eminently plebeian religion. It is the law of emancipation and of grace for all; it secures to the whole human race the right to liberty and equality. Its spirit was misunderstood in the middle age, and it is vain to imagine that mankind can be satisfied by the restoration of medieval institutions. It is the perfect and final religion. It is the permanent and inexhaustible source of progress. Within it there is room for the utmost possible progress. "Fundamentally and in itself, indeed, religion is not, and cannot be, progressive. But in the measure that time moves on, the veils fall, the seals of the sacred book are broken, a new spirit bursts forth from under the letter of the old texts, and things appear under an altogether fresh light."

Ballanche supposed the material of all truth to be a sacred tradition, which, while ever substantially the same, was also ever varying. He fully accepted the doctrine that language was a revelation; that it had been directly and immediately taught by God to the first man; that the words of God were what originally communicated thoughts to man; but he insisted on the gradual alteration and development both of the contents and form of this revelation, both of language itself and the spiritual truths it conveyed; and even divided the whole movement of history into epochs corresponding to the chief phases through which language had passed. First, language was merely spoken. This was when man was in his naive and graceful childhood, when all the world around him appeared in the colours of poetry, when religion was an intuition and inspiration, when reflection had scarcely dawned and speculation and doubt were unknown, and when song was the common channel by which the divine word passed from heart to heart. In this stage the sacred deposit of spiritual truth transmitted in language was in imminent danger of being corrupted, owing to the vague and unfixed character of its medium or form or vehicle, and society had to be distributed into castes, with priests and poets specially set apart to preserve and diffuse it in purity and power. But beautiful and graceful as the childhood of the race is, it must, like that of the individual, be outgrown. In the course of time thought ceases to be mere intuition, poetry, and faith; it becomes reflective, regular, and less grace

ful, but more powerful and mature; and can, consequently, no longer be left to be merely uttered by the voice, merely spoken, but must be fixed in a visible and more permanent form, must be written as well as spoken. In this second stage of tradition, which is also the second great epoch of history, the priest and poet no longer suffice, and the philosopher rises to interpret or question their message and share in their authority. At the same time authority is weakened by being divided, inquiry spreads, activity finds new channels, and knowledge grows from more to more. Writing even perfected to the utmost is at length found insufficient to contain and convey the wealth of experience and ideas which has been acquired, and a new art is sought and discovered to satisfy the new demands which have arisen. Thenceforth thought is not only spoken and written, but also printed. It has reached its majority and stands no longer in need of protection. It claims the completest freedom within the limits of reason and justice, and will, sooner or later, inevitably secure it. All castes and class privileges will disappear. All will know the truth, and the truth will make them free. Those who attempt to obstruct humanity on its march towards its goal-the realisation of rational freedom -must fail and be put to shame. Such is the general formula of historical development suggested by M. Ballanche. It implies that history is a progressive movement or growth, ever advancing and spreading into a broader liberty, always tending towards perfect freedom in every phase of life.

Ballanche recognises in history the combination of liberty and necessity; of the free agency of individuals and the determinating influence of the social medium. He insists at once on the importance of personal initiation and on the conditioning and constraining power of the collective movement; both on the ability of men to create and shape the future for themselves, and on the certainty that every future will necessarily correspond to the past and present from which it proceeds. Like Hegel and Cousin he ascribes a vast historical importance to great personalities revealers and initiators, prophets and heroes; like them also he attributes their influence and significance not to what isolates and individualises them, but to what unites them with their fellows and renders

them the fitting instruments and organs of the spirit of their age and people.

He does not confine his views of the future of humanity to the present world, but represents the souls of men as passing after death through many lives in many worlds, gradually raising themselves by their own efforts into ever nobler lives in ever brighter worlds, until they reach at length the glory which is immutable, where progress must cease. This portion of his teaching-his doctrine of metempsychosis—took root in the minds of Pierre Leroux and Jean Reynaud, and reappeared in their writings.

III.

The Revolution of 1830 was a heavy blow to ecclesiastical as well as to political absolutism. In striking down the latter it terrified the former into silence. It compelled the admirers of theocratic despotism to understand that an open advocacy of their cause was in the then state of public opinion the worst method of serving it. Accordingly they retired into obscurity, kept quiet, and waited for an opportune season when they could reappear. The place from which they had withdrawn was occupied by the Liberal or Neo-Catholic party, which had been forming and growing for a considerable time previous to 1830, but which only became conspicuous and influential when its natural ally, constitutional monarchy, triumphed over absolute monarchy. It was a party generous in its aims, full of hope and courage, lavish in promises, and eager for action. Its chiefs were brilliantly gifted, thoroughly sincere, nobly self-denying, and inspired with the enthusiasm both of patriotism and of piety. Their followers, largely composed of the brightest and best of the youth of France, were every way worthy of such leaders as Lamennais, Lacordaire, and Ozanam, as Montalembert, De Falloux, and De Broglie.

What this party had in view was to help to bring back into the fold of the Church those who had withdrawn from it, to secure and set forth the harmony of Catholic doctrine and of modern science, and to reconcile the claims of the hierarchy with the rights of the laity and the liberties of nations. It

was certainly a grand and most desirable end; one which all who believed it attainable were clearly bound to strive to reach. And although to realise it was even then manifestly a most arduous task, it was not yet a wholly visionary and hopeless one. The disastrous pontificate of Pius IX., the Syllabus, the decreeing of the Infallibility of the Pope as a dogma, were still in the future. But it is easy to see why the work so earnestly attempted failed, and failed so utterly that intelligent men are never likely to undertake it again. The Church had for ages been departing from truth, justice, and liberty, and could only return to them by an act of self-humiliation hardly to be expected from any great world-power, and especially from one which claimed to have immunity from error. The interests of those who ruled it were directly opposed to restoring to the lower clergy and the laity the rights of which they had deprived them, and which they were able to retain by their absolute command of the administration and resources of the Church. The great majority of the Catholic laity were too ignorant and superstitious to take the side of enlightenment and independence. Many even of the educated and intelligent minority held aloof from the new movement, either because they doubted of the practicability of its aims, or because they feared lest the freedom which was sought for the Church would be employed by it to the injury of the State. And, further, the advocates of Liberal Catholicism were not themselves prepared to assert their principles in opposition to an express condemnation of them by the Pope. With the exception of Lamennais, they were all found at the critical moments afraid to incur for their convictions the risk of excommunication, the danger of losing their souls through separation from the Church. But the Pope and hierarchy must always prove too strong for those who are thus afraid of their condemnation.

While the Liberal Catholic movement utterly failed to attain the ends towards which it reached, it is not to be supposed that it was wholly in vain. It greatly stimulated intellectual activity and quickened spiritual life while it lasted; and good effects of it remain. The truths contended for by those who took part in it may, even where dormant and buried now, yet "awake to perish never."

One incidental result of it was the production of various historical works which have been widely read, and which have had considerable influence on public opinion. Viewed generally, these works are, as regards style, remarkably eloquent; as regards spirit, ardently in sympathy with what is noble and good; and want only critical thoroughness and impartiality to be excellent. With the exception of eloquence, there is little to commend in the Vie de Saint-Dominique,' 1840, of the famous Christian orator, Lacordaire. It conceals the ferocious fanaticism of the persecutor in order to glorify the piety of the ascetic. It is disappointing to find that so one-sided and unfair a book could be written by so eminent a man. The 'Vie de St Elisabeth' of Montalembert is a beautiful piece of literary composition, but scarcely to be regarded as a biography at all. Its author overlooked the proper sources of information, gave credence to legend, and allowed free scope to his feelings and imagination. Hence a very erroneous representation of the facts as to Elisabeth, and an ignoring of the baneful influence of the infamous Conrad of Marburg, papal inquisitor-general, upon her nature and happiness.1 Montalembert's chief work, 'Histoire des Moines d'Occident,' 6 vols., is of high value. It is the fruit of lengthened and sympathetic study. Its subject is one of great interest and importance, and amply worthy of the eloquence and learning devoted to its treatment. It is avowedly apologetic in aim, "intended to vindicate the glory of one of the greatest institutions of Christianity;" but that it should be so is much better than if it had been hostile and depreciatory. The reader, however, who wishes to distinguish fact from legend in it must do so by the continuous exercise of his own critical faculty, as the author is very sparing in the exercise of his. Ozanam was richly endowed with the best qualities of a historian. Although an early death prevented his executing more than some parts of the great work which he had planned, these amply prove his right to be ranked among the best historical writers of his country. His 'Histoire de la Civilisation au 5° siècle,' 1889, and 'Études Germaniques,' 1847-49, are the products of rare mental and of accurate and extensive research. Although a desire to do apologetic

1 For proof see Wegele's art., "Die heilige Elisabeth von Thüringen," in v. Sybel's Hist. Zt.,' Bd. v., 1861.