comfort which may be derived from a wider and truer acquaintance with nature is of minor importance. That which the philosopher and the man of the world are yearning to learn from all this eager and ceaseless peering into the forms and workings of matter, is whether or not any authentic response will be given to the eternal questionings of the human heart about God, the soul, and the life that is to be. This restlessness and skepticism is doubtless pathological. If men had faith, they would not be tormented by the feverish anxiety to surprise God in the mysteries which he has hidden from human eye; but they have no faith, and since it is impossible for the mind. toʻremain indifferent to the infinite mystery which is everywhere in all that it sees and thinks, therefore do men who have ceased to believe, seek to satisfy by knowledge the inborn craving of the soul for some tidings from the inner truth of things. They will take nothing for granted, but make God himself questionable. And here at once we may perceive the arduousness of the task which is imposed upon those who are called to the defence of the faith in our day. The first step their adversaries take leads into the bottomless abyss of endless speculation and doubt. In the Protestant controversy there was the common and certain ground of the Written Word, to which in the confusion of debate it was possible to return to take bearings, while the deists of the last century agreed with their opponents in admitting the existence of God as indisputably evident to the natural reason. The argument that those who accept Christianity as a divinely revealed religion must necessarily accept the Church as its true and historical embodiment is comparatively simple, and is logical and conclusive against the Protestants, and the argument from analogy is irrefragable when used against the deist who affirms that God is the creator and ruler of the world; and hence the common saying that there is no resting-place between Catholicism and atheism. But the new phase

of infidelity would make knowledge itself inconclusive in all matters where our concern is with the absolute truth of things. It denies that there is any such truth, or at least that it is discoverable by man. I find in all the current theories of unbelief the assumption that all that can be known is the relative, and that the highest conceivable philosophy is only phenomenology. With men who hold such opinions it is impossible to reason from fixed principles. The old methods fail to reach them. All the syllogisms that can be strung together can never compass a higher truth than that which is given in the original intuition, and if this does not attain to the reality underlying the phenomenon neither will our conclusions. The assumption that knowledge is only the perception of relations, makes all discussions as to what anything is in itself appear futile and childish. Hence the contempt of the

modern schools for metaphysics and the scholastic methods. The great practical difficulty, as I take it, in successfully controverting the new theories, lies in the fact that they represent modes of viewing things rather than states of mind. They are not held as conclusions from unanswerable arguments, but as a way of accounting for phenomena which is justified by the convergence of innumerable plausibilities towards a given line of thought. It is considered to be enough that they are in accord with the tendencies of the age, and in harmony with the great time-spirit, who, as these philosophers teach, has usurped the throne of the Eternal and Omnipotent God. A few words will suffice to sketch in general · outline this system, and at the same time to show how widely it prevails. It is assumed that God is not or cannot be known to be, and as philosophy is phenomenology, it starts with matter in the state in which it is possible for the mind first to detect it. Space is filled with incandescent gas, star-dust, from which the sidereal systems are evolved. This view, for the correctness of which many arguments are adduced, receives additional weight from the study of our own planet, which, beginning as an incandescent mass, has during long ages been gradually cooling. When life first appears, it is in its lowest forms, and there is progression up to man. To this point it is maintained the astronomer and the geologist are able to conduct us. The zoologist now comes to trace the descent of man, as the geologist has followed the evolution of the globe, and Mr. Darwin and others find that he has been developed by natural processes from the lowest forms of life. The question of man's special endowments thus presents itself, and the psychologist attempts to show that thought is transformed sensation, and will transformed emotion, as man is a transformed animal.

The principle of evolution is applied to the history of language and of races in philology and ethnology, and these sciences are made auxiliary to the new theories. The sociologist next appears to unravel the infinitely complicated and intricate network of human relations, and to point out how this marvellous and entangled scheme is but the product of a few rudimentary instincts. And finally, the philosopher of history proposes to account for the whole life and all the achievements of the human race by the aid of fatalistic laws. Given the race, and its surroundings, and impulse, and he will offer you a mechanical rule by which you will be able to explain everything, religion, literature, and social institutions. It would, of course, be beside my present purpose to stop to point out the absurdities and the gaps in all this, but what I wish to call attention to is the fact that this is a way of looking at the universe, and that little or nothing is gained by insisting upon errors in detail or by showing that certain data of science are in accord with

་

revealed truth. The fault is radical and universal, and the only effective method of dealing with it is to be sought in a comprehensive philosophy, which starting from a true theory of knowledge will embrace the whole range of science, and by correcting the false interpretations of its data, will educate men and lead them to see that a theory of the universe which excludes God is not only unintelligible but destructive of the essential principles of reason. The intellectual difficulties with which the present generation of believers have to contend, as Dr. Newman is reported to have said, are greater than in any past age. It is not possible to laugh at our adversaries unless we are content to make ourselves ridiculous. In matters of this kind sarcasm and vituperation are not only out of place, but are no better than the language of the devil. Smart hits intended for the crowd fail of effect even with the masses.

That in the end, and after never so much science and theory, the perfect wisdom of humble and trusting faith will be made only the more evident is in no way doubtful; but in the meantime Catholics may not stand as idle lookers-on, and as though they had no part or concern in this mighty and painful conflict.

It was a principle with St. Ignatius of Loyola that a Christian should have the faith which hopes everything from God, and then act as though he expected nothing except from his own exertions.

No maxim could be more appplicable to the emergency of which I am writing. I know that our blessed Lord is with his Church, and that he can turn our ignorance and supineness to the good of those who love him. I know that whatever we may do we are useless servants. The prayer of the humble is better than the thoughts of the learned, and a great saint is able to do a holier work than the most perfectly cultivated genius.

All this is indisputable, and one benefit to be hoped for from a higher culture would be the power to realize more truly what we are so ready to admit in theory. My words, if addressed to those devout and saintly souls who with unutterable groanings raise to God the voice of prayer which penetrates the heavens, would be an impertinence. It may well be that were it not for these just ones we should all perish. My thought is lower and is intended for those who, in the midst of a thousand imperfections, feel that they are better fitted to fight in the plain below than to lift up hands of supplication on the holy mount.

The issue indeed is in God's keeping, but we must strive to quit ourselves like men, and as though all depended upon our skill and courage. Without thorough training and mental discipline we shall only cumber the ground and block the way.

Now, the best culture of the intellect has for three centuries been

made impossible to Catholics who speak English, and even yet it can hardly be said to be within our reach. If we see fit, however, to make use of the means which are in our hands we can hasten the day when it will be attainable. To speak the truth frankly, the Catholics of the United States are in this respect the very last to show a disposition to take advantage of their providential opportunities. Ireland has its university, England has its university, Canada has its university, and we have nothing but the old Latin school, founded nearly a century ago. If Americans in general are justly chargeable with lack of culture, may not this charge be brought home with even greater force to American Catholics? What other proof of this is needed than our self-complacency? We speak of our numbers as though the kingdom of God consisted in numbers, and as though the increase of the Catholic population were not merely a part of a general and wider growth. We boast of our schools, and do not think it necessary to stop to inquire what they really are or what kind of education they give. We dwell with pride upon the number of churches which have been built, and the number of dioceses which have been organized, as if this were not a certain consequence of the influx and outspread of a vast Catholic population. We praise the devotedness and generosity of our Catholics as though this were not chiefly the blossoming of the faith of a people who have suddenly escaped into the open air of freedom from the bitter night of three centuries of martyrdom.

This self-complacent temper does not dispose men to take a wide and enlightened view of the wants of the Church. So long as we are content with a progress for which we deserve little credit, and which is often more apparent than real, there is small hope that any serious effort will be made to create a higher spiritual and intellectual life among our Catholic people.

THE PRESENT POLITICAL CONDITION OF IRELAND. Acta et Decreta Synodi Plenaria Episcoporum Hibernie Habitæ apud Maynutiam, An. MDCCCLXXV. Dublin: Typis Browne et Nolan, MDCCCLXXVII.

The Speeches and Public Letters of the Liberator. By M. F. Cusack. Dublin: McClaghan & Gill, 50 Upper Sackville Street, 1875. 2 vols.

The Miscellaneous Works of the Rt. Hon. Sir James Mackintosh. Three vols., complete in one. Boston: Phillips, Sampson & Co., 1856. New Ireland. By A. M. Sullivan, M.P. P. F. Collier, 1878.

WE purpose in this paper to offer a sketch of the present

political state of Ireland. This we are well aware is a delicate task, owing to the conflicting aims of the different political parties. “A good book," says Count de Maistre, "is not one that satisfies everybody, otherwise there never would be a good book; a good book is one which satisfies the reader of the good faith of the author and of the labor he has taken to master his subject, and, if possible, to present it under a new aspect." In something of this spirit we sit down to write. We do not propose to set forth and advocate any line of action of our own, but rather to give that acted or being acted upon by others. If the writer has any political leanings, they will leak out in the course of this article.

During the last eighteen years of the last century Ireland was acknowledged to be an independent country-the declaration ran that "the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland should alone make laws for Ireland." Delusive phrase! The King of Ireland was the king of England. Who were the Lords? Not the old aristocracy to whom the Irish used to look up with pride. Sixty years before, Swift in his sarcastic way said that the real nobility of Ireland could be found in the "Liberties "—that is the poorest parts of Dublin. Most of the Lords were men who owed their elevation not to great services rendered to their country, but were rather like Lord Clare, whose father Fitzgibbon was a Catholic in humble sphere, but did not follow in the footsteps of his ancestors, who "chose to suffer persecution with the people of God rather than have the pleasure of sin for a time." Who were the Commons? Not men elected to represent the views and interests of the country. Of three hundred members, two-thirds were the nominees of about one hundred persons. Thus the King, Lords, and Commons of Ireland formed a Parliament almost without a constituency. Yet unreal as it was, such is the potency of home rule of any sort, that during