At last, however, it is better to point out what Dr. M'Devitt has implied; viz., that this REVIEW, notwithstanding its name, has no special connection with Ireland. Of course any Catholic periodical, published in these kingdoms, should pay careful attention to Irish matters, because Ireland is the only Catholic one of the three. But the DUBLIN REVIEW is no more an Irish publication, than the "Edinburgh Review" is a Scotch. A Review, called the "Edinburgh," is published in London by Longman; and another, called the "Dublin," is published in London by Burns. Accordingly our theological censors are responsible to the Archbishop, not of Dublin, but of Westminster. Neither Archbishop Cullen nor any other Irish Bishop is more responsible for whatever may appear in our pages, than for what may appear in the "Monde" or the "Correspondant."

From the mention of one Quarterly we pass to that of another. We observe with great pleasure, that Dr. Sullivan has inserted copious extracts from an admirable article on Irish University Education, which appeared in the "Home and Foreign Review" for January, 1863. We are delighted that he is in agreement with it; for it is to our mind conspicuous, not more for its great ability, than for the remarkable soundness and religiousness of its principles. The former qualification was very far oftener found in the pages of that periodical than the latter; but this article unites both in an unusual degree. Dr. Sullivan, however, almost seems to imply that this particular article, in tone, temper, and opinion, is a fair representative of the Review in which it appeared. If he does mean this, we must express our own earnest dissent from such a judgment, but have no wish to pursue the dis

cussion.

The following admirable passage is one of those extracted by Dr. Sullivan from this article ::

It would require too large a space to carry out an enquiry as to the character of the education which is given in these institutions, even to those who complete their university course; it is enough to say, that modern history is not taught, and that if it were, the religious sense of some of the pupils would infallibly be offended. Catholic youths could not be required to listen to Protestant versions of that period,

"When love first taught a monarch to be wise,

And gospel truth looked forth from Boleyn's eyes;"

and the witness which history, impartially investigated, bears to the position and prerogatives of the Holy See could not be listened to by Protestant

students without danger to some of their religious opinions. Some attempt, we believe, is made to teach moral philosophy. We do not envy the professor who approaches the sciences which have reference to freedom of the will, the law of duty, and the other subjects treated of by Locke, Clarke, Reid, Cousin, and those other philosophers to whose works reference is made in the examination-questions at the several Queen's Colleges, with a sincere desire to avoid everything that can be offensive either to Protestant or to Catholic ears. In point of fact, the examination-papers appended to the reports of the presidents of the colleges show that even controversial questions are not avoided. We give a single example: "Wherein did Anthony Collins and Jonathan Edwards agree, and wherein did they differ, as to freedom of the will?" Are the works of Jonathan Edwards suitable reading for Catholic students? They are pre-eminently controversial; and their end and object is to teach ultra-Calvinism. In one word, moral philosophy and metaphysics cannot be properly taught in mixed colleges, any more than history and theology. To abstract these sciences from education is to go against the authority of all ages, against the practice of all countries, and to take away the best and most effectual means of developing the intellectual faculties and forming the mind of youth. "Infelix operis summâ, quia ponere totum nesciet," is the motto which ought to be placed over the gates of the Queen's Colleges.

And his own remarks to the same effect are no less striking and important.

Neither can there be a Catholic or Protestant logic, metaphysics, ethics, philosophic history, or political economy; for the rational sciences are, all alike, the inseparable inheritance of human reason, wherever it is to be found, as truth itself is one and indivisible. But these sciences have this special characteristic, that, unlike the physical sciences, they do not induce from the phenomena of sensible experience, but deduce from premises of a wholly different order, and concerning which any amount of plausible error may happen to be assumed. For this reason, precisely, the authorities of the Catholic Church were desirous of having such subjects taught to Catholics by persons in whose opinions they could have confidence, and whose knowledge of Catholic doctrines they considered sound. So long as any one admits the principle of a Church, he must admit the reasonableness of this demand. The opponent of all Churches, and the advocate of emancipation from all religious authority, does not, of course, admit such a right on the part of any clergy; but he must admit the right of persons to hold any opinion they choose, and to educate their children as they think fit. To substitute the opinion of the State, which is the opinion of a certain number, for that of the parent, would be tyranny, and worse than any spiritual tyranny. If Catholics, then, choose to admit the right of the clergy to have an influence upon the mode of teaching those subjects which are intimately associated with, nay, perfectly inseparable from, religious dogma, they are perfectly entitled to do so (pp. 24, 5).

Dr. Sullivan then frankly admits that "logic, metaphysics,

ethics, philosophical history, political economy," are all “intimately associated with, nay perfectly inseparable from, religious dogma." It is plain that if all these subjects are absolutely inseparable from dogma, ecclesiastical authority is of right no less simply supreme in deciding how they shall be taught to Catholics, than in deciding what theological course shall be given to clerical students. Yet we find Dr. Sullivan, immediately after the previous extract, saying (p. 25), that "the Irish bishops and clergy" have "overstepped the limits of their own province." But how can this be so, even on his own showing? It is their exclusive function to preserve from injury the Deposit of Faith; and Dr. Sullivan admits that the Deposit of Faith is not more injured by false teaching on theology itself, than by false teaching on "logic, metaphysics, ethics, philosophical history, and political economy." But, in fact, it is even more vitally injured by the latter than by the former; because the evil is so incomparably more subtle, and more difficult therefore of detection and denunciation.

Here, then, we part company with Dr. Sullivan. All our readers are well aware of his great eminence in the cultivation of physical science; but his present pamphlet will show them that his intellectual power extends over a far wider range. The work is characterized throughout by great ability and thoughtfulness; and we would particularly recommend to attention its comments, on the different manifestations of public opinion in Catholic Ireland, and on the weight respectively due to them. His narrative of facts also is extremely complete and valuable; and some gross mistakes of Mr. Whittle's are put right. "Talis cùm sit, utinam noster esset." Dr. Sullivan writes in so Christian a spirit, with such largeness of view, such unflagging power, and such full information, that it is very painful to be reminded from time to time, by some harsh and jarring expression, that he is not one of those who yield that absolutely unreserved assent to the Church's whole body of teaching, which we claim as her due.

Dr. M'Devitt's is, in fact, the only one of the three pamphlets, with which we can express unreserved sympathy and agreement. It meets Mr. Whittle's arguments and assertions one by one, and signally overthrows that shallow and pretentious writer. The following extract both is in itself important, and also affords an excellent specimen of our author's mode of doing business.

Thus his argument rests entirely on a fact, and will of course stand or fall with it: viz., that the Catholic bishops and those who have acted with them

in their efforts towards the establishment of the Catholic University hold the doctrine which Mr. Whittle calls "Ultramontanism," and that this doctrine is the principle, the beginning, and the end, of their action in the matter. If, then, this "Ultramontanism," which he has described as a fact, is, in truth, a fiction, his entire argument breaks down.

Mr. Whittle makes an assertion, definite, clear, distinct. He asserts with much emphasis the existence of a public fact here in our own country, Ireland, in our own time, and under our own eyes. He describes for us with abundant fulness a doctrine, or "set of principles," which he calls "Ultramontanism," and which he tells us is the creed and principle of what he terms the "Ultramontane" party-a party which is a formidable power in this country. He gives the names of the leading "Ultramontanes" in Ireland; they are the Irish Catholic bishops, and such members of Parliament as have their support at elections, and such gentlemen of the press as they are able to influence.

It is, then, fortunate that we have not to go up to the skies or to cross the seas to look for a test of the truth of this statement. For as the bishops and the members of parliament and the gentlemen of the press are all well known to the public, Mr. Whittle has had no better opportunities of knowing their principles than any other man in the country who has been a careful observer of passing events. Now we have failed to see any reason for saying, that these gentlemen have been what he describes as "Ultramontanes." He is bound to prove his assertion. The plain way by which he could show that he has represented their opinions truly, would be to get from each of them an affirmative answer to the following queries, which contain the principles he has ascribed to them. I take them word for word from his pamphlet.

1. Do you hold "that the Church is the heaven-appointed ruler of the earth and all it contains"?

2. Do you hold that "what men call law, liberty, philosophy, are but the creatures of their own licentious imaginations"?

3. Do you "regard human reason as the great ignis fatuus of man,” and that "freedom of thought, freedom of action, were new and terrible inventions"?

4. Do you "profess antagonism to our whole social system"?

5. Do you teach our unhappy people "that there is no safety for their souls but in keeping everything English at a distance"?

6. Do you hold that " were it possible to extirpate Protestants or independent Catholics here by extreme measures, the Church would be bound to proceed, if necessary, to the persecutious of the Inquisition" ?

7. Do you think it right and proper, when useful for the cause of Ultramontanism, to "mutilate or interpolate" authors? and to have recourse to an "ingenious falsification of history"?

Is our author willing to take their answers to these questions as the true verdict on his assertion? If he is, I shall gladly abide by the decision. But if he will stick to his statement, in spite of anything these gentlemen themselves may say to the contrary, he is bound to produce clear and decisive evidence of the truth of his assertion, otherwise he is open to a condemnation VOL. VII.—NO. XIII. [New Series.]

H

from every man of honour more severe than anything I will say of him (pp. 11-13).

In regard to the question itself of the arrangement contemplated by the Irish Episcopate and the English Governmentas between Catholic and Catholic, we can well understand there being two opinions on its advisableness; but, as between Catholic and Protestant, the objections raised against it (we can use no milder word) are simply shameless.

When we say that, as between Catholic and Catholic, two opinions are possible, we mean this. The present scheme is avowedly a compromise. The Irish bishops have abandoned what they think a higher ideal-viz., a chartered Catholic University-for what, under present circumstances, they hold to be more attainable, or more desirable, or both. Considering that they act in fullest communication with Rome-and considering also the various conditions of the problem-we quite believe that in this they judge correctly. Still it is imaginable that a good Catholic may think otherwise; though, of course, now that the bishops have determined their course, he would not dream of publicly obtruding an opposite opinion.

All this is intelligible enough. But what amazes and disgusts us, is the opposition with which certain liberals have encountered the proposal; nay, and on the very ground_of their liberal principles. Nothing can be clearer than Dr. M'Devitt's arguments, or more simply unanswerable.

In the case of Ireland the population is divided into two great and distinct bodies, Catholics and non-Catholics, the Catholics being an immense majority. Among both classes there are some who have no objection to go for their education to institutions established on the mixed principle; but the great bulk of the nation have a decided objection to this system. Thus the most important section of the non-Catholic body, and almost the whole of the Catholic body, have always shown a partiality for the denominational system. The statesman may regret that there is not a wider preference for the mixed system, still he cannot but take the fact as he finds it. Now the Legislature has determined that such a provision shall be made for first-class education, as will meet the wants of the entire body of the Irish nation. And as the systems are made for the people, and not the people for the systems, is it to be wondered at if a statesman should think it better, on the whole, to give them the institutions for which they have so decided a preference? Then those Irishmen, of whatever class, who elect the mixed system, have already ample provision in the Queen's Colleges, while those of the Established Church, who prefer the denominational system, have in Trinity College a richly endowed denominational University. The great Catholic body, who have the deepest repugnance to mixed institutions, ask for their Catholic Uni