[Pg 505]

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

AUGUST, 1865.

Transcriber’s Note: Minor typos have been corrected and footnotes moved
to the end of the article. Table of contents has been created for the HTML version.

CONTENTS

THE SEE OF DROMORE.
DR. COLENSO AND THE OLD TESTAMENT.
RICHARD FITZ-RALPH, ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH.
MR. BUTT AND NATIONAL EDUCATION.
LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.
CORRESPONDENCE.
DOCUMENTS.
NOTICES OF BOOKS.

THE SEE OF DROMORE.

The see of Dromore, though founded by St. Colman, seems for several
centuries to have comprised little more than the abbey of that great
saint and its immediate territory. In the synod of Rathbreasil (a. d.
1118), in which the boundaries of the various dioceses were defined, no
mention is made of Dromore, and the territory subsequently belonging to
it was all comprised within the limits of the see of Connor. The acts of
the synod of Kells held about fifty years later, are also silent as to a
bishop of Dromore; and Cencius Camerarius, compiling his list of sees in
1192, again omits all mention of this see. Nevertheless, the abbot of
the monastery, “de viridi ligno”, which gave name to the town of Newry,
ruled this diocese with episcopal authority during the later half of the
twelfth century, and a bishop of this see named Uroneca (alias O’Rony)
is mentioned in a charter of donations to the abbey of Neddrum, about
the year 1190 (see Reeves’ Ecclesiastical Antiquities, pag. 192).

The last episcopal abbot of this great monastery was Gerard, a
Cistercian monk of Mellifont, who, in 1227, was chosen bishop, and died
in 1243. A controversy then arose between the chapter of Dromore and the
monastery of Newry. Each claimed the right of electing the successor to
the deceased bishop; and the Archbishop of Armagh gave judgment in
favour of the former. The matter being referred to Rome, all controversy
was set at rest by Pope Innocent VI., who by letter of 5th March, 1244,
addressed “to the dean and chapter of Dromore”, confirmed the decision
of the Archbishop of Armagh, and sanctioned the right of the canons of
Dromore to elect the bishops of the see (Mon. Vatic., pag. 42).
Andrew, archdeacon of Dromore, was accordingly elected bishop, and
[Pg 506]consecrated in 1245, and the episcopal succession continued
uninterrupted till the latter half of the fifteenth century.

Ware, in his Bishops of this see, and Dr. Reeves, in his
Ecclesiastical Antiquities of Down and Connor (pag. 308), tell us that
on the death of the Carmelite bishop, David of Chirbury, in 1427, the
see was held by Thomas Scrope, who resigned before 1440; that his
successor, Thomas Radcliffe, also resigned before 1461; that the next
bishop was George Brann, appointed about 1487; and that the see was held
in 1500 by another bishop named William Egremond.

The actual succession of bishops, however, was far different. On the
death of David of Chirbury, Dr. Thomas Radcliffe was chosen his
successor in 1429, as the historians of the Augustinian order expressly
attest. Thus, for example, Herrera writes:

Elsius makes a similar statement (Encomiast. page 662), and also tells
us that there is a “Thomas Radclyf, Redcliff, sive Radcliffus, Anglus,
S.T.D., in Anglia natus nobilissimâ familiâ ex qua comites Sussessiae
ante an. 1369, prodierunt”, who is commended in the records of the order
as illustrious by his virtues and writings. “Intuitu virtutum”, he adds,
“Episcopalem Lincolniensem aut Leicestrensem accepit dignitates”, which
words acquaint us with the English see to which Dr. Radcliffe was
promoted some few years after his appointment to Dromore.

As the dates of Herrera are taken from the consistorial records and
other official documents, we may rest assured that 1429 was the year of
Dr. Radcliffe’s appointment. We cannot fix with the same certainty the
year in which he renounced this see. It is probable, however, that about
1434 he was translated to the diocese of Lincoln in England, and we next
meet with a Dominican Father who was also named Thomas, already in
possession of the see of Dromore in 1437. The following is the letter of
Eugene IV., from the papers of Luke Wadding, Rome, which makes known to
us for the first time this worthy successor of St. Colman:—

This Dominican bishop only held the see till 1440, for, in that year
Dromore is described as vacant in the register of archbishop Swain of
Armagh. We may incidentally here mention that amongst the same Wadding
papers there is another brief of Pope Eugene IV., dated at Florence,
11th of the kalends of December, 1439, confirming the bull of Alexander
V., which commenced Etsi pro cunctorum: it is addressed “ad
Praedicatores Hibernos, scilicet ad Vicarium Generalem et alios
fratres”.

Thomas Scrope, a Carmelite, was Bishop of this see[1] before the close
of the pontificate of Eugene IV., who died in 1447. He was remarkable
for the practice of almost incredible austerities, and it is especially
commemorated of him that he had led an eremitical life for several years
before he was summoned to the onerous duties of the episcopate. He
subsequently was sent by Pope Eugene as apostolic delegate to the
Knights[Pg 508] of Rhodes; and Leland adds that “whatever he received out of
his revenues or could get from rich persons, he bestowed among the poor,
or laid out on pious uses”. He resigned his see after his return from
Rhodes, and acted as vicar-general of the Bishop of Norwich: he died at
a very advanced age in 1491.

We next meet with a Bishop of Dromore named Richard Myssin, a
Carmelite, who on the 29th July, 1457, was advanced to this see, as
appears from the Consistorial acts of Pope Callixtus III. (Biblioth.
Carmelit., ii. 965). He was remarkable for the sanctity of his life,
and for his great proficiency in learning.

William Egremond was probably his immediate successor, being appointed
to the see in 1462, as Herrera and the other Augustine writers
attest.[2] The country, however, was so disturbed that this diocese had
few attractions for an English bishop; and hence he abandoned it in
1467, and lived for many years as suffragan of the archbishop of York.
His monument, erected in the cathedral of York, bore the following
inscription:—

The next mention we find of this see is in a petition of the Archbishop
of Armagh, Octavian de Palatio, addressed to Henry VII. about the year
1487, in which he writes that, “the fruits, rents, and revenues, as well
spiritual as temporal (of Dromore), extend not above the sum of £40 of
the coin of this your land of Ireland, which is less by one-third than
the coin sterling; and that for the expense and poverty of the same, the
see is void and desolate, and almost extinct, these twenty winters past
and more, insomuch that none will own the said bishoprick or abide
thereupon”.

Nevertheless, in that very year, 1487, George Brann was appointed to
this see by Pope Innocent VIII. He had lived for several years in Rome
as procurator of the Hospital of the Santo Spirito, and had also
proceeded to Ireland to establish a branch house of that institute. He
held the see till his translation to Elphin on the 18th of April, 1499.

The first bishop of Dromore whom we find commemorated in the sixteenth
century is Galeatius, whose death is registered in[Pg 509] 1504. Of his
successor, John Baptist, we only know that he was appointed on June
12th, the same year. Thaddeus, a Franciscan friar, was next advanced
to the see on 30th April, 1511. He is commemorated in Archbishop
Cromer’s register, as still ruling the see in 1518, and we find no other
bishop mentioned till the appointment of Quintinus Cogleus (i.e. Con
MacCoughlin), of the order of St. Dominick, in the year 1536 (Hib.
Dom., p. 486). This bishop, however, seems to have held the see only
for a short time, for in the Consistorial Acts we soon after find the
following entry:—”An. 1539. Sua Sanctitas providit Ecclesiae Dromorensi
in Hibernia de persona Rogerii”.

Ten years later Arthur Magennis was chosen by Pope Paul III. to govern
the diocese of St. Colman. On the 10th of May, 1550, he surrendered his
bulls to the crown, and had in return “a pardon under the great seal for
having received the Pope’s bull, and for other misdemeanours”. (Reeves’
Eccles. Antiq., p. 308. V. Morrin, Pat. Rolls, i. p. 205).
Nevertheless, there can be but little doubt as to the orthodoxy of this
prelate. Even Cox (i. 288) attests his devotion to the Catholic cause.
He, moreover, specially names him as an instance of a Catholic bishop,
and adduces the fact of his being allowed by the crown to hold peaceable
possession of his see as a proof that “the Reformation made but small
progress in Ireland” at this period. In 1551 he gave a public proof of
his devotedness to the Catholic faith. Edward VI., in the beginning of
February, sent an order to the viceroy, Sir Anthony St. Leger,
commanding the use of the English liturgy in all the churches of
Ireland. On the 1st of March the same year this order was communicated
to the archbishops and bishops assembled in council for that special
purpose; but no sooner had St. Leger made his discourse, commending the
royal prerogative, and extolling the liturgy now proposed to the Irish
clergy, than Dr. Dowdall of Armagh opposed it with all his zeal, and
denounced the measure as anathematized “by the Church of St. Peter, the
Mother Church of Rome”. It must ever remain a special glory of the
province of Armagh, that, as Cox informs us (p. 290), one only of the
suffragan bishops of the primatial see—viz., Dr. Staples, who held from
the crown the revenues of Meath—could be found to support the proposal
of the government, whilst all the others adopted the sentiments of Dr.
Dowdall. The year of Dr. Magennis’s death is uncertain; he seems,
however, to have survived some years the accession of Queen Elizabeth,
and on his death the see of Dromore became canonically united with
Ardagh.

The name of this illustrious bishop recalls our attention to Dr.
Magennis, bishop of Down and Connor, of whom we treated[Pg 510] in the March
number of the Record. An esteemed correspondent, in a highly
interesting letter, published in May (p. 385 seq.), contends that that
prelate, in his public acts at least, deviated from the path of
orthodoxy, and allied himself to the enemies of our holy faith. His
reasons, however, are far from sufficient to justify such a serious
charge.

1. In the first place, he argues from the fact of the bishop of Down
having surrendered his bulls to the crown. However, the bishop of
Dromore did the same, and, nevertheless, no one questions his orthodoxy.
Long before the dawn of Protestantism we find the same course pursued by
some bishops, as, for instance, by the celebrated Oliver Cantwell,
bishop of Ossory, towards the close of the fifteenth century (Ware, p.
414). In fact, the surrendering of the bulls was regarded as a purely
civil ceremony, which secured to the canonically appointed bishop the
peaceful possession of the temporalities of his see.

2. The learned correspondent lays special stress on the bulls being
described as “obtained from Paul, Bishop of Rome, not His Holiness“.
However, it is in the letter of the king that this form of expression is
used (Morrin, i. 91), and any insult which it may involve must be
referred to the good taste of Henry VIII., and not to the bishop of
Down.

3. It is added: “It is an oversight to suppose that about 1541 and 1543
the northern chieftains who submitted to Henry VIII. were exempted from
all pressure in matter of religion“. The statement which we made on a
former occasion (p. 268) had reference only to 1543; and it was not
without historic grounds that we asserted that, “the northern chieftains
who then submitted were exempted from all reference to religion when
professing their allegiance to the government”. It is true that in 1541
O’Donnell and O’Neil, and other chieftains, acknowledged the king’s
supremacy; but it is equally true that this submission of the Irish
princes was an illusory one, and their profession was so lavish of
loyalty that even the government felt that no reliance could be placed
on such declarations. To similar professions, made in 1537, the King
“replied by his letter to the lord deputy, that their oaths,
submissions, and indentures, were not worth one farthing”. (Cox, p.
253, ad. an. 1537). In fact, we find O’Donnell, in 1542, sending to Rome
a commissioner (whom we shall have to commemorate again as bishop elect
of Raphoe), humbly asking pardon for the guilt of perjury which he had
incurred. However, in 1543 it was far different. The government feared
the reconstruction of the confederation of the Irish chieftains; and
hence, when the great O’Neil, as he is styled by Cox (p. 257), sailed
in this year for England and surrendered his estate to the king, the
conditions[Pg 511] imposed on him, howsoever humiliating to his national pride,
were wholly silent in regard of religion. These conditions are given in
full by Cox (p. 275).[3] About the same time, O’Brene made also his
submission, and the articles exacted from him omit all reference to the
royal supremacy or other matters of religion. The letter of the King,
March 5th, 1543 (Morrin, i. 99), giving instructions to the Deputy
regarding O’Neil Connelaghe, nephew of the earl of Tyrone, in like
manner makes no mention of the religious articles. On the 24th of May an
agreement was made with the Magennises, as Cox informs us, yet without
the obnoxious clauses; and on the 9th of July, 1544, these clauses were
again omitted, when several grants in Dublin, including 140 acres of the
beautiful “Grange of Clonliffe” (Morrin, i. 103), were made to the
earl of Desmond. These examples sufficiently prove that the government
in 1543 was anxious to conciliate the Irish princes, and hence was not
particular in exacting the obnoxious declaration of supremacy.

4. That a portion of the diocese of Down and Connor was subject to the
English government in the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign, admits of no
doubt; but it is equally certain that the greater portion of it remained
under the control of O’Neill. Hence, a Vatican paper, written about
1579, adds to a list of the Irish sees, the following important note:

5. As regards the year of Dr. Macgennis’s demise, the letter of the
Queen, dated 6th of January, 1564, appointing his successor, though at
first sight it seems so conclusive an argument, nevertheless, is far
from proving that our bishop had died in 1563. For at the period of
which we treat, January was not the first month of the year 1564, but
was rather one of its concluding months; according to our present manner
of reckoning it would be the 6th of January, 1565. (See Shirley,
Original Letters, page 132).[Pg 512]

6. The last and weightiest remark of the esteemed correspondent
concerning Dr. Macgennis is, that he “assisted in consecrating by the
vitiated rite of king Edward” the unfortunate John Bale of Ossory.
However, we must remark that Dr. Macgennis is certainly not responsible
for the appointment of this unworthy apostate to the see of St. Canice;
and the antecedent character of Bale seems to have been wholly unknown
in Ireland, especially in the Irish districts of the island. Much less
is the bishop of Down responsible for the use of the new-fangled
vitiated rite; for, it was Bale himself that at the very time of the
consecration insisted on the new liturgy being employed:[4] and this
event supplies us with an additional argument in favour of the orthodoxy
of Dr. Macgennis, for, it is expressly recorded that, “in union with the
clergy of Dublin”, he entered his solemn protest against this heretical
innovation. We shall return again to this subject when speaking of the
Bishops of Ossory. In the mean time we may conclude that there is no
sufficient proof of Dr. Macgennis having swerved from the rule of
orthodoxy; whilst on the other hand the silence of the advocates of the
new creed, who never even whispered his name in connection with their
tenets—the omission of the supremacy clause in his submission to the
crown—his union with Dr. Dowdall in repudiating the English liturgy
when proposed by the viceroy—his protest on the occasion of Bale’s
consecration—his retaining the see of Down and Connor during the reign
of Queen Mary—the consistorial entry which subsequently describes the
see as vacant per obitum Eugenii Magnissae, seems to us to place
beyond all controversy the devotedness of this worthy prelate to the
Catholic cause.

But to return to the diocese of Dromore. On the death of Dr. Arthur
Macgennis, it was united with the see of Ardagh, and for the remaining
years of the sixteenth century seems to have shared the trials and
sufferings of that diocese. In the consistorial acts the appointment of
Dr. Richard MacBrady is registered on the 16th January, 1576, and it is
added that his see was the “Ecclesia Ardacadensis et Dromorensis in
Hibernia“. On his translation to Kilmore on 9th of March, 1580, Doctor
Edmund MacGauran was chosen his successor, and thus our see is entitled
to a special share in the glory which this distinguished bishop won for
the whole Irish Church by his zealous labours and martyrdom.

The first Protestant bishop of the see was John Todd, who was appointed
to Down and Connor on 16th of March, 1606, and received at the same time
the diocese of Dromore in commendam. We shall allow the Protestant
writers Ware and Harris to convey to the reader an accurate idea of the
missionary[Pg 513] character of this first apostle of Protestantism amongst the
children of St. Colman. Ware simply writes:

To which words Harris adds:

We already had occasion to mention this unfortunate man, when treating
of the see of Down and Connor in the March number of the Record (page
271); and surely no words of ours are required to make the reader fully
appreciate the true character and mission of the Establishment in our
see, the life of whose first apostle is described in such language by
the great Protestant historians.

DR. COLENSO AND THE OLD TESTAMENT.

NO. III.

We have reserved for the last place a difficulty on which Dr. Colenso
has expended all his powers of persuasion and all his skill in
figures—”the number of the Israelites at the time of the Exodus”. Here
is his argument in a few words:—Jacob and his family numbered seventy
persons when they came down into Egypt. His descendants sojourned in
that country 215 years, and they went out with Moses in the fourth
generation. According to the Scripture narrative, when they were leaving
Egypt they numbered 600,000 men of twenty years old and upwards,
representing a population of about 2,000,000: but this is absolutely
impossible. Dr. Colenso assures us that “the multiplied impossibilities
introduced by this number alone, independent of all other
considerations, are enough to throw discredit upon the historical
character of the whole narrative” (part i. p. 143.) This bold assertion
he endeavours to establish by an elaborate argument extending over
several chapters. We must[Pg 514] be content to present it in a condensed form
to our readers; but, in doing so, we shall adhere as closely as possible
to the language of the author.

As the groundwork of his objection he lays down:—

He next proceeds to estimate the average number of children in each
family:

From this he concludes,

Lastly, he anticipates an explanation which some interpreters have
proposed, “that there may be something wrong in the Hebrew numerals“.
Such a suggestion, he very fairly observes, will not avail here; because
“this number is woven, as a kind of thread, into the whole story of the
Exodus, and cannot be taken out without tearing the whole fabric to
pieces” (pp. 141, 143).

Such is the elaborate structure which Dr. Colenso has reared with an
ability and an earnestness worthy of a better cause. In reply, we
purpose to demonstrate that the foundation on which that structure
rests, though it may have the outward semblance of solidity, is hollow
and unsubstantial within. He assures us that the facts upon which his
argument is based are “derived from the Pentateuch itself”. We hope to
satisfy our readers that they are not contained in the Pentateuch; that
they cannot be proved from the Pentateuch; nay, that they are contrary
to the evidence which the Pentateuch affords.

I. Let us commence with the “indisputable fact” that the Israelites
“came out of Egypt in the fourth generation”. By a generation Dr.
Colenso understands a descent from father to son: and he maintains
that there were but four such descents in all the Hebrew families during
the period of sojourn in Egypt. In support of this opinion he appeals
(p. 96) to the words of God to Abraham:—”in the fourth generation
they shall come hither again” (Gen., xv. 16). Our readers will
naturally inquire what is the precise meaning of the word “generation”
in this passage. Does it denote a descent from father to son? Or does it
signify a lengthened period of time? On this point our author observes a
profound silence. He found the word in the English text; it suited his
purpose, and he at once pressed it into his service. We are left to
suppose that it can have but one meaning, and that this meaning is the
one which he has adopted.

Now, we beg to assure our readers that this is very far from the truth.
The Hebrew word רוד (dor), which is rendered “generation” in
the authorized version, admits of various meanings. It corresponds
almost exactly with the Latin word saeculum.[Pg 516] Sometimes it signifies
the circuit or period of a man’s life; sometimes, the collection of
those who are living at the same time; sometimes, a period of a
hundred years.[5] As regards the passage in question, the opinion of
the best Hebrew scholars is directly opposed to Dr. Colenso. We pass by
the authority of Catholic writers, for whom he would probably have
little respect, and we appeal to men of his own school: we appeal to
Gesenius,[6] Bunsen,[7] Fürst,[8] Rosenmüller,[9] Knobel,[10] who
certainly cannot be suspected of any undue prepossession in favour of
the Bible. Every one of these distinguished scholars expressly asserts
that, in Gen., xv., 16, the word רוד must be understood to
mean a hundred years. We leave our readers to choose between their
deliberate judgment on the one hand, and the gratuitous assumption of
Dr. Colenso on the other.

If we look to the context we shall find that the meaning of the whole
passage, as explained by these writers, is simple, clear, harmonious; as
explained by Dr. Colenso, it is forced and unnatural. Abraham had just
heard from God that his seed should be “a stranger in a foreign land”
four hundred years (v. 13.) Then it is added: “but the fourth
generation (רוד ) they shall return hither”.[11] That is to
say, in our view, the men belonging to the fourth century shall
return. In this sense the connection will be clear; the prophecy will be
perfectly true, and the meaning easily understood. The four centuries
are to be counted from the time of Abraham, and correspond exactly with
the four hundred years of exile which had just been predicted. But,
according to Dr. Colenso, by “the fourth generation” is meant the fourth
descent in the family of Jacob (who was not yet born), counting from
the adults in the prime of life who went down with him to Egypt. Now
there is nothing in the whole chapter about Jacob or Jacob’s family,
or the adults in the prime of life who went down two hundred years
later into Egypt. Under these circumstances we think few persons will
be able to persuade themselves that the prophecy was understood by
Abraham in the sense in which it is understood by Dr. Colenso.

He next appeals to the genealogies of the Bible to establish his theory
of the “Exodus in the fourth generation”:

[Pg 517]

We shall presently see that these examples are by no means what Dr.
Colenso would represent them to be, and that so far from proving his
theory to be true, they prove it to be false. But first we would
direct attention to the character of the argument, which seems to us,
from its very nature, unsound. According to the Mosaic narrative, there
were about 2,000,000 of Israelites at the time of the exodus. If we
allow ten to each family, there must have been about 100,000 families.
Here, then, is the argument:—In eleven families out of 100,000, there
were just four generations during the sojourn in Egypt; therefore
there must have been four generations, neither more nor less, in the
remaining 99,989 families. Our author would have us suppose that during
a period of 215 years, there must have been exactly the same number of
generations in every family. He does not explicitly say this; much less
does he attempt to prove it; he silently assumes it.

Now it is scarcely necessary to observe that such a supposition is in
the highest degree improbable. It cannot be true, unless the members of
each family married at the same age as the members of every other
family, and unless this uniformity was continued from generation to
generation for upwards of two centuries. This, however, would be
contrary to what we know of the family of Abraham before the sojourn
in Egypt; it would be contrary to what we know of the people of Israel
after the sojourn in Egypt; it would be contrary to the testimony of
all genealogical record; it would be contrary to what we see every day
with our own eyes. One man has children born to him at the age of
twenty; another, at the age of forty; another, at the[Pg 518] age of sixty. The
children of the last might easily be contemporaries with the
grand-children of the second, and with the great-grand-children of the
first. Thus, in the short period of sixty years, there might be, in one
family, three descents from father to son, in another two, in another
only one. This is, perhaps, an extreme case; but it shows at least how
far the disparity may be extended, without exceeding the bounds of
possibility. The present Emperor of the French had reached the age of
forty-eight, when the Prince Imperial was born: whereas her Majesty
Queen Victoria became a grandmother at forty-one. Thus, in the royal
family of England we find two descents in forty-one years; in the
imperial line of France only one descent in forty-eight years. It is,
therefore, quite preposterous to take for granted that, in all the
families of a whole nation, the number of descents were exactly the
same during a period of 215 years.

But this assumption is especially inadmissible, when we consider the
peculiar circumstances of the case before us. The first generation,
according to Dr. Colenso, was composed of the fifty-one grandsons of
Jacob. They were already grown up, and some of them even had children
when they came into Egypt. Therefore the whole of the first generation
was already in existence, and the second had begun to be born some
years, let us say three, before the descent. If we add the 215 years of
sojourn in Egypt, we shall have 218 years from the beginning of the
second generation to the Exodus. Now, according to Dr. Colenso, all
those who were twenty years of age at the Exodus, belonged to the fourth
generation. Therefore the fourth generation was not complete until
twenty years before that time, or 198 years after the second had begun.
Consequently, only three generations, the second, third, and fourth,
came into existence during a period of 198 years. In other words, the
length of each generation, according to Dr. Colenso’s calculation, was
sixty-six years. Hence it follows, that we cannot accept his argument,
unless we are prepared to take for granted that all the males in
all the Hebrew families were without issue until they had reached the
age of sixty-six.

Let us now look into the examples of Dr. Colenso in detail. It is
important to ascertain what generation is to be reckoned as the first.
In his argument he allows but fifty-one males to the first generation;
“supposing now the fifty-one males of the first generation” (p. 105).
Since Jacob had fifty-one grandsons living at the time of the descent
into Egypt, it follows that the first generation, according to the
argument, was composed of the grandsons of Jacob, and of them alone.
That this is the position assumed by Dr. Colenso, is also evident from
another passage, where, replying to his opponents, he asserts: “The
Scripture[Pg 519] states that there were 600,000 warriors in the fourth
generation from Jacob’s sons” (p. 119). It is true that, when
proving his theory of “the Exodus in the fourth generation”, Dr.
Colenso counts indifferently from “the sons or adult grandsons of
Jacob, who went down with him into Egypt” (p. 96), just as it suits his
purpose. But, when he employs this conclusion to demonstrate that the
number of the population at the time of the Exodus was impossible, he
assumes that there were only four generations from the sons of Jacob.

If we now turn to the examples adduced by the same author, we shall find
that seven are counted from the sons of Jacob; namely, from Levi and
Reuben; three from the grandsons of Jacob; namely, from Zarah[12] and
Pharez; and lastly one, Bezaleel, in order to be brought back to the
fourth generation, must be counted from Hezron, the great grandson of
Jacob; consequently, upon the bishop’s own showing, out of his eleven
examples only seven prove for the fourth generation, three prove for
the fifth, and one proves for the sixth. What must we think, then,
when he afterwards quietly assures us, “the scripture states that
there were 600,000 warriors in the fourth generation from Jacob’s
sons“? We are at least justified in saying that the examples adduced,
not only fail to prove that his assertion is true, but demonstrate
that it is false.

There is another point on which these examples fail. It is plain that to
ascertain the number of generations between the Descent and the Exodus,
we must not only commence to reckon from the first, but we must end
with the last. The last generation must include all those who had
reached the age of 20 at the time of the Exodus. And it is necessary for
Dr. Colenso to prove that this last generation is counted in the
examples he lays before us. On this point, however, he is silent. When
he comes to the fourth generation he stops short, and leaves his readers
to infer that it must be the last in point of fact, because it is the
last on his list. Let us see if this assumption derives any probability
from scriptural facts. At the time of the exodus Moses was 80, Aaron,
83. Mishael, Elzaphan, and Korah were their first cousins. It is,
therefore, not improbable that they were as old, or even older. These
are the first five names we find on the list of Dr. Colenso; and they
belonged to the third generation. Their grand-children, therefore,
would belong to the fifth. Is it[Pg 520] improbable that among five men of
80, some had grand-children who had attained the age of 20?

Again, Nahshon was in the fifth generation, counting from the sons of
Jacob: Judah, Pharez, Hezron, Ram, Amminadab, Nahshon (Ruth, iv.
18-20.) His sister was the wife of Aaron. Since his brother-in-law was
therefore 83, it is not unreasonable to suppose that he himself may have
been at least 60; if so, his sons might surely have been numbered among
the 600,000 men of 20 years old and upward. This would give us six
generations in the family of Nahshon. And yet, strange to tell, this
very family is adduced by our author to prove his theory of “the Exodus
in the fourth generation.” Lastly, we would invite attention to the
family of Joseph. He saw the children of his son Ephraim to the third
generation (Gen., l. 23). Therefore, the fourth generation in that
line had commenced before Joseph’s death. But this is an event of which
we can fix the date with accuracy. When Jacob settled in Egypt, Joseph
was about 39, and he lived to the age of 110. His death, therefore, must
have occurred about 71 years after the Descent. Consequently, at that
time the posterity of Joseph had already reached the fourth generation.
One hundred and forty-four years yet remained before the Exodus. Surely
during that period there was abundance of time for at least four
generations more of the same average length.

It was our intention to analyze the argument of Dr. Colenso more fully
by a critical examination of the genealogies from which his examples are
derived. But we fear that we have already overtaxed the patience of our
readers, and we are sure they will pardon us if we forbear to enter into
the complicated details which such an inquiry would involve. We cannot,
however, dismiss the subject without one general observation. It is
assumed by Dr. Colenso that there are exactly the same number of
descents in each family as there are links in the genealogy of that
family as it is recorded in the pages of Scripture. This would indeed be
true if he could prove that every link in the chain of descent is
preserved in the Scriptural genealogies. But it is well known to all
Biblical scholars that such was not the usage among the Hebrew people.
Every one is familiar with the genealogy of our Lord in the first
chapter of St. Matthew’s gospel. Three links are manifestly omitted in
the eighth verse, between Joram and Ozias—namely, Ochozias, Joaz, and
Amasias. We cannot suppose that St. Matthew, himself a Jew, could have
been in error about the genealogy of the house of David. Much less can
we suppose that he would have attempted, on this point, to deceive the
Jews, for whom he wrote his gospel. Above all, it is plain, that if he
had fallen into such an error; it would have been[Pg 521] at once discovered
and have been proclaimed to the world by the enemies of the Christian
religion. We must infer, therefore, that it was perfectly conformable to
the usage of the Jewish nation to say, “Joram begot Ozias”, although in
point of fact three generations had intervened between them. Now, Dr.
Colenso must admit that his examples will prove absolutely nothing, if
omissions of this kind were made in the genealogies from which they are
taken. We do not assert that such was the case; but we challenge
him to prove that it was not.

Take, for example, the text: “And the sons of Pallu, Eliab” (Num.,
xxvi. 8). Can he show that no intervening links are omitted between
these two names? He will find, on a close examination of the Pentateuch,
from which he professes to derive his data, that Pallu must have been
over 110 years of age when Eliab was born. It is, therefore, most likely
that there were two or perhaps three links omitted in this genealogy
between Pallu and Eliab. If so, we should add two or three generations
in the examples which Dr. Colenso has adduced from the family of Pallu.
He cannot argue that Pallu was the immediate father of Eliab, because
it is said that Eliab was the son of Pallu: for do we not also read:
“The Book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the
son of Abraham”? (Matth., i. 1).

II. Dr. Colenso next assumes that the 600,000 men of the exodus were
all descendants of Jacob. We contend, as a far more probable opinion,
that amongst them were counted, not only the descendants of Jacob
himself, but also the descendants of his servants. If we take up the
book of Genesis, and glance through the brief history of the Patriarchs,
we shall find abundant reason to believe that, when Jacob was invited by
Joseph to come down into Egypt, he must have had a goodly retinue of
servants. His grandfather, Abraham, had been able to lead forth an army
of 318 servants “born in his house” (Gen., xiv. 14). It is not
unreasonable to suppose that, according to the custom of those times, he
had other servants not born in his house, but “bought with money”.[13]
At all events the number was considerably increased by a present from
Abimeleck, who “took sheep, and oxen, and men-servants, and
women-servants, and gave them unto Abraham” (Gen., xx. 14). Upon his
death this immense household passed into the possession of his Son
Isaac; for “Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac” (Gen., xxv. 5).
Isaac, too, we are told, “increased, and went on increasing, until he
became very great; and he had possessions of flocks, and possessions of
herds, and a numerous household; and the Philistines envied him”
(Gen., xxvi. 13, 14). As to Jacob himself, he was sent by Isaac[Pg 522] to
Padan-Aram, where he served his father-in-law Laban for twenty years.
While there, it is said, he “increased exceedingly, and had many flocks,
and women-servants, and men-servants, and camels, and asses”
(Gen., xxx. 43). All these he took with him when he set out from
Padan-Aram to return to Canaan (Gen., xxxi. 18; xxiii. 5, 7). In
addition to this large retinue, Jacob must also have inherited, in
virtue of his birthright, a double portion (Deut., xxi. 17) of the
household which his father had accumulated. Thus, it seems clear that,
within ten years[14] of the Descent into Egypt, the number of servants
who looked up to Jacob as their head and master, must have been very
large indeed.

Now we maintain that, according to the narrative before us, these
servants were a part of the chosen people of God, and sharers in His
Covenant with Abraham. This assertion is easily proved. They had all
received the rite of circumcision, and circumcision was the mark of the
chosen people; it was the sign of God’s Covenant. “This is my covenant
which you shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee; every
male child among you shall be circumcised. And you shall circumcise the
flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the Covenant between
me and you. And the son of eight days shall be circumcised among you,
every male child in your generations, he that is born in the house or
bought with money of any stranger, that is not of thy seed. He that is
born in thy house and he that is bought with thy money must needs be
circumcised” (Gen., xvii. 10-13). It is clear, therefore, that Abraham
and his posterity were commanded to circumcise not only their
children, but their servants and their servants’ children, who
thus became sharers in the promises of God.

Is it not likely then that, when Jacob came down into Egypt, he took
with him not only his lineal descendants, but also his servants and
their families? Let it be remembered that he was invited by his son,
Joseph, whom God had made “as a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his
house, and ruler throughout all the land of Egypt” (Gen., xlv. 8):
that Pharaoh himself had promised, that to Jacob and his household he
would give “the good of the land of Egypt”, and that they should “eat
the fat of the land” (Gen., xlv. 18). Are we to suppose that when the
venerable patriarch heard this joyful intelligence, he took with him
his flock, and his herds, and all his possessions, but left behind
his faithful servants with their wives and children?[Pg 523] Would he, in his
old age, when prosperity smiled upon him, desert those trusty followers
who had come with him from a distant country, and had clung to him in
all his varied fortunes? Would he abandon now those men of loyal heart
whom he had known from a boy, and who had grown up with himself in his
father’s house? He knew that they were the chosen people of God: would
he have come down into Egypt with his children to “eat the fat of the
land”, and have left them to perish of hunger in the land of Canaan?

But Dr. Colenso objects, “there is no word or indication of any such
cortège having accompanied Jacob into Egypt” (p. 114). We reply that
our supposition is still possible and probable, even though no mention
were made of it in the brief summary of Moses. It has been well remarked
that, when it suits his purpose, Dr. Colenso is at no loss to supply the
omissions of the sacred text. Thus, in treating of the “march out of
Egypt”—(pp. 61, 62), he supplies aged, infirm, infants, women in
childbirth, of whom there is “no word or indication” in the narrative.
It happens, however, in the present instance, that there is a pretty
clear “indication” in the text, that Jacob was accompanied by “such a
cortège“. We are informed that “Israel set out with all that he had”
(Gen., xlvi. 1). It has been shown that he had a large retinue of
servants, and we know that it is the usage of the Pentateuch to reckon
men-servants and women-servants amongst the possessions of the
patriarchs. Therefore, we are justified in supposing that this phrase
included not only the family, cattle, and goods, but also the servants
of Jacob.

Again, it is said that “Joseph nourished his father and his brethren and
all his father’s house, with bread” (Gen., xlvii. 12). And when
Joseph went to bury his father in Canaan, we are told that with him went
“all the house of Joseph, and his brethren, and his father’s house;
only their little ones and their flocks, and their herds, they left in
the land of Goshen” (Gen., l. 8.) What can be the meaning of the
house of Jacob thus distinguished from his children and their
little ones? Does it not seem obviously to point to his retinue of
servants? Unless, therefore, we set aside the evidence of the
Pentateuch itself; unless we can believe that Jacob, in the decline of
his life, suddenly snapped asunder the strongest ties of natural
affection and of religious duty, we must admit that he brought down into
Egypt a very large number of servants. We have seen that, according to
the Divine command, their descendants would all receive the rite of
circumcision, and be reckoned among the chosen people of God. They
would, therefore, be numbered with those who, at the time of the Exodus,
went out with Moses into the desert.[Pg 524]

It is not true, then, that, in the narrative of the Pentateuch,
2,000,000 of Israelites are represented as having sprung from 70 persons
in 215 years. Neither is it true, as we have shown, that only four
generations, in the sense of Dr. Colenso, intervened between the sons
of Jacob and the adult Hebrew population at the time of the Exodus.
There yet remain many serious errors, and gross blunders, and palpable
misrepresentations, in the argument of Dr. Colenso; but these we must
reserve for a future number of the Record.

RICHARD FITZ-RALPH, ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH.

§ VI. HIS NOMINATION TO THE SEE OF ARMAGH.

The see of Armagh became vacant by the death of David O’Hiraghty, which
took place, according to the Annales Nenaghtenses, on the 16th May,
1346. Dr. O’Hiraghty had been Dean of Armagh, and was elected by the
chapter of Armagh, quasi per inspirationem divinam, as John XXII.
mentions in the bull by which, on July 4th, 1334, he ratified the
election.[15] He was consecrated at Avignon, and having ruled his
diocese for nearly twelve years, died in 1346. On the 31st July, 1346,
Clement VI., jure provisionis, appointed to the vacant see Richard
Fitz-Ralph, then Dean of Lichfield. The bull of nomination contains that
the chapter of Armagh had already unanimously elected the same Richard,
and that he had given his consent to the election.[16] The Four Masters
place in the year 1356 the death of Farrell (son of Jeffrey) MacRannall,
Primate of Armagh and representative of St. Patrick. This, as Dr.
O’Donovan remarks, is evidently a mistake of the Four Masters, as
Richard Fitz-Ralph was certainly not one of the Mac Rannalls. We may say
that, besides the mistake in the names, there is also a mistake in the
dates. It was precisely in 1356 that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph set out upon
that visit to London which was the occasion of his controversy with the
Franciscans. The mistake made by the Four Masters is all the more
incomprehensible for this reason, that of all the primates who sat at
Armagh since the days of St. Francis of Assisi, no one was more likely
to be remembered by the Franciscans than Archbishop Fitz-Ralph.

Dr. Fitz-Ralph was consecrated at Exeter on the 8th of July, 1347, by
John Grandison, Bishop of Exeter, and three other[Pg 525] bishops.[17] If this
date be correct, the Primate found himself engaged in the onerous duties
of his new office even before his consecration. On the 10th of April,
1347, Clement VI. appointed him, together with the Archbishop of Cashel,
to make inquiry on the part of the Holy See into some charges brought
against the Archbishop of Dublin by the Bishop of Ossory.[18] On the
12th of July of the same year he received faculties from the Holy See to
dispense in a case of invalid marriage, the parties belonging to the
diocese of Armagh.[19] The bishops of Ardagh and Cloyne were appointed
on the 29th August, 1347, to give him the pallium.[20]

§ VII. THE ACTS OF HIS EPISCOPATE.

One of the most striking characteristics of Archbishop Fitz-Ralph’s
pastoral life was his assiduity in preaching the word of God to his
people. His sermons on the principal festivals, still extant in MS. in
the university libraries of Dublin, Oxford, and Cambridge, and in the
British Museum, would fill a large volume. Already as Dean of Lichfield
he had been remarkable for his fervour in preaching, but as successor of
St. Patrick in the see of Armagh, he seemed to have received a double
spirit of zeal and diligence. A volume of his sermons, once in the
possession of Ware, and lately purchased for the British Museum at the
sale of the Tenison library, includes sermons preached at Avignon,
London, Drogheda, Dundalk, Trim, and other places of the province of
Armagh. The fame of his eloquence preceded him to the Holy See, and when
at Avignon he was frequently admitted to the high honour of preaching
before the Holy Father and the cardinals and prelates of his court. He
loved to make our Blessed Lady’s virtues the subject of his discourse.
De Laudibus S. Deiparae is the title of many of his sermons. There are
also special sermons on her Conception, Visitation, and Assumption. His
sermons are generally constructed on a uniform plan. After quoting his
text, it was his custom to begin with some short prayer like the
following, which occurs in a sermon preached at Avignon on the feast of
All Saints, 1358: Pro edificandi gratia impetranda, devote, si placet,
matrem gratiae salutemus, dicentes Ave Maria. And in a sermon preached
before Innocent VI. on the feast of the Epiphany, after the text
Videntes stellam Magi, he begins with the invocation, O Maria stella
Maris, Mater stellae solaris. After the introductory prayer he repeats
the text in the vernacular, and then proceeds with the division of the
subject. In dividing his discourse he generally employs the rigour of
the scholastic method; each member of the division[Pg 526] being complete in
itself, and forming as it stands a finished whole. Hence, the great
feature of his style is its singular clearness; a clearness which,
however, never becomes hard or cold, so tender is the unction that
pervades the entire. He appears to have had a singular devotion to St.
Catherine the Martyr and to St. Thomas of Canterbury, among the saints;
three or four different sermons are to be found in the collection in
honour of each. It is much to be regretted that those beautiful sermons
have never been printed.

Anxious to secure efficient pastors for his flock, he took care that his
clergy should have the benefit of the highest literary and
ecclesiastical training it was within his power to procure. With this
view he sent four of his priests to the University of Oxford, where he
himself had spent so many happy years of profitable study. He also
acquired for his diocese from the Benedictines of St. Mary of Lenley’s
in Normandy, the priory and houses of St. Andrew in the Ardes, belonging
to that order. Besides this, he was diligent in visiting every portion
of his province. Among the rolls of Edward III., there is a letter of
28th April, 1356,[21] addressed by that King to the Archbishop, at a
moment that the latter has actually engaged in his visitation of the
diocese of Meath. Edward calls upon the Primate to return with all speed
to Dundalk to treat with Odo O’Neill, who was advancing upon that town
with a considerable army of Irish. Nor was it the first time that the
Archbishop’s virtues enabled him to discharge the blessed office of
peacemaker in the disturbed state of society in which his lot was cast.
As far back as 1348 he had received from the King full powers to treat
for peace between the English and Irish.[22]

While careful of the spiritual interests of his diocese, Archbishop
Fitz-Ralph did not neglect to take care of its temporal concerns. He
justified to the letter the description given of him in the bull which
made him Archbishop: in spiritualibus providum, in temporalibus
circumspectum.

On January 11th, 1351, he received from Clement VI. a favourable answer
to his petition that he might be allowed to incorporate with the mensal
funds of his see the income of four churches with care of souls,
provided the ordinaries consented, and that the sum did not exceed the
annual value of one hundred marks. The petition of the Archbishop set
forth that the entire income of his see did not reach four hundred
pounds sterling per annum. On the same day the Pontiff issued letters
requiring the Abbot of St. Mary’s in Dynelek (Duleek), the Prior of St.
Leonard’s in Dundalk, and the Archdeacon of Armagh, together with the
chapter of the cathedral, to examine how far it[Pg 527] would be useful to
exchange certain church lands, rents, and other immovable property, for
others, which the Primate judged more likely to be advantageous to the
see of Armagh.

Two documents preserved by Rymer show how careful Dr. Fitz-Ralph was not
to sanction by any act of his the claims made to the primacy by the
Archbishop of Dublin, to the detriment of Armagh. The first is dated 8th
December, 1350, and is an order from Edward III., that the Archbishop of
Armagh should not have his cross carried before him within the limits of
the province of Dublin. Archbishop Fitz-Ralph was unwilling to cause
disturbance by refusing to obey this order, but on the other hand he
felt that to comply with it fully would be to prejudice the legitimate
claims of his see.

He resolved in consequence simply to absent himself from Dublin. He
procured a royal license which excused him from personal attendance at
the parliaments held at Dublin, on the ground, that within the province
of Dublin he was not permitted to have his cross borne before him. In
1349 he was charged by the same king to plead in the royal name before
the Sovereign Pontiff Clement VI. for the grace of a jubilee on behalf
of the people subject to the English crown. In Oxford there is a MS.
entitled Propositio ejusden (Ric. Rad. sive Fitz-Ralph Archiepiscopi
Armachani) ex parte Regis Angliae Edwardi III. in consistorio Domini
Papae, Avinione pro gratia jubilaei ejus Domino Regis populo obtinenda,
anno 1349. A similar heading is prefixed to another propositio of the
same prelate, which, as we shall see, he urged in person at Avignon in
1357. Pope Clement VI. was engaged in anxious efforts to restore the
oriental churches to union with Rome. The Armenians were in an especial
manner the objects of his paternal solicitude. The remarkable series of
questions which the Pope proposed to the bishops of that church are well
known in ecclesiastical history. It was, probably, during this visit to
the Holy See that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph became acquainted with the two
Armenian prelates, Nerses or Narses of Manasgarda and John, Bishop elect
of Clata, in Greater Armenia. These oriental bishops had long and
earnest conferences with their Irish brother on the sad state of their
once flourishing church, and at their earnest and oft-repeated requests,
the Primate resolved to contribute his aid to the great work of bringing
back the Armenians to unity. One circumstance connected with the
occasion, though it narrowed his field of argument for the time, has
given, nevertheless, to his writings a character which makes them
valuable in modern controversy. In his Questiones Armenorum he was
forced to defend the Catholic doctrine almost exclusively from the Holy
Scriptures, seeing that his adversaries did not admit the authority of
the Roman Church. Hence his[Pg 528] position as a controversial writer does not
differ from that which the Reformation has imposed upon modern
theologians since the time of Bellarmine.

Before the publication of Theiner’s Vetera Monumenta, there was but a
single writer, Raphael of Volterra,[23] to assert that Archbishop
Fitz-Ralph had been created Cardinal. This solitary testimony, though
positive, was not considered by Ware and others strong enough to
counterbalance the negative argument drawn from the silence of all other
writers on the subject, and especially from the fact that upon the
elaborate catalogue of cardinals, drawn up by Panvinio and Ciacconio,
the name of Fitz-Ralph is not to be found. Among the documents published
by Theiner there is a consistorial process drawn up in 1517 on occasion
of a vacancy in the see of Ardagh,[24] in which mention is made, among
other glories of Ireland, of the Cardinal of Armagh, who flourished in
the year 1353. This is no other than our Archbishop Fitz-Ralph. It is
curious that the statement in this process is made in words almost
identical with those used by Raphael of Volterra. So close is the
likeness between the two statements that one is clearly copied from the
other. It is also to be observed that in the Papal documents he is never
styled Cardinal, and that even as late as October, 1358, Archbishop
Fitz-Ralph is styled by Innocent VI. simply Archbishop of Armagh,
although in the same letter the Pontiff makes mention of the Cardinals
appointed to examine into the questions at issue between our prelate and
the Mendicant Orders. However this may be explained, we have the weighty
authority of an official document drawn up at Rome and accepted by the
Holy Father himself, for believing that the see of Armagh was honoured
by the Roman purple in the person of Richard Fitz-Ralph.

§ VIII. HIS CONTROVERSY WITH THE MENDICANT ORDERS.

We now approach the grave controversy which was carried on for years
between our Archbishop and the Mendicant Religious Orders. Even if the
space at our disposal permitted it, we would not be willing to enter
here into a detailed account of the dispute.

Had it been given to Archbishop Fitz-Ralph to see as clearly as history
has enabled us to see, the blessings which our Church owes to the
heroism of the religious orders in the days of persecution, far from
opposing, he would have been the first to enlarge their privileges in
Ireland. But, as it was, it is quite clear that in his opposition to
them he was influenced solely by motives of an elevated nature. The
whole struggle was simply a domestic misunderstanding, and of such
character as that one[Pg 529] may and must feel deep respect for both parties.
We cannot do better than lay before our readers the explanation of his
object and motives offered by the Archbishop himself to Pope Innocent
VI. in person, at Avignon, 8th November, 1357.[25]

The visit to London here alluded to took place in 1356, and, as we have
seen, in 1357, the case was already under judgment at Avignon. For three
whole years the archbishop remained at the Holy See, while a
congregation of Cardinals, specially appointed for the purpose, took
cognizance of the dispute. No official decision was given, but as the
privileges of the mendicant orders were confirmed, and a letter sent to
the English bishops commanding them to not interfere with the friars, it
may be said that the Archbishop failed to make good his cause.

§ IX. HIS DEATH.

On the 16th November, 1360, according to Henry of Malmesbury, Richard
Fitz-Ralph slept in the Lord at Avignon. “Of whom”, says Fox,[26] “a
certain cardinal hearing of his death, openly protested that the same
day a mighty pillar of the Church was fallen”.

In Wadding’s Annals, it is told that towards the end of his life,
seeing it was not likely he could succeed in his struggle, he withdrew
to Belgium, and there died in the mountains of Hannonia. The same
account appears in the Camden Annals of[Pg 530] Ireland. But Ware[27] tells us
that the Armagh copy of these annals agrees with other histories in
placing the death at Avignon. In 1370, his remains were removed by
Stephanus de Valle (who from the see of Limerick was translated to that
of Meath by Urban V. in 1369), and brought back to his native town of
Dundalk, where they were desposited in the church of St. Nicholas. The
memory of his extraordinary merits soon attracted to his tomb crowds of
the faithful. The usage of styling him St. Richard of Dundalk became
quite general, and many miracles were ascribed to his intercession.
Moved by the report of these prodigies, Pope Boniface IX. appointed John
Cotton, Archbishop of Armagh, Richard Young, Bishop-elect of Bangor, and
the Abbot of Osney, near Oxford, as commissioners to institute a
judicial examination of the miracles. The result of their labours is not
known. Stewart, in his History of Armagh, mentions[28] that in a synod
held at Drogheda in 1545, it was ordered that the feast of St. Richard
of Dundalk should be celebrated in the diocese of Armagh with nine
lessons, in crastino Joannis et Pauli.

§ X. THE WORKS OF ARCHBISHOP FITZ-RALPH.

(A.) Printed works:—

1. (a) Richardi Archiepiscopi Armachani, Hyberniae Primalis,
Defensorium Curatorum, adversus eos qui Privilegiatos se esse dicunt,
habitum Avinione in consistorio coram D. Papa Innocentio VJ. et D.D.
Cardinalibus et Prelatis, anno Christi 1357, nunc recens excusum juxta
vetus exemplar et ex fide codicis MS. diligentissime castigatum.
Parisiis apud Joan. Libert, via D. Joan. Lateranens. e regione Auditorii
Regii, MDCXXI. pagg. 1-136.

(b) The same is printed in the Appendix ad Fasciculum Rerum
expetendarum et fugiendarum opera et studio Ed. Brown Parochi
Sandrigiae in agro Cantiano. London: Chiswell, MDCXC. vol. ii. pag. 466
to 486.

(c) The same in Goldast’s Monumenta S. Romani Imperii, vol. ii. p.
1391 to 1410.

2. Summa Domini Armachani in quaestionibus Armenorum, noviter impressa
et correcta a magistro nostro Joanne Sudoris, cum aliquibus sermonibus
ejusdem de Christi Dominio. “Jehan Petit, venales habentur in vico Divi
Jacobi sub lilio aureo … quinsiène jour de Juillet mil cinq cens et
douse., fol. clxxvii.”

As this is the most important of all the writings of Dr. Fitz-Ralph, and
as the printed book is very rare, it will please our readers to have a
more detailed account of its object and contents. The work forms a real
encyclopaedia of theological learning, and reveals the vast extent of
the author’s studies and acquirements. The introduction runs as
follows:[Pg 531]—

(B.) Works in Manuscript:—

1. (a) Summa contra Armenos, lib. xx., fol. 126, xc. New College.
Oxford.

(b) Responsio de Armenorum Heresi, fol. 218, xviii. Lincoln Coll.,
Oxford.

(c) Armachanus de Questionibus Armenorum, Cod. 250, n. 4. St.
Benedict, Cambridge.

(d) Scriptum Armachani de Questionibus Armenorum, Cod. 224.
Pembroke, Cambridge.

(e) Richardi Armachani lib. xix., Questionum adversus Armenos.
Trin. College, Dublin.

2. Ricardi Radulphi Armachani Opus in P. Lombardi sententias in
questiones xxix. distributum, praevio sermone super idem. xv. Oriel
College, Oxford.

3. (a) Ricardi Rad. Armachani, Propositio facta in consistorio coram
Domino Papa et Cardinalibus ac Prelatis super materia mendicitatis ac
privilegiorum mendicantium contra Fratres de ordinibus quibuscunque,
apud Avinion. die 8 mensis Novemb. Anno Domini MCCCLVIII., fol. 54,
xxxviii. Magdal. Coll. Oxford.

(b) Propositio ejusdem facta in consistorio coram Papa, Cardinalibus
et Prelatis, ad utilitatem cleri ac populi Christiani super materia
mendicitatis ac privilegiorum contra fratres de ordinibus mendicantium
quibuscunque apud Avinion. 8 Nov. 1357, fol. 184. St. John Bapt.,
Oxford.

(c) Ric. Filii Radulphi, Archiep. Cantuar. (sic) sermo habitus
Avinionae viii. die mensis Novembris A.D. 1357, in istud Nolite judicare
secundum faciem, etc., fol. 53. Corpus Christi Coll., clxxxii., Oxford.

4. Propositio Ric. Armachani ex parte Regis Angliae Edwardi III., in
consistorio D. Papa Avinione pro gratia jubilaei ejus D. Regis populo
obtinenda, anno 1349, fol. 177. S. J. Bap., Oxford.[Pg 534]

5. Rich. Fil. Rad. Armachani de paupertate Christi libri septem, cum
prologo ad Innocentium Papam VI. et titulo capitulorum cuique libro
praevio, fol. 143. King’s Coll. Oxford, cxviii.

6. Objectiones ejusdem contra seipsum in Materia de Mendicitate et
aliis cum suis solutionibus, fol. 196, S. Q. B., lxv. Oxford.

7. Responsio ad objectiones Mendicantium. British Museum.

8. Excerpta varia ex Ricardo Fitz-Rauf; a) excerpta ex testamento S.
Francisci contra fratres Minores; b) excerpta notabilia ex quodam libro
qui vocatur Summa Summarum; c) excerpta ex libro Copiosae charitatis.
Bodl.

9. Rich. Radulphi Armachani Primatis Dialogus vel Disputatio de Rebus
ad S. Scripturam pertinentibus. Lincoln, 75.

10. (a) Sermones Domini Richardi Dei gratia Archiep. Armach.
Hiberniae, habiti Avinione et aliis locis quampluribus de diversis
Sanctis et temporibus. S. John B. lxv. Oxford.

(b) Ric. Rad. sive Fitz-Ralph, Archiep. Armach. sermones de tempore
et de sanctis, per totum annum. New Coll., xc.

(c) Sermones tam de tempore quam de sanctis. Trin. Coll., Dub.

(d) Sermones V. ad crucem Londinensem, an 1356, et alii de laudibus
S. Deipariae. Ibid.

(e) Sermones Richardi filii Radulphi de Dundalk, Archiepiscop.
Armachani. Ibid.

MR. BUTT AND NATIONAL EDUCATION.[30]

No Irish Catholic can examine the system of National Education without
being filled with alarm for the safety of our faith in Ireland.

The tendency of the national system is to give a full control over the
education of the rising generations in Ireland to the English
Government, thus affording them an opportunity of undermining true
faith, and of effecting by favours, promises, gifts, and influence, what
they sought in vain to obtain by penal laws, by confiscation of
property, and by fire and sword. The system also tends to weaken
pastoral authority, to deprive the successors of the apostles, who were
sent by Christ to teach all nations, of their lawful influence, and to
separate priest and people. Such consequences necessarily follow from
the operation of model and training schools, and from the vast powers
given in all educational matters to a body of commissioners appointed by
the government, and dependent on it—commissioners, many of whom are
openly hostile to the religion of the people of Ireland, whilst others
have given proof that they are either unable or unwilling[Pg 535] to defend it
or support its rights and interests. But even if the commissioners were
most anxious to do justice to Catholics, the nature of the system which
they have bound themselves to carry out would frustrate their good
intentions. The mixed system proposes to collect into the same school
teachers and pupils of every religious denomination, Catholics,
Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Jews, and to do nothing and to
teach nothing in the school, and to publish nothing in the schoolbooks,
offensive to any of them. Hence all prayers, the catechism, all teaching
of the special doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church, must be
banished from the school during the hours of teaching, and the books
placed in the hands of children which are calculated to exercise great
influence on their after life, must be compiled in a style of
indifference to every religion. Indeed we could not expect to find
anything good or religious in books composed by a Protestant archbishop
of rationalistic and latitudinarian views, who does not appear to have
believed in the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ, who raised himself to
the episcopal dignity by publishing the Errors of Romanism, and who
terminated his career by admitting that his object in compiling some of
the books introduced into the national schools was to dissipate the
darkness in which the Irish people are sitting, or, in other words, to
spread among them his own dangerous principles, and to undermine their
faith.

Whilst the national system is beset by so many dangers, we cannot but be
anxious that its character and tendencies should be accurately examined,
and the objections to which it is liable fairly stated to the public. We
are now happy to be able to say that all this has been done by a
Protestant barrister, Mr. Isaac Butt, late M.P. for Youghal. This
learned and eloquent gentleman has just published a treatise entitled
The Liberty of Teaching Vindicated, in which he gives the history of
the system of National Education, and discusses its merit. The writer
appears to have studied the subject with the greatest care, and to have
made himself acquainted with all its bearings. His treatise is written
with great clearness and moderation; his views upon education are
liberal and accurate; and his arguments against allowing the education
of Ireland to pass into the hands of a hostile government, are most
powerful and unanswerable. Mr. Butt has rendered us an immense service
by publishing so valuable a treatise. We recommend all our friends to
provide themselves with it, and to peruse it most carefully.

We shall now give some few extracts from it to show the spirit in which
it is written. The treatise is dedicated to Mr. Gladstone, and in the
dedication Mr. Butt calls on that great statesman to apply to Ireland
the principles of justice and[Pg 536] liberality, which he had so often
advocated in the case of other nations, principles unhappily ignored in
the management of Irish affairs by those who have the reins of power in
their hands.

Applying what he had stated to the question of national education, he
adds:—

Looking at the national system in a religious point of view, Mr. Butt
adds, that it is in antagonism with the wishes and feelings of all
classes of the Irish people.

Treating of the difference between the systems prevailing in England and
Ireland, Mr. Butt adds:—

And may we not ask has not the Irish Catholic sufficient grounds for
adopting this opinion? Has not all the legislation of the country for
centuries been directed to the destruction of Catholicity?

The question is next referred to of the tendency of the national system
to throw the whole education of the country into the hands of the
government.

In the course of the work, proofs are given of the way in which it was
sought to establish government influence. In the beginning, according to
the letter of Lord Stanley, only one model school was to be erected in
Ireland, and the minor schools through the country were to remain quite
independent. In 1835, the commissioners began to manifest more extensive
designs, and in a report to Lord Mulgrave, it was proposed to[Pg 538] establish
a model school in each county, to take the training of all the teachers
of the kingdom into the hands of the Board, and, at the same time, the
plan was adopted to introduce books treating of common Christianity, and
compiled by Dr. Whateley, and, in fact, to make the authority of the
commissioners paramount in everything connected with the education of
the future generations in Ireland. On this Mr. Butt observes:—

We regret that our space will not allow us to give more copious extracts
from the book now before us. But again we recommend our readers to read
and study the whole treatise. It will open their eyes to the dangers
with which mixed education, falsely called national, menaces our
Church and our country.

LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.

The few questions which were answered in the last number of the Record
have given occasion to other questions of a practical nature in
connection with the Office and Mass for the Dead. There is a variety of
practice in some points—for instance, 1st, at the end of the
absolution, if the office and mass be celebrated for one person, should
requiescat in pace, or requiescant, be said?

2nd, Should the Anima ejus et animae omnium, etc., be said, and is
there any definite rule about it?

3rd, When is the De profundis to be said, and when is it to be
omitted?

With regard to the first question we beg to quote the following decree
of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which settles the question.

In reply to the second question, it appears to us that the Rubrics of
the Ritual will lead us to a safe conclusion. The[Pg 543] Ritual clearly lays
down that, if the remains for any reason are not carried to the cemetery
immediately after the office, the Benedictus, and the prayer, etc.,
having been said, the Anima ejus et animae, etc., is also to be said.
In such a case there is no doubt, inasmuch as the Ritual lays down the
entire order of the ceremony, and ends with the words Anima ejus,
etc., in full without any comment. If the remains are brought to the
cemetery the same practice is to be observed, for at the sepulchre the
same prayers are prescribed by the Rubrics, and there is no change
mentioned. Hence, we consider we are correct in stating that the Anima
ejus, etc., is to be said at the end of the prayers for burial,
praesente corpore, whether these are recited in the church or in the
cemetery. But is the verse Anima ejus to be said at the end, after the
Requiescant in pace, if the remains are not present? There is no
mention of this in the Ritual nor in the Missal, and it is certain that
on All Souls’ Day, when the remains, as a rule, are not supposed to be
present, the Anima ejus is not to be said. There is a decree of the
Sacred Congregation of Rites referring to this subject.

We do not mean to say that this decree decides the point clearly in our
favour, but the Ritual certainly does not prescribe it. We have before
us an excellent ceremonial published in Bologna by a missionary priest
of St. Vincent, and he is clearly of opinion that the Anima ejus
absente cadavere ought not to be said, and adduces the decree above
quoted referring to the office on All Souls’ Day.

With regard to the third question, it is well we should observe, in
order to avoid any misunderstanding, that we are speaking of the De
profundis which is said after Mass at the end of the absolution, when
the clergy are proceeding to the sacristy. The Rubrics are clear as to
when the De profundis is to be said at the end of Lauds: “Psalmus
lauda anima mea in vesperis similiter et Psalmus De profundis in fine
laudum non dicuntur in die commemorationis omnium fidelium defunctorum,
neque in die obitus seu depositionis defuncti”. We think that much the
same answer is to be given about the De profundis at the end of the
absolution, as was given above about the Anima ejus et animae omnium,
etc. This opinion is held by the author above quoted, and it is only in
case the corpse is[Pg 544] present that the Ritual prescribes the De
profundis. “Deinde a sepultura in ecclesiam vel in sacristiam
revertentes dicant sine cantu antiphonam si iniquitates etc. cum Psalmo,
De profundis, etc.”, and there is a decree of the Sacred Congregation of
Rites which appears to confirm our views.

We must add that the practice in Rome is, even absente corpore, to say
the De profundis, and hence our readers will perceive there is some
difficulty in settling the question.

We wish, however, to state that, being pressed for time, we were not
able to examine this question as fully as we would wish, and we hope
soon to return to it; and if, in the mean time, any light were thrown on
the subject by any of our learned readers who study such matters, we
shall be very glad to receive any remarks or suggestions that may be
forwarded to us.

CORRESPONDENCE.

To the Reverend Editors of the Irish Ecclesiastical Record.

Gentlemen,

May I beg you to insert in your widely-circulating journal the following
list. It may be useful to the clergy for the information of youths, in
whose higher education they take an interest, and especially now, when
we may hope that to have studied under a Catholic system will no longer
be an obstacle to advancement.

I remain, Gentlemen,
Your faithful servant,
Barth. Woodlock,
Rector.

Catholic University, Dublin,
31st July, 1865.

CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY EXHIBITIONS.

TO BE COMPETED FOR IN OCTOBER, 1865.

General Regulations.

1. The following Exhibitions will be offered for competition in the
University on Tuesday, October 10th, and following days.

2. The Examinations will commence each day at 10 a.m.

3. Candidates are required to send in their names and commendatory[Pg 545]
letters from their University or Collegiate Superior, to the Secretary
of the University, on or before the day preceding the Examination at
which they propose to present themselves.

4. They will not be awarded unless for distinguished answering.

5. The successful candidates, if not already matriculated, are required
to matriculate within one week after the declaration of the award of the
Examiners.

6. Every Exhibition is tenable for one year, unless where otherwise
specified; but successful candidates are required to attend Lectures in
the Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, or of Science, according to their
standing, and can hold the Exhibitions so long only as they observe the
regulations of the University.

7. No one, however, can hold two Exhibitions in the same matter;—e.
g., two Classical, or two Mathematical Exhibitions, or two Exhibitions
in Physical Science, cannot be held by the same person.

EPISCOPAL EXHIBITIONS.

Special Regulations for the Episcopal Exhibitions.

1. No Student above twenty-two years of age, or of more than one year’s
standing in any University, will be allowed to compete for the Episcopal
Entrance Exhibitions.

2. The Examinations for the Classical Exhibitions will take place on
Tuesday, October 10th, and Wednesday, October 11th; and for the
Mathematical Exhibitions, on Thursday, October 12th, 1865.

3. The Episcopal Exhibitions will be distributed among Students from the
Ecclesiastical Provinces of Armagh and Cashel, Dublin and Tuam
respectively; provided competitors from these provinces offer
themselves, and comply with the other conditions prescribed.

4. The successful Candidates must attend the lectures of the First or
Second Year.

I.—FOR ENTRANCE.

Open to all Students of not more than One Year’s standing in the
University.

Classical.—One Exhibition of £20, one of £15, and three of £10 each,
for proficiency in the Classical and Literary matter of the Entrance
Examination.

Candidates for these Exhibitions will be examined in Latin and Greek
Grammar, and Latin Composition; in the elements of Ancient Geography, or
Roman History (from the beginning of the Republic to the Battle of
Actium), and of Greek History (from the Legislation of Solon to the
death of Philip); and in the following books:—

Special marks will be given for Latin verses and Greek composition.[Pg 546]

Mathematical.—One Exhibition of £20, one of £15, and three of £10
each, for proficiency in the Mathematical matter of the Entrance
Examination.

The Examination for these Exhibitions will not extend beyond the second
book of Euclid, nor embrace matter which is not included in most
Algebraical Treatises within the limits of Simple Equations.

II.—SECOND YEAR’S EXHIBITIONS.

Open to Students of the University, of not more than Two Years’
standing, who have passed the Annual Examination of the First Year.

Classical.—One Exhibition of £25, one of £20, and one of £15.

Candidates for these Exhibitions will be examined in Latin and Greek
Grammar and Composition; in the elements of Ancient Geography, of Roman
History (from the beginning of the Republic to the battle of Actium) and
of Greek History (from the Legislation of Solon to the death of Philip),
and in the following books:—

Herodotus, vi.; Euripides, Hippolytus; and Sophocles, Ajax.

Horace, Epistles, including the Art of Poetry; Terence,
Heautontimoroumenos; and Tacitus, Histories.

Special marks will be given for Greek and Latin verse.

Mathematical.—One Exhibition of £25, one of £20, and one of £15, for
proficiency in Euclid, i.-vi. (definitions of Book v.); Algebra,
including the Theory of Equations; Plane Trigonometry; Coördinate
Geometry and Conic Sections.

EXHIBITIONS FOR AFFILIATED STUDENTS.[31]

Special Regulations.

1. These Exhibitions are open to all Affiliated Students of the
University, who will have passed the Entrance Examination since the 1st
June, 1863.

2. The Examination will be held in the University Buildings, 86
Stephen’s Green, commencing each day at 10 A.M., as follows:—

Classical Exhibitions, on Tuesday and Wednesday, 10th and 11th October,
1865.

Mathematical Exhibitions, on Thursday, 12th October, 1865.

3. These Exhibitions are subject to the General Regulations given above.

[Pg 547]

4. They are tenable for two years; but can be enjoyed so long only as
the holders attend those Lectures of the Faculty of Philosophy and
Letters, or of Science, which are prescribed, according to their
standing, in the University course of Studies, and observe the rules and
regulations of the University. In every case they will cease at the end
of the Session 1866-7.

Classical:—One Exhibition of £30, and one of £25.

The subjects of the Examination will be Latin and Greek Grammar, and
Latin Composition; the Elements of Ancient Geography, of Roman History
(from the beginning of the Republic to the Battle of Actium), and of
Greek History (from the legislation of Solon to the death of Philip);
and in the following books:—

Homer, Iliad, i.-vi.; and Herodotus, vi.

Virgil, Aeneid, i.-vi.; Cicero, in Catilinam, pro Milone,
Archiâ, and Lege Maniliâ.

Special consideration will be given to Latin Verses and Greek
Composition.

Mathematical:—One Exhibition of £30, and one of £25, for proficiency
in Elementary Mathematics, viz.:—

Algebra (except the Theory of Equations); first six books of Euclid;
Elements of Plane Trigonometry.

HIGHER UNIVERSITY EXHIBITIONS.

Regulations.

1. The following Exhibitions, tenable for one year, are open to all who
present satisfactory testimonials of conduct.

2. Former successful competitors may again compete for them.

3. But the Candidates cannot be above twenty-six years of age, or of
more than five years’ standing in any University.

CLOYNE EXHIBITIONS.

Founded by the Bishop and Clergy of the Diocese of Cloyne.

Cloyne Exhibition in Mental Science, £20:—Friday and Saturday, 13th
and 14th October, viz.:—

Proficiency in Logic and the Elements of Mental Philosophy.

Cloyne Classical Exhibitions:—One of £30, and one of £20:—Monday
and Tuesday, 16th and 17th October.

The subjects of Examination will be:—

Greek and Latin Grammar; Greek and Latin Composition, both prose and
verse; Elements of Ancient Geography; History of the Peloponnesian War,
from 431 to 404 B.C.; Roman History, from the[Pg 548] outbreak of the Social
War to the Death of Cicero; and the following books:—

Cloyne Exhibition in Irish History, Literature, etc., £20:—Wednesday,
18th October:—

Irish History, from the English Invasion to the Plantation of Ulster;
Elements of the Irish Language; Materials of Irish Literature.

LIMERICK EXHIBITIONS.

Founded by the Laity of the City and County of Limerick.

Limerick Mathematical Exhibition, £30:—Thursday, Friday, and
Saturday, 19th, 20th, and 21st October.

For proficiency in the full University course of Pure Mathematics and
Mathematical Physics (vide Calendar, pages 42, 43).

Two Limerick Modern Literature Exhibitions, £20 each, viz.:—

(a) Wednesday, 25th October—English Language and Literature; and
English History from the Accession of James I., 1603, to the Death of
George II., 1760.

(b) Thursday, 26th October—The Language and Literature of France,
Italy, or Germany, at the option of the candidate; and the History of
the country, the Language and Literature of which he presents, viz.:—

French History, from the Accession of Francis I., 1515, to the Death of
Louis XIV., 1715;

Italian History, from the Death of Lorenzo de Medici, 1492, to the
re-conquest of Naples by the Spaniards, 1733; or

German History, from the Accession of Charles V., 1519, to the Treaty of
Westphalia, 1648.

CONOLLY EXHIBITIONS, £20 EACH.

Founded by John Conolly, Esq.

I. Mathematics:—Thursday and Friday, 19th and 20th
October:—Coördinate Geometry, Differential and Integral Calculus.

II. Mathematical Physics:—Friday and Saturday, 20th and 21st
October:—Mathematical Statics and Dynamics, and Elements of
Mathematical Geography and Astronomy.

III. Experimental and Kosmical Physics:—Monday and Tuesday, 23rd and
24th October:—Heat, Light, Electricity, and Magnetism; Elements of
Geology, Physical Geography and Climatology, and Astronomy.[Pg 549]

IV. Natural Sciences:—Tuesday and Wednesday, 24th and 25th
October:—Chemistry, Mineralogy, and Crystallology.

N.B.—Of these Exhibitions, Nos. I. and II. cannot be held by the same
person; so also Nos. III. and IV. cannot be held simultaneously.

DOCUMENTS.

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES OF BELGIUM AND OF IRELAND.

The Catholic University of Louvain has just been deprived by death of
its first Rector, Mgr. Peter Francis Xavier de Ram. This illustrious
prelate was called to the reward of his useful life on Sunday, the 14th
of May, and his demise has caused a vacancy, not only in the University
over which he presided with so much prudence and energy for over thirty
years, but also in several other learned bodies, of which he was a most
distinguished member. His death has been a severe loss to his native
land and to the Catholic Church in Belgium. Let us hope the great work
for which he lived will long continue to be a prolific source of every
blessing to Catholic Belgium.

On hearing of the death of Mgr. de Ram, our Catholic University, which,
in obedience to the advice of the Sovereign Pontiff, has ever looked on
that of Louvain as its model and elder sister, hastened to hold a
meeting of the Academic Senate, at which the following letter of
condolence was unanimously agreed to:—

The Vice-Rector of the University of Louvain has returned the following
answer:—

[Pg 551]

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

I.

History of the Catholic Archbishops of Dublin since the Reformation.
By Rev. P. F. Moran, D.D. Vol. i. Dublin: James Duffy, 1865.

We are happy to announce the publication of the first volume of the
History of the Catholic Archbishops of Dublin since the Reformation,
by the Rev. Dr. Moran, of the Irish College, Rome, whose past services
to the annals of our religion and country are well known. The first part
of the volume now before us gives an account of the violent and
tyrannical manner by which it was attempted to introduce Protestantism
into Ireland under Henry VIII. and Queen Elizabeth. The arguments by
which the Reformers propagated their opinions were fraud and treachery,
fire and sword, penal laws and the confiscation of property. Dr. Browne
and Dr. Loftus, two Englishmen, who received all the jurisdiction they
enjoyed, as Archbishops of Dublin, from Henry and his daughter,
Elizabeth, made themselves remarkable by their bigotry and their spirit
of persecution. During their times no Catholic bishop, canonically
appointed, could exercise spiritual powers in Dublin; but the wants of
the faithful were provided for by vicars-apostolic, or administrators,
lawfully appointed by the Holy See. Dr. Moran gives an interesting
account of the labours of several of them, and especially of Father
David Wolf, one of the companions of St. Ignatius, of Father Newman, and
Father White. Towards the end of the sixteenth century a bishop, by name
Donald, was appointed to Dublin by the Holy See, but nothing is known of
his history. In the bull appointing Dr. De Oviedo, in 1600, it is merely
mentioned that the see of Dublin was vacant by the death of Donald, late
archbishop.

The history of Dr. De Oviedo and of the wars of the O’Neills is given at
considerable length. After the death of that prelate, Dr. Matthews was
translated from Clogher to Dublin in 1611, and governed this diocese
with the zeal of an apostle down to the year 1623, when he died in Rome,
esteemed and honoured by the Roman Pontiff. The labours of our prelate
are fully described by Dr. Moran, and his provincial statutes, replete
with wisdom and learning, are given in the appendix.

Dr. Fleming, son of the Baron of Slane, succeeded Dr. Matthews in 1623,
and was equally distinguished as his predecessor for virtues and good
works. During the first period[Pg 552] of his episcopate, the Irish Church had
to suffer a great deal from the persecuting spirit of the government,
and especially from the hostility of Lord Strafford. Yet in such
troubled times Dr. Fleming held several synods, and laboured assiduously
for the establishment of ecclesiastical discipline. As Dr. Matthews had
founded an Irish college at Louvain, so Dr. Fleming was most anxious to
procure the means of education for the students, by establishing or
encouraging other colleges in France, Spain, Belgium, and Italy.
Speaking of the college of Antwerp, which had been endowed by Rev. L.
Sedgrave and Rev. James Talbot, Dublin priests, Dr. Moran says:

Dr. Fleming was also a great patron of the learned men, such as the Four
Masters, Wadding, Harold, Colgan, and others, who at that time devoted
themselves to the study of Irish history and antiquities.

The present volume brings the history of the Archbishops down to the
memorable period of 1641. A copious and valuable appendix is added, in
which many most interesting letters of Irish bishops, generally
inedited, and other documents are published.

The succeeding volumes will appear without any undue delay.

II.

History of the Viceroys of Ireland, with Notices of the Castle of
Dublin, etc. By J. T. Gilbert, Esq. Dublin: James Duffy. 1865.

This work is a valuable accession to Irish history. The author has had
access to the public records, and in this way has been able to fix the
chronology of important events, and to throw great light on a period
whose history had been written very inaccurately. The present volume
gives the history of the Viceroys from the Norman invasion in the
twelfth century down to the death of Henry VII. in 1509. The work will
be sought for with avidity by all who wish to become acquainted with the
real state of Ireland in the period before the Reformation, and it will
increase in interest as it comes down more closely to our own time.