18. The Review states (ib.) that that "cause [of religious unity] which was the subject of our Redeemer's dying intercession," is "the subject of the DUBLIN'S most bitter and continuous execration." Our Blessed Lord, not indeed when He was dying, but shortly before His death, prayed that all who should believe in Him through the word of the Apostles, might be one, as the Father in Him, and He in the Father: so that the world might know Him to have been sent by God." (John xvii. 20, 21). The Review states that the fulfilment of this prayer is "the subject of our most bitter and continuous execration." It cannot be necessary for us to make any reply. 19. The Review states (ib.) that in commenting on Mr. Ffoulkes we were "too passionate " to remember "that scrupulous fairness in dealing with our enemies," which is "a principle alike of the code of gentlemanly honour and of Gospel morality." Such is not the fact. We are a little surprised, however, that our critic is so confident of his own "scrupulous fairness" in controversy. 20. The Review draws attention (p. 500) to the fact that the Pall Mall Gazette and the John Bull expressed admiration for Mr. Oxenham's work, and implies that we could not, therefore, have been perfectly sincere in expressing so low an estimate of its intellectual merits. With all due deference to such eminent theological authorities, we sincerely differ from their judgment in this particular. 21. The Review states (ib.) that, "with characteristic disingenuousness," we "censure Dean Stanley for ranking Dr. Dollinger with" the authors of "Essays and Reviews." Far from it. We consider the spirit of Dr. Dollinger and his disciples to be in many respects extremely similar to that of the well-known rationalistic volume. But he would himself, of course, earnestly protest against such an opinion; and we said, therefore (p. 153, note), that "Dr. Dollinger will not thank the Dean" for implying it. 22. The Review implies (ib.) that our allegations against Mr. Ffoulkes rest on "garbled extracts and rhetorical flourish." Our extracts are in no respect garbled," but most fairly selected; we volunteered to print a continuous letter of two pages (pp. 140-142), which Mr. Ffoulkes had sent merely for our private perusal; and as to our "rhetorical flourish,' the present writer heartily wishes he had the literary power requisite for such a purpose. 23. The Review states (p. 501) that we gave to Mr. Oxenham's work a "notice" instead of a review," in order that we might inflict on it "a pretty intelligible snub.” Our reason was that our number already contained a controversial review of more than fifty pages. On the other hand, if we had passed over the work in total silence, it would have appeared that we were afraid to face it. The only remaining alternative was a short notice. 24. The Review states that we wished to "strangle" the book instead of "criticising" it. On the contrary, as regarded the deplorable essay on development, we heartily wished we had had more space for doing condign justice to its demerits. 25. The Review states (ib.) that Mr. Oxenham gave his statement concerning the Lord's Prayer not on his own authority, but on Möhler's. He intended (no doubt) to do so; but his asterisk was accidentally misplaced, as our critic would have seen if he had looked. 26. The Review states (ib.) that our notice was "obviously intended" to mislead those who did not read the book. On the contrary, it was intended to assist those who did. 27. "So undisguised is the reviewer's animus throughout," says our critic (ib.), "that one would almost imagine he had a personal rancour against" Mr. Oxenham. On the contrary, personally the present writer much likes him, so far as he has the pleasure of his acquaintance. 28. "Another passage," says the Review (p. 502), “quoted expressly from Dr. Dollinger, is treated by " us as "a statement of Mr. Oxenham's own." Mr. Oxenham heartily appropriated that statement as his own, and, of course, therefore, made himself responsible for (at least) its substantial truth. Has he ever denied-does he now deny-that he intended to express his full concurrence with it? Nay, does our present critic himself deny this? 29. The Review states (ib.) that we have accused Mr. Oxenham "of ignoring, if not denying, the divine, as distinguished from the human element, in the process of doctrinal development." There is not one word of the kind in our whole notice; not one sentence which, by any imaginable interpretation, can be so understood. We challenge our critic to quote, if he dares, one passage of which he will even allege that such is its legitimate sense. It is this imaginary statement of ours which leads him to say, "mentiris impudentissimè." To whom are the words rather applicable? 30. The Review states (p. 503) that we have accused Mr. Oxenham "of ignoring or denying the inspiration of Apostles." We answer precisely as in the last case: we never dreamed of so accusing him. There is another misconception of our meaning, into which our critic has fallen, quite as complete as any of the preceding, but very far more natural and pardonable. In page 149 of our July number this sentence occurs :— An association starts up of which far the larger portion is non-Catholic; and these non-Catholics, as members of the association, give themselves to prayer that the "divided branches of the Catholic Church" may be " reunited." Certain words were here put between inverted commas, to express that it is non-Catholics, and not we, who think that the Church can have divided branches. Our critic (p. 496) has understood us to mean that we were quoting the programme of the A. P. U. C. Nothing, however, was further from our intention; as, indeed, the context will show to any one who carefully reads it. The thirty misstatements, above corrected, occur in an article of nine pages. We will conclude then in the very words in which our critic concludes:-"What must be the character of a system which can only be defended by such weapons, and of the advocates who can stoop to employ them?" (p. 504). 352 ART. III.-CATHOLICISM IN GENEVA. Histoire de M. Vuarin et du Rétablissement du Catholicisme à Genève. Par M. l'Abbé F. Martin, Missionnaire Apostolique, Chanoine Honoraire de Belley, et M. l'Abbé Fleury, Aumônier du Pensionnat de Carouge. 2 vols. Paris: Tolra & Haton. 1862. ᏀᎬ She ENEVA has been called the Protestant Rome. earned this title by the central position she assumed from becoming early the hot-bed and focus of the new doctrines, and the theatre upon which the "Reform," in the person of Calvin, made the experiment of a Protestant theocracy. The polity established by him on this basis was guarded, as is well known, by every severe and rigid precaution which could secure to it such an endurance as is not the appanage of any authority of human origin, however respectable that authority may be, and however admirably adapted to promote the well-being of its subjects and endear itself to their affections; a merit which certainly could not be predicated of the sombre tyranny inaugurated by the ambitious heresiarch of Noyon. The attempt, moreover, to bottle Protestantism, so to say, and preserve and transmit it in its doctrinal integrity, as it issued from the brain of the most uncompromising of the "Reformers," proved a patent failure. The repressing and excluding cork did not save the new religion from those decomposing influences which have been at active work on the system elsewhere; on the contrary, Protestant Geneva, the Geneva which burned Servetus, was notorious for its Socinianism long before most of the other sectarian bodies, which date their existence from Calvin's brother heresiarchs, had lapsed to so great an extent from that measure of Christian truth which they retained at their separation. This is a circumstance commonly known; but, possibly, there is less general acquaintance with the fact that not only was Protestantism wholly indebted to violence for its establishment in Geneva, but that the struggle to extirpate Catholicism was a long one and never entirely successful. The collection of the procès-verbaux of the sittings of the Consistory of Geneva, preserved amongst the archives of that body, fill a hundred and ten goodly volumes, which form the record of its proceedings during three centuries. These important documents are still inaccessible to the public, but some precious specimens of their contents have come forth to light in a work which M. Cramer, a member of the old Genevese aristocracy, printed for very limited circulation in the year 1857, and which is now scarcely to be met with. Always distributed with discretion, it was speedily judged more discreet to withdraw it altogether from the curious eye of the public. The introduction, entitled: "Coup d'œil dans les Mémoires et Documents publiés par la Société d'Histoire et d'Archéologie de Genève," has, however, been published separately by M. Cramer. Couched in an apologetic form, it contains, nevertheless, valuable admissions; but care has been taken to modify and weaken the most compromising passages which had figured in the original. The extracts contained in the suppressed work of M. Cramer from the journal kept by the "Venerable Company," which ruled Church and State in the model Protestant republic, thus afford us a glimpse behind the scenes; and the revelation is truly curious. Written while the matters chronicled had still the freshness of the hour, by men who had neither purpose nor fear that their private diary would ever be made public, not only does this register display their prejudice, injustice, and fanaticism without cloak or disguise, but it has preserved most self-condemnatory facts, daguerreotyped, as it were, with a naïveté which would be astonishing under any other circumstances. The authors of the valuable work whose title we have prefixed to this article, have ransacked these documents and every other available contemporary authority calculated to throw light upon the subject of which they treat, and four points seem now to be abundantly proved:-1. That the Reform was established at Geneva by violence. 2. That even by the help of violence it was not able to strike root without the importation of foreign elements. 3. That for a whole century both the Reform and its promoters were the objects of the profoundest disgust and aversion to the indigenous population. 4. That Catholicism, which had a very sensible existence within the walls of Geneva for a long period subsequent to the Reform, was never wholly extinguished. There is, perhaps, no country in Europe which possesses so few memorials anterior to the epoch of the Reform as the basin of the Leman, thanks to the Bernese troops, whose assistance was invoked to force the new religion on an unwilling population. These ruthless bands did their work by the help of fire and sword. A hundred and forty castles. were burnt to the ground, not to speak of the utter destruction of churches, convents, and every monument of Christian piety. Where these bloody auxiliaries of Calvinism had |