usual course. Socrates persevered; and even went the length of remarking, that if a cowherd under whose care cows grew fewer and thinner was a bad one, much more was a governor who lessened the happiness and the number of the citizens. Anxious to make a tool of the sage, they commanded him and four others-among whom was Meletus, afterwards the accuser of Socrates-to bring Leon of Salamis to Athens. The others went on their message; Socrates went home. Of this act he says-in Plato's "Apology"--that he did it, "caring not a jot for death;" and indeed, on account of it, he "might have been put to death, if that government had not speedily broken up." The only recorded instance of opposition to their tyranny is this of Socrates, to whom, once more, it is permitted, in the interests of justice and in protest for the right, to be alone. "The inflexible resistance of Socrates," says Grote, “stands as a worthy parallel to his conduct as Prytanes, in the public assembly held on the conduct of the generals after the battle of Arginuse."* Democracy was restored in Athens early in 403 B.C., and Socrates escaped for that time.

Office-less, unpaid for teaching, courting no applause, fearing no frown, undepressed by failure, unelated by change, holding duty as the supreme law of life, and morals as the holiest wealth of nations, this man-in some measure the De Foe of antiquity-offended many, conciliated none, pleased few; but these few were grappled to his soul with hooks of steel, and in their hearts the deepest reverence of discipleship and the keenest fervour of love were felt for him. He was the morning-star of their intellectual heaven; the pilot of their souls towards truth; the seedsman to whom the afterharvest of their thoughts was due. Of his thoughts, contrasted with his Silenic outward form, Alcibiades affirms-"They are so supremely beautiful, so golden, so divine and wonderful, that everything which Socrates commands ought assuredly to be obeyed, even like the voice of a god."+ Yet all the while envy was working itself into traditions round" the old man eloquent ;" and as he had acquired the dangerous eminence of noticeablity-which forms a tacit yet continuous irk and reproof to the soul of the mediocre, and excites the jealousy of that dangerous passion, egotism, so as to convince it that it cannot permit, with impunity, the growth of a fame so destructive of democratic equality as that of a self-constituted critic of men, manners, and events, because it might imperil the reign of noodledom-envy was heated to a tenfold warmth of patriotic conservatism, and found it necessary to denounce the guileless, guiltless benefactor of Athens; so that, in 399 B.C., he was summoned before the court of the Heliasta (judges chosen by lot from the people) as a disbeliever in the gods, and a corrupter of youth, and had, as he says himself, to " come, for the first time, before a court of justice, though more than seventy years of age."

* Vol. viii. part ii. chap. lxv. p. 332.

† Plato's "Symposium."

The accusations read thus:-"Meletus, son of Meletus, of Pittea, impeaches Socrates, the son of Sophroniscus, of Alopece. Socrates is guilty, for he does not believe in the gods whom the city worships, but introduces other new deities. Again, he is guilty, for he corrupts young men. The punishment incurred is death."

Meletus was a dramatist, whose tragedies are now only known of by the ridicule with which Aristophanes pilloried them; yet he opposed Euripides, the friend of Socrates-who had the repute of helping the most speculative and philosophic of Attic tragedians: he was also one of the captors of Leon, of Salamis; and may have had other causes of enmity. Concurrents with him in the accusation-but by his request-were Lycon, a public orator, and Anytus, a tanner, a demagogue, a magistrate, one of those who aided in the expulsion of the Thirty-and on many accounts a personal enemy to Socrates, who had now outlived many of his powerful friends, and most of those who knew the nature of his life-long labours. Many enmities had been evoked by his style of bantering men of reputation, so as to show up their real ignorance; many calumnies had arisen round him, because people construed his disproof of others' wisdom into an underhand assertion of his own; and besides, he was poor, and of no estimation by the possession of political office and--an example was needed to terrify Sophists, and to keep down censors. Self-conceit plays sad havoc with justice; self-examination is far less agreeable than self-satisfaction; and irony is so different from the complimentary flatteries which men love. To be told and shown that "well-doing" is the duty of man, and is the only true secret for attaining to " well-being," is so disagreeably suggestive of ill-doing as the source of Athenic woe, that the man who pushes it continually into the foreground of conversation and consciousness is sure to incur popular odium and antipathy; so that Meletus had well calculated the likelihoods before he issued his indictment.

Socrates appeared before the bar. Lysias, a graceful and elegant orator, prepared a defence for him; but this he haughtily rejected, saying," My whole life forms my defence against this present accusation." He defended himself as one confident in his integrity, and careless of the humours of the judges-holding his superiority to fear of death before them, and expressing fear only of their disgrace and degradation. It was a deliberate foregoing of all chance of acquittal. He was found guilty; but that only by a majority of six in a total of 557. Meletus prosecuted for the penalty; and Socrates refused to plead for its remission. He again stood solitary in the superiority of his nature, and in his reverence for law and duty. Jocularly he submitted that, as a public benefactor, he should be decreed subsistence for life in the Prytanæum; then suggested a fine of a mina (£3 5s.), but raised it, at the desire of his friends, Plato, Crito, Critobulus, Apollodorus, &c., to thirty minæ. The proud independence and contumacy of his manner inflamed his judges to rage; and he was condemned to be surren

66

dered to the eleven"-a euphemism for death. He addressed his judges with calm irony, intrepid resignation, pious exhortation, and sage advice. He asserted the injustice of his sentence; and closed with a discourse on death. After that, he concluded by saying, "Now, however, it is time to go-me to die, you to live; to which of us the better fate is assigned is known to God alone." He was fettered and imprisoned, and next day would have been executed, but that the festival Theoria-during which it was unlawful to put criminals to death-had begun the day before. Thirty days elapsed before its return. All this time he was kept in chains, though his friends had free access to him, and visited him regularly. Crito had bribed the gaoler to allow him to escape; but of this he declined to take advantage, because it was a breach of the law. A great part of his doctrinal teaching was uttered during these days. He seemed-like the setting sun-to flash a brighter radiance forth nearest the hour of his departure. The day on which he drank the fatal draught was suitably spent in discoursing on "the immortality of the soul." Having taken a tender farewell of his wife Xantippe, and of his children-three sons, one advanced in years, and two of whom had only reached their unripe boyhood-and having had them kindly conveyed from the prison-house, his chains being stricken off, he conversed seriously and affectingly with his friends-among whom were Crito and his son Critobulus, Æschines, Euclides, Antisthenes, &c. Plato was absent, because unwell. In the "Phædo" of that philosopher an account of this last day is given; but the arguments are supposed to be the pupil's, rather than the master's. The dying speech of Cyrus, in Xenophon's splendid historico-fiction, Cyropedia, is thought by critics to be a nearer and closer version of the opinions of the great humanist. The minister of death approached apologetically, and announced that the hour of doom was near. cup was brought-accepted-its contents were quaffed. The sun stood on the mountain-top as he lay down. The ice-chill supineness of Death crept up his frame apace. His friends wept. He mildly rebuked them. His heart beat slow and hesitantly. He stirred, and said, “Crito, we owe a cock to Esculapius." His eye glazed; the executioner covered him, for he was dead. The sun set,

"Like an ear of corn

Full ripe he fell, on nature's noblest plan
He lived to reason; and he died a man."

The

"This was the end of our friend; a man, we may say, the best of all his time that we have known; and, moreover, the wisest and most dutiful."*

[We have not thought it necessary in this paper to speak of the Damon of Socrates; nor have we ventured on any prologue or epilogue of reflections. In a subsequent paper on the Philosophy of Socrates, we shall return to the consideration of the influences of the life and thoughts of this renowned dialogist.]

*Plato's "Phædo," par. 155.

Religion.

IS THE CATHOLIC RULE OF FAITH TRUE?

AFFIRMATIVE ARTICLE.-I.

Ir may not be altogether unnecessary to inform new subscribers that this debate is an indispensable counterpart of one which was completed in last month's British Controversialist. I would strongly urge all who have not read that debate, to purchase the last volume and read it, otherwise much that will be said in this and subsequent papers may possibly be unintelligible. To those who have already read the articles as they appeared, I would say, re-peruse them, and give them a diligent reconsideration as a whole.

66

we

It will be seen that one writer, in order to be a consistent Protestant, felt himself constrained to maintain the absurdity that the Old Testament alone is a sufficient Rule of Faith (p. 380); while another was driven to deny the all-sufficiency of the Bible, and to allow that, on the question of the canon of Holy Scripture, must have recourse to the testimony of the ancient churches (p. 301). This is a virtual admission that the Bible cannot instruct us on all points of Christian doctrine and practice. It will be the aim of the writers on the affirmative side of this question to explain and defend a Rule of Faith in which this "testimony of the ancient churches" is recognized as a legitimate principle, a rule by which alone you can steer clear of the difficulties which have been urged against the Bible only” theory.

66

But first of all it will be necessary to state our Rule of Faith. I do not think there is any subject upon which so much misconception prevails, in this country, as upon the Catholic religion. Most persons who are, as the French say, au fait on a subject-that is, who have a professional and matter-of-fact knowledge of things appertaining to their own state or mode of life-have been led to wonder at the coolness with which people who have not that sort of knowledge undertake to hazard bold assertions on such subjects, or, at any rate, have seen through the shallowness of argument and the incorrectness of statements which are commonly ventured upon by writers who aim at effect rather than at truth. On any other subject than the Catholic Church, men's sense of shame is enough generally to keep them from talking at random. But the critics of our religion have an advantage peculiarly their own, in the deep ignorance of the public whom they address. Their statements pass

current in England, because the generality of people are about as wise as themselves. If a man talk nonsense about public affairs, he is soon put down, because there are, on every side, others with information and good sense enough to expose him. But to misrepresent Catholics in this country is no difficult matter; for all ears are ready to drink in the abuse, and equally deaf to the defence.

I make these remarks in order to try to induce those readers who have imbibed their ideas concerning the nature of the Catholic Rule of Faith from hostile sources, to lay them aside, or, at all events, to test their accuracy by Catholic sources. It may surprise some to be told that some of the Protestant writers, in the last debate, ventured upon some most glaring misrepresentations, knowing full well that there were opponents to contradict them. Thus H. B. charges J. H. with saying that "the Bible is the prolific source of every heresy and blasphemy;" while the writer referred to merely said that private interpretation of the Bible was the source, &c. Other charges are worse still. It would really seem incredible, if the facts were not before our eyes, that men of education and competent acquirements should bring themselves to believe that others, of equal education and acquirements, should deliberately offer to the Blessed Virgin the worship due to God alone; that they believe they will be saved by works only; and that they have adopted a religion in which licences to commit sin are regularly granted to its adherents. Yet all these charges have been brought against the Catholic Church by the Protestant writers in the religious debate in the last volume of the British Controversialist.

These considerations have prompted me to devote the opening paper to an explanation of the Catholic Rule of Faith, leaving the defence to future writers. This course is the more necessary, as the rule is not defined in the question at the head of the debate; and I fear that very few of my Protestant readers would take the trouble to ascertain its nature from a reliable source.

Subjoined is the decree of the Council of Trent on the Rule of Faith (Sess. iv.) :

"Sacrosancta œcumenica et generalis Tridentina Synodus, in Spiritu sancto legitime congregata, præsidentibus in ea eisdem tribus apostolicæ sedis legatis, hoc sibi perpetuo ante oculos proponens, ut, sublatis erroribus, puritas ipsa Evangelii in Ecclesia conservetur; quod promissum ante per prophetas in Scripturis sacris (Jerem. 51) Dominus noster Jesus Christus, Dei filius, proprio ore primum promulgavit, deinde per suos apostolos, tanquam fontem omnis et salutaris veritatis et morum disciplinæ, omni creaturæ prædicari jussit (Matt. et Marc. ult); perspiciensque hanc veritatem et disciplinam contineri in libris scriptis et sine scripto traditionibus, quæ ab ipsius Christi ore ab apostolis acceptæ aut (2 Thess. ii.)`ab ipsis apostolis, Spiritu sancto dictante, quasi per manus traditæ, ad nos usque pervenerunt, orthodoxorum patrum exempla secuta, omnes libros tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti (quam utriusque unus Deus sit auctor) necnon Traditiones ipsas, tum ad fidem, tum ad mores pertinentes, tanquam vel ore tenus a Christo, vel a Spiritu sancto dictatas et continua successione in Ecclesia Catholica conservatas, pari pietatis affectu ac reverentia suscipit et veneratur."