The See Of Derry.

The territory of
Cineal-Eoghain, from a very early period, formed a distinct diocese,
which took its name from the church of Arderath, now Ardstraw,
situated on the River Derg, and founded by St. Eugene, first bishop
of this see. In the synod of Rathbreasail, an. 1110, it is called
“Dioecesis Ardsrathensis” though
probably in that very year the city of Derry was chosen for the
episcopal residence. “Sedes
Episcopalis”, writes Dr. O’Cherballen, bishop of the see in
1247, “a tempore limitationis Episcopatuum
Hyberniae in villa Darensi utpote uberiori et magis idoneo loco qui
in sua Dioecesi habeatur, extitit constituta”. For some years
this arrangement continued undisturbed, till the appointment of Dr.
O’Coffy, who about the year 1150 transferred his see to Rathlure, a
church dedicated to St. Luroch; and subsequently, for one hundred
years, we find the see designated “Dioecesis
Rathlurensis”, or “de
Rathlurig”, under which name it appears in the lists of
Centius Camerarius.

Dr. Muredach
O’Coffy was a canon regular of the order of St. Augustine, and
“was held in great repute for his learning,
humility, and charity to the poor”—(Ware). The old Irish
annalists style him “the sun of science; the
precious stone and resplendent gem of knowledge; the bright star and
rich treasury of learning; and as in charity, so too was he powerful
in pilgrimage and prayer”. He assisted at the Synod of Kells,
which was convened by Cardinal Paparo in 1152, and in the catalogue
of its bishops he is styled from the territory occupied by his see,
the Bishop
of Cineal-Eoghain. His death is marked in our annals on
the 10th of February, 1173/4.

Amlaf O’Coffy
succeeded the same year, and is also eulogized [pg 354] by our annalists as “a shining light, illuminating both clergy and
people”. He was translated to Armagh in 1184, but died the
following year. Our ancient records add that “his remains were brought with great solemnity to Derry
and interred at the feet of his predecessor”.

Florence
O’Cherballen next governed the see, from 1185 to 1230; whilst the
episcopate of his successor, Friar German O’Cherballen, embraced well
nigh half a century, extending from 1230 to his death in 1279. It was
during the administration of this last-named bishop that the
episcopal see was once more definitively fixed in Derry. The Holy
See, by letter of 31st May, 1247, commissioned the Bishop of Raphoe,
the Abbot of the monastery of SS. Peter and Paul in Armagh, and the
Prior of Louth, to investigate the reasons set forth by Dr. Germanus
for abandoning the church of Rathlure. The following extract from the
Papal letter preserves to us the chief motive thus alleged by Bishop
Germanus:

It was also added
by Dr. O’Cherballen, that his predecessor, O’Coffy, had himself been
born in Rathlure, and that it was through love for his native
district he had, by his own authority, transferred the episcopal seat
from Derry to Rathlure (illectus natalis soli dulcedine transtulit
motu propriae voluntatis).

The appointed
deputies approved of the resolution taken by Bishop Germanus, and a
few years later (1254), in reply to the Chapter of Derry, the same
Pope Innocent IV. thus confirmed this translation of the see:

By a previous
letter he had, as early as the first of July in the fourth year of
his pontificate, in anticipation of this translation of the see,
granted to the chapter of the diocese of Derry the same privileges,
indulgences, and other special favours which it had hitherto enjoyed
in Rathlure (Ib., pag. 48).

The successor of
Bishop Germanus was Florence O’Cherballen, who held the see from 1279
to 1293. Five other bishops then came in rapid succession. Henry of
Ardagh, from 1294 to 1297; Geoffry Melaghlin, from 1297 to 1315; Hugh
or Odo O’Neal, from 1316 to 1319; Michael Melaghlin, from 1319 to
about 1330; and Maurice, from about 1330 to 1347.

On the death of
the last-named bishop, a Dominican, by name Symon, was appointed by
Pope Clement VI. to rule the See of Derry. He had indeed already been
nominated by brief, dated the 5th of the Ides of May, 1347, to the
diocese of Clonmacnoise, but the aged and infirm bishop of that see,
who was reported to have passed to a better life, was not yet
deceased, and hence, on the vacancy of Derry, Bishop Symon was, by
brief of 18th December, 1347, appointed successor of St. Eugene. From
the first brief, which nominated him to Clonmacnoise, we learn that
Friar Symon was Prior of the Dominican fathers of Roscommon, and was
remarkable for his zeal, his literary proficiency, and his manifold
virtues. The brief of his appointment to Derry adds the following
particulars:

Bishop Symon seems
to have held the see till the close of this century, and the next
bishop that we find was John, Abbot of Moycoscain, or de claro fonte, who was appointed
to Derry by brief of Pope Boniface IX. on 19th August, 1401. Of his
immediate successors we know little more than the mere names. William
Quaplod, a Carmelite and a distinguished patron of literary men, died
in 1421. Donald for ten years then ruled the diocese, and resigned in
1431; his successor, John, died in 1456. A Cistercian monk, named
Bartholomew O’Flanagan, next sat in the see for five years; and
Nicholas Weston, a canon of Armagh, who was consecrated its bishop in
1466, held it till his death in 1484.

Donald O’Fallon,
an Observantine Franciscan, was advanced to this see by Pope Innocent
VIII. on the 17th of May, 1485: “he was
reckoned a man of great reputation in his time for learning, and a
constant course of preaching through all Ireland, which he continued
for full thirty years”—(Ware). He died in the year
1500.

James Mac Mahon is
the first bishop whose name appears in the sixteenth century. He was
Commendatory Prior of the Abbey of SS. Peter and Paul, at Knock, in
the county Louth, and died in December, 1517.

William Hogeson,
which is probably a corruption of the Irish name O’Gashin,
was appointed his successor by Pope Leo X. on 8th of August, 1520. He
belonged to the order of St. Dominic, and seems to have administered
the see till 1529.

Roderick or Rory
O’Donnell, Dean of Raphoe, was chosen by Pope Clement VII., on 19th
September, 1529, to occupy the see of Derry. This bishop was very
much opposed to the religious innovations which Henry VIII.
endeavoured to introduce into the Irish Church. In the State
Papers (vol. i. pag. 598) there is a letter dated 14th
March, 1539, and addressed by Lord Cromwell to the English king, in
which the following eulogy is passed on Dr. O’Donnell: “Also there be letters long from an arrant traitor,
Rorick, Bishop of Derry, in your grace’s land of Ireland, his hand
and great seal at it, to the Bishop of Rome, declaring the calamities
of the Papists in Ireland”. It was in the preceding year that
Bishop Roderick had mortally offended the agents of King Henry by his
efforts to preserve from their grasp the youthful Gerald, who, though
yet in his boyhood, was chief of the Geraldines, and destined, it was
hoped, to become one day the rallying point of a confederacy of the
Irish chieftains. In the month of May Gerald and his faithful escort
passed without [pg
357]
molestation from the south to the north of Ireland, being hospitably
received in Thomond, Galway, and Sligo; and they were safely
entrenched within the barriers of Tyrconnell before the government
spies had even caught the intelligence of this journey. On the 28th
of June the Earl of Ormonde wrote a long letter to the council of
Ireland, giving information of the movements of young Gerald. From
this letter we learn that it was an Irish rhymist that acted as his
spy amongst the Northern chieftains, and that, according to the
latest intelligence received from him, “twenty-four horsemen, well apparrelled”, had been
appointed to wait upon the young Geraldine. The King of Scotland,
too, solicited the Irish princes to commit Gerald to his care.
However, in another letter, of 20th July, the same earl writes that
this scheme was not pleasing to O’Neil and O’Donnell, but
“the Bishop O’Donnell (of Derry), James
Delahoyde, Master Levrous, and Robert Walshe, are gone as messengers
to Scotland, to pray aid from the Scottish king; and before their
going, all the gentlemen of Ulster, for the most part, promised to
retain as many Scots as they should bring with them, at their own
expense and charges during the time of their service in
Ireland”—(St. Pap., iii. 52). Another
information further states that as a Christmas present in December,
1538, Art Oge O’Toole had sent to Gerald “a
saffron shirt trimmed with silk, and a mantle of English cloth
fringed with silk, together with a sum of money”—(Ibid.,
pag. 139). And a few months later Cowley writes from Dublin to the
English court, that “there never was seen in
Ireland so great a host of Irishmen and Scots, both of the out isles
and of the mainland of Scotland; whilst at the same time the
pretended Earl of Desmond has all the strength of the
west”—(Ibid., pag. 145). It is not
necessary to pursue the subsequent events of this confederacy, as we
have no express documents to attest the share taken in it by the
Bishop of Derry. One further fact alone connected with our great
prelate has been recorded by our annalists, and it, too, regards the
closing scene of his eventful life, viz., that before his death he
wished to become a member of the Franciscan order, and dying on the
8th of October, 1550, “he was buried in the
monastery of Donegal in the habit of St.
Francis”—(Four Mast., v. 1517).

Eugene Magennis,
the next bishop, governed the see from 1551 to 1568. It was during
his episcopate that the venerable church and monastery of St.
Colomba, together with the town of Derry, were reduced to a heap of
ruins. The fact is thus narrated by Cox: “Colonel Saintlow succeeded Randolph in the command of
the garrison, and lived as quietly as could be desired; for the
rebels were so daunted by the former defeat that they did not dare to
make any new attempt; but unluckily, on the 24th [pg 358] day of April (1566), the ammunition took
fire, and blew up both the town and the fort of Derry, whereby twenty
men were killed, and all the victuals and provisions were destroyed,
and no possibility left of getting more, so that the soldiers were
necessitated to embark for Dublin”—(Hist.,
part i. pag. 322). This disaster was regarded at the time as a divine
chastisement for the profanation of St. Columba’s church and cell,
the latter being used by the heretical soldiery as a repository of
ammunition, whilst the former was defiled by their profane
worship—(O’Sulliv., pag. 96).

The next bishop
was Raymond O’Gallagher, who, when receiving the administration of
the see of Killala, in 1545, is described in the Consistorial Acts as
“clericus dioecesis Rapotensis in
vigesimotertio anno constitutus”. It was also commanded that
after four years, i.e. when he would have attained
his twenty-seventh year, he should be consecrated Bishop of Killala.
In 1569, he was translated from that see to Derry, which he ruled
during the many perils and persecutions of Elizabeth’s reign, till,
as Mooney writes, “omnium Episcoporurm
Europae ordinatione antiquissimus”, he died, full of years, on
the 15th of March in 1601. In a government memorial of 28th July,
1592, Dr. O’Gallagher is thus noticed: “First
in Ulster is one Redmondus O’Gallagher, Bishop of Derry…. The said
Bishop O’Gallagher hath been with divers governors of that land upon
protection, and yet he is supposed to enjoy the bishoprick and all
the aforesaid authorities these xxvi years and more, whereby it is to
be understood that he is not there as a man without authority and
secretly kept”—(Kilken. Proceedings, May, 1856,
pag. 80). The xxvi of this passage has led many into error as to the
date of Dr. O’Gallagher’s appointment to Derry, which, reckoning back
from 1592, should be placed in 1567. However, that numeral probably
is a misprint for xxiii, such mistakes being very frequent in the
mediaeval manuscripts, as well as in more modern publications. The
following extract from the papers of Cardinal Morone in the Vatican
archives, will serve to show that in 1569 the see was vacant by the
death of Bishop Eugenius:—

This minute of
Cardinal Morone bears no date, but is registered with a series of
papers of 1568 and 1569. The Father [pg 359] Polanco to whom the Primate’s letter was
addressed, was the Procurator-General of the Society of Jesus, and
was the same who was deputed to be bearer of the blessing of the Holy
Father to the dying founder of that great order. To the preceding
minute are added the following
remarks, which seem to have been presented to the Cardinal by Father
Polanco:—

Dr. O’Gallagher,
however, was the person chosen by the Holy See, and was proclaimed in
consistory before the close of 1569. A few years later we find
faculties communicated to him by Rome for his own diocese, and for
the whole province of Armagh, “quamdiu
venerabilis frater Richardus Archiepiscopus Armachanus impeditus a
Dioecesi et Provincia Armachana abfuerit”—(13 April, 1575,
Ex. Secret.
Brev.). About 1594 other special faculties were again
communicated to him through Cardinal Allan—(ap. King,
Hist., pag. 1213); and we soon after meet with him in
the camp of O’Donnell, when that chieftain was gathering his forces
to cut short the military career of General Norris: “There were there”, writes O’Sullivan,
“some ecclesiastics, and especially Raymond
O’Gallagher, Bishop of Derry, and Vice-Primate of Ireland, who
absolved from the excommunication which they had incurred, those
troops that passed from the Elizabethan ranks to the Catholic
army”—(Hist. Cath., p. 181). It was in
1596 that Norris set out with about 10,000 men to invade North
Connaught and Tyrconnell. That general was flushed with his victories
in France and Belgium, nevertheless he was obliged to ignominiously
retreat from the Ulster frontiers, being unable even to bring to
battle the chosen army of 5,000 men which was led by the brave
O’Donnel.

On the 22nd of
July, 1597, an Irishman named Bernard O’Donnell was arrested at
Lisle, and brought before the royal court, accused of carrying on
treasonable intercourse with the Spanish government, and of being
bearer of despatches from the Irish bishops and chieftains to the
authorities in Spain and Rome. From one of the questions proposed to
him at his cross-examination, [pg 360] we glean some further particulars connected
with our Bishop of Derry:—

Fortunately,
appended to this examination, the letter itself of the Bishop of
Derry has been preserved to us. We present it in full to the reader,
as it is the only letter of this great bishop that the calamitous era
of persecution has permitted to reach us:—

With this evidence
before him, the reader may fully appreciate the favourite modern
theory of the defenders of the Protestant Establishment, that,
forsooth, the Irish bishops during Elizabeth’s reign abandoned the
faith of their fathers, and became liege servants of the church by
law established! Dr. Cotton when speaking of our see makes a somewhat
more reserved, but equally erroneous statement: “Redmond O’Gallagher”, he says, “was bishop at this time, but whether recognised as such
by Queen Elizabeth and the Protestant Church does not
appear”—(Fasti, iii. 315). Why, it does
appear as plainly as the noon-day sun that he was the determined
enemy of the Protestant queen and her establishment: throughout his
whole episcopate he was a devoted pastor of the Catholic Church, and
thus his fidelity and devotion to the cause of God merited for him in
death the martyr’s crown. First on the list of those who suffered for
the faith during the reign of Elizabeth is reckoned by Dr. Mathews,
Archbishop of Dublin, in 1623, “Redmondus
Galluthurius Darensis Episcopus et Martyr”—(Relat. ad. S. C. de
Prop. Fid.) Mooney, writing in 1617, also styles him a
martyr: “Episcopus Redmondus Gallaher martyr
obiit anno 1601”; and O’Sullivan Beare, about the same time,
adds some of the circumstances of his death: “Raymundus O’Gallacher”, he writes, “Derii vel Luci Episcopus, ab Anglis bipennibus
confessus, et capite truncatus annum circiter octogesimum
agens”—(Hist. Cath., pag. 77). The Four
Masters (ad an. 1601) also mention his being put to death by the
English; and Rothe reckons him amongst those who suffered for the
faith. Tradition still points out the spot on which the venerable
bishop was slain, almost midway on the high road between O’Kane’s
Castle and Dungiven. (See Dr. Kelly’s Essays,
with the additions of Dr. M’Carthy: Dublin, 1864, pag. 425).

It now only
remains to notice some few popular errors connected with this
see.

1. On account of
the old Latin form of the name of this see, i.e.
Darensis, it has frequently been
confounded with the Diocese of Kildare. Thus, not to mention more
recent examples, Ware severely criticises Bale of Ossory for falling
into this mistake—(Bishops, pag. 190). The chief
criterion for distinguishing between the two sees, is the mention
which is generally made of the metropolitan to whom the brief is
addressed, or of the ecclesiastical province to which the diocese
belongs.

2. Dr. King
notices as an improbability that O’Gallagher could have been bishop
for fifty-two years, and, nevertheless, be only (as Dr. King
imagines) seventy years of age at his death. However, true dates are
sure always to mutually correspond. [pg 362] Referring to the Consistorial Acts, cited
above, it appears that in 1545 Dr. O’Gallagher was in his
twenty-third year, and that a dispensation was then granted to him to
be consecrated bishop in his twenty-seventh year: hence, at his death
in 1601, Dr. O’Gallagher may very well have attained the fifty-second
year of his Episcopate, whilst he will be found, not indeed in his
seventieth year, but, as O’Sullivan writes, “circa octogesimum annum agens”.

3. The succession
of bishops in the See of Derry affords a practical refutation of the
novel theory so fashionable now-a-days amongst the clergy of the
Establishment, that forsooth the native clergy without hesitation
embraced the tenets of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, and that the
Catholic Church was only upheld in our island “by begging friars and foreign priests”. We pray
the reader whenever he hears such a statement made, to call to mind
the See of Derry. Was Roderick, “the arrant
traitor”, in the days of King Henry, a foreign
priest and a stranger to our island? Was Raymond
O’Gallagher a foreigner during Elizabeth’s reign? Oh! ask the
faithful of Innishowen, amongst whom he first exercised his sacred
ministry—ask the camps of Maguire, O’Donnell, and O’Neill! Ask, too,
the very enemies of our holy faith, the first founders of the
Protestant Establishment: their deeds will tell you that he was the
true pastor of the fold, and hence they set a price upon his head,
and at length conferred on him the martyr’s crown.

There was,
however, one foreign prelate who received an appointment in Derry at
this period, and he was precisely the first
and only Protestant nominee to this see
during Elizabeth’s reign. “To the two
northern sees of Raphoe and Derry”, writes Dr. Mant,
“Elizabeth made no collation, unless in the
year 1595, when her reign was drawing towards its
close”—(Hist., i. 284). George Montgomery,
a Scotchman, was the individual thus chosen to be the first
representative of the Establishment in our northern sees.
His patent for the sees of Clogher, Derry, and Raphoe, was dated the
13th of June, 1595, where already for many years a canonically
appointed bishop ruled the fold of Christ. The good sense, however,
of the Knoxian reformer judged it more prudent not to risk himself
and family amidst the O’Kanes whilst arms were in the hands of the
Irish chieftains: he hence consigned to oblivion his royal patent,
and allowed the Irish pastors to feed in peace their spiritual fold.
Even when, in 1605, he sought for a new appointment to these sees at
the hands of King James, as we learn from Mant, Ware, and other
Protestant authorities, he took care to make no allusion to the writ
which he had formerly received in the thirty-seventh year of
Elizabeth.

Dr. Colenso And The Old Testament. No.
II.

The Colenso
controversy has entered on a new phase. It appears we must no longer
speak of Dr. Colenso as the Protestant Bishop of Natal. He enjoyed
this title indeed for a time, in virtue of letters patent issued by
the supreme head of the Established Church. But the judicial
committee of her Majesty’s privy council has sat in judgment on her
Majesty’s letters patent, and has just pronounced that they are
invalid and without effect in law; that her Majesty had assumed a
prerogative which did not belong to her, and had been guilty in fact,
though inadvertently, of an illegal aggression upon the rights of her
colonists.

The history of
this remarkable decision may be told in a few words. Dr Colenso was
appointed to the See of Natal in the year 1853. In the same year, Dr.
Gray, as Bishop of Cape Town, was invested by royal letters patent
with metropolitan jurisdiction over Dr. Colenso and the diocese of
Natal. Ten years passed away, and each in his own sphere exercised
the authority which he was supposed to have received from the crown.
At length Dr. Colenso’s book appears, and a charge of heresy is
preferred against him. The charge is entertained by the supposed
metropolitan, who sets up a court, proceeds to try the cause, and
finally, in December, 1863, delivers his sentence. By this sentence
Dr. Colenso is deprived of his see, and forbidden to exercise his
sacred functions within the ecclesiastical province of Cape Town. The
deposed bishop refuses to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the court,
and appeals to the privy council. The controversy was thus reduced to
a simple question of law,—was Dr. Gray legally possessed of those
metropolitan rights to which he laid claim? To this question the
judicial committee of the privy council has given a clear and
decisive answer. When a colony is once endowed with legislative
institutions of its own, the crown no longer possesses any authority
to create sees or to confer ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Now in the
two colonies of Cape Town and Natal an independent legislature had
been established in the year 1850; and therefore the letters patent
of 1853 were null and void in law. Hence it follows that, according
to English law, Dr. Gray was never in point of fact the Metropolitan
of Cape Town; but neither was Dr. Colenso the Bishop of Natal.

Thus has Dr.
Colenso pulled down the whole edifice of the English colonial
episcopate. Like Sampson of old, he has been, indeed, avenged upon
his enemies, but he has been himself crushed beneath the ruins he has
made. Yet, though his jurisdiction [pg 364] as a bishop may be taken away, his moral power
and his influence are increased. He now appears not only as an
eminent leader of the free-thinking and infidel school of theology,
but as a martyr who has suffered in the cause; and this new character
gives him an additional claim to the sympathy and veneration of his
followers. When the youthful plant is checked in its upward growth by
the skilful knife of the gardener, it puts forth new branches on
every side, and flourishes with increased luxuriance. And so,
according to every human probability, the check which Dr. Colenso has
received will but promote the rapid expansion of his views, and their
dissemination throughout the Protestant Church. It is therefore all
the more important for those who defend the cause of truth to refute
his charges against the Bible, and to lay bare the sophistry of his
arguments. Let us take the following example:—

Dr. Colenso revels
in figures. When he sets about a problem he delights to look at it
from every point of view, and to work out his sum in a variety of
ways. By a very simple process of multiplication and addition he has
here proved that the Scripture narrative is quite ridiculous and
absurd. Yet he is not content. He must lead his readers to the same
conclusion by another process:—

Before we proceed
to examine this singular objection, put forward in so plausible and
popular a form, it may be useful to describe, in a few words, the
general appearance of the tabernacle, and of the court which
surrounded it. Our readers will thus be placed in a position to form
a clear and distinct idea of the difficulty which Dr. Colenso has
raised. And we are satisfied that the more thoroughly it is
understood, the more complete and satisfactory will the explanation
be found.

The court of the
tabernacle was an oblong rectangle, one hundred [pg 366] cubits2 in
length, from east to west, and fifty cubits in breadth, from north to
south. This space was enclosed by hangings of fine twisted linen,
supported by sixty pillars, to which they were attached by hooks and
fillets of silver. The entrance to the court was at the eastern end;
it was twenty cubits in width; and across the opening was suspended a
curtain, embroidered with fancy needlework, and rich with gorgeous
colours.

Within the court,
and towards the western end, was erected the tabernacle. It was
simply a large tent, constructed with elaborate care, and formed of
costly materials. Like the court in which it was placed, it was an
oblong rectangle, being thirty cubits in length and ten cubits in
breadth. The walls were of setim or acacia wood; the roof of fine
linen, covered with curtains of goats’ hair and skins. The eastern
end was open, but was furnished with a rich hanging to serve as a
door. Internally the tabernacle was divided by a veil into two
apartments;—the Holy Place, twenty cubits in
length, which contained the golden candlestick, the table of
show-bread, and the altar of incense; and the Holy of
Holies, ten cubits in length, in which was placed the
ark of the covenant. The Holy Place was appropriated to the
priests, who entered it twice a day, morning and evening. The
Holy of
Holies was forbidden to all but the high priest alone,
and even he could enter only once a year, on the great day of
atonement.

The argument of
Dr. Colenso is now easily understood. According to the Scripture
narrative, the whole multitude of the Israelites, or at least six
hundred thousand men, were summoned to attend, and actually did
attend, “at the door of the
tabernacle”. It follows that they must have stood in a line
eighteen feet broad and twenty miles long, which is perfectly absurd.
Besides, they could not have witnessed the ceremony to which they
were summoned unless they came within the court. But this is an
absolute impossibility, as the court would only hold five thousand
men, even if they were closely packed together.

Here is, indeed, a
very serious charge against the credibility of the Pentateuch. But it
seems to us a charge which, from its very nature, must refute itself.
Dr. Colenso will not deny that the Book of Leviticus
was written while the tabernacle was still in existence; and that its
author, whoever he may have been, had the tabernacle and its
appurtenances constantly before his eyes. If he was not a truthful
historian, but an impostor, he was certainly [pg 367] a most skilful impostor. He must have known
well, all his readers must have known well—quite as well as Dr.
Colenso—that the tabernacle could not hold more than five thousand
people. Now it is perfectly incredible that any man of common sense,
not to say a most clever and successful impostor, under these
circumstances, would have ventured boldly to state that six hundred
thousand persons were gathered within its precincts.

Let us, however,
examine the argument in detail. The foundation on which it rests is
clearly enough stated by Dr. Colenso. “It
appears to be certain that by the expressions, used so often here and
elsewhere, ‘the assembly’,
‘the whole assembly’, ‘all the congregation’, is meant the whole body of
the people—at all events, the adult males in the prime of life
among them—and not merely the elders or heads of the
people”, etc. We deny this assertion. The Hebrew
word עדה (heda), which is here translated the assembly,
the congregation, comes from the root
יעד (yahad), to appoint, and means literally an
assembly
meeting by appointment. It is quite true, as Dr. Colenso
contends, that the word is sometimes employed to designate the entire
body of the people. But it is also true, though he ignores the fact,
that it is sometimes applied to a select
few, invested with a certain authority and jurisdiction.
We shall be content with submitting to our readers one remarkable
example.

In the
thirty-fifth chapter of Numbers we read of the cities of
refuge. They were to be six in number—three upon each side of the
Jordan; and were intended to afford shelter to those who had
unintentionally shed innocent blood. “And
they shall be for you cities for refuge from the avenger; that the
manslayer die not until he stand before the assembly
(עדה) for judgment” (Numbers,
xxxv. 12).3 It is
then laid down that if the murder have been deliberate, it shall be
punished with death (16-21). But if the fatal blow have been struck
without
enmity or premeditation, or by chance
(22, 23), “then the assembly
(עדה) shall judge between the slayer and the
revenger of blood…. And the assembly (עדה) shall deliver the
slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the assembly
(עדה) shall restore him to the city of his refuge” (24, 25).
It is quite impossible to suppose that the judicial tribunal here
spoken of could be the entire body of the people, or even the 600,000
[pg 368] male adults. The question to
be tried was one of the highest moment, involving the life or death
of a fellow-citizen. It was also one of extreme delicacy, having to
deal, not with the mere external act, but with the motives and
feelings of the heart. To the assembly (עדה) it belonged to
pronounce, not merely whether one man had killed another, but whether
in his heart he had committed the crime of murder. For
this purpose witnesses should be examined, evidence should be
carefully sifted, and, perhaps, even the domestic secrets of the
accused and of his victim should be laid bare. Was this a task that
could be entrusted to a mixed multitude of 600,000 men?

Accordingly we
find that Rosenmuller, in his commentary on this passage
(Num., xxxv. 24), explains the
word, the
assembly of judges—“cætus judicum
urbis in cujus agro contigerit homicidium”. If we apply this
interpretation to the passage in Leviticus,
every shadow of improbability and inconsistency will at once
disappear from the narrative. Now, we ask Dr. Colenso, when a word in
Scriptural usage has two different meanings, which must we choose
when we come to examine a text in which that word is found? Are we to
select the meaning which is in every way suitable to the context and
circumstances; or must we rather adopt an interpretation which will
make the sense absurd and impossible? Dr. Colenso has preferred the
latter course. It appears to us that the former is alone consistent
with the instinct of common sense and the principles of genuine
criticism.

We think our
readers will admit that we have fairly established our point, and
proved that Dr. Colenso’s argument is utterly destitute of
foundation. For the ordinary purposes of controversy it would be
unnecessary to go further. But we frankly confess we aim at something
more. We are not content with answering the argument of Dr. Colenso;
we wish to shake his authority as a trustworthy critic. All that he
has written against the Pentateuch is made up of these two
elements—first, the meaning which he attaches to the
narrative, and, secondly, the process of reasoning by which he
labours to show that this meaning is inconsistent or impossible. Now
it is plain, from the argument we are considering, that Dr. Colenso
is liable to the grossest errors, not only when he undertakes to
interpret the sacred text, but also when he proceeds to reason on his
own interpretation. If this assertion be established, his authority
can have but little weight.

Let us suppose
then, for a moment, that by the assembly is meant, in a general way,
the entire people of Israel; does it follow, as Dr. Colenso
maintains, that, according to the narrative, 600,000 men must have
“hastened to present themselves at the
[pg 369] ‘door
of the tabernacle?’ ” We believe it does not. Nay,
more, we believe that the absurdity of Dr. Colenso’s opinion is
clearly proved by some of the texts which he has himself adduced. For
instance:—“Bring forth the blasphemer out of
the camp … and let all the assembly (עדה) stone
him” (Lev., xxiv. 14). And again, in the
case of the Sabbath-breaker:—“The man shall
be surely put to death; all the assembly (עדה) shall stone
him with stones without the camp. And all the
assembly (עדה) brought him without the camp, and stoned
him with stones, and he died” (Num., xv.
35, 36). No one will maintain that the writer here means to say that
600,000 men were engaged in carrying the condemned man, or that
600,000 men threw stones at him. If Dr. Colenso had paused for a
moment to reflect on these texts as he copied them from the Bible, we
are convinced he would have suppressed his foolish argument. Exactly
as it is said that all the assembly was gathered into
the door of the tabernacle, so too is it said that all the
assembly stoned the blasphemer and the Sabbath-breaker.
In the latter case, it is clear that the number of those who were
actually engaged in carrying out the sentence of God was
comparatively small, but the act is fairly ascribed to the whole
community, because all were summoned
to take part in it, and those who complied with the summons
represented those who did not.
Surely there is no reason why we may not apply the same
interpretation to the former passage.

Nor is this mode
of speaking peculiar to Sacred Scripture. Every year the members of
the House of Commons are summoned to appear at the bar of the House
of Lords; every year we are told that they obey that summons. Who is
there that questions the truth of this statement? It represents a
fact with which we are all familiar. Yet Dr. Colenso with his rule
and measure will demonstrate that the fact is impossible and the
statement false, because the place in which the Commons are said to
assemble cannot possibly hold one-tenth of their number.

So much for Dr.
Colenso as an interpreter of the Bible. He is satisfied that if we
accept the narrative we must believe that six hundred thousand men
were gathered unto the door of the tabernacle. We have seen that he
is mistaken; but let us now concede this fact, and let us see how he
proceeds to reason upon it. Since the tabernacle was only eighteen
feet wide, this immense multitude must have stood in a line eighteen
feet in breadth and twenty miles in length. This is certainly a most
extraordinary conclusion. No multitude ever yet stood in such a line;
no multitude could stand in such a line unless
they had been specially trained during many years for that purpose.
There is no conceivable reason why the Jews on this occasion should
have stood [pg
370] in
such a line. And yet Dr. Colenso will have it that they must have
stood in this way, if it be true that they were gathered unto the
door of the tabernacle.

We are tempted to
offer an illustration of the very peculiar manner in which Dr.
Colenso here pursues his critical examination of the Bible. Many of
our readers will remember the 15th of August, 1843. In the
phraseology of Scripture it might be said that upon that day 100,000
Irishmen were gathered to O’Connell on the Hill of
Tara.4 To the
ordinary reader such a statement would present no insuperable
difficulty. It would convey, indeed, a pretty correct idea of what we
all know actually to have taken place. But when submitted to the
Colenso process, this simple narrative will be found to undergo a
very startling transformation. O’Connell did not occupy a space more
than two feet broad. Therefore there was just room for one full-grown
man to stand in front of him. The second must have stood behind the
first; the third behind the second; and so the whole multitude must
have extended in a single unbroken line over many miles of country. A
little boy at school could tell us that, when we say the multitude
was gathered unto O’Connell, we do not mean that the multitude
occupied a space which was only as broad as O’Connell. Yet Dr.
Colenso maintains that this is the only meaning which the phrase
admits. Such principles would make strange havoc with history.

Again, Dr. Colenso
contends that all who were gathered unto the door of the
tabernacle “must have come
within the
court”. “This,
indeed”, he says, “was necessary for
the purpose for which they were summoned on this occasion, namely, to
witness the ceremony of the consecration of Aaron and his sons to the
priestly office”. Now it is nowhere stated that this was, in
point of fact, the purpose for which the people were gathered
together. Certainly, if it were impossible they could witness the
ceremony, as Dr. Colenso assures us, we are bound to infer that it
was not for this purpose they were
assembled. Nor is it difficult to find another, and quite a
sufficient reason, for gathering the people together on this solemn
occasion. It may have been the design of God that, by their
presence in and around the court of
the tabernacle, they should make a public profession of their faith,
and formally acknowledge the priesthood of Aaron. Thus, in the
illustration already introduced, it was impossible for 100,000 people
to hear O’Connell speak; but their presence was itself a [pg 371] public declaration that they adhered to
his principles and accepted him for their leader.

Was it, however,
really impossible that those without the court should witness the
leading features of the ceremony? Certainly not. We must bear in mind
that the court was not enclosed by stone walls, but by hangings of
fine linen. Nothing, therefore, could have been more simple than to
loop up these curtains to the pillars by which they were supported,
and thus to afford a full view of the tabernacle to those who stood
without. Dr. Colenso will probably say that in the scripture
narrative there is no mention of any such arrangement. Neither, we
reply, is it said that those without the court were intended to
witness the ceremony. But if we suppose that this was intended, we
must also suppose that the means were adopted which would make it
possible.

There is yet
another error of Dr. Colenso which we cannot pass by in silence. It
is true, the blunder to which we refer has little to do with his
argument. But it has much to do with the question whether he is a
competent authority on the sacred text, even when he speaks with
special emphasis and with unhesitating confidence. “Supposing that ‘all the
congregation’ of adult males … had hastened to take their
stand … in front, not merely of the door, but
of the whole end of the tabernacle in which the
door was”, etc. It is clear that the writer of this passage
was under the impression (which, indeed, he conveys not only by his
words, but still more by his italics—for they are his)
that the
whole end of the tabernacle was wider than the door. Now
if he had taken the pains to read even an English translation of the
sacred book which he so rashly presumed to condemn, he never could
have fallen into so great a mistake. He would have seen that the
whole
eastern end of the tabernacle was left open, and that the
open space was covered only by a curtain which extended across from
side to side. Consequently, if mention were really made of a door, it
must have been this curtain itself that was called by that name.

But if Dr. Colenso
had gone a little further, and had consulted any Hebrew lexicon, he
would have discovered that the sacred writer does not speak of a
door, but rather of a doorway.
The tabernacle had in fact no door properly so called. The word
פתח (pethach), which
is used by the sacred writers when speaking of the tabernacle,
signifies, as Gesenius explains it, an
opening, an entrance. It means, therefore,
the whole end of the tabernacle, which was left open to
the court when the curtain was drawn. In Hebrew the idea of
a
door is expressed by דלת (deleth). When treating of this
word, Gesenius, having first explained its meaning, pointedly
remarks: “It differs from פתח, which denotes
the doorway which the door closes”. It is quite [pg 372] certain, therefore, that the door and
the whole
end of the tabernacle, which Dr. Colenso so emphatically
contrasts, were in reality one and the same thing.

It is time,
however, that we pass to another of Dr. Colenso’s arguments:—

[pg 373]

We agree with Dr.
Colenso that this is a “huge
difficulty”, and that the duties of the priest, as described
by him, involve a manifest absurdity. But we contend that the duties
of the priest, as described by him, are not to be found in the
Pentateuch; that all the circumstances which
constitute the difficulty and the absurdity are simply additions of his
own. This is indeed a serious charge against a writer who
represents himself to the public as an earnest and conscientious
searcher after truth. But we hope to satisfy our readers that it is a
plain and obvious fact; and it is our duty, as Dr. Colenso truly
tells us, “to look plain facts in the
face”.

It is evident that
the whole weight of the objection consists in this: that, according
to the sacred narrative, the priest is commanded, first, to carry the
bullock himself; secondly, to carry it
on his
back; thirdly, in doing so, to go on
foot. Now there is not the faintest insinuation in any
text Dr. Colenso has produced, nor, we may add, in any text the
Pentateuch contains, that the priest should go on
foot, or that he should carry the bullock on his
back. These two ideas are to be found only in the
fanciful and rather irreverent gloss of Dr. Colenso.

Neither is it
commanded in the sacred text that the priest should himself
carry the bullock out of the camp. Even in the English translation
there is nothing to imply that he might not, for this duty, employ
the service of his attendant Levites. It is said, indeed,
“he shall carry forth the bullock without the
camp”. But by the common use of language we may impute to a
person, as his own, the act which he does by the agency of another.
Thus a minister of state is said to write a letter, when the letter
is written at his direction by his secretary. In the Fourth Book of
Kings it is recorded of
Nabuchodonosor that “he carried away all
Jerusalem, and all the princes, and all the valiant men
of the army, to the number of ten thousand, into captivity:… and
the judges of the land he carried into captivity from Jerusalem into
Babylon. And all the strong men, seven thousand, and the artificers
and the smiths a thousand”, etc.—(IV. Kings,
xxiv. 14-16). No one dreams of any difficulty in a sentence like
this. Yet, if we admit the Colenso system of interpretation, the
difficulty is insuperable, because the meaning of the
sentence is, that Nabuchodonosor himself
carried that immense multitude on his back from Jerusalem to
Babylon.

If we now turn to
the Hebrew text we shall find that it is still less favourable to Dr.
Colenso and his “huge difficulty”. The
word והוציא (vehotzi), which is there used, literally means
and he
shall cause [it] to go forth, that is to say, he shall have it
removed. This will be at once admitted by every biblical
scholar, and can be made intelligible without much difficulty to the
[pg 374] general reader. In the Hebrew
language there are several forms of the same verb, sometimes called
conjugations, each of which has a meaning peculiar to itself. The
primitive form is kal; and the
hiphil form “denotes the causing or permitting of the action, signified
by the primitive kal”.5 For
example: קדש (kadash) in kal
signifies to be holy; in hiphil, to cause to be
holy, to sanctify; נטה (natah) in
kal means to bow;
in hiphil, to cause to
bow, to bend. Now, in the passage quoted
by Dr. Colenso the word והוציא is the hiphil form of יצא (yatza),
to go
forth; it therefore means literally to cause to go
forth.6 We need
scarcely remark that the priest would comply with this injunction
whether he himself in person removed the bullock, or whether he
employed the Levites to do it; whether he carried it on his back,
according to the ridiculous paraphrase of Dr. Colenso, or removed it
in wagons provided for the purpose.

And now that our
paper approaches to a close, it may be asked what is the result of
our labours, and what has been gained to the cause of truth by all
the minute and tedious details through which we have conducted our
readers? It seems to us that we have directly answered two of Dr.
Colenso’s arguments, and that we have moreover established indirectly
a strong presumption against all the rest. Let us put a case to our
readers. A jeweller exhibits for sale a string of pearls. He demands
a very high price, but he pledges his word of honour that the pearls
are of the rarest quality and of the highest excellence. A casual
passer-by is attracted by the glittering gems. He enters the shop; he
listens with eager credulity to the earnest protestations of the
merchant; but he hesitates when the price is named. At this critical
moment a friend arrives, who is happily somewhat versed in jewellery.
He selects one or two pearls from the string, and after a brief
inspection clearly shows, not merely that the price is far beyond
their value, but that they are not pearls at all. What would be
thought of the merchant who had offered them for sale? Who would
frequent his shop? Who would believe [pg 375] the other pearls to be genuine on the strength
of his protestations? It may be indeed that he is not a swindler; but
if he is an honest man, he is certainly a very indifferent judge of
his business.

Now what this
jeweller is in a matter of commerce, such, as it seems to us, has Dr.
Colenso been proved to be in a matter of infinitely greater moment.
He comes before the world with the prestige of a great name and of a
high position. He earnestly announces that he has made a great
discovery, and that he is forced by his conscience to speak out his
mind. He offers to the public an attractive array of brilliant and
plausible arguments; and in return he asks us to surrender the
inestimable treasure of Christian faith. At first we are bewildered
and perplexed by the novelty and variety of his arguments; but after
a little we summon up courage; we select two or three from the
number, and these we submit to a minute and careful analysis. We find
that they are miserably defective and utterly inconclusive. Facts are
misrepresented, the meaning of language is perverted, the principles
of sound reasoning are disregarded. May we not then fairly infer that
Dr. Colenso’s earnest protestations of sincerity and good intention
afford a very insufficient guarantee for the accuracy of his
statements and the stability of his arguments? We do not say that he
is dishonest; but we do say that he has proved himself a very
incompetent authority.

Blessed Thaddeus M’Carthy.

[In an article of
the Record for April (page 312), we
briefly referred to a Bishop of Cloyne and Cork who is venerated as
blessed, in Ivrea, a town of Piedmont. In conformity with the few
fragments preserved in the archives of Ivrea and elsewhere regarding
him, we adopted the opinion that his name, according to modern
orthography, should be rendered Thaddeus Maher. Since the publication
of the article just mentioned, a paper containing much valuable
matter has been communicated to us through the great kindness of the
Very Rev. Dr. M’Carthy, the learned Professor of Scripture in
Maynooth College, who had prepared it long before the article in the
Record was published, and before
he could have had any knowledge of our views on this subject. We are
anxious to publish every document that we can find on this
interesting question, in the hope that by discussing it, light may be
thrown on the history of a holy Irish bishop, who is honoured beyond
the Alps, but so little known at home, that there is great difficulty
in determining his real name. In one of our next numbers we shall
return to this subject.]

[pg
376]

On June 23rd,
1847, the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, Archbishop of Dublin, received at
Maynooth a letter covering a bill of exchange for £40 (1,000 francs),
sent for the relief of the famine-stricken poor of Ireland, by order
of the good Bishop of Ivrea. The town of Ivrea (anciently
Eporedia) is the capital of the
Piedmontese province of the same name, which extends from the Po to
the Alps. The province contains a population of over one hundred
thousand, of whom about eight thousand reside in the town, where is
also the bishop’s see.

The letter to Dr.
Murray enclosed a separate paper, of which the following is a
copy:—

As our space
precludes a literal translation of this paper, a summary may be
acceptable to the reader.

On the 24th of
October, 1492, died at Ivrea, in St. Antony’s Hospice for Pilgrims,
Blessed Thaddeus, an Irish bishop, whose body was deposited under the
high altar of the cathedral, in a shrine over the relics of the holy
patron, St. Eusebius. At the time of death a brilliant light was seen
round his bed, and at the same moment to the Bishop of Ivrea there
appeared a man of venerable mien, clothed in pontifical robes.
Several other miracles were also wrought through his intercession.
The papers found with him showed he was an Irish bishop, and these,
as well as other documents proving his great sanctity, religiously
kept in the episcopal archives, were destroyed by fire in the
seventeenth century. In an old parchment, written in Gothic letters,
still preserved in the archives of the cathedral church, are these
lines:

When Dr. Murray
received the Bishop of Ivrea’s letter, he placed it in the hands of
the late venerated President of Maynooth College, from whose MSS. it
is now copied, together with the very literal translation of the
verses made by one of the junior students at the time. Dr. Renehan
undertook to collect all the notices of Blessed Thaddeus in our Irish
annals, and to give the best answers he could to the bishop’s
questions. He even visited Ivrea in the summer of 1850, in the hope
of finding traditional records of the life of Blessed Thaddeus, but
to no purpose. He found the task more difficult than might be
expected. All the knowledge regarding the saint’s family, see, etc.,
that can be gathered from Irish or British sources is found in these
few lines from Ware on the Bishops of Cloyne:

“Thady M’Carthy (succ.
1490).—Upon the resignation of William, Thady M’Carthy, by some
called Mechar, succeeded the same year by a provision from Pope
Innocent VIII., as may be seen from the Collectanea of Francis
Harold”—Ware’s Bishops (Harris), p. 563.

The Blessed
Thaddeus’s name is unhonoured then, in his own country; his
biography, if ever written, is at least not recorded by the Irish
historians. Even the scanty information which the industrious Ware
supplies, was gleaned not from our annals, but from Harold’s
Collectanea, probably notes and
extracts taken from documents in the continental libraries. Dr.
Renehan had, therefore, little to add on our saint’s life. He was,
however, fully satisfied that Blessed Thaddeus of Ivrea was no other
than the Bishop of Cork and Cloyne, mentioned by Ware. His arguments
may be seen in a rough outline of his answer to the Bishop of Ivrea’s
letter, among the O’Renehan MSS. in Maynooth, almost the only
authority we had time to consult for this notice. Sometimes the very
words of the letter are given in inverted commas:—

I. The Pilgrim of
Ivrea was an Irish bishop who died in the year 1492. “The most diligent search through our Irish annals will
not discover another bishop to whom even so much of the poet’s
description will apply but Thaddeus M’Carthy, Bishop of Cloyne. About
that date there were indeed in Ireland five bishops named Thaddeus:
1. Thady, Bishop of Kilmore, since [pg 379] before 1460; but his successor Furseus died in
1464, and Thomas, the third from him, died before 1492. 2. Thady
M’Cragh, of Killaloe, succeeded in 1430, full sixty years before our
saint’s death at Ivrea. His third successor died in 1460. 3. Thady,
Bishop of Down, was consecrated in Rome, 1469, died in 1486, and his
successor, R. Wolsey, was named before 1492. 4. Thady of Ross died
soon after his appointment in 1488, succeeded by Odo in 1489. 5.
Thady of Dromore, appointed only in 1511, and the see was held by
George Brown in 1492. The date (1492) is alone enough to prove that
B. Thaddeus of Ivrea was not any of the preceding bishops, and there
was no other of the name for full sixty years after or before, but
the Bishop of Cork and Cloyne, the date of whose death fits exactly
all the requirements of the case. Ware quotes from Harold that he was
appointed by Innocent VIII. (sed. 1484-1492,) that he succeeded
W. Roch, resigned 1490, and further, that Gerald, who succeeded,
resigned in 1499, after obtaining a pardon from Henry VII. in
1496”—(Lib. Mun., i. p. 102)

II. Another line
of the old fragment seems to name the see of the B. Thaddeus, whom
the poet describes as lamenting his death abroad, far from the
“solum Chariense”, or “Clovinense”, which we interpret far “from Kerry”, the burial place of
his family, and “from Cloyne”, his episcopal see.
“Cloyne” is variously Latinized, even
by Irish writers, “Cloynensis”,
“Clonensis”, “Cluanensis”—and often “Clovens” or “Clovinen”, in Rymer’s Foedera.7 What more
natural than that a poet would describe the pilgrim as longing to be
buried either in his cathedral church of Cloyne or
with his fathers in Kerry?

III. The passage
which seems to us most decisive, is that which points to the
royal
extraction and name of this holy bishop:
“Regia progenies, alto de sanguine
Machar”. Observe how in the notice from Harold
Bishop M’Carthy was called also “Mechar”. Clearly both were one and the same name.
Thus [Gaelic: Mac Careaw], Anglicised M’Carthy, is pronounced
Maccaura, with the last syllable short, as in Ard-Magha (Armagh), and
numberless like words. Hence Wadding,8 in
speaking of the foundation of Muckross Abbey, Killarney, by Domnal
M’Carthy, Prince of Desmond, quotes to this effect a Bull of Paul
II., in 1468, in which Domnall’s name is spelled “Machar”, a form identical
with that in the contemporary fragment. In truth, there is no Irish
family name like “Machar” at all but
“Meagher”, which is invariably spelled
with “O”, [pg 380] especially in the Latinized form; and the
“O’Meaghers” had no claim to
royal blood.

IV. The Blessed
Thaddeus was “regia progenies”. Now
there was no royal family name in Ireland like
that in the inscription except the truly royal
name, made more royal still by the saintly Bishop of Cloyne. Without
insisting with Keating that the ancestry of the M’Carthy family could
be traced through twenty-eight monarchs who governed the island
before the Christian era, we may assert with the Abbe MacGeoghan, in
a note (tom. iii. p. 680), strangely omitted by his translator,
“that if regard be had to primogeniture and
seniority of descent, the M’Carthy family is the first in
Ireland”.

Long before the
founders of the oldest royal families in Europe—before Rodolph
acquired the empire of Germany, or a Bourbon ascended the throne of
France—the saintly Cormac M’Carthy, the disciple, the friend, and
patron of St. Malachy, ruled over Munster, and the title of
king was at least continued in name
in his posterity down to the reign of Elizabeth. “Few pedigrees, if any”, says Sir B. Burke,
“in the British empire can be traced to a
more remote or exalted source than that of the Celtic house of
M’Carthy…. They command a prominent, perhaps the most
prominent place in European genealogy”. Plain then
is it that in no other house could the “regia
progenies” be verified more fully than in the M’Carthy
family.9

V. The date of
death, the wished-for burial place, his native soil (Kerry), or his
diocese (Cloyne)—the name and royal extraction, all point to the
Bishop of Cloyne as the saint whose relics are still worshipped at
Ivrea. If we add that “Chiar” is the
usual Irish form of Kerry; that Domnall’s (the founder of Irrelagh)
father’s name was Thaddeus, not improbably our
Saint’s uncle, the evidence seems to be overwhelming.

VI. We have said
there is no account in Irish writers of even the Bishop of Cloyne,
except the few lines in Ware. The continental annalists of the
religious orders do, however, speak of one celebrated Thaddeus,
without mentioning his surname or country. Elsius (quoting
De
Herera and Crusen, whose works are not within
our reach) notices Thaddeus de Hipporegio sive Iporegia,
“as a man distinguished for learning,
religious observance, preaching, holiness of life, and experience, a
man of great zeal, and a sedulous promoter of the interests of his
order”. He was prior, he adds, of several convents, seven
times definitor, thirteen times visitator, four times president of
synods, nine times vicar-general, and his government was ever
[pg 381] distinguished for the greatest
love of order and edifying example. See Els., Encom.,
August., p. 645.

After quoting
these words in substance from the Augustinian chronicler, Dr. Renehan
adds: “After the most diligent inquiry I
could make at Ivrea, wherever I could hope for any little
information, particularly at the episcopal palace (where I was
received with marked respect, as a priest from the country that sent
out the B. Thaddeus), and of the Bishop’s secretary, the
vicar-general, and many others, whose kind attention I can never
forget, I could find no vestige of any other Thaddeus, called after
the city (Eporedia), but our own blessed
Irish bishop; and I was assured, over and over again, that he was the
only Thaddeus known in its annals, or who ever had any connection
with the town, by birth, residence, death—or any way known to the
present generation”. It is not then unreasonable to suppose
that the Thaddeus so celebrated in the Augustinian Order was no other
than our Bishop. True, Elsius gives 1502 for the date of the friar’s
demise; but Elsius is never to be trusted in dates, and the printer
may easily take MCCCCXCII. (the true date), for MCCCCCII. Indeed,
1492 is not so different from 1502 that an error may not have crept
in.

Dr. Renehan’s
theory, then, with regard to B. Thaddeus, fully detailed in the
letter to the Bishop of Ivrea, was this:—

Thaddeus M’Carthy
was born in Kerry, where the M’Carthy More branch of the family
resided, and where, in the monastery of Irialac (now Muckross), or in
Ennisfallen (see Archdall), the princes of the
house were always buried. The young Thaddeus went abroad at an early
age, and embraced the monastic life. His virtues and piety soon
attracted the notice of his religious brethren, as manifest from
their chronicles. They became in time known to the ruling Pontiff,
Innocent VIII., who raised him to the episcopal dignity. The B.
Thaddeus repaired to Rome in the first place, to receive consecration
and jurisdiction from the successor of St. Peter, imitating in this
the example of our great patron saint. He stopped at Ivrea, probably
on his way home, fell sick there, and died, God witnessing to His
servant by signs and wonders. The silence of our annalists is thus
accounted for to a great extent by the long residence of B. Thaddeus
abroad. This theory is remarkably borne out by the independent notice
in last Record. Having little to help us
to arrive at any correct notion of the saintly bishop’s life beyond
the epitaph and the slender tradition at Ivrea, we entirely subscribe
to this view. Other sources of information may be opened, now that we
have ventured to bring, for the first time, the name of B. Thaddeus
before the Irish Catholic people; and for this service, little as it
[pg 382] is, and entirely unworthy of
our saintly bishop, we still expect his blessing in full measure.

Liturgical Questions.

We have received
from various quarters several questions connected with the ceremony
of marriage. We propose in this number of the Record to
answer some of them.

We shall treat in
the first place of the Mass. The questions forwarded to us may be
reduced to the two following:

1. When and on
what days can the Missa pro sponso et sponsa be said, and on what
days is it forbidden by the Rubrics?

2. In either Mass
are any commemorations to be made, and when and how are they to be
made?

In reply to these
questions, we beg to bring under the notice of our readers the
following decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

4266. In
celebratione Nuptiarum quae fit extra diem Dominicum vel alium diem
festum de praecepto seu in quo occurrat duplex primae vel secundae
classis etiamsi fiat officium et Missa de Festo duplici per annum
sive majori sive minori dicendam esse Missam pro sponso et sponsa in
fine Missalis post alias Missas votivas specialiter assignatam: in
diebus vero Dominicis aliisque diebus festis de praecepto ac
duplicibus primae et secundae classis dicendam esse Missam de Festo
cum commemoratione Missae pro sponso et sponsa. Atque ita decrevit et
servari mandavit. Die 20 Decembris 1783. Factaque deinde per me
Secretarium de praedictis Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio PP. VI.
relatione Sanctitas sua praefatum Sac. Cong. generale Decretum
confirmavit, et ubique exequutioni dandum esse praecepit. Die 7
Januarii 1784

4394. Verumtamen
cum interea nonnulla excitata fuerint dubia circa rubricam in
haccelebranda Missa servandam, et Parochorum sensus sit varius quippe
quia aliqui eidem Missae Hymnum Angelicum adjiciendum censent cum
vers. Ite, Missa est in fine, alii vero etiam Symbolum Nicenum
legendum putant, ea freti ratione quod haec Missa ceu solemnis et pro
re gravi haberi debeat: ideo ad amputandas controversias et
dubitationes utque ab omnibus unus idemque conveniens ritus servetur:
sacra Rituum Congregatio, me subscripto secretario referente, re
mature discussa, declaravit atque decrevit quod firma remanente
dispositione praefati Decreti quoad designationem dierum in quibus
Missa votiva pro sponso et sponsa celebrari potest, eamdem esse
votivam privatam, proindeque semper legendam sine Hymno Angelico
[pg 383] et symbolo Nicaeno cum tribus
orationibus, prima videlicet ejusdem Missae votivae propria ut
habetur in fine Missalis secunda et tertia diei currentis ut in
Rubric. Tit. vii. num. 3, de Commemorationibus, Benedicamus Domino in
fine, et ultimo Evangelio S. Johannis. Et ita decrevit die 28
Februarii 1818.

4437. Cum per
Decretum Generale S. hujus Congregationis die 20 Decembris 1783 dies
designentur, quibus Missa pro sponso et sponsa etiam diebus
excludentibus duplicia per annum, ideoque etiam infra octavam
Epiphaniae, in vigilia Pentecostes, et infra octavam privilegiatam
sanctissimi Corporis Christi: alii vero putant his etiam diebus
eamdem Missam vetitam; idcirco idem Parochus petiit declarari.

5. An hujusmodi
Missa dici possit diebus duplicia excludentibus ut supra notatis?

6. An Commemoratio
Missae pro sponso et sponsa dicenda prout ex dicto decreto in Missis
de duplici primae vel secundae classis dici debeat sub unica
conclusione cum oratione Festi vel sub altera conclusione?

7. An talis
Commemoratio pariter dici debeat vel sub altera conclusione prout
solet de aliis commemorationibus occurrentibus in diebus Dominicis et
Festis de praecepto?

8. Quo loco,
quando aliae occurrunt commemorationes ut in proximo quaesito
commemoratio Missae pro sponso et sponsa dicenda sit sub secunda
conclusione, an scilicet ultimo loco?

Et S. Rituum
Congregatio exquisita sententia alterius ex Apostolicarum
Caeremoniarum Magistris scripto exarata, typisque evulgata ad
relationem Eminentissimi et Reverendissimi D. Card. Cavalchini
Ponentis, respondendum censuit ut infra, videlicet.

Ad 5. Negative
quoad octavam Epiphaniae, vigiliam Pentecostes, et octavam
privilegiatam Sanctissimi Corporis Christi, quatenus privilegium
concessum sit ad instar octavae Epiphaniae.

Ad. 6. Negative ad
primam partem, affirmative ad secundam.

Ad. 7. Ut in
antecedenti.

Ad. 8. Faciendam
primo loco post alias de praecepto.

Atque ita
respondit die 20 Aprilis 1822.

From these decrees
the following conclusions may clearly be established:

1. On all Sundays
and holidays of obligation, and feasts of first and second class, the
Mass of the day is to be said with the commemoration of the Mass pro
sponso et sponsa. This appears clear from the decree 4266 quoted
above.

2. This
commemoration is to be made sub altera conclusione, and not sub unica
conclusione cum oratione Festi.

3. If there are
other commemorations to be made in the Mass of the day, they are to
be said before the commemoration of the Mass pro sponso et sponsa.
This appears from the answer given [pg 384] by the Sacred Congregation of Rites to the
question 8 in the Decree No. 4437, and Gardellini, in a note on this
same question, says: “Imo si occurrant plures
commemorationes ut accidit potissimum dum celebranda est Missa de
Dominica, illa Nuptiarum primum dumtaxat locum obtinere poterit post
alias a rubrica praeceptas et sic reliquas praestare, siquae sint a
superiore imperatae”.

4. The decree 4394
makes it clear that on all the ordinary doubles throughout the year,
the Missa pro sponso et sponsa may be celebrated; and it declares,
moreover, that it is a votive private Mass, and, as such, to be said
sine Gloria et Credo, with the second and third prayers of the day
occurring, and to conclude with the Benedicamus Domino and the Gospel
of St. John. This decree, clear as it may appear, gave rise to
another question about privileged octaves which exclude doubles,
which was afterwards proposed to the Sacred Congregation of Rites,
and to which an answer was given on the 20th April, 1822, in the
Decree 4437, already quoted, question 5.

Gardellini, in a
valuable note, explains the matter fully, and we quote his words on
the subject:—

“Hisce decretis compositae quaestiones omnes videbantur:
secus tamen accidit, nam nova excitata sunt dubia. Quippe nonnulli
sunt, qui opinantur Missam hanc dici posse etiam diebus qui excludunt
duplicia per annum, praesertim vero infra octavam Epiphaniae, in
vigilia Pentecostes et infra octavam privilegiatam sanctissimi
Corporis Christi. In hac autem opinione versantur quia in primo illo
Decreto dies isti expressim et nominatim non excipiuntur. Ast hi
errant quam maxime. Non enim declaratione indigebat id, quod sub
generali prohibitione, utpote a Rubricis jam vetitum continebatur.
Jubet Decretum, ne Missa nuptiarum celebretur in duplicibus primae
vel secundae classis sed vult ut in hujusmodi occursu solam obtineant
commemorationem: ergo includit in regula etiam dies, in quibus per
easdem Rubricas fieri nequit Festum duplex secundae classis vel
occurrens vel translatum si in octava Epiphaniae duplicia isthaec non
admittuntur, potiori jure nec Missa votiva privata non obstante
Indultu admitti poterit, utpote quae in occursu hujusmodi duplicium
celebranda non est”.

We must refer our
readers to this very instructive note of Gardellini, which we regret
we cannot insert here in full, owing to its great length. Indeed it
is not necessary to do so, inasmuch as the answer given to the
question 5 in the Decree 4437, already quoted, puts an end to further
discussion, and settles the question definitively.

There are other
questions connected with the ceremony of marriage, but we must
reserve them for another occasion.

Correspondence.

Documents.

Notices Of Books.