredness of the home circle; and the principles laid down in revelation and enforced by Catholic rulers have invariably proved to be the only ones adapted to the preservation of the foundation of well-being among men. Read what the Schoolmen have said of the human family ages ago, and what Catholic theologians down to this day have repeated on the same subject, and tell us whether you can find elsewhere anything comparable to it for promoting the great object in view, viz., the foundation of virtue and happiness. It is chiefly on this account that in medieval times, yes, in the much-abused dark ages, the public welfare was so well attended to by Christian rulers. This is now admitted by all well-informed men. And the great cause of

it was that the dignity of the human family, on the pattern of that of Nazareth, was sacredly preserved under the Church's wings.

Fortunately this is not unknown now to many men who at first did not believe it, but have been brought by a sense of truth to openly acknowledge it. M. Le Play is one of them. He began as a simple economist and was far from being a Christian. But his studies, carried on with fairness and in good faith, soon brought him to the threshold of the Church, and he developed in his Monographies (an essential part of his Ouvriers Européens) a splendid panorama of what have been, at all times and in all countries, the great social units, called families, in the Christian commonwealth. Pity it is we cannot enter into more details, and must pass on to our next point.

III. Morality has been called the universal substratum of social laws, and it is important to show the fatal error of economists and socialists in entirely discarding it. In the first place, it must be remarked that it is only from Turgot's time in France and Adam Smith's in England that morality has begun to be considered of no importance in sociology. The founders of political economy thought that even the natural principles of ethics would not be strict enough for laying the foundation of their strict system. They, of course, could not think of the morality of the Gospels, which they knew was strict enough; but as they were aware that many strange and almost unaccountable notions of ethics had been entertained by various nations, which could not suit them, they took the bold step of forming a gospel of their own, where no mention should be made of any moral obligation. They consequently turned their backs on a'l thinkers and writers of previous ages who had been unanimous in proclaiming the identity between the social and the moral laws. They thought that by keeping silent on these moral laws they could proclaim with more effect the stringency of their own social axioms, and to this day the socialists, their successors, have continued in the same path. For them, consequently, the Decalogue has never been written with any serious purpose. Its prescriptions are only childish enactments which can have no weight in the eyes of a philosopher.

But in the second place the Decalogue is fortunately inscribed in the human heart, and on this account the human heart never. ceases to protest against the pretended ignoring of it by these new teachers. They must know that the numerous flaws of their systems are visible at least to eyes that have once looked on the majestic Mosaic tables; and no one can pretend that man has not seen those tables, since they form a part of his being, and are written, as St. Paul says, in his heart by the testimony of his conscience.

This folly of economists and socialists shows the inanity of their

thoughts, since they imagine they can dissociate what is strictly identical. But it is an herculean task which they will never be able to accomplish. Until the end of time mankind will declare that social laws must be moral laws, or no one will ever be bound to keep them. In vain the new teachers, therefore, do their best to invent a perfect system; it will remain in the end a dead letter in spite of all the perfection they can give it.

IV. Religion, as has been said, is the firmest support of social laws. This is a mere corollary of the previous paragraph. Morality is in the keeping of religion alone. No other institution has the right to prescribe it in all its fulness. Natural morality in ancient times was to a certain extent within the scope of the State's attributes, or of an authorized teaching body. Since Christ came the State undoubtedly should see that its legal enactments are conformable with Christian social ethics, and it can forbid whatever is contrary to them. But for an ultimate decision, in case of doubt, reference must be had to Christ's representative, namely, the Church, which alone has received the power of teaching what is truth and virtue. This must be admitted by all Catholics; and those who are not, must see at least that it is the safest way that can be conceived in all human affairs. Every one can perceive how firmly human society is established when this is the case; and how, on the contrary, everything in social institutions is problematical and precarious when this is denied. There is no need of proving in detail how pernicious is the socialistic idea that the exclusion of religion from society must be carried so far as to deny God's presence and power, either at the origin of it or throughout the course of its history. If this denial could once come to be universal there would soon be an end of man himself. God's intervention would not be necessary, man would be his own destroyer.

V. The State, which has been called the regulator of the peace and happiness of citizens, is the next subject of consideration. The reader is aware that mere economists never took any account of it. They were mainly concerned with the industrial questions of supply and demand, production and consumption, circulation and distribution of wealth. On this account their speculations scarcely deserve the name of social science. The modern socialists go much further, and discuss many topics of real sociology in a way peculiar to themselves, as has been already explained. Their doctrine of State omnipotence, as has been shown, instead of excluding the State from their system, makes the State the keystone of the whole edifice, at the expense of all individual activity.

The true social science of the old Schoolmen and of Catholic theologians in general considered the State as the head of the social body; but its attributes, according to them, were very different

from the monstrous power granted to it by modern theorists. The State, particularly when Christendom existed in its full vigor, favored the existence of numerous corporations, either of churchmen, or of noblemen, or of burghers, artisans, and agriculturists, whose liberties, as they were called, gave birth to a solid and complete hierarchy of rank and functions. This was chiefly visible in industrial pursuits, which, however, presented features very different from those of recent times. Owing to the division of Europe into many small states, and to a certain difficulty of communication between them, a difficulty which has been often exaggerated,— each district furnished itself with the necessaries or conveniences of life. Very few commodities had to be imported from other districts. There was consequently no difficulty in regulating the production and distribution of goods. On this account we hear of no strikes during those times. There was no forced cessation of labor; and the joyful keeping of Christian festivals gave to the artisan, merchant, and agriculturist all the time required for necessary rest and the sufficient improvement of his mind.

It would, no doubt, be difficult if not impossible to reproduce in our day so happy a state of society. There were, however, shadows in the picture, resulting chiefly from the feudal system then prevalent, which no one would wish to see revived. But could not the State in the present age enter into the spirit of those times, allow the reconstruction of many corporations similar to those of the ages referred to, and favor private industry without allowing the monstrous monopolies which are now so fatal to all ordinary commercial and manufacturing concerns? The Church would, no doubt, heartily co-operate with the State in spreading comfort among all classes, preventing the absorption of wealth by a few concerns, and cutting off the root of pauperism by favoring the simple artisan, and extending a fostering care over humble and honest homes. The only thing required for it would be a peculiar legislation modelled after the old Catholic one. It is all comprised in the pregnant phrase of Bossuet already quoted: La fin de la politique est de rendre la vie commode et les peuples heureux.

Let the State at the same time encourage the Church in her efforts to relieve human misery. She knows how to do it, because she has received the mission to do it from her Divine Founder. The reign of true charity is the kingdom of Christ, whose universal spread has been intrusted to the Church. During her whole history she has proved her willingness and ability so to do. Let a false shame be thrown overboard and à reconciliation take place, which would redound to the good of humanity. This would be far better for the State itself than the omnipotence proposed to it by new dreamers. The few pages just indited at the end of this VOL. V.-5

paper prove abundantly that these infatuated men know nothing of human society, and cannot speak intelligently of social laws. It has been proved at the same time that there is a Christian socialism which alone deserves the name. The only defect of the demonstration is that it could not be sufficiently developed, and with regret we now stop.

There can

VI. A word must be added on a last consideration. not be a true human society without belief in a hereafter; because man's life does not end in this world, which is only a preparation for a better and eternal one. Let sophists close their eyes to this truth if they choose. Mankind cannot do so, because its aspirations towards heaven are irrepressible. Those who have lost hope in it cannot truly enjoy present blessings, should they even have a large share of them. Those who are happy enough to keep that sweet hope in their inmost heart are measurably contented in this world, even in the midst of privations. The hereafter is the place where every injustice will be repaired and every evil compensated. For this reason it is that human society in this life cannot be perfect, because it is merely a probation. All our sanguine philosophers who promise to change earth into heaven, foolishly work against the designs of God, who does not wish it to be so. He reserves for us far better things than this world can ever secure. The Christian should never forget that piety alone is useful for all things: Pietas ad omnia utilis est, promissionem habens vitæ quæ nunc est et futuræ.