Title: The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Volume 1, March 1865
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Volume 1, March 1865" ***


THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD

MARCH, 1865.



THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND THE BIBLE.


There are few so foolish as to close their eyes against the brilliant
rays of the mid-day sun, and, at the same time, to assert deliberately
that the sun is not yet risen, and that the world is still enveloped in
darkness.

Nevertheless, something like this has been done quite recently by an
estimable Protestant nobleman, who has assured his Irish fellow-countrymen
that the Catholic Church, before the Reformation, "neither furthered
the interests of science nor disseminated the knowledge of God's written
word".[1] There was a time, indeed, when such a calumny would have been
received by the British public with applause, and when it would have
been echoed from Protestant pulpits by the predecessors of Colenso, and
by the ancestors of many who now hold a place in the councils of her
Majesty. But that calumny has been long since abandoned, even by the
enemies of our holy faith. Our assailants have laid aside the mask, and
revealed to the world the important fact, that whilst they clamoured for
the Bible, they were themselves its true enemies; and that, combating
the Church, their secret aim was to sap the foundations of inspired truth,
and thus undermine the very citadel which they pretended to defend. It is
not in England alone, but in France and Italy, and throughout the whole
continent, that this striking fact is seen. Everywhere society presents
the singular phenomenon of a sifting of its elements; and whilst all that
aspires to the supernatural life, or clings to revelation, virtue, or
truth, is gathered into the bosom of our holy Church, all that is without
the Catholic pale is hurried down the inclined plane of Protestantism,
and cast into the abyss of infidelity and rationalism. And yet, in the
face of this social miracle, a Protestant peer is bold enough to assert
that the Catholic Church is opposed to the progress of science and
inspired truth;--thus insulting the memory of his own illustrious
forefathers, and outraging the feelings of his fellow-countrymen. It is
not, however, as a matter of controversy that we wish to enter on the
present inquiry: we wish to view it merely as a matter of pure historic
truth. In a future number we hope to consider the relations of the Church
to science; our remarks to-day will only regard her solicitude during the
ante-Reformation period to diffuse among her children a salutary knowledge
of inspired truth as contained in the Holy Scriptures.

1. The first question that naturally suggests itself is, did the Church
seek to remove the sacred volume from the hands of her own ministers,
that is, of those whom she destined to teach her faithful children, and
to gather all nations into her hallowed fold? The whole daily life of
these sacred ministers of itself responds to such a question. Ask their
diurnal hours, or any page of the daily Liturgy of the Church; ask those
beautiful homilies which were delivered day by day in the abbeys of
Bangor, Westminster, or Certosa, all of which breathe the sweet language
of the inspired text; ask the myriad children of St. Columban, who in
uninterrupted succession, hour by hour, chanted the praises of God in
the accents of holy writ; ask the countless sanctuaries which decked the
hills and valleys not only of our own island, but of every land on which
the light of Christian faith had shone--the peaceful abodes of those who
renounced the world's smiles and vanities to devote themselves to the
service of God, and whose every orison recalled the teaching and the
words of inspired truth. Ask even the medieval hymns published by the
present Protestant Archbishop of Dublin, which, though shorn by the
editor of much of their Catholic beauty, yet bear in each remaining
strophe a deep impress of the language and imagery of the Bible, and prove
to conviction that, so devoted was the Church of the ante-Reformation
period to the study of the inspired text, that the very thoughts of her
clergy, their language, their daily life, seemed to be cast in its sacred
mould.

2. About 1450, long before Lutheranism was thought of, the art of printing
appeared in Europe. Now some of the first efforts, as well of the wooden
were directed to disseminate accurate editions of the Bible: "No book",
says one of the leading Rationalists of Germany, "was so frequently
published, immediately after the first invention of printing, as the
Latin Bible, more than one hundred editions of it being struck off before
the year 1520".[2] And yet the number of editions thus commemorated is
far below the reality. Hain, in his late _Repertorium Bibliographicum_,
printed at Tubingen, reckons consecutively _ninety-eight distinct
editions_ before the year 1500, independently of _twelve other editions_,
which, together with the Latin text, presented the glossa ordinaria or
the postillas of Lyranus. Catholic Venice was distinguished above all
the other cities of Europe for the zeal with which it laboured in thus
disseminating the sacred text. From the year 1475, when the first Venetian
edition appeared, to the close of the century, that city yielded no fewer
than _twenty-two complete editions_ of the Latin Bible, besides some
others with the notes of Lyranus. Many other cities of Italy were alike
remarkable for their earnestness in the same good cause, and we find
especially commemorated the editions of Rome, Piacenza, Naples, Vicenza,
and Brescia.

3. Italy, however, was not only remarkable for the number of its
editions; it deserves still greater praise for the solicitude with which
it compared the existing text with that of the ancient manuscripts,
and endeavoured to present to the public editions as accurate as the
then known critical apparatus would allow. One or two editions deserve
particular notice, and in our remarks we will take the learned Vercellone
for our guide, in his _Dissertazioni Accademiche_ (Roma, 1864, pag. 102,
seq. 9).

The most famous edition of the fifteenth century was that of Rome in
1471. It was published under the guidance of John Andrew de Bossi,
Bishop of Aleria, and was dedicated to Pope Paul II. The printers were
Conrad Sweynheym and Arnold Paunartz. Their press was in the princely
palace of the illustrious Massimi family. Five hundred and fifty copies
were struck off in the edition; and on the death of Pope Paul II., his
successor, Sixtus IV., was its zealous patron.

The Venice edition of 1495 is also of great critical importance. The
religious superior of the Camaldolese of Brescia superintended its
publication. It consisted of four volumes in folio, and presented,
together with the Latin Bible, the gloss and notes of Lyranus. This
great work was dedicated to Cardinal Francis Piccolomini, who was soon
after raised to the popedom under the name of Pius III. From its preface
we learn that not only the best preceding editions, but also _five
ancient manuscripts_, were made use of in preparing this edition.

Still more accurate, however, is another edition, published without name
of place in 1476, but which Pauzer and Vercellone refer to the city of
Vicenza. Its editor was the learned Leonard Acate. He first sought out
with great care the most ancient and correct manuscript of the Latin
text, and then he devoted all his care to have it accurately printed.
In a short preface, he merely says: "Lector, quisquis es, si Christiane
sentis, non te pigeat hoc opus sanctissimum ... Codex practiosissimus
in lucem emendatissimus venit"; and it must be confessed that this
statement was not made without reason, since, notwithstanding all the
critical researches of the last four centuries, that edition still holds
its place amongst the most accurate and most conformable to the ancient
Latin text.

4. Thus, then, in regard to the Latin text at least, Lord Clancarty must
admit that the Church in the ante-Reformation period was not negligent
in disseminating the Bible. And here we must remark that Latin was the
literary language of that age, and that whosoever could read at all,
was sure to be versed in the Latin tongue. How justly, then, does Mr.
Hallam, when speaking of this period, state: "There is no reason to
suspect any intention in the Church of Rome to deprive the laity of the
scriptures";[3] and how truthful are the words of another eloquent man:
"The Catholic Church is not the enemy of the Bible. I affirm it, and
I shall prove it.... She has been the guardian of its purity and the
preserver of its existence through the chances and changes of eighteen
hundred years. In the gloom of the Catacombs, and the splendour of the
Basilica, she cherished that holy book with equal reverence. When she
saw the seed of Christianity sown in the blood of the martyrs, and
braved the persecutions of the despots of the world, and when those
despots bowed before the symbol of Redemption, and she was lifted from
her earthly humbleness, and reared her mitred head in courts and
palaces, it was equally the object of her unceasing care. She gathered
together its scattered fragments, separated the true word of inspiration
from the spurious inventions of presumptuous and deceitful men, made its
teachings and its history familiar to her children in her noble liturgy;
translated it into the language which was familiar to every one who
could read at all; asserted its divine authority in her councils;
maintained its canonical authority against all gainsayers; and transmitted
it from age to age as the precious inheritance of the Christian people.
The saints whom she most reveres were its sagest commentators; and of
the army of her white-robed martyrs whom she still commemorates on
her festal days, there are many who reached their immortal crowns by
refusing on the rack and in the flames to desecrate or deny the holy
book of God".[4] And yet, if we are to believe Lord Clancarty, it is
precisely this holy Church that is opposed to science and to the
dissemination of the written word of God!

5. But perhaps Catholics were in dread at least of the original text
of the sacred Scriptures, and placed some obstacles in the way of its
diffusion. Here, again, we appeal to the testimony of facts. The only
editions of the Old Testament which appeared in the original Hebrew
language in the fifteenth century, were all printed beneath the shadow
of the Inquisition in the Catholic land of Italy. Soncino, near Cremona,
in 1488, Naples in 1491, and Brescia in 1494, are the cities to which
belongs the glory of thus giving birth to the first editions of the
Hebrew text. Bologna, too, was privileged in being the first to publish
the Chaldaic paraphrase of Onkelos: its edition appeared in 1482; and
for the next two editions, which appeared towards the close of the
century, we are indebted to Catholic Portugal.[5]

As to the Greek text of the New Testament, its first edition was printed
in 1514, under the auspices of an illustrious Spanish Franciscan,
Cardinal Ximenes. Though the New Testament is only the fifth volume
in the great Polyglot of Ximenes, yet it was first of all in order of
time, its text being completed on the 10th of January, 1514. Five other
editions followed in quick succession, in 1516, 1519, 1522, 1527, 1535,
all bearing the name of Erasmus.[6] The only portions of the Greek text
of the Old Testament that were printed in the fifteenth century all had
their origin in Italy, and bear the date of 1481, 1486, and 1498.

6. It is time, however, to refer to the first great Biblical
Polyglots--those vast repertories devised by master minds, and which,
presenting in parallel columns the original texts of the Old and
New Testaments, together with the various ancient versions, are
an incalculable aid in the study of Biblical criticism and in the
interpretation of the sacred books. Even in the publication of these
great works Protestants only came to glean where the Catholics had
already reaped an abundant harvest. It was the privilege of the
illustrious order of St. Dominick to give to the world the first
Polyglot edition of a portion of the sacred text. It was entitled
"_Psalterium Hebraicum Graecum, Arabicum, et Chaldaicum cum tribus
Latinis Interpretationibus et Glossis_". From the dedication we learn
that its author was "_Fr. Augustinus Giustiniani ord. Praed. Episcopus
Nabiensis_", who inscribes this fruit of his learned labours to the
reigning pontiff, Leo X. It was in the Giustiniani palace in Genoa that
this Polyglot was printed, under the immediate superintendence of the
bishop himself, and from the same city he addressed its dedication to
Pope Leo on 1st August, 1516. An extract from this dedicatory letter
will best serve to show that the sentiments of the Catholic bishops of
the ante-Reformation period were far different from what the Earl of
Clancarty would wish us to suppose. It thus begins:

    "Scio Pater Beatissime, perlatum ad aures tuas jam diu laborasse
    nos quo utrumque sacrae legis instrumentum quinque praecipuis
    linguis in unum redactum corpus ederemus: opus nimirum ut meis
    viribus impar ita nostrae professioni vel maxime congruens. Nihil
    enim aeque sacerdoti convenit quam sacrarum litterarum expositio
    et interpretatio.... An vero noster hic labor fructum aliquem sit
    pariturus in Catholica matre Ecclesia cui ipse digne praesides
    libuit periculum facere hoc Davidico psalterio quod ex toto opere
    nunc quasi delibamus tuo dicatum nomini".

The learned linguist, Baptista Fliscus, was requested by Giustiniani
to revise the text of the oriental versions, and sending his list of
corrections, he prefaces it with the following words:

    "Tu vero perge divinum complere negotium et quod Psalterio
    Davidico tribuisti confer caeteris quoque sacrae Scripturae
    partibus ut eâ tot nationum auribus accommodatâ invitetur
    universus orbis ad tantarum rerum notitiam.... Tum Leo ipse
    Pont. Max. cui tu opus ipsum dicasti pro sua erga omnes
    benignitate et munificentia non deerit tibi quoque in cunctis
    operi necessariis praesertim adeo utiliter navanti operam ei
    cujus vices gerit in terris".

Surely such expressions breathe sentiments far different from those
of hostility to the dissemination of the genuine text of the Sacred
Scriptures.

7. The second and far more important Polyglot was prepared under the
guidance and published at the expense of a Franciscan prime minister
of Spain, the illustrious Cardinal Ximenes. This great work, which was
begun in 1502, was completed only a few weeks before the death of the
Cardinal in 1517. When the son of the printer entered the apartment of
Ximenes, "bearing the last sheets of the Polyglot, the aged Cardinal
exclaimed: "I give thee thanks, O Lord! that thou hast enabled me to
bring to the desired end the great work which I undertook". And then
turning to those around him, he added: "Of the many arduous duties which
I have performed for the benefit of the country, there is nothing on
which you ought to congratulate me more than on the completion of this
edition of the Bible".[7] This Polyglot comprises all the books of the
Old and New Testaments in their original text, together with various
ancient versions. Its expense was wholly defrayed by the Cardinal, who
spared no pains to render it as complete as human efforts could effect.
His biographer especially commemorates how on one occasion he gave
the sum of £2,000 for _seven ancient Hebrew manuscripts_ which were
made use of in printing the Hebrew text; and the whole expense of the
publication amounted to £25,000, which at that period was equivalent
to four times that sum at the present day. "He made researches on all
sides", writes Hefele, "for manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments,
and sometimes was obliged to purchase them at an enormous expense, while
others generously hastened to lend them for his use, amongst whom must
be mentioned Pope Leo X. This pontiff honoured and revered Ximenes, and
still more he loved the fine arts. He therefore generously supported
him in the publication of the celebrated Polyglot. In return Ximenes
dedicated the work to his Holiness, and in the introduction gave him
public thanks in these words: 'Atque ex ipsis exemplaribus quidem,
Graeca Sanctitati Tuae debemus, qui ex ista Apostolica Bibliotheca
antiquissimos tam Veteris quam Novi Testamenti codices perquam humane
ad nos misisti': _i.e._ 'To your Holiness we are indebted for the Greek
manuscripts. You have sent us with the greatest kindness the copies
both of the Old and New Testament, the most ancient that the apostolic
library possessed".[8] In the introductory remarks to the various
volumes, the learned editor more than once acquaints us with the motives
which impelled him to this gigantic undertaking, and repeats the same
expression of gratitude to the reigning pontiff for the kind assistance
afforded him. Thus in the prolegomena he writes: "No translation can
fully and exactly represent the sense of the original, at least in that
language in which our Saviour himself spoke. It is necessary, therefore,
as St. Jerome and St. Augustine desired, that we should go back to
the origin of the sacred writings, and correct the books of the Old
Testament by the Hebrew text, and those of the New Testament by the
Greek text. Every theologian should also be able to drink of that water
'which springeth up to life eternal', at the fountainhead itself. This
is the reason, therefore, why we have ordered the Bible to be printed
in the original language with different translations. To accomplish this
task we have been obliged to have recourse to the knowledge of the most
able philologists, and to make researches in every direction for the
best and most ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts". Again, in the
preface to the New Testament, we read: "Illud lectorem non lateat non
quaevis exemplaria impressioni huic archetypa fuisse sed antiquissima
emendatissimaque ac tantae praeterea vetustatis ut fidem eis abrogare
nefas videatur quae sanctissimus in Christo Pater et Dominus Nester
Leo X. Pontifex Max. huic instituto favere cupiens, ex Apostolica
Bibliotheca educta misit ad Reverendissimum D. Cardinalem Hispaniae".

Such, then, were the sentiments, such the solicitude, of the reigning
Pontiff and of the Franciscan Cardinal in publishing the great
_Complutensian Polyglot_--for it is thus it was styled, from the city of
_Complutum_, better known by the modern name of _Alcalà_, in which it
was printed. Still, if we are to credit the assertion of Lord Clancarty,
they were the enemies of science, and opposed to the dissemination of
the Word of God! How far more justly was the character of Ximenes
appreciated by the two Protestant historians, Robertson and Prescott.
The former writes: "The variety, the grandeur, and the success of his
schemes, leaves it doubtful whether his sagacity in council, his
prudence in conduct, or his boldness in execution, deserve the highest
praise". The latter, still more to the point, observes: "The Cardinal's
Bible has the merit of being the first successful attempt at a Polyglot
version of the Scriptures ... Nor can we look at it in connection with
the age, and the auspices under which it was accomplished, without
regarding it as a noble monument of learning, piety, and munificence,
which entitles its author to the gratitude of the whole Christian
world".[9]

8. Even these two great works did not suffice for the Catholic Biblical
scholars of that age. Another still more perfect Polyglot soon followed
the Complutensian edition. It was published at Antwerp in 1569-1572,
under the auspices of Philip II. of Spain, and under the superintendence
of Cardinal de Spinoza. The most learned men of the age concurred to
complete this edition, and amongst its editors are named _Sanctes_
_Pagnini_, _Arias Montanus_, _Raphaelengius_, and others.

9. The Polyglot of Le Jay, published at Paris, though later in point of
time, surpassed all preceding editions in magnificence, and is generally
reputed one of the most costly and splendid works that ever issued from
the press. The booksellers of London offered the editor large sums of
money, besides other advantageous terms, on condition that it should
be called the London Polyglot. This offer, however, was contemptuously
received by Le Jay, and this immense work appeared at his own individual
expense solely, under Catholic auspices, and for the first time, in
addition to the other texts, presented to the world the Samaritan
Pentateuch.

10. Now all these great works appeared before a single attempt was made
by Protestants to publish a Polyglot Bible; they all appeared under the
patronage of the clergy, and show the ever active solicitude of the
Catholic Church to promote a true Christian interpretation, and to
diffuse an accurate text of the Sacred Scriptures. Even in regard to
versions into the various modern languages, Catholics were ever foremost
in the field. Of these we will speak on a future day, but we cannot
close this article without commemorating another characteristic Biblical
work of the ante-Reformation period, which might be justly styled the
"_Polyglot of the illiterate_", and which is commonly known by the name
of _Biblia Pauperum_. This consisted of a series of prints presenting
the facts of prophecy of the Old law, and generally accompanied with the
representation of their fulfilment in the facts of the New Testament.
Some of the very first xylographic efforts were devoted to diffuse these
_Biblia Pauperum_, and several editions appeared in the fifteenth and
the beginning of the sixteenth century.[10] Even before the art of
printing was discovered, this ingenious sort of Polyglot, suited to the
illiterate, of whatsoever nation they might be, was diffused through the
monasteries and Catholic sanctuaries of Europe. It was indeed a tedious
labour to achieve such a work with the pen; but for the monks of the
middle age such works were a labour of love. It was only in our own day,
however, that the existence of such manuscripts has been fully proved.
The learned Heider, in his _Christian Typology_ (Vienna, 1861), first
announced their discovery in the Viennese archives; and in 1863 a
complete edition was published by him, aided by Albert Camesina, from
a manuscript of the fourteenth century.

                                                                 ALPHA.



THE SEE OF DOWN AND CONNOR.


The united dioceses of Down and Connor present many themes of special
interest to the student of the ecclesiastical history of our island,
and have engaged more than any other diocese of Ireland the attention
of Irish antiquarians. Suffice it to mention the learned work of Dr.
Reeves, entitled _Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Down, etc._, published
in 1847, and presented by the author to the Irish Archaeological
Society. Nevertheless, even in this favoured see, the succession of
bishops, as published by Ware and Harris, and subsequently adopted,
with few variations, by Reeves and Cotton, abounds with errors and
anachronisms; and hence, that the reader may learn to receive with
caution the statements even of our most esteemed antiquarians when
they are unsupported by ancient records, we propose to present a more
accurate list of the bishops of this see, from the arrival of the
English, down to the close of Elizabeth's reign.

When De Courcy invaded Ulster in 1177, he found the Diocese of
Dundalethglas, _i.e._ Down, governed by a Bishop Malachias, who was
third in succession from the great St. Malachy. This Bishop subsequently
accompanied De Courcy into England, and was instrumental in the donations
made by that nobleman to the Abbey of St. Werburga in Chester, and to
other religious houses. He died in 1201.

Ralph, Abbot first of Kinloss and afterwards of Melross, in Scotland,
was chosen his successor, and was confirmed by Cardinal John de Salerno,
legate of Pope Innocent III. in 1202. Having governed this see for
eleven years, he had for his successor, in 1213, Bishop Thomas, during
whose episcopate many donations were made by Hugh de Lacy to the
monastery of Dundalethglas. Matthew Paris records some facts connected
with this prelate, and especially his having held an ordination in
the great monastery of St. Alban's; he also consecrated there three
churchyards, and dedicated an altar to St. Leonard. He died in 1242.

A contest then arose between the abbeys of Down and Bangor as to which
belonged the right of electing the bishop of the see. The Abbot of
Bangor claimed it as an ancient privilege of that great monastery,
whilst on the other hand the Benedictine Monks of Dundalethglas put
forward their claim, as constituting the chapter of the Cathedral
Church. Rome referred the question to the decision of the Archbishop of
Armagh, who, with his suffragans, in 1243, pronounced judgment in favour
of the abbey of Down, and this sentence was ratified by Pope Innocent
IV., on the 3rd of the Nones of March, 1243/4--(Theiner, _Monumen.
Vat._, page 42).

Randal (in Latin Ranulfis) was then appointed bishop of this see. He
died in 1253, and the chapter of Down chose, without delay, a successor
in the person of Thomas Liddell, who is styled in the brief of his
appointment _Rector Ecclesiae del Rathlonge, Carnotensis_ (a mistake
for Connorensis) _Dioecesis_. King Henry III. refused to sanction this
election, and nominated Reginald, Archdeacon of Down, to the vacant see.
The chapter could not be induced to ratify this nomination; nevertheless,
the king issued a writ, commanding the Archbishop of Armagh to
consecrate Reginald, who took possession of the see in 1258. The chapter
appealed to the tribunal of the successors of St. Peter, and after a
long and tedious examination of the whole controversy, judgment was
given by Pope Clement IV., in 1265, declaring that Dr. Liddell was the
canonically elected bishop, and that the appointment of Reginald had
been from the beginning null and void. Reginald submitted with alacrity
to the decree of Rome, and was soon after appointed to the Diocese of
Cloyne. The Holy See, moreover, was pleased to confirm all the parochial
appointments which Reginald had made during the period of his disputed
appointment, adding only the clause, that the clergy thus appointed by
him should otherwise be free from all canonical impediments, and capable
of discharging the functions confided to them. The brief of Pope Clement
IV. granting this favour is dated from Perugia, the 30th April, 1265,
and begins: "Tuae devotionis promeretur affectus, ut petitionibus tuis,
quantum cum Deo possumus, favorabiliter annuamus"--(_Mon. Vat._, page
96). Two months later the bull sanctioning the appointment of Dr.
Liddell to the See of Down, was published with due solemnity in Viterbo,
where the Pontiff then resided. It begins with the statement of the
controversy which had deprived that diocese of a chief pastor for so
many years, and terminates with the hope that "eadem Dunensis Ecclesia
per tune circumspectionis industriam salubria in spiritualibus et
temporelibus suscipiat incrementa"--(_Ibid._, page 101). Thus, then,
the name of Reginald, which stands so prominent in the lists of Ware,
Reeves, and Cotton, must be cancelled from the canonical order of
episcopal succession in the See of Down.

In 1276 Dr. Liddell was summoned to his eternal reward, and had for
his successor, the same year, Nicholas, who, from being Prior of the
Monastery of Down and treasurer of Ulster, was elected bishop by the
chapter, and confirmed by Rome. During his episcopate a controversy
was carried on, as to the rights of the Archbishop of Armagh whilst
performing the visitation of his suffragan sees. Pope Nicholas III., in
1279, commissioned the Bishop of Clonfert to examine into the various
allegations which had been made, and authorised him to cite the
Archbishop to Rome, should it be discovered that the visitation of the
see had been uncanonically performed. From this letter of the Holy
Father it incidentally results that the Archbishop of Armagh had the
privilege not only of personally making the visitation of the suffragan
episcopal sees, but also, "should any necessity so demand", of deputing
a simple clergyman to make similar visitation in particular churches or
districts of such sees--(_Mon. Vatic._, pag. 121).

Dr. Nicholas died in 1304. His successor was Thomas Kittel, pastor of
Lesmoghan, who received possession of the temporalities of the see on
the 1st of July, 1305, and died in 1313. The chapter of St. Patrick's,
according to their no-longer disputed privilege, made choice of Thomas
Bright, prior of the cathedral, who received consecration at the hands
of Roland De Jorse, Archbishop of Armagh, in 1314. He was, in 1322,
nominated by the Holy See to inquire into the various accusations which
had been made against the Primate by the English government and others.
He died in 1327, and was buried in his own cathedral of St. Patrick.

Reeves commemorates as his successor John of Baliconingham, rector
of Arwhyn, and there is no doubt that this prelate was chosen by the
English king, and held for some time possession of the temporalities of
the see. However, he never was Bishop of Down. Ralph, or Rodulfus, of
Kilmessan, in the diocese of Meath, a Franciscan friar, was appointed
by Pope John XXII. on the 12th of December, 1328, and consecrated in
Avignon by Bertram, the Cardinal Bishop of Tusculum. Even the English
government made no opposition, and he received the temporalities of the
see on the 1st of April, 1329. The above pastor of Arwhyn was, however,
promoted by the same pontiff to the See of Cork, and when, towards the
close of 1329, both bishops petitioned the Holy Father to be allowed to
exchange their sees, a letter was addressed from Rome to the Archbishop
of Armagh, dated the Nones of January, 1330, empowering him to grant
this favour to these bishops, should they persist in desiring it, and
should he deem it beneficial to their respective sees--(_Mon. Vatican._,
pag. 249). Stephen Segrave then held the primatial see, and he seems to
have judged such an exchange of dioceses inopportune or unnecessary, and
hence Bishop Rodulfus continued to hold the See of Down till his death
in 1353.

In the first year of Pope Innocent VI. (1353) it was represented that
the See of Down was vacant by the death of Rodulfus: "dicta Ecclesia per
obitum Rodulphi, qui in partibus illis, Praedecessore nostro vivente,
debitum naturae persolvit"; and hence Gregory, provost of Killala, was
appointed bishop on the 29th January, 1353, and was consecrated at
Avignon by Cardinal Peter, Bishop of Palestrina. The infirm Bishop
Rodulfus, however, was not yet deceased, and Gregory was immediately
promoted to some titular bishopric. When Rodulfus finally passed to a
better world, in August, 1353, the clergy and chapter of Down petitioned
to have Richard Calf, who was prior of the monastery, advanced to the
vacant see. This petition was readily granted, and the appointment of
Dr. Richard was registered on the 2nd of the Nones of December, the same
year. A few days later he was consecrated in Avignon, by order of his
Holiness, and on the 23rd of December the following beautiful letter was
addressed to him by the Holy Father:

    "Pridem Dunensi Ecclesia Pastoris solatio destituta, Nos ad
    personam tuam claris virtutum titulis insignitam nostrae mentis
    aciem dirigentes, te de fratrum nostrorum consilio eidem Ecclesiae
    in Episcopum praefecimus et pastorem, curam et administrationem
    ipsius Ecclesiae tibi in spiritualibus et temporalibus plenarie
    committendo prout in litteris nostris inde confectis plenius
    continetur. Cum autem postmodum per ven. fratrem nostrum Petrum
    Episcopum Bottentonensem tibi fecerimus apud Sedem Apostolicam
    munus consecrationis impendi, fraternitati tuae per apostolica
    scripta mandamus, quatenus apostolicae sedis beneplacitis te
    conformans, ad praedictam Ecclesiam cum nostrae benedictionis
    gratia te personaliter conferens, sic te in administratione ipsius,
    diligenter et sollicite gerere studeas, ut utilis administratoris
    industriae non immerito gaudeat se commissam, ac famae laudabilis
    tuae odor ex tuis probabiliter actibus latius diffundatur, et
    praeter aeternae retributions praemium nostrae benevolentiae gratiam
    et favorem exinde uberius consequaris"--(_Mon. Vatic._, p. 306).

Dr. Richard governed the diocese till his death in 1365. His successor,
the Archdeacon William, hold the see only three years, and died in
August, 1368. Ware and subsequent writers commemorate John Logan as the
next bishop. However, the bull of appointment of Richard, prior of the
Benedictine monastery of Down, which is dated 19th February, 1369,
styles him the immediate successor of William, and thus leaves no
room for Dr. Logan. The chapter was unanimous in presenting the name
of Richard to the Holy Father, and the proofs which were added "de
religionis zelo, litterarumque scientia", rendered delay unnecessary in
appointing him to the vacant see--(_Mon. Vatic._, p. 332). He ruled the
diocese till his death on the 16th of May, 1386. _Joannes Rossensis_,
from being prior of the monastery, was next elected by the chapter, and
confirmed by the Holy See. He died six years after his consecration, and
had for his successor John Dougan, who, in 1394, was translated to this
see, not from _Derry_, as Ware imagined, but from the diocese of the
Isle of Man, the Latin name for which see, _i.e._ _Sodorensis_, led the
learned author into this error. The Archives of Rome preserve several
documents connected with this prelate, some of which were published
by my esteemed friend Professor Munch, in his learned notes to the
_Chronicle of Man_, edited for the Royal University of Christiania, in
1860. The first letter which we find regarding him is a brief of Urban
V., dated January 23rd, 1367, which commences: "Probitatis et virtutum
merita super quibus apud nos fidedignorum commendaris testimonio,
nos inducunt ut tibi reddamur ad gratiam liberales". It subsequently
addresses Dr. Dougan as _Pastor of Camelyn_, in the Diocese of Down, and
appoints him Archdeacon of the see, the former Archdeacon, _William_,
having been elevated to the episcopacy early in the preceding year. The
office of Archdeacon of Down is further described as having attached to
it the care of souls, and as usually conferred on persons not belonging
to the cathedral chapter. Its annual revenue, too, is described as not
exceeding forty marks. Soon after, we find this Archdeacon appointed
Apostolic Nuncio for Ireland, and on 13th March, 1369, the privilege was
granted to him of choosing as his confessor any member of the secular
or regular clergy. The brief according this privilege thus begins:
"Benigno sunt tibi illa concedenda favore per quae sicut pie desideras
conscientiae pacem et salutem animae, Deo propitio consequi merearis.
Hinc est quod nos tuis devotis supplicationibus inclinati tibi Apostolica
auctoritate indulgemus ut quamdiu nostri et Ecclesiae Romanae servitiis
institeris aliquem idoneum et discretum in tuum possis eligere
confessorem, etc." (Dat. Romae ap. S. Petrum, 3º ld. Martii, Pontif.
N. an. septimo).

The Bull appointing John Dougan, Archdeacon of Down, to the See of Man,
is dated November 6th, 1374, and addressed to "Joanni electo Sodorensi".
It mentions as a chief motive for this appointment, that the clergy and
people of Man had earnestly solicited it: "pro quo etiam dilecti filii,
clerus civitatis et Dioecesis Sodorensis per eorum patentes litteras
nobis super hoc humiliter supplicarunt". The Cardinal who consecrated
Dr. Dougan was the celebrated Simon de Langham, who held successively
the posts of Prior and Abbot of Westminster, Bishop of London and of
Ely, Chancellor of England, Archbishop of Canterbury, Cardinal Priest
of S. Prassede, and at the time of which we speak was Cardinal Bishop
of Palestrina. Of our prelate, it is recorded in the _Chronicle of Man_
that he was elected Bishop on the feast of Corpus Christi, was confirmed
by the Pope on the feast of St. Leonard, and was consecrated on St.
Catherine's Day. When returning to his diocese he was arrested and
thrown into prison in the city of Boulogne, and only after several
months was liberated on the payment of a fine of five hundred marks.
The motive of this imprisonment has not been recorded. It was probably
in connection with his office of papal Nuncio, for he continued, even
when Bishop of Man, to exercise the duties of Nuncio of the Holy See for
Ireland--(_Mon. Vatican._ pag. 365: _Munch_, loc. cit. pag. 31). In 1395
Dr. Dougan was, by Bull of Pope Boniface III., translated to Down. He
received many favours from King Henry IV., and on the 16th of September,
1405, we find a commission addressed to him (published by Rymer),
authorizing him and Jenico d'Artois to negociate a peace between the
Irish northern chieftains and the "Lord of the Isles". Dr. Dougan died
in 1412.

The next Bishop of Down was John Sely, who had hitherto been a
Benedictine monk, and prior of the Cathedral of St. Patrick. He governed
this diocese from 1413 to 1441, when it was united to the See of Connor.
The bishops of both sees had more than once represented to the king and
to the Holy See the inadequacy of their respective revenues to support
with due decorum the episcopal dignity. On the 29th of July, 1438, a
royal decree was published permitting these bishops to sue in Rome
for a union of their sees: it states as the motive for granting this
permission that both sees, "uti fidedigna relatione suscepimus, adeo
tenues sunt et exiles ut ipsarum neutra in suis fructibus et proventibus
decentiae sufficiat Episcopali". Pope Eugene IV. lent a willing ear
to the petition of the Bishops, and no sooner had the Bishop of Down
resigned his see than John, Bishop of Connor, was by a special brief
constituted at the same time Bishop of Down, and in the following year a
papal constitution was published, instituting a real and perpetual union
of both sees. Many controversies subsequently arose, especially in
regard to the temporalities of the See of Down; Bishop John, however,
continued in undisturbed possession of the united dioceses till his
death, in 1450, and his successors have ever since retained the title
of Bishops of Down and Connor.

The chapter of the united dioceses elected Robert Rochfort to fill
the vacant see. He was also strongly recommended to the Holy Father by
Primate Mey, who, writing to Pope Nicholas V., on 10th of April, 1451,
mentions among his other good qualities that he was "lingua Anglicana et
Hibernicâ facundus". Pope Nicholas, however, had already chosen another
pastor for that fold, and Richard Wolsey, of the order of St. Dominick,
was appointed Bishop of Down and Connor by brief of 21st June, 1451.
In this brief the See is described as vacated by the demise of "Thomas,
last Bishop of the canonically united Dioceses of Down and Connor". It
is added that the new bishop, Dr. Wolsey, was a professed member of the
order of St. Dominick, remarkable for his zeal, and prudence, and other
virtues--(_De Burgo_, pag. 474). He held the see for more than five
years, and had for his successor Thomas, prior of St. Catherine's,
Waterford, who was consecrated by Archbishop Mey on the 31st of May,
1456. His Episcopate lasted for thirteen years, and we find a letter of
Paul II. addressed to him on the 16th of April, 1469, empowering him
to grant to the friars observant of St. Francis some houses which had
been abandoned by the conventual branch of the Franciscan order. This
beautiful letter thus begins: "Inter caeteros ordines in agro dominico
plantatos sacrum ordinem beati Francisci gerentes in visceribus
caritatis, ad ea ex pastorali officio nobis Divina dispensatione
commisso libenter intendimus, per quae ordo ipse ad laudem Dei et
exaltationem fidei Catholicae ubilibet reflorescat"--(_Mon. Vatic._,
page 461).

He was succeeded by _Thadeus_, who was consecrated at Rome, in the
Church of St. Mary _Supra Minervam_, on the 10th of September, 1469.
His death is registered in the year 1486, and his successor, _Tiberius_,
during along and eventful episcopate, governed this see till his death
in 1519. Ware, indeed, supposed that his episcopate continued till
_circa an._ 1526; but Reeves discovered an ancient record which describes
the see as vacant by our bishop's death in 1519--(_Ec. Antiq._, page 160).

The historians of the Augustinian order mention a Bishop Thadeus, who
seems to have succeeded in 1520, and held the see till 1526. Robert
Blyth, a Benedictine and abbot of the monastery of Thorney, in
Cambridgeshire, received this diocese _in commendam_ by royal privilege
in 1526. Dr. Cromer, Archbishop of Armagh, refused to give his sanction
to this commendatory jurisdiction, and appointed to various benefices of
Down and Connor, assigning as his motive the absence of the bishop, "in
remotis agentis sine licentia summi Pontificis aut Metropolitani sui".
Dr. Blyth, however, continued to administer the diocese till 1540, when
he resigned this charge, and had for his successor Eugene Magennis, who
was proclaimed in consistory Bishop of Down and Connor in 1541. This
Bishop submitted his Bulls to the crown in 1542, and hence was admitted
not only to the temporalities of the see, but received in addition other
ecclesiastical benefices. On May 9th, 1543, a further writ of pardon was
issued in his favour (see _Morrin_, i. 91); but in all these acts of
submission no mention is made of the royal supremacy. The position of
his see rendered his submission in temporals too important to the crown
to introduce any such embittering clause, and, in fact, the northern
chieftains who submitted at the same time were exempted from all reference
to religion when professing their allegiance to the government. At all
events, no doubt can be entertained of the orthodoxy of this prelate,
and in addition to the proofs adduced by other writers, we may mention
the consistorial record for the appointment of his successor, in which
the see is described as vacant, not by the apostacy or deposition, but
simply as is usual in regard of the Catholic bishops, _per obitum
Eugenii Magnissae_.

The precise date of Dr. Eugene's death cannot be fixed with certainty.
There is a petition addressed from Carrickfergus to the crown, printed
by Shirley (page 132), which is generally supposed to fix the see as
vacant in 1563. This petition, however, merely sets forth the desire
that, "for the better establishment and countenance of the religion of
the Gospel", her Majesty might prefer "some worthy learned man to the
Bishopric of Down, a goodly benefice, within the Pale ... who might with
special severity establish order in the Church". No mention is made of
the death of Dr. Eugene, or of the vacancy of the see; and the desire of
the petitioners to have a Protestant bishop, without mentioning such a
vacancy, seems to us rather to be a proof that the orthodox bishop was
still living. However, the petition bears no date, and Shirley merely
marks it as, "_supposed date, 1563_", under which heading he includes
the first month of 1564.

Miler M'Grath, the next bishop, was appointed in consistory of 12th
Oct., 1565: "Referente Eminentissimo Cardinali Simonetta, Ecclesiae
Dunensi et Connorensi vacanti per obitum Eugenii Magnissae, praefectus
fuit fr. Milerius Macra eodem loco Dunii oriundus professus ord. S.
Francisci conventualium Presbyter", etc. The appointment of M'Grath had
been earnestly opposed by the holy Primate Dr. Creagh, as he himself
attests in his depositions made in the Tower of London. Indeed the only
recommendation which seems to have been made was from the northern
princes, many of whom solicited his appointment to the see, because he
was foster-brother of their cherished chieftain, Shane O'Neill. This
relationship between O'Neill and M'Grath is expressly mentioned in a
Vatican paper, and is the sole key to many documents of the period which
hitherto have been an enigma to our ecclesiastical historians. Though
M'Grath after a few years embraced a schismatical connection with the
Elizabethan government, Rome, through respect for his family, and in
hopes that reflection would bring him back from his iniquitous course to
the path of truth, delayed sentence of deposition against him till the
close of 1578/9. We make this statement on the authority of a Vatican
list of Irish sees, drawn up in 1579 or 1580, which expressly describes
the See of Down as vacant, "per depositionem Milerii ab hac sancta Sede
factam anno praeterito".

Donatus O'Gallagher was appointed his successor, being translated
from the See of Killala to Down, in the first months of 1580. In less
than two years he was summoned to his eternal crown, and on 27th of
April, 1582, we find the following entry in the consistorial record:
"Cardinalis Senonensis proposuit Ecclesiam Dunensem et Connorensem
vacantem per obitum, de persona Cornelii O'Duibenid ord. min. de
observantia, praesentis in curia". Much might be said of the merits
of this great bishop. Whilst as yet a simple religious, he displayed
an ardent zeal for the conversion of souls to God. When consecrated
bishop, this ardour was increased an hundredfold. More than once he
was subjected to the hardships of imprisonment; nevertheless, he lived
to witness the triumph of the Irish Church over all the efforts of
Elizabeth, and having handed down to more youthful pastors the sacred
deposit of faith, his life of devotedness and charity merited for him
the martyr's crown, which he happily attained on the 11th of February,
1612.

We must now give a glance at the claims of those whom the Established
Church reveres as its first fathers in this ancient see. It suffices
merely to state their claims, to discern whether they are to be reckoned
amongst the true shepherds of the flock, or amongst those wolves whose
mission it is to rend and scatter the sacred fold of Christ.

On the 6th of January, 1565, instructions were sent to the Lord Justice
of Ireland to advance James MacCaghwell to the bishopric of Down. It
was, however, too perilous an experiment for a nominee of Elizabeth to
appear as bishop within the territory of Shane O'Neill; and hence we
find Loftus of Armagh, and Brady of Meath, petitioning Sir William
Cecil, on 16th May, 1565, to have MacCaghwell provided with some
other see, since "he durst not travel to Down through fear of bodily
harm"--(Shirley, pag. 192).

For this reason it was not deemed expedient to have MacCaghwell
consecrated for the See of Down, and as Dr. Mant, the late Protestant
occupant of the see informs us, John Merriman was its first Protestant
bishop (vol. i., pag. 296). He was chaplain to Queen Elizabeth, and in
1568 was consecrated by Lancaster of Armagh, in St. Patrick's, Dublin.
As there was already a canonically appointed bishop holding the See
of Down, no doubt can be entertained as to the true nature of Dr.
Merriman's mission. He died in 1572, and Queen Elizabeth wrote to the
Lord Deputy Sydney, on 6th November, 1572, commanding him "_to prefer
one Brown, if he knew no better, to these sees_"--(Harris' Ware, pag.
205). Hugh Allen, however, a colonist of the Ards, was the individual
selected by the Lord Deputy, and in the month of November, 1573, he was
constituted successor of Dr. Merriman. The canonical bishop, however,
still held the see, and Dr. Allen must again be stigmatized as an
intruder. On his translation to Ferns, in 1582, the crown did not even
attempt to nominate a Protestant bishop till the year 1593; and Dr.
Mant adds that this vacancy shows "a neglect on the part of the
government rather to be lamented than explained".

Thus, then, Dr. O'Deveny was not only the canonically appointed bishop,
but was for ten years in possession of his see, and engaged in feeding
there the flock of Christ, when Edward Edgeworth was nominated by
Elizabeth, in 1593, Bishop of Down and Connor. This dignitary, indeed,
seems never to have even seen his see; other crown nominees, however,
soon followed in rapid succession--John Charldon, in 1596; Robert
Humston, in 1602; and John Todd, in 1606, who, as Ware informs us, was,
in 1611, deposed for his public immorality and other crimes, and "soon
after died in prison in London, of poison, which he had prepared for
himself"--(Harris' Ware, pag. 207). The true pastor, Dr. O'Deveny, was
all this time at his perilous post, in season and out of season, ruling,
by divine authority, the spiritual fold assigned to his charge; and
whilst the Protestant nominee was so unhappily terminating his earthly
career, the faithful shepherd was in the very same year laying down his
life for his flock. We will conclude this hurried sketch with the words
of the Four Masters when commemorating the death of this holy bishop:
"There was not a Christian in the land of Ireland whose heart did not
shudder within him at the terror of the martyrdom which this chaste wise
divine, and perfect and truly meek righteous man suffered for the reward
of his soul. The faithful of Dublin contended with each other to see
which of them should have one of his limbs; and not only of his limbs,
but they had fine linen in readiness to prevent his blood from falling
to the ground, for they were convinced that he was one of the holy
martyrs of the Lord"--(iii. p. 2,371).



DR. COLENSO AND THE OLD TESTAMENT.


NO. I.

    _The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined._ By the
    RIGHT REV. JOHN WILLIAM COLENSO, D.D., Bishop of Natal. London:
    Longman and Co., 1862-64.


For three hundred years the Catholic Church has been denounced as the
enemy of the Bible. This cry was first raised by Luther; it was taken up
by Protestant sects of every denomination; it resounded through Germany,
through France, through England; it passed from generation to generation;
even at the present day its echoes are still ringing in our ears. No
defence would be admitted; no arguments would be heard. The calumny, when
once disseminated, was received by the enemies of the Church as a fact so
patent, so elementary, that any inquiry would be superfluous, any proof
unnecessary. It was taught by the preacher in his pulpit, by the divine
in his writings, by the pedagogue in his school. Little children learned
it on their mothers' knee; young men found it interwoven with history and
romance; old men clung to it as a truth impressed upon their minds in
tender infancy, and confirmed in the riper years of manhood.

Meanwhile we were told that the Bible had found a home and a refuge
in the heart of the Protestant Church. From the Bible, as from a pure
fountain, the Protestant drank in the refreshing waters of divine faith;
in the Bible he discovered a sure antidote against the idolatry and
superstitions of Popery. To the Protestant, therefore, the Bible became
an object of that religious veneration which was due to its sacred
character. Not alone did he receive its doctrine, its history, its facts
of every kind, but every word, every syllable, every letter, he regarded
as stamped with the impress of Eternal Truth.

But a great change seems to be now impending, and has, indeed, already
commenced. The teaching of the first Reformers is forgotten, or neglected,
by their disciples. The Bible has lost its charm. As Protestantism has
advanced in years it has increased in boldness. The same spirit which
three centuries ago _protested_ against the authority of the Pope, rises
up to-day to _protest_ against the authority of the Bible. And once again
it devolves on the Catholic Church to defend that sacred book, which has
been preserved to the world by the blood of her martyrs, and illustrated
by the eloquence of her confessors and her doctors.

As in the great revolt of the sixteenth century, so likewise in our
time, the first murmurs of rebellion are heard in Germany. It is there
that the spirit of free inquiry is first let loose; it is there that
the Bible is first suspected and brought to trial. The various human
sciences are, in turn, summoned as witnesses against it. It is hastily
judged and rashly condemned. Little heed is paid to the venerable
antiquity of the book, to the consent of all civilized nations, to the
voice of immemorial tradition. True it is that the simple story of
the Hebrew lawgiver contains a more profound wisdom than the proudest
productions of Greek and Roman philosophy. True it is that, when the
whole world was buried in darkness and error, it gave to man a religion
which alone was pure and bright and holy. True it is that for ages it
has withstood unshaken the attacks of hostile criticism. Yet must we now
abandon it for ever as false and delusive, because, forsooth, it seems
to clash with the scarcely intelligible babblings of infant sciences.

The contagion of these principles has, within the last few years,
reached the shores of England. They seem to touch a secret chord of
sympathy in the Protestant bosom. They have met with a ready welcome
from the press. They have penetrated into the hallowed solitudes of
the universities. And now, to the glory of free-thinkers and the shame
of all orthodox believers, they have duly taken their place on the
episcopal bench.

Amongst the advocates of the new opinion in England, there is none more
popular in his style, none more plausible in his arguments, none more
earnest in the cause, than John William Colenso, Protestant Bishop of
Natal. Distinguished among his clerical brethren for his eminent skill
in figures, he became, some few years ago, the chosen candidate for the
see over which he now presides. He set out for his new mission armed
with the Bible, and full of zeal for the conversion of the Zulus. His
first thought was to make himself master of their tongue, and then to
give them a translation of the Bible. While engaged in this latter task,
he is asked by a "simple-minded but intelligent native, 'Is all that
true?' 'Do you really believe that all this happened thus?'"--(Part 1.
Preface, p. vii.). This very captious and subtle question seems to have
taken the bishop by surprise. He is led to reflect and to examine; and
the result of his labours is laid before us in the book to which, for a
brief space, we invite the attention of our readers.

The position assumed by Dr. Colenso is simply this:--That the traditional
reverence with which the Bible has hitherto been received, is no reason
why it should not be submitted to the test of critical and scientifical
investigation: that he has himself applied that test to the Pentateuch
and the Book of Josue: that by that test he has proved the leading facts
in both these books to be false: that the narrative, in general, cannot
be regarded otherwise than as fabulous and legendary; nay, that, even
as a fable, it is inconsistent, impossible, and self-contradictory. So
much for those parts of the Bible to which the bishop's researches have
hitherto extended. He means to proceed with his studies in the same
spirit through the rest of the sacred books; and he is quite prepared
for any consequences to which these studies may lead him.

Such is the general scope and character of a work which we cannot but
regard as one of the most remarkable productions of the age. It has
gained for its author a wide-spread celebrity. His ingenious arguments
are discussed in every literary circle; they find an honoured place in
our own periodical press; they are not unknown on 'change; and even in
our clubs they have been for a time the topic of the day. It is meet,
therefore, that a Catholic should be furnished with the means of
defence, and thus, in the language of St. Peter, be "ever ready to give
a reason of the hope which is in him".

But what an arduous task this would seem even to the most learned; how
utterly beyond the reach of the simple and lowly! Here is an able and
accomplished scholar, who presses into his service Hebrew, and Greek,
and statistics, and history, and books of travels. These are formidable
weapons, which few possess, and fewer still are skilled to use. Yet we
need not, therefore, shrink from the encounter. The Catholic Church has
provided a defence for all; for the unlettered mechanic, no less than
the learned theologian. The one may take shelter beneath the protecting
shield of an infallible authority; the other need not fear to venture
into the open field, and meet the foe upon his own ground and with his
own weapons.

Every Catholic firmly believes that, in virtue of a divine promise,
the Church is reserved free from all error in her teaching. Now, on the
subject before us, the Church has pronounced her judgment in clear and
simple words. In the Council of Trent it is defined that "God is the
author of all the books of the Old and of the New Testament"--(sessio
quarta). And, surely, it would be nothing short of blasphemy to ascribe
to God such a book as the Bible would be in the theory of Dr. Colenso.
Therefore, that theory cannot be true, and the arguments by which it is
supported must be false and delusive.

It may be that the unlettered Catholic cannot cope with these arguments
in detail; cannot tell whether it is that the facts are untrue, or that
the logic is unsound. But he well knows that the grace of faith was
meant for all, though all have not the learning or the power to unravel
the sophistry of error. He may, therefore, in safety cling fast to
that Church which is "the pillar and the ground of Truth", and pass by
unheeded the eloquence and the subtlety of those who would fain draw
him into the arena of controversy. Conscious that he has truth upon his
side, he has nothing to fear from the progress of human learning. New
sciences may, in their infant struggles, seem for a time to clash with
that Revelation which, in God's design, they were meant to confirm,
to illustrate, and to adorn. But he may calmly await the issue of the
conflict, with a firm conviction that, in the end, the cause of truth
must triumph; that, when proof shall have taken the place of conjecture,
when theories shall have been tested by facts, when doubt and uncertainty
shall have been dispelled by new discoveries, science will then prove
to be, as she has ever been, not the enemy of religion, but her friend,
and faithful ally.

It is not fit, however, that all should remain idle spectators of
the struggle between science and Revelation. There are many whose
intellectual acquirements, and whose opportunities, will permit them to
gird on their armour, and to go forth to battle in the cause of truth.
The rich treasures of learning and science which they have amassed
cannot be better employed, than for the ornament and defence of the
Church of God. Such men, if we may borrow a beautiful figure from the
early Fathers, are like the Hebrews of old, who, having carried away the
precious spoils of Egypt, laid them, with a profuse generosity, at the
feet of Moses for the service of the Tabernacle. As for ourselves, we
are sensible that, from our scanty means, we have little to offer. But,
in the temple of God, each one may contribute according to the measure
of his abilities. While others, therefore, bring their gold, and their
silver, and their precious stones, we may humbly venture to make our
simple offering at least of hair and skins.[11]

We do not mean to examine in detail all the views of Dr. Colenso, nor
to refute all his arguments. Such a task would trespass too much on
our limited space, and perhaps we may add also, on the patience of our
readers. It will be more satisfactory to select a few examples, which
may fairly represent the general tone of his book and the peculiar
character of his reasoning. He is undoubtedly an agreeable and a
plausible writer. His style is graceful and simple; his logic is homely
and forcible; his manner is frank and earnest. Above all, he possesses
that peculiar tact of a clever and experienced advocate,--when his cause
is weak he can disguise its weakness; when it is strong he knows how to
exhibit its strength with clearness and vigour. Yet we hope to satisfy
our readers that his arguments cannot stand the test of rigid scrutiny.
They may indeed attract and amuse that numerous class which is ever in
search of what is novel and startling; they may bewilder and perplex
the superficial and careless reader; they may even bring conviction to
the minds of many who hold the gift of faith with an infirm grasp, and
who, in the words of the Apostle, are "carried about by every wind of
doctrine". But when submitted to a minute and careful analysis, they
will be found to be made up, for the most part, of false assumptions
and unsound reasoning.

Let us, in the first place, clearly understand what is the issue we are
called upon to discuss. It must be remembered that we have the most
convincing, unanswerable proofs that the Pentateuch is a trustworthy
history; nay, more, that it is the Word of Eternal Truth. These proofs
have for ages stood the test of critical inquiry, and have been accepted
as valid by the great bulk of the civilized world. They are not impugned
by Dr. Colenso; they are left unshaken, untouched. But he says the
history cannot be true, for it contains "many absolute impossibilities",
and "a series of manifest contradictions and inconsistencies"--(Part i.
p. 11).

Now we certainly admit that if any history relate as a fact that
which is _absolutely impossible_, or if it relate two facts which are
_manifestly inconsistent_ with each other, it is so far untrue. And if
these impossibilities and contradictions are of frequent occurrence, it
must forfeit the character of a truthful narrative. But it would be a
great mistake to reject as impossibilities those facts which we are
simply unable to explain. It often happens that we cannot tell _how_
an event took place, though we are quite sure that it _did_ take place.
No one, for example, has ventured to explain _how_ Franz Müller made
his escape from the railway carriage on the evening that he murdered
Mr. Briggs; and yet all must admit that he _did_ escape. When a fact is
established by indisputable proof, we must accept that fact, even though
we may not be able to point out the means by which it was accomplished.
This is a principle so simple and plain that our readers may, perhaps,
wonder why we stop to enforce it so strongly. We can only say in reply,
that, plain and simple though it is, this principle is often overlooked
by Dr. Colenso, as the sequel of our paper will show.

Again, while we reject as false what is _absolutely impossible_, we
must not regard as _impossible_ what is only _improbable_. Every one is
familiar with the common axiom, that it is _very probable_ a great many
_improbable_ things will come to pass. History abounds with examples to
confirm the truth of this saying. Take, for instance, the exploits of
the first Napoleon, or the career of his nephew, the present Emperor of
the French, or the vicissitudes of the ill-fated Louis Philippe. Here
the history of a single country, and for a very short period, presents
to us a tissue of startling improbabilities. And yet, we all accept the
leading facts of that history, because the evidence by which they are
established is convincing and overwhelming. Now, the evidence in support
of the Pentateuch is of the same character, and of equal weight. Hence,
nothing less than an "absolute impossibility", "a manifest contradiction",
can at all shake our belief in the truth of the story. If Dr. Colenso
prove that such impossibilities and contradictions are to be found in the
Pentateuch, he has established his point; if he fail in this, he has done
nothing.

The first charge against the historical accuracy of the Bible which we
propose to examine, is found in chap. ix. part. i. of Dr. Colenso's work.
We shall let the author speak for himself:--

    "'_The children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of
    Egypt_'--(_Ex._, xiii. 18).

    "The word חֲמֻשִׁים, which is here rendered 'harnessed', appears to mean
    'armed', or, 'in battle array', in all the other passages where it
    occurs. * * * It is, however, inconceivable that these down-trodden,
    oppressed people should have been allowed by Pharaoh to possess arms,
    so as to turn out at a moment's notice six hundred thousand armed men.
    If such a mighty host--nearly nine times as great as the whole of
    Wellington's army at Waterloo--had had arms in their hands, would
    they not have risen long ago for their liberty, or, at all events,
    would there have been no danger of their rising? * * Are we to
    suppose, then, that the Israelites acquired their arms by
    'borrowing' on the night of the Exodus? Nothing whatever is said
    of this, and the idea itself is an extravagant one. But, if even
    in this, or any other way, they had come to be possessed of arms,
    is it conceivable that six hundred thousand armed men, in the prime
    of life, would have cried out in panic terror, 'sore afraid' (_Ex._,
    xiv. 10), when they saw that they were being pursued?"--(pp. 48, 49).

He afterwards proceeds to argue on other grounds that, according to the
Scripture narrative, the Israelites must have been possessed of arms
when they went up out of Egypt:--

    "Besides, if they did not take it with them out of Egypt, where
    did they get the armour with which, about a month afterwards,
    they fought the Amalekites (_Ex._, xvii. 8-13), and 'discomfited
    them with the edge of the sword'? It may, perhaps, be said that
    they had stripped the Egyptians whom they 'saw lying dead upon
    the sea-shore' (_Ex._, xiv. 30). And so writes Josephus (_Ant._,
    ii. 16, 6):--'On the next day Moses gathered together the weapons
    of the Egyptians, which were brought to the camp of the Hebrews
    by the current of the sea, and the force of the winds assisting
    it. And he conjectured that this, also, happened by Divine
    Providence, that so they might not be destitute of weapons'. * *
    The Bible story, however, says nothing about this stripping of the
    dead, as surely it must have done if it really took place. * * *
    And even this supposition will not do away with the fact that the
    stubborn word חֲמֻשִׁים exists in the text before us. Besides, we must
    suppose that the _whole body_ of six hundred thousand warriors were
    armed when they were numbered (_N._, i. 3) under Sinai. They possessed
    arms, surely, at that time, according to the story. How did they get
    them unless they took them out of Egypt?

    "If, then, the historical veracity of this part of the Pentateuch
    is to be maintained, we must believe that six hundred thousand
    armed men (though it is inconceivable how they obtained their
    arms), had, by reason of their long servitude, become so debased
    and inhuman in their cowardice (and yet they fought bravely enough
    with Amalek a month afterwards), that they could not strike a single
    blow for their wives and children, if not for their own lives and
    liberties, but could only weakly wail and murmur against Moses,
    saying: 'It had been better for us to serve the Egyptians than that
    we should die in the wilderness' (_Ex._, xiv. 12)--(pp. 50, 51.)

The substance of this objection may be compressed into a few words. It
is stated in the Pentateuch that the Israelites went up _armed_ out of
Egypt. Furthermore it is stated that the number of armed men among them
was 600,000. But these statements are utterly inconsistent with other
facts contained in the same book. Therefore the narrative cannot be
regarded as historically true.

To estimate the value of this argument, it will be necessary to inquire
if Dr. Colenso has proved that these two statements are really to be
found in the Pentateuch. We maintain that he has not. For the first, he
appeals to the words of _Exodus_, xiii. 18: "The children of Israel went
up harnessed out of the land of Egypt". This text is indeed conclusive,
if it be shown that the Hebrew word חֲמֻשִׁים (Chamushim), which is here
translated _harnessed_, must mean _armed_, and can mean nothing else.
But has Dr. Colenso adduced any satisfactory evidence to establish this
point, so essential to his argument? Far from it. In the whole Hebrew
language there is not a single word of which the meaning is more
uncertain. It occurs but four times in the Old Testament, and never
later than in the Book of Judges. We must, therefore, be content to
conjecture its meaning partly from its etymology, partly from the
authority of early versions, and partly from the context of those
passages in which it is found. We do not, however, mean to inflict upon
our readers the dry details of a philological discussion. Nor could we
presume to set up our own judgment in these matters against the opinion
of Dr. Colenso. It will be less tedious, and more satisfactory, to
appeal to the authority of those who have made the Hebrew language the
subject of their special study, and who have availed themselves of all
the means which the science of philology can supply, to determine the
precise signification of every word in the Bible.

It is quite clear, notwithstanding the ingenious shifts of Dr.
Colenso, that the authors of the English Protestant version regarded
the word חֲמֻשִׁים (Chamushim) as one of obscure and doubtful meaning. In
the text it is here rendered _harnessed_, and elsewhere (_Jos._, i. 14;
_Jud._, vii. 11) _armed_. But in the margin a very different idea is
suggested,--"by five in a rank", "marshalled by five". The Septuagint is
by far the oldest translation we possess of the Hebrew text. It dates
almost from a time when the Hebrew was still a spoken language; and
therefore the biblical scholars by whom it was produced must have enjoyed
many advantages, which all the learning and research of modern times
cannot supply. No one, certainly, will maintain that, if the meaning
of an important Hebrew word were clear and certain, that meaning could
have remained unknown to the authors of this celebrated version. Yet
the seventy interpreters appear to have been curiously perplexed about
the very word on which Dr. Colenso is so flippant and so confident.
Four times it occurs in the text, and each time we find a different
translation. Nay, of the four translations, not one corresponds with
the translation of Dr. Colenso. First it is rendered _in the fifth
generation_--πέμπτῃ δὲ γενεᾷ (_Ex._, xiii. 18). Next, _girt as for a
journey_--εὔζωνοι (_Jos._, i. 14). Then, _prepared_, _furnished_--
διεσκευασμένοι (_Jos._, iv. 12). And in the fourth place it is translated
_of the fifty_--τῶν πεντήκοντα (_Jud._, vii. 11).

Perhaps, however, Dr. Colenso would appeal to the authority of modern
Hebrew scholars. If so, we can assure him he would appeal in vain. Amongst
lexicographers we may refer to GESENIUS. Under the root חָמֵשׁ (Chamash) we
find the following explanation:--"Hence, part. pass. plur. חֲמֻשִׁים (a word
the etymology of which has long been sought for) _i.e. the eager_,
_active_, _brave_, _ready prepared_ for fighting". Again, ROSENMÜLLER
in his Commentary, though he does not reject _armati_, seems to prefer
the interpretation generally adopted by the Jews, and supported by
the authority of their paraphrasts. Here are his words: "Nec igitur
rejiciendum, quod Hebraei חֲמֻשִׁים _ad quintam costam_;--_i.e._ circa
lumbos _accinctos_ proprie significare dicunt, et hoc Exodi loco
Israelitas dici exiisse expeditos et accinctos paratosque omnibus ad
iter necessariis. Quod ipsum expresserunt Onkelos et duo reliqui Chaldaei
paraphrastae", etc.

It would be easy to cite a host of distinguished authorities unfavourable
to Dr. Colenso's interpretation. But we may well be content with these
two. They certainly deserve a place in the very foremost rank of Hebrew
scholars. Moreover, their testimony on the present question is above all
suspicion; for it is well known that they share largely in the opinions
of Dr. Colenso and his school. Nothing, therefore, could be farther from
their purpose than to sacrifice the principles of philology with a view
to defend the historical accuracy of the Bible. We beg to remind our
readers that we express no opinion as regards the genuine meaning of
this disputed word. Our position is simply this: Dr. Colenso's argument
is _totally devoid of foundation_ unless he _prove_ that the word must
mean _armed men_; and we maintain that he has utterly failed to do so;
that, after all he has written, the meaning of the word still remains
uncertain.

He attempts, however, to support his opinion by a fact recorded in the
Pentateuch itself: "If they did not take it with them out of Egypt,
where did they get the armour, with which, about a month afterwards,
they fought the Amalekites (_Ex._, xvii. 8-13), and 'discomfited them
with the edge of the sword'?" Dr. Colenso undertakes to prove that the
Israelites are represented by Moses to have gone up _armed_ out of
Egypt. And here is his proof. If they did not bring the arms with them,
where did they get them afterwards? That is to say, after the lapse of
thirty-three centuries, when we have nothing to assist us but the very
brief and summary narrative of Moses, he asks us to explain in what way
the Israelites were supplied with arms. And if, with such scanty means
of information, we cannot tell him _how_ that fact took place, he infers
that it was therefore _impossible_. Such is the flimsy reasoning by
which he vainly hopes to shake the foundations of Christian faith.

It seems to us that nothing could be more satisfactory than the
explanation suggested by Josephus, to whom Dr. Colenso has himself
referred. But such conjectures, however probable in themselves, and well
supported by authority, are unnecessary for our purpose. It is not for
us to explain _how_ the facts actually occurred, but for our adversary
to make good his assertion, that they are _absolute impossibilities_ or
_manifest contradictions_.

If the first assumption in Dr. Colenso's argument is uncertain, the
second is manifestly false. He maintains that, not only are the
Israelites said to have been _armed_, but that they are represented
as having 600,000 armed men. It is the existence of _such a mighty
host_--_nearly nine times as great as the whole of Wellington's army at
Waterloo_--_with arms in their hands_, that seems to him irreconcileable
with the condition of a _down-trodden, oppressed people_. It is because
the children of Israel had 600,000 _armed men in the prime of life_
that he cannot conceive it possible they would have _cried out in panic
terror_ "_sore afraid_".

Now let us grant, for a moment, the point which we have just been
disputing, and let us suppose Moses explicitly to declare that the
children of Israel went up armed out of Egypt. Would this statement
convey that there were 600,000 armed men? We know, indeed, that this was
the number of the adult male population. But when we say that a people
is armed, we do not mean that every man of twenty years old and upwards
is under arms. Within the last two years how often have we heard it said
that the Poles were armed against Russia? And yet the number of Poles
actually bearing arms was not one-twentieth part of the adult male
population. Just in the same way, if it were said that the Israelites
were armed, we should understand nothing more than that a certain
proportion of the people was armed for the protection of the whole. It
would, then, be no matter for surprise that such a collection of armed
men, without organisation, without training, should be struck with terror
at the sight of the numerous and well-disciplined troops of Pharaoh, fully
equipped, and provided with horses and chariots and all the accoutrements
of war.

Dr. Colenso, as if anticipating this reply, next appeals to the Book of
Numbers: "Besides, we must suppose that the _whole body_ of 600,000
warriors were armed, when they were numbered (_Num._, i. 3.) under
Sinai. They possessed arms, surely, at that time, according to the
story". Here we join issue with the bishop on two points. First, he
insinuates that Moses makes mention somewhere of 600,000 _warriors_.
Secondly, he asserts that, _according to the story_, all these warriors
_possessed arms_. Now we challenge him to produce a single text from the
Pentateuch in which there occurs any mention of 600,000 _warriors_. We
are told that the Israelites numbered 600,000 _men_ of twenty years old
and upward. But where are these men called _warriors_? And again, where
is it said that all _possessed arms_? These are points which certainly
demand clear and unmistakable evidence. It would be a fact unparalleled
in history that every single man over twenty years of age, in the entire
nation, should have been _a soldier fully equipped for war_. Our author
tells us, indeed, that _we must suppose_ they were armed; that they
_possessed arms, surely_, at that time. But when we look for his proofs,
we find nothing but a naked reference to the third verse in the first
chapter in Numbers.

Let us then look into this passage, and see if it corroborates the
assertion of Dr. Colenso. Here is the text as we find it in the English
Protestant version, to which we must suppose the bishop to have
referred:--"Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of
Israel * * from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go
forth to war in Israel"--(_Numbers_, i. 2, 3). The people were numbered
accordingly by Moses and Aaron, and the result is given to us in the
same chapter:--"So were all those that were numbered of the children of
Israel * * from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go
forth to war in Israel; even all that were numbered were six hundred
thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty"--(vv. 45, 46).
If we are to rely upon this version, it is clear that Moses does not say
there were 600,000 _warriors_, nor 600,000 men _possessed of arms_, nor
600,000 men that _went to war_, but, simply, 600,000 men _fit_ to go to
war,--in other words, 600,000 men in the prime of life.

But perhaps Dr Colenso would prefer to be judged by the authority
of the Hebrew text. Those who were numbered are described by the
words כָּל־ יֹצֵ֥א צָבָ֖א (kol yotze tzaba)--_every one going forth to the
host_. In the opinion of Dr. Colenso this must mean every one belonging
to the army--every _armed warrior_. Let us see if this interpretation is
borne out by the use of the same phrase in other passages. We find it
prescribed (_Numbers_, viii. 25) that at the age of fifty the Levites
shall return from the _host_ (צָבָ֖א--tzaba) of the service". Now, it is
well known that the Levites were not permitted to serve in the army.
Therefore, the word _host_ (צָבָ֖א) does not here mean the _army_, but, as
all commentators explain it, the body of Levites engaged in the active
service of the Tabernacle. Again, we read (_Gen._ ii. 1). "The heavens
and the earth were finished, and all the _host_ (צָבָ֖א) of them". In this
passage the word manifestly refers to the works of the creation which
had just been completed. It is also frequently applied by the prophets
to the heavenly bodies,[12] and to the choirs of angels.[13] This word,
therefore, in its primary sense, would seem to represent a collection
of men or things _marshalled in order_. Frequently, indeed, and most
fitly, it was used to designate an army; but we deny that it was employed
exclusively in that signification.

If, then, we seek to ascertain its exact meaning in the first chapter
of _Numbers_, we must examine the context in which it is found, and the
circumstances to which it refers. Moses is commanded by God to number
the people, and the way in which he executed that command is accurately
described. There is not a word, in this, or the following chapters,
about soldiers, or arms, or warfare. The object of the census was simply
to distribute the people of Israel, according to their tribes and
families, around the Tabernacle which stood in the midst of the camp.
The position of each tribe was clearly defined, with a view to the
preservation of strict order and regularity. May we not, then, fairly
infer that by the _host_ is here meant the whole people of Israel
_marshalled_, as they were, _in order_ around the Tabernacle? It is
probable that those only were numbered who were responsible members of
the community, that is to say, all the fathers of families.

We conclude that the argument of Dr. Colenso fails to establish any
inconsistency in the sacred narrative: first, because it is quite
uncertain that the Israelites are said to have been _armed_; secondly,
because it is simply false that they are represented to have had 600,000
_armed warriors_.

Our readers will perhaps be disappointed to find that they have reached
the end of our paper, and that out of the many objections of Dr. Colenso,
we have answered but one. We confess, indeed, we have done but little.
Yet it is something if we have parried even a single blow that was aimed
at the Ark of God. It is something if we have struck down even one of
that daring and defiant host with which Dr. Colenso has essayed to storm
the citadel of truth.



LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.


From among the many questions with which we have been favoured, our
space allows us to attend in this number only to the following. For the
others we shall find place next month.


I.

1º. Can _black_ or _violet_ vestments be used _indifferently_ at
_Requiem_ Masses, as stated in the _Ceremonial_ of Baldeschi, edited by
Vavaseur? (page 14), _Paris_, 1859.

2º. "Rubrica de coloribus paramentorum non est praeceptiva, sed
directiva, unde non inducit rigorosam obligationem; quia praeceptum
S. Pii V. latum in bulla missalis, ex quo rubricae vim obligandi habent,
non se extendit ad hanc rubricam de coloribus". Ferraris, in voc.
Paramenta Sacra.

Can a priest, therefore, use at _Requiem_ Masses vestments of any
colour, when, on any occasion, the number of priests to celebrate are
many, and the black or violet vestments few? Can we conclude that, in
such circumstances, the obligation of the rubric ceases?

3º. Must the _ciborium_ containing particles to be consecrated, be
placed not merely on the corporal, but also on the altar stone? What is
to be done when the altar-stone is too small to contain the chalice and
large host? Can the ciborium be placed outside the stone, or should the
particles be taken from the ciborium and arranged on the corporal, so as
to rest on the altar-stone?

       *       *       *       *       *

In reply to the first question, we beg to state that black or violet
vestments, in our opinion, cannot be used indiscriminately. The Rubric
of the Missal clearly lays down that black vestments are to be used,
and we are not aware of any authoritative decree stating the general
principle that one or the other can be used at discretion. The custom,
no doubt, has been introduced of using the violet colour in many places;
but in several instances this was done and sanctioned by authority,
through a necessity which would justify a departure from the Rubric,
inasmuch as there might not be a supply of black vestments; in other
instances, it may have been done in consequence of the opinion gradually
gaining ground that black or violet could be used indifferently. It
appears to us more correct to say, that in case of necessity the violet
can be used without much difficulty.

But our reverend correspondent gives, as his authority, the _Ceremonial_
of Baldeschi, edited by Vavaseur, 1859. We have consulted this author,
and we find that he refers the reader to the _Ordo Divini Officii_, Roma.
In this ordo it is stated that the colour in Missa Defunctorum is niger
vel violaceus. And the following note is appended: "S. R. C. Ann. 1670.
21 Jun. v. Cardellini in Nota ad quaest. 3. Decret. 4440. Cujus tamen
coloris (violacei) parcus admodum erit usus, et fortasse solum in aliquali
necessitate; sic Cavalieri". The decree of the Sacred Congregation of
Rites here referred to, is as follows: Oritana--"Sacra Congregatio censuit
servandum esse decretum vicarii in Ecclesia Cathedrali ne in posterum
celebrentur Missae defunctorum nisi cum colore nigro vel saltem violaceo
... Hoc die 21 Junii, 1670".

The word _saltem_ appears to us not to allow the indiscriminate use
of black or violet, but rather the use of the violet, when the black
vestments are not at hand.

It may not be out of place to observe here, that there are two decrees
of the Sacred Congregation of Indulgences which illustrate this subject.

    Dub. 1. "Utrum qui privilegium habet personale pro quatuor
    Missis in hebdomadis singulis debeat cum paramentis coloris nigri
    celebrare diebus non impeditis ut possit indulgentiam Plenariam
    pro Animabus Defunctorum lucrari?

    Dub. 2. "Utrum qui celebrat in Altari Privilegiato pro singulis
    diebus debeat semper uti paramentis nigris diebus non impeditis
    ut indulgentiam Privilegii consequatur?

    "Ad primum dubium resp. Affirmative. Ad secundum pariter ut in primo.

    "Ita decrevit sub die 11 Aprilis, 1840".

From these two decrees it is quite clear that it is indispensable for a
priest to celebrate in black vestments on the days allowed, of course,
in order to gain the plenary indulgence, _ut possit indulgentiam
plenariam pro animabus defunctorum lucrari_. If the black or violet
could be used indifferently, there exists no reason for confining this
important privilege of a plenary indulgence to a Requiem Mass said in
black vestments. We are of opinion, therefore, that, as a general rule,
the black vestments are to be used, and the violet only _ex aliquali
necessitate_, as has been remarked in a directory which we have before
us. 'We must, however, observe that in the _Caeremoniale Episcoporum_ it
is stated that the bishop assisting at a Requiem Mass can use a black
or violet cope: "Si Episcopus noluerit celebrare, sed hujusmodi missae
pro defunctis per alium celebratae interesse eadem norma in omnibus
servabitur, quae expressa est in capite praecedenti; ipse vero Episcopus
cum cappa, vel cum pluviali nigro seu violaceo facta confessione cum
celebrante ibit cum suis assistentibus ad sedem suam"--_Caeremoniale
Episcoporum_, libro 2º, cap. 12, no. i.

This, however, only applies to the bishop.

Again, the _Caeremoniale_, in the same book, chapter 25th, no. vi.,
treating of the function of Good Friday, says: "Episcopus et omnes
utuntur paramentis nigris si haberi possint et deficientibus nigris
coloris violacei".

We now come to the second question, and in our answer we shall probably
have to make some observations closely connected with the subject matter
of the first question. We hold that the rubric de coloribus paramentorum
is _praeceptiva_. There are two decrees of the Sacred Congregation of
Rites bearing on this subject.

    1. "Inter postulata a Reverendissimo Episcopo Vicen. in visitatione
    ad Limina transmissa unum extat, quo ipse jure conqueritur de
    confusione colorum in paramentis sacrosancto Missae sacrificio,
    aliisque functionibus deservientibus, quae etiamsi sacris ritibus
    opposita in dicta tamen civitate et in ceteris Episcopatus Ecclesiis
    conspicitur. Huic propterea abusui providere, imo de medio tollere
    volens, humillime supplicavit idem Episcopus pro opportuno remedio.
    Et Sac. Rituum. Congregatio in ordinario coetu ad Vaticanum coacto
    respondendum censuit _Serventur omnino rubricae generales_: facta
    tamen potestate Episcopo indulgendi ut in Ecclesiis pauperibus
    permittat illis uti donec consumantur". 19 Decemb., 1829. in Vicen.

    2. "Potestne continuari usus illarum Ecclesiarum quae pro colore
    tam albo, quam rubro, viridi et violaceo utuntur paramentis flavi
    coloris vel mixtis diversis coloribus, praesertim si colores a
    rubrica praescripti in floribus reperiantur? Resp. Servetur strictim
    Rubrica quoad colorem indumentorum, 12 Nov., 1831. Marsor. ad dub.
    54. Vide _Manuale Decretorum S. Rituum Congregationis_".

In these two decrees, the observance of the Rubric with regard to the
colour of the vestments is prescribed, "_servetur strictim Rubrica quoad
colorem indumentorum_". Such a form of words appears to us inconsistent
with the opinion that the said rubric is merely _directiva_.

We may also observe that even the use of many colours, or rather the
mixture of them, is laid down as an abuse to be abolished, and power
is granted to the bishop to allow the use of such vestments in _poor
churches_ until they shall be no longer fit for use. If it be an abuse
to use many colours, how much greater the abuse if a colour be used
quite opposed to the rubric! It therefore seems to us that the opinion
of Ferraris is at variance with what the Sacred Congregation of Rites
lays down on this subject. He holds that the bull of St. Pius V., "_non
se extendit ad hanc rubricam de coloribus_", and the Congregation of
Rites says, "_servetur strictim Rubrica quoad colorem indumentorum_".
Indeed we must say that all discussion appears to us to be set aside on
this point by these decrees, particularly if we keep in view a decree
of the Sacred Congregation of Rites dated 23rd. May, 1846, which was
afterwards approved and confirmed by the present Pope on the 17th July,
1848, and which is as follows: "Decreta a Sacra Congregatione emanata
et responsiones quaecumque ab ipsa propositis dubiis scripto formiter
editae, eamdem habeant auctoritatem, ac si immediate ab ipso summo
Pontifice promanarent, quamvis nulla facto, fuerit de iisdem relatio
Sanctitati Suae". We hold, therefore, that the rubric is _praeceptiva_,
and ought not to be departed from unless in such cases where a real
necessity would warrant us to do so; and we may add that we would not
consider it lawful to use white vestments in a Requiem Mass, inasmuch
as we cannot conceive what necessity could turn up to justify such a
departure from the rubric. Much better would it be, in such a case, to
say the Mass of the day occurring, or some other votive Mass.

With regard to the third question, we beg to say that the ciborium or
particles ought to be placed on the altar-stone, and that not only
during the consecration, but to the communion. The chalice and host must
be placed on it, according to the rubric; of the missal, and we see no
reason why the same thing is not to be done with the small particles
which are to be consecrated. St. Alphonsus Liguori is clearly of
this opinion: "Non igitur licet ante communionem ponere particulas
consecratas extra aram". La Croix, treating of the same subject, says:
"Post communionem sacerdotis possunt parvae hostiae ab eo consecratae
poni extra aram in corporali"; and he gives the following reason: "Quia
omnes sunt unica victima et per modem unius offeruntur". Indeed La
Croix, for the same reason, states that it would be unlawful to have
a second altar-stone, in case the one would not be large enough to
hold the small particles together with the chalice and host: "Si unum
portatile non possit cum hostia et calice capere omnes particulas
consecrandas, illicitum esset has collocare et consecrare in alio
portatili vicino". The best, and indeed the only remedy we can suggest,
especially where there are many communicants, is to procure a large
altar-stone. We have heard of some bishops declining to consecrate
any stone that was under fourteen inches in length, and twelve inches
in width, at least. It is unnecessary to observe that there is great
danger, and irreverence too, in placing a large number of particles on
a very small space or corner of an altar-stone, where an accident, and
that of the most serious nature, is likely to take place at any moment.
Perhaps it may not be amiss to remark, also, that those theologians who
hold the opinion that the rubrics are merely _directivae_, except always
such rubrics as are closely connected with the Most Blessed Sacrament,
and maintain that those are _praeceptivae_. We conclude, therefore, that
the ciborium or particles ought to be placed on the altar-stone, and if
the altar-stone be too small for the chalice and host, it ought not to
be used.


II.

1º. At High Mass, ought the celebrant to elevate the Host before the
choir has terminated the singing of the Sanctus and following words?

_Answer_: The _Caeremoniale Episcop._ lib. ii. no. 70, gives the answer:
"Chorus prosequitur cantum usque ad _Benedictus qui venit_ exclusive:
quo _finito et non prius_ elevatur sacramentum. Tunc silet chorus et
cum aliis adorat. Organum vero, si habetur, cum omni tunc melodia et
gravitate pulsandum est". The celebrant ought to proceed slowly with the
canon, so as to give time to the choir to terminate their part before he
comes to the elevation. The choir ought to be cautioned not to protract
the singing of the Sanctus too much.

2º. At High Mass, when the celebrant has sung "Et ne nos inducas in
tentationem", in the Pater Noster, is he bound to wait until the choir
has finished singing "Sed libera nos a malo", before he says Amen?

_Answer:_ According to a ceremonial much esteemed in Rome, published by
a missionary of St. Vincent, in Bologna, 1854, l. iv. no. 1484, the
priest is bound to wait. The choir _agit partem ministri_ in its answers
at High Mass, and on that account the priest must wait until it responds
to him, as on other occasions he waits until the server or clerk
terminates his answers.

After the priest has sung "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum", he must also
wait until the choir has sung "Et cum spiritu tuo", before he says "Haec
commixtio", etc.

3º. When the deacon has sung "Ite Missa est", can the celebrant, without
waiting for the choir to answer "Deo gratias", turn to the altar and say
the prayer "Placeat"?

_Answer_: The _Caeremoniale_, Ep. l. ii. c. viii. no. 78, says: "Diaconus
vertit faciem ad populum, renes autem celebranti ... et cantat (Ite missa
est) ... quo dicto, _ipse_ et _celebrans simul_ vertunt se per latus
epistolae ad altare, et celebrans dicit (Placeat tibi, S. Trinitas,
etc)". As the singing of "Deo gratias" occupies so short a time, it will
terminate before the priest can turn to the altar; in any case, he ought
not to commence the Placeat until the choir has responded.



CORRESPONDENCE.


                                            Kilkee, February 7th, 1865.

_To the Editors of the Irish Ecclesiastical Record._

    GENTLEMEN,

    Be pleased to allow me to bring under your notice a slight mistake
    noticeable in the January issue of your _Record_, and in doing so
    I may be permitted to express my great satisfaction, and that of
    all those who spoke to me on the subject, with the interesting and
    varied matter in your _Record_. Your high character, not to speak
    of stronger reasons, will secure for your statements a ready
    acceptance with Catholics, and this, coupled with the very faultless
    character of your extensively read periodical, renders me anxious
    to have it the medium of correction to its own mistakes, however
    slight. The learned writer on the Irish sees of the sixteenth
    century, speaking of the vicissitudes of Clonmacnois, and of its
    subjection to the metropolitical see of Tuam, says, in p. 158 of
    the _Record_: "This change probably took place during the episcopate
    of Bishop Symon of the Order of St. Dominick, who, though omitted
    in the lists of Ware and De Burgo, was appointed to the see on
    the death of Dr. Henry in 1349". Now, Symon was never Bishop of
    Clonmacnois. Indeed, as remarked by the learned writer in the
    _Record_, Theiner gives, in page 291, the bull of his appointment.
    But the appointment was null, as the see was not vacant by the death
    of Dr. Henry. Hence, by looking to the next page of Theiner, you
    will see how good Pope Clement VI. acknowledges and rectifies the
    mistake by appointing Symon to the see of Kildare, then vacant.
    The report of Dr. Henry's death was unfounded; therefore, as
    the bull of Pope Clement declares, Symon was not, and in the
    circumstances could not have been, Bishop of Clonmacnois. "Cum
    autem sicut postea vera relatio ad nos perduxit", etc., the Pope
    says, addressing Symon, "tu nullius Ecclesiae remansisti".

                              I remain, Gentlemen,
                                    Your obedient servant,

                                                      SYLVESTER MALONE.


[We feel much obliged to our learned and reverend correspondent for the
interest he takes in the success and the accuracy of the _Record_, and
we beg to assure him that the greatest attention will be paid to every
communication and suggestion from him, or from any other promoter of the
study of Irish ecclesiastical literature or antiquities. In publishing
the _Record_, our only desire is to illustrate and uphold truth, and
thus to promote the interests of religion.

We regret that, our colleague who treated of the See of Clonmacnoise
in the January number being at present absent, we have not been able
to communicate to him the remarks contained in the above letter; we
can therefore only state that, as he was not treating of the fourteenth
century, he referred only incidentally to the appointment of Bishop
Symon in order to fix the period at which a change had been "_probably_"
effected in a matter of ecclesiastical jurisdiction connected with the
See of Clonmacnoise, and that he had no intention of giving the history
of the bishops of that diocese, or of entering into a question which
was not connected with his subject; so that, having fixed the date in
question with accuracy--as he does by referring to the appointment of
Bishop Symon to Clonmacnoise, as given by Theiner--it did not appear
necessary for him to proceed farther.

However that may be, we can safely promise in the name of our colleague,
that he will be happy to correct any mistake into which he may have
fallen. He will be able to do so the more readily because he has been
requested to publish in a separate volume all he has written on the
succession of the Bishops in the various Sees of Ireland. When corrected
and completed, these articles will be a valuable accession to our
ecclesiastical history, whilst they will supply a triumphant answer to
an assertion of the learned Dr. Todd in the preface to his _Life of St.
Patrick_, viz.: that the original Irish Church, having merged into the
Church of the English Pale, adopted the Reformation in the sixteenth
century. That assertion undoubtedly was made hastily and without
sufficient reflection. Any one who reads the articles of the _Record_
will find that it has no foundation in fact. Penal laws, indeed, and
brute force were employed to propagate the Reformation in Ireland, but
the true faith was so deeply rooted in the minds of the clergy and laity
of the "original Irish Church" that all the powers of Hell could not
exterminate it.

As to Bishop Symon, mentioned by our correspondent, it appears that he
was appointed in 1349 by Clement VI. to Derry, not to Kildare. According
to Ware, there was no vacancy in that year in this last see, as it was
occupied from 1334 to 1365 by Richard Hulot and Thomas Giffard. But in
the list of the Bishops of Derry given by Ware, a Bishop Symon, of some
order of friars, is mentioned as filling that see in 1367 and 1369. The
historian states that he could not discover to what religious order that
prelate belonged, or what was the date of his consecration. The valuable
documents published by the Archivist of the Vatican, F. Theiner, show that
Bishop Symon was of the Order of St. Dominick, that he was consecrated
by Talleyrand, Bishop of Albano, that he was appointed to Derry in 1349,
and that he succeeded a Bishop Maurice who was unknown to Ware. A copy
of the brief appointing Bishop Symon to Derry, was sent to the Archbishop
 of Armagh, as appears from Theiner, p. 292. This shows that the
_Ecclesia Darensis_ conferred on Bishop Symon belonged to the province
of Armagh. Kildare, indeed, was called by the same name, but it belonged
to a different province. Theiner gives the appointment of a Bishop of
Kildare at page 261, in which reference is made to his metropolitan of
Dublin. At page 64 _Ecclesia Darensis_ is mentioned again, but it is
stated to belong to the metropolitan of Armagh. Thus, although Derry and
Kildare went by the same name, it is not difficult to determine to which
see the papal Bulls regarding them belong, because mention is generally
made of the metropolitan to whose suffragan the document is addressed.]



DOCUMENTS.


I.

LETTER OF THE IRISH BISHOPS TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE HENRY GRATTAN, M.P.

We publish the following letter, addressed by the Irish Bishops to Mr.
Grattan in the year 1795. It shows how anxious those Prelates always
were to unite education and religion, and to preserve the sources of
knowledge from being contaminated by error and infidelity.


    Sir,

    We, the under-written Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland, having,
    on behalf of ourselves and absent brethren, already expressed our
    wants and wishes respecting clerical education, in the minutes
    submitted to your revision and correction, take the liberty at
    present to explain some of them more particularly, in order to
    remove misapprehensions which may furnish an occasion of perplexity
    or equivocation.

    As the principle of our application to parliament seems universally
    admitted, we shall confine ourselves to those parts only of the
    detail to which, as we hear, objections have been made.

    It is said, that as our plan extends to the education of the laity,
    the appointment of professors to lecture on philosophy, mathematics,
    rhetoric, and the languages, which are common to clergy and laity,
    should not be vested in the bishops only, because these branches of
    learning are not intimately connected with religion and morality,
    and much less with the peculiar duties of ecclesiastics.

    We cannot subscribe to this position, as experience has convinced
    us of the fatal impressions made on youth in all times and places,
    particularly in France, by infidel, seditious, or immoral professors
    even of grammar, and proved the necessity of scrupulous attention
    to the principles and conduct of every teacher previous to his
    admission into any seminary or school. It is always more advisable
    to prevent evil in this manner, than punish the whisperers of
    atheism and Jacobinism by a controlling power in the bishops to
    expel them. Moreover, the exercise of this control will appear
    odious to many, must occasion clamour, and would frequently excite
    disputes between the bishops and lay friends of those unworthy
    professors or lecturers.

    These observations, as you will perceive, are grounded on a
    supposition that the intended colleges are to be regulated on the
    precise plan presented to your consideration. We extended it to
    _general instruction_ on the suggestion of our zealous and patriot
    agent at London, who constantly assured us, that it was the earnest
    wish of the Duke of Portland, Earl Fitzwilliam, Mr. Burke, and
    others, that the laity should not be excluded from the benefit of
    public instruction in the proposed colleges.

    It appears from our printed memorial to Lord Westmoreland, of
    which we enclose a copy, that our original views were confined
    to clerical education only.

    This continues to be the great object of our anxious wishes and
    solicitude; and as no one, to our knowledge, controverts the
    exclusive competency of the bishops to superintend and regulate
    it, we are perfectly satisfied to arrange the education of persons
    not destined for the sacred ministry on another proper plan, to be
    hereafter concerted.

    As four hundred _clerical_ students are absolutely necessary to
    preserve the succession of Roman Catholic Clergy in this kingdom,
    we have, after very mature deliberation, judged it expedient to
    establish one house in each province for their education. It is
    needless now to enter into a detail of our motives. They are many
    and weighty. We shall mention one. By our having a college in each
    province, the opulent and religious Catholics will be more strongly
    excited to grant donations to an establishment in their own
    neighbourhood, than they would be to others at a great distance,
    which many of them may view with jealousy, and feel hurt at not
    being equally accommodated.

    We confidently hope that these four colleges will equally partake
    of the national bounty in whatever time it may be granted by
    Parliament. It never was our wish or intention that you should
    introduce our plan of education or any part of it into Parliament,
    until the Bill on general Emancipation shall be disposed of, as we
    always considered the success of this to depend in a great measure
    on that of the other.

    We understand that the appointment by us of a Medical and Chymical
    Lecturer is objected to from our incompetency to judge of his
    knowledge in these sciences.

    It was our design to consult learned professional men on the choice
    of such lecturers, after ascertaining their principles and conduct;
    neither did this measure of a Chymical or Medical Professor
    originate with us. It was likewise suggested by our agent at London
    to Government from motives of humanity. We shall most readily give
    up that point, if required, as it made no part of our own plan.

    With the firmest reliance on your brilliant exertions in promoting
    the measure we have so much at heart for the advantage of society
    in this kingdom, and with due deference to your instructions in
    conducting it on our parts, we have the honour to remain, etc.

      Dublin, 2nd February, 1795.

            Signed by eighteen Prelates.

                   ✠ JOHN THOMAS TROY, of Dublin.
                   ✠ THOMAS BRAY, of Cashel.
                   ✠ FRANCIS MOYLAN, of Cork.
                   ✠ GERARD TEAHAN, of Kerry.
                   ✠ WM. COPPINGER, of Cloyne and Ross.
                   ✠ JAMES CAULFIELD, of Ferns.
                   ✠ DANIEL DELANY, of Kildare and Leighlin.
                   ✠ DOMINICK BELLEW, of Killala.
                   ✠ EDMUND TRENCH, of Elphin.
                   ✠ RICHARD O'REILLY, of Armagh.
                   ✠ BOETIUS EGAN, of Tuam.
                   ✠ P. J. PLUNKETT, of Meath.
                   ✠ HUGH O'REILLY, of Clogher.
                   ✠ MATT. LENNAN, of Dromore.
                   ✠ JOHN CRUISE, of Ardagh.
                   ✠ M'MULLEN, of Down and Connor.
                   ✠ CHARLES O'REILLY, Coadjutor of Kilmore.
                   ✠ DILLON, Coadjutor of Kilfenora and Kilmacduagh.


II.

LETTER OF CARDINAL ANTONELLI TO THE ARCHBISHOPS OF IRELAND IN 1791
REGARDING THE CHANGE IN THE CONSECRATION OATH OF BISHOPS.


    PER-ILLUSTRES ET REVERENDISSIMI DOMINI UTI FRATRES,

    Ex literis vestris sub die 17 Novembris anni 1789 scriptis summopere
    Vos commoveri intelleximus, quod cum in lucem prodierit quidam
    libellus a Pseudo-Episcopo Cloynensi conscriptus, _De praesenti
    Statu Ecclesiae_, occasionem inde ceperint obtrectatores nostri,
    veteris calumniae adversus Catholicam Religionem acrius refricandae
    nullo scilicet, modo posse hanc, salva Regum, ac Rerumpublicarum
    incolumitate, consistere. Cum enim, inquiunt, Romanus Pontifex omnium
    Catholicorum Pater ac Magister sit, ac tanta praeditus auctoritate,
    ut alienorum Regnorum subditos a fide, ac Sacramento Regibus ac
    principibus praestito relaxare possit, eumdem facili negotio turbas
    ciere, ac publicae regnorum tranquillitati nocere posse propugnant.

    Miramur his vos querelis turbari potuisse, cum praesertim
    praeclarissimus iste Frater vester, et consors Apostolici muneris
    Archiepiscopus Caselliensis, aliique strenui jurium Apostolicae Sedis
    Defensores maledica ista convicia egregiis scriptis refutarint plane
    ac diluerint. Quid igitur proderit, novam nunc quemadmodum petitis,
    edi ab hac Apostolica Sede declarationem, ut sua jura tueatur,
    explicet, atque a criminationibus vindicet? Nihil hoc esset aliud,
    quam adversus ipsammet Catholicam Fidem novos excitare hostes. Ea
    enim est hujus nostri temporis improborum hominum mens, atque animus,
    ut dum certare se simulant adversus Apostolicae Sedis jura, contra
    ipsam tamen Fidem intentant aciem, eamque unitatem, quam Catholicae
    universi Orbis Ecclesiae cum Apostolica Petri Cathedra firmissime
    retinent, convellere, ac labefactare conantur.

    Itaque ad hujusmodi conatus nolite expavescere; jam enim toties
    eorum calumniae repulsae sunt, ut nihil nunc agant, quam vetera ut
    nova proponere, instaurare disjecta, detecta retexere. Probe jam
    noverat Sanctissimus ille, nec sapientia minus, quam pietatis laude
    clarissimus Antistes Franciscus Salesius, nonnisi ad ciendas turbas,
    atque ad imbecilles animos commovendos, agitari haec passim, ac in
    vulgus jactari. Qua de re luculentissimum ille testimonium edidit
    epistola 764, tom. 6, edit. Parisien., an. 1758; quam vobis, non
    perlegendam modo, sed ut providam adhibendae moderationis normam,
    prae oculis habendam valde consulimus. Eodem exemplo, vos quoque
    insidias detegite, et populos vestrae solicitudini commissos docete,
    quae recta sunt, ut a laqueis, quos ante pedes struunt, declinare
    discant, ne in transversum agantur. Id sane cum vestra pietate dignum,
    tum etiam a vestra auctoritate profectum, multo magis Fidelium
    vestrae Pastorali curae concreditorum mentibus insidebit atque ab
    obtrectatorum calumniis vindicabit. Minime enim vobis pro vestra
    doctrina ignotum esse arbitramur, quaenam sint Apostolicae Sedis
    jura, quibusque argumentis propugnare possint. In hac causa illud
    accuratissime est distinguendum, quae sibi jure optimo vindicet
    Apostolica Sedes ab iis, quae ad inferendam calumniam a Novatoribus
    hujus saeculi eidem affiguntur. Nunquam Romana Sedes docuit
    haeterodoxis fidem non esse servandam, violari quacumque ex causa
    posse juramentum, Regibus a Catholica communione disjunctis
    praestitum; Pontifici Romano licere temporalia eorum jura, ac dominia
    invadere. Horrendum vero, ac detestabile facinus etiam apud nos est,
    si quis unquam, atque etiam religionis praetextu in Regum ac Principum
    vitam audeat quidpiam, aut moliatur. Non haec consectaria sunt ejus
    auctoritatis, qua valeat Romanus Pontifex in extremo religionis
    discrimine, jurisjurandi vinculum solvere, quam tamen satis vobis
    compertum est nec inter fidei dogmata recenseri, nec pro haereticis
    haberi, qui ab ea dissentiunt.

    Verum neque etiam in nullo pretio haberi voluit postulationes vestras
    Sanctissimus Pontifex Pius VI. ut enim omnis carpendi, ac calumniandi
    eradicetur occasio, quam quidam, ut scribitis, sumunt ex iis verbis
    formulae juramenti obedientiae Apostolicae Sedi praestandae et ab
    Episcopis in eorum consecratione adhibendae, _Haereticos pro posse
    persequar et impugnabo_, et quam quasi classicum ad bellum iis
    indicendum, et tamquam hostes persequendos, atque impugnandos malevole
    interpretantur, non intelligentes, eam persecutionem, atque
    impugnationem, quam contra haereticos Episcopi suscipiunt, ad illud
    studium, ac conatum referri, quo eos ad saniorem mentem perducere,
    ac Ecclesiae Catholicae reconciliare nituntur, Sanctitas Sua benigne
    annuit, ut loco precedentis juramenti formulae, altera subrogetur quae
    ab Archiepiscopo Mohiloviensi, tota plaudente Petropolitana Aula,
    ipsaque Imperatrice adstante palam perlecta est, quamque his litteris
    alligatam ad vos transmittimus.

    Ceterum Praesules Amplissimi, qui isthic agitis excubias Domini
    florentissimasque istas Hiberniae Ecclesias, divina gratia adspirante
    ex Apostolice Sedis gratia administrandas suscepistis, huic Petri
    Cathedra in qua Dominus posuit verbum veritatis, firmiter adhaerete,
    praedicate Evangelium Christi in omni patientia, ac doctrina: in
    omnibus praebete vosmetipsos exemplum bonorum operum, in doctrina,
    in integritate, in gravitate, verbum sanum, irreprehensibile. Haec
    si feceritis, quemadmodum jam fecisse, et deinceps incensius facturos
    non dubitamus, non modo vestra virtute, ac constantia male contextas
    calumnias propulsabitis, verum etiam qui _ex adverso sunt verebuntur,
    nihil habentes malum dicere de vobis_.

    Enim vero, quis est, cui non perspicua sint illa, quae Ecclesia
    Romana omnium mater et magistra de praestanda a subditis saeculi
    potestatibus obedientia, praedicat, docet, ac praecipit?

    Ab ipso nascentis Ecclesiae exordio Apostolorum Princeps B. Petrus,
    Fideles instruens, ita eos hortabatur--_Subjecti estote omni humanae
    creaturae propter Deum: sive Regi, quasi praecellenti, sive Ducibus,
    tamquam ab eo missis ad vindictam malefactorum, laudem vero bonorum,
    quia sic est voluntas Dei, ut benefacientes obtumescere faciatis
    imprudentium hominum ignorantiam._ His praeceptis instituta Catholica
    Ecclesia, quum Gentiles furentibus odiis adversus Christianos, tamquam
    Imperii hostes, debacharentur, praeclarissimi Christiani nominis
    defensores respondebant--_Precantes_ (Tertul. _In Apologet._, c. 30)
    _sumus omnes semper pro omnibus Imperatoribus, vitam illis prolixam,
    imperium securum, Domum tutam, exercitum fortem, senatum fidelem,
    populum probum, Orbem quietum_--Id ipsum saepius Romani Pontifices
    Petri successores inculcare non destiterunt, praesertim ad
    missionarios, ne ulla Catholicae fidei cultoribus, ab hostibus
    Christiani nominis crearetur invidia.

    Praeclarissima in hanc rem veterum Romanorum Pontificum monumenta
    proferre pretermittimus, quae vos ipsi non ignoratis. Verum nuperrimum
    sapientissimi Pontificis Benedicti XIV. monitum vobis in memoriam
    revocare arbitramur, qui in iis regulis, quas pro Missionibus
    Anglicanis observandas proposuit, quaeque vobis etiam communes sunt,
    ita inquit--_Sedulo incumbant Vicarii Apostolici, ut missionarii
    saeculares probe honesteque in omnibus se gerant, quo aliis bono
    exemplo sint, et in primis sacris officiis celebrandis, opportunisque
    institutionibus populo tradendis, atque infirmis opera sua
    sublevandis praesto sint, ut a publicis otiosorum coetibus, et
    cauponis omnimode caveant ... at potissimum ipsimet vicarii, omni
    qua possunt ratione, severe tamen illos puniant, qui de publico
    regimine cum honore sermonem non haberent_.

    Testis autem ipsamet Anglia esse potest, quam alte istius modi
    monita in Catholicorum animis radicitus egerint. In nupero enim,
    qua tota fere America conflagravit bello, cum florentissimae
    Provinciae, in quibus universa fere gens a Catholica Ecclesia
    disjuncta immoratur, Magnae Britanniae Regis imperium abjecissent,
    sola Canadensis Provincia, quae Catholicis pene innumeris constat,
    quamquam callidis artibus tentata, atque etiam aviti Gallorum
    dominii haud immemor, in obsequio tamen Anglorum perstitit
    fidelissime. Haec vos, egregii Antistites, crebris usurpate
    sermonibus, haec Episcopis Suffraganeis vestris saepius in memoriam
    revocate. Cum ad populum pro concione verba facitis, iterum, atque
    iterum illum admonete, _omnes honorare_, _fraternitatem diligere_,
    _Deum timere_, _Regem honorificare_. Quae quidem Christiani hominis
    officia cum in omni Regno, atque imperio colenda sunt, tum maxime
    in isto vestro Britannico, in quo Regis sapientissimi, aliorumque
    praeclarissimorum Regni procerum ea est in Catholicos voluntas, ut
    non asperum, ac grave jugum imponant cervicibus vestris, sed leni,
    ac blando regimine ipsi etiam Catholici utantur. Hanc agendi
    rationem si unanimes retinueritis, si omnia vestra in charitate
    fiant, si id unum respexeritis in regenda plebe Domini, salutem
    nimirum animarum; verebuntur (iterum confirmamus), adversarii
    quidpiam dicere de vobis, ultroque fatebuntur, Catholicam fidem
    non modo ad beatam vitam assequendam, sed etiam (Epis. 138) ut
    B. Augustinus inquit in epistola ad Marcellinum, ad terrenae hujus
    Civitatis firmissimam pacem, atque ad Regnorum columen, ac praesidium
    tutissimum a caelo esse delapsam: _qui doctrinam Christi_, verba sunt
    S. Doctoris, _adversum dicunt esse Reipublicae dent exercitum talem,
    quales doctrina Christi esse milites jussit, dent tales provinciales,
    tales maritos, tales conjuges, tales parentes, tales filios, tales
    dominos, tales servos, tales reges, tales judices, tales denique
    debitorum redditores, et exactores ipsius fisci, quales esse praecipit
    doctrina Christiana, et audeant eam dicere adversam esse Reipublicae,
    imo vero non dubitent eam confiteri magnam, si ei obtemperetur,
    salutem esse Reipublicae_. Hujus porro salutaris doctrinae constantem,
    ac firmam integritatem nonnisi in Catholica Societate consistere,
    ac vigere, quae videlicet communione cum Romana Sede velut sacro
    unitatis vinculo divinitus adstricta per totum Orbem diffunditur,
    ac sustentatur, idem S. Doctor, caeterique unanimi consensu Ecclesiae
    Patres invictis plane argumentis apertissimè demonstrant. Deus Opt.
    Max. Vos incolumes diutissime servet quemadmodum enixe optamus
    pro summo nostro erga vos studio ac voluntate. Valete.

        Amplit. Vestrarum.                  Romae 23 Junii 1791.
                                         Uti Frater Studiosissimus.
                                            L. CARD. ANTONELLUS, Praef.

        A. Archiep. Adven. Secretarius.
                Dominis Archiepiscopis Regnis Hiberniae.


III.

RESCRIPT PERMITTING A LOW MASS DE REQUIEM TO BE SAID EVEN ON DOUBLES
_PRAESENTE CADAVERE_.


PERMISSIO LEGENDI MISSAM DE REQUIEM IN FESTIS DUPL.

    BEATISSIME PATER,

    Vicarii Apostolici Angliae atque eorum nomine Nicolaus Wiseman,
    Episcopus Melipotamensis et in districtu, centrali vicarii
    Apostolici coadjutor, ad pedes Sanctitatis Tuae provoluti humillime
    supplicant ut benigne dignetur concedere, indultum in Scotia jam
    existens ut scilicet in eis locis in quibus ob Sacerdotum inopiam
    missa cantari non possit, legi possint etiam in festis duplicibus
    missae privatae _de Requiem_ praesente cadavere. Quare, etc.


EX AUDIENTIA SANCTISSIMI HABITA DIE 7 MARTII 1847.

    Sanctissimus Dominus Noster Pius divina providenta PP. IX.
    referente me infrascripto Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda
    Fide Secretario, perpensis expositis indultum jam alias concessum
    Vicariatibus Apostolicis Scotiae, benigne extendit ad omnes
    vicariatus Apostolicos Angliae servatis in reliquis tenore ac
    forma indulti memorati Contrariis quibuscunque non obstantibus.

    Datum Romae, ex aedib. dic. Sac. Congregationis die et anno quibus
    supra.

            Gratis sine ulla omnino solutione quocunque titulo,
                           JOANNES ARCH. THESSALONICENSIS, Secretarius.

    LOCO ✠ SIGILLI.


    BEATISSIME PATER,

    Episcopi Hiberniae, ad pedes Beatitudinis Tuae provoluti, humillime
    supplicant ut facultatem concedere digneris, qua, in iis locis in
    quibus ob Sacerdotum inopiam Missa solemnis celebrari non possit,
    legi possint etiam in festis duplicibus Missae Privatae _de Requiem_
    praesente cadavere.

    Quare, etc.


EX AUDIENTIA SANCTISSIMI HABITA DIE 29 JUNII 1862.

    Sanctissimus Dominus Noster Pius Divina Providentia Papa IX.
    referente me infrascripto S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide
    Secretario benigne annuit pro gratia juxta preces, exceptis
    duplicibus primae vel secundae classis, festis de praecepto
    servandis, feriis, vigiliis, et octavis privilegiatis.

    Datum Romae ex aedibus dictae S. Congnis. die et anno praedictis.

    Gratis sine ulla solutione quovis titulo.

                                                H. CAPALTI Secretarius.



NOTICES OF BOOKS.


_Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum Historiam Illustrantia; quae
    ex Vaticanis, Neapolis, ac Florentiae Tabulis deprompsit et ordine
    chronologico disposuit_ Augustinus Theiner, etc. Ab Honorio Pp. III.
    usque ad Paulum Pp. III. 1216-1547. Romae, Typis Vaticanis, 1864.


When first we introduced to the notice of our readers Mgr. Theiner's
_Vetera Monumenta_, we promised to make early return to the subject,
and to furnish some account of the treasures of ecclesiastical history
contained therein. That promise we now set ourselves to fulfil. The
chief difficulty in the way of our present undertaking is created by
the rich superabundance of the varied materials which Mgr. Theiner's
industry has reunited and given to the world. A collection of one
thousand and sixty-four documents, in which are registered the shifting
phases of most of the important events in Church and State in Ireland
and Scotland which occupied the attention of thirty-seven Roman
Pontiffs, from 1216 to 1547, offers to research so vast a field, and
so boundless, that we may well be pardoned if we feel puzzled where to
begin. Our attention is, however, arrested on the very threshold of
the work by a question than which few others are more interesting to
Irishmen; namely, what position did the Roman Pontiffs take up in the
questions between Ireland and England at the beginning of the thirteenth
century? Did they, as has often been alleged, leave unreproved the
iniquities perpetrated in this country by the English, and, forgetful of
their own proper duties as Fathers of Christendom, did they shut their
heart against the cries wrung by oppression from a persecuted race? or
did they, on the contrary, stand forth in defence of the weak against
the strong, and here, as everywhere else, with apostolic justice, judge
the poor of the people, and save the children of the poor, and humble
the oppressor? The documents published in the first pages of the work
under notice supply us with materials to answer this question in the
sense most favourable to the Apostolic See. An examination of these
documents shall form the subject of our present notice.

Before we enter upon the question we have selected, the dedication of
the book claims from us some notice, and much gratitude towards the
author. The work is dedicated to Archbishop Cullen, to whose frequent
conversations on Ireland, during pleasant summer walks with the author
in the neighbourhood of Tivoli, and to whose requests, oft repeated in
after days, Mgr. Theiner declares his collection of Irish ecclesiastical
documents to be due. He tells us, moreover, that the Archbishop's words
found him a willing labourer for the sake of Ireland; deep feelings of
admiration and compassion had long since touched his heart, and won his
pen to the cause of that stricken nation. "Who can sufficiently admire",
asks he, "that almost incredible piety and unflinching hereditary
constancy in the profession of the Catholic faith, in which, from the
earliest times, the Irish have been so firmly rooted that no assaults
could ever weaken or shake them, even though they had to struggle
against tyrannical laws, or the violence and cunning of perverse men?
How glorious a thing this is, all history is the witness; witnesses are
our ancestors and ourselves; witnesses are all the nations of Europe,
who with one accord proclaim the Irish nation a spectacle of fortitude,
so that among all Christian peoples it is deservedly styled a nation of
martyrs".

The troubles that clouded the early years of the reign of the youthful
King Henry III. were watched with anxiety by Honorius III. In a letter
to the Archbishop of Dublin (_Theiner_, n. 4, p. 2), that Pontiff
enumerates the reasons why he felt so much solicitude for the welfare of
the English monarch. The king was a vassal of the Roman Church, and a
ward of the same; he had taken the Cross, and the Pope was apprehensive
of aught that could impede the Crusade; besides, both his kingdom and
his person had been solemnly confided to the protection of the Pope by
his father, King John, when on his death-bed in the castle at Newark.
The dangers that threatened the boy-king (he was but nine years of
age when he succeeded) were of such a nature as to demand from his
well-wishers strenuous exertions on his behalf. With the crown he had
inherited a war with Louis, afterwards Louis VIII. of France, who on
English soil had received the homage of the English barons at London,
June 2, 1216; and to this was added the bitter hostility of the barons
themselves, whom King John's perfidy had disgusted. These perils were
increased by disturbances in Scotland, where Louis had allies, and in
Ireland, where there existed a formidable party hostile to the king. On
the same day, January 17, 1217, Honorius III. wrote to Scotland and to
Ireland in the hope of calming these commotions by his authority, and of
bringing into submission those who were in arms against Henry. In his
letter to the Archbishop of Dublin he appointed that prelate delegate of
the Apostolic See, with a command to use the powers which that position
gave him to bring back harmony between the king and his subjects in
Ireland. These legatine faculties were withdrawn by another letter (n.
34, pag. 15), dated July 6, 1220, in which the Pontiff states that as
peace had been fully restored in the kingdoms of England and Ireland,
it was no longer necessary that the Archbishop should continue to act
as legate. But on the 31st of the same month letters were issued to the
Irish prelates, announcing to them the appointment of a new legate for
Ireland and Scotland, in the person of James, the Pope's chaplain and
penitentiary. On the same day, and to the same effect, letters were
issued to the King of Scotland, as well as to the Irish princes, who are
addressed thus: _Regibus Ultonie_, _Corcaie_, _Limrith_, _Connatie_,
_Insularum_. In one week after his appointment, the new legate was
commanded to exercise his authority against the English king, on behalf
of the Irish, in a matter of the greatest importance, the documents in
connection with which we will now place before our readers.

We said before that on the 17th January, 1216, Pope Honorius III. had
written to the Archbishop of Dublin appointing him legate during the
then existing troubles. On the 14th January, 1217, just three days
before the papal letter was written, Henry III., or his adviser, the
Earl of Pembroke, wrote the following letter[14] to the justiciary of
Ireland (_Rot. Pat._ i. _Hen._ III, _m._ 14):

    "Rex, justiciario suo Hiberniae, salutem. Mandamus vobis quod, in
    fide quâ nobis tenemini non permittatis quod aliquis Hiberniensis
    eligatur vel praeficiatur in aliquâ ecclesiâ cathedrali in terra
    nostra Hiberniae, quoniam ex hoc posset terra nostra, quod absit,
    perturbari. Et quoniam, etc.... Teste ipso comite apud Oxoniam
    xivº die Januarii".

This most iniquitous design of excluding Irish ecclesiastics, no matter
how fit they might otherwise be, from the government of the Irish sees,
and from the spiritual care of their own people, provoked the indignation
of the Pope, notwithstanding the deep interest he took in Henry's
fortunes. As soon as he was informed of the plan, he at once wrote
to the legate the letter alluded to above, commanding him to declare
publicly that this law of the king was unjust, null, and void, and that,
as heretofore, deserving Irish ecclesiastics should be proposed for
vacant sees. The following is the text of the letter (_n._ 36, _p._ 16):

    "Honorius Episcopus etc. Dilecto filio Magistro Jacobo Capellano,
    et penitentiario nostro, Apostolicae Sedis legato salutem etc.
    Pervenit ad audientiam nostram, quosdam Anglicos inauditae
    temeritatis audacia statuisse, ut nullus clericus de Ibernia,
    quantumcunque litteratus et honestus existat, ad aliquam dignitatem
    ecclesiasticam assumatur. Nolentes igitur tantae temeritatis et
    iniquitatis abusum surdis auribus pertransire, presentium tibi
    auctoritate mandamus, quatinus statutum hujusmodi publice denuntians
    irritum et inane, ac inhibens ipsis Anglicis, ne vel inherere illi,
    vel simile decetero attemptare presumant. Ibernienses clericos,
    quibus vitae ac scientiae merita suffragantur, denunties ad
    ecclesiasticas dignitates, si electi canonice fuerint, libere
    admittendos. Datum apud Urbemveterem, viii. Idus Augusti, Pontificatus
    nostri anno quinto".

What the result of the legate's condemnation may have been we do not
know; what is certain is, that four years later Honorius III. found it
necessary to condemn, by his own authority, the same abuse. His letter
to the Irish clergy runs as follows (_Theiner_, _n._ 55, _p._ 23):

    "Honorius Episcopus etc. Dilectis filiis Clero Ybernensi, salutem
    etc. Sicut ea, que rite ac laudabiliter fiunt, decet per Sedem
    Apostolicam roborari, ut solidius in sui roboris firmitate consistant,
    sic ea, que temere ac illicite presumuntur, infirmari convenit per
    eandem, ne processu temporis robur indignae firmitatis assumant.
    Sane nostris est jam frequenter auribus intimatum, quosdam Anglicos
    inauditae temeritatis audacia statuisse, ut nullus clericus de
    Ybernia, quantumcunque honestus et litteratus existat, ad aliquam
    dignitatem ecclesiasticam assumatur: Nolentes igitur tantae
    presumptionis et iniquitatis abusum sub dissimulatione transire,
    statutum hujusmodi, omni juris et honestatis auxilio destitutum,
    presentium auctoritate decernimus irritum et inane, districtius
    inhibentes, ne quis vel inherere illi, vel decetero simile attemptare
    presumat. Nulli etc. nostrae constitutionis et inhibitionis etc.
    Si quis etc. Datum Laterani vi. Kalendas Maii P. n. an. octavo".

Thus did the Roman Pontiffs resist this attempt to enslave the Irish
Church.

       *       *       *       *       *



FOOTNOTES.


[Footnote 1: _Ireland, her present condition, and what it might be._
By the Earl of Clancarty. Dublin: 1864.]

[Footnote 2: Ed. Reuss, "_Die Geschichte der heiligen schriften, N. T._".
Brunswick, 1853, pag. 458.]

[Footnote 3: _View of Europe during the Mid. Ages._]

[Footnote 4: Speech of O'Hagan on the trial of F. Petcherine.]

[Footnote 5: See _Catalogo di opere Ebraiche_, etc., by Gustavo Zaccaria,
Fermo, 1863.]

[Footnote 6: Erasmus's edition of 1516 was the first _published_ Greek
Testament. Its dedication to Leo X., and its publication at the expense
of the Archbishop of Canterbury, sufficiently disclose to us the
Catholic auspices under which it appeared. In the dedication, which is
dated the 1st of February, 1516, Erasmus commemorates the many glories
of the house of Medici, and especially the zeal of Pope Leo in promoting
religion and literature, and adds: "Quamquam ut ingenue dicam, quidquid
hoc est operis videri poterat humilius quam ut ei dicandum esset quo
nihil majus habet hic orbis, nisi conveniret, ut quidquid ad religionem
instaurandam pertinet haud alii consecretur quam summo religionis
principi et eidem assertori". As regards the Archbishop of Canterbury,
Erasmus writes of him that he deservedly held the post of _legate_ of
his Holiness: "Cui meipsum quoque quantus sum debeo non modo universum
studii mei proventum".]

[Footnote 7: _Hefele_, pag. 157, and _Gomez_, pag. 38.]

[Footnote 8: Pag. 140, seq.]

[Footnote 9: Chap. xxi., pag. 522.]

[Footnote 10: See Brunet. _Manuel de libraire_, Brux. 1888, tom. 2,
pag. 444]

[Footnote 11: St. Jerome, _Prologus Galeatus_.]

[Footnote 12: _Isaias_, xxxiv. 4 _Id._, xl. 26. _Id._, xlv. 12, _Jer._,
xxxiii. 22. _Dan._, viii. 10.]

[Footnote 13: _Ps._, cxlviii. 2. III. _Kings_, xxii. 19. II. _Paral._,
xviii. 18.]

[Footnote 14: Shirley's royal and other historical letters illustrative
of the reign of Henry III., vol. i., pag. 4.]

       *       *       *       *       *

Transcriber's Notes:

The Hebrew fragments in the section "Dr. Colenso and the Old Testament
may be further reviewed in Strong's Numbers as follows (using the modern
transliterations):

    chamushim: 2571.
    chamesh:   2568.
    kol:       3605.
    yatsa:     3318.
    tsaba:     6635.

Minor obvious typographic errors have been corrected.

Inconsistencies in the usage of capitalization, accents and ligatures
are preserved as printed.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Volume 1, March 1865" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.