THE DIOCESE OF ROSS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
THE RULE OF ST. CARTHACH. (OB. A.D. 636.)
THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT.
ANCIENT RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS OF ARDAGH.
LITURGICAL QUESTIONS
DOCUMENTS.
NOTICES OF BOOKS.

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

DECEMBER, 1864.

THE DIOCESE OF ROSS IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

The Lives of the Irish Bishops, published by Ware, in 1665, and
rewritten by Harris in the beginning of the last century, have been long
regarded as authentic history; and the statements of these learned
writers have been generally accepted without hesitation, being supposed
to rest on ancient and indubious documents. It is thus, to take a quite
recent example, that the Rev. W. Maziere Brady, D.D., in the third
volume of his Records of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross (London, 1864),
adopts, with only a few verbal variations, the whole narrative of Ware
regarding St. Fachnan and his successors in the see of Ross.
Nevertheless, many of his statements are inaccurate, and some of them,
too, are wholly at variance with historic truth. At the very threshold
of our present inquiry we meet with one instance which alone should
suffice to render us cautious in accepting the assertions of such
historians, when unconfirmed by other authorities.

“One Thady” (Ware thus writes), “was Bishop of Ross on the 29th of
January, 1488, and died a little after; but I have not found where he
was consecrated. One Odo succeeded in 1489, and sat only five years.
He died in 1494″ (Ware, pag. 587. Brady, Records, etc., vol. iii.,
pag. 139).

How many errors are contained in these few words! This Thadeus was
never Bishop of Ross, and so far from Odo being appointed[Pg 106] in 1489, he
was already Bishop of the see on the accession of Pope Innocent VIII.,
in 1484. A letter of this Pontiff addressed to Odo, Bishop of Ross, on
21st of July, 1488, has happily been preserved, and it presents to us
the following particulars connected with the see. No sooner had the see
of Ross become vacant by the demise of its Bishop about 1480, than Odo
was elected its chief pastor, and his election was duly confirmed by the
Vicar of Christ. A certain person, however, named Thadeus MacCarryg, had
aspired to the dignity of successor of Saint Fachnan, and as he enjoyed
high influence with the civil authorities, he easily obtained possession
of the temporalities of the see. Several monitory letters were addressed
to him from Rome, exhorting him to desist from such an iniquitous
course; but as these were of no avail, sentence of excommunication was
fulminated against him by Pope Sixtus, and promulgated in a synod of the
southern Bishops, held in Cashel in 1484; it was repeated by Innocent
VIII. in 1488. Thus, then, the individual who is described by Ware as
Bishop of Ross, was merely an usurper of the temporalities of the see,
whilst the true Bishop, Odo, continued to govern the diocese till his
death in 1494.

His successor was Dr. Edmund Courcy, who was translated from the see of
Clogher to Ross, by Brief of 26th September, 1494. He was a Franciscan,
and for twenty-four years ruled our diocese. The obituary book of the
Franciscans of Timoleague, when recording his death on 10th March, 1518,
describes him as a special benefactor of their convent, both during his
episcopate and at his death. He enriched it with a library, and built
for its convenience an additional dormitory and an infirmary. He also
rebuilt its steeple, and decorated the church with many precious
ornaments. This Franciscan church continued for nearly one hundred years
a cherished devotional resort of the faithful, till, in Elizabeth’s
reign, its fathers were dispersed, and the convent reduced to a heap of
ruins. The chronicler of the order, when registering the destruction of
this ancient sanctuary, dwells particularly on the barbarity of the
Protestant soldiers, who deliberately smashed its rich stained glass
windows, and tore to shreds the costly pictures which adorned it.

A year before his death, Dr. Courcy resigned the administration of his
see, and petitioned the then reigning Pontiff, Leo X., to appoint as his
successor John O’Murrily, Abbot of the Cistercian Monastery of de Fonte
Vivo. The deed by which he thus resigned the see of Ross was drawn up
in the presence of three witnesses, one of whom was the Lady Eleanor,
daughter of the Earl of Kildare; and it assigns as the motive of his
[Pg 107]resignation, that he had already gained his eightieth year, and that
his increasing infirmities rendered it impossible for him to give due
attention to the wants of the diocese. King Henry VIII. wrote to His
Holiness, praying him to accede to the wishes of the aged bishop, and to
appoint to the see of Ross the above-named Cistercian abbot, who is
described as adorned with every virtue, and especially remarkable for
modesty, mildness, and learning. We give in full this letter of Henry
VIII., as it is a solemn condemnation of the subsequent rebellion of
that monarch against the authority of the Vicar of Christ:—

“Beatissime Pater, post humillimam commendationem et devotissima
pedum oscula beatorum. Exposuit nobis Reverendus in Christo pater
Episcopus Rossensis in dominio nostro Hiberniae, se quibusdam
idoneis caussis moveri ut suam Rossensem Ecclesiam Reverendo patri
Domino Joanni Abbati Monasterii Beatae Mariae de fonte vivo
resignet, quibus caussis a nobis cognitis et probatis, intellectis
praeterea egregiis dicti Domini Joannis virtutibus et imprimis
praecipua modestia, probitate ac doctrina, Vestram Sanctitatem
rogamus ut praedictam resignationem admittere, eundemque Dominum
Joannem ad supradictam Ecclesiam provehere dignetur. Praeterea ut
honestius ac decentius Episcopalem dignitatem sustinere queat,
quoniam dictae Ecclesiae Rossensis reditus et proventus admodum
tenues et perexiles esse cognovimus, Vestram Sanctitatem rogamus ut
una cum eodem Episcopatu Rossensi praedictam Abbatiam S. Mariae cum
nonnullis aliis beneficiis in commendam ei concedere dignetur. Quod
ut gratum nobis erit, sic eidem Ecclesiae utile futurum non
dubitamus. Et felicissime valeat Vestra Sanctitas, etc.

“Ex Regia nostra apud Richemontem die xvii. Julii, 1517″—(Theiner,
Monumenta, etc., pag. 520).

Before giving his sanction to the newly-elected bishop, Pope Leo ordered
a consistorial investigation to be made, as was usual with the sees of
all Catholic countries, and fortunately the minute of this inquiry is
still preserved in the Vatican archives. We cull from it the following
interesting particulars:

“The city of Ross was situated in the province of Cashel, in the
middle of a vast plain which stretched along the sea-shore. It
consisted of about two hundred houses, and was encompassed with a
wall. The country around was fertile, yielding an abundance of corn
and fruit. In the centre of the town was the cathedral church,
dedicated under the invocation of Saint Fachnan, an Irish saint,
confessor, whose feast is celebrated on the vigil of the Assumption
of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The walls of the church were of cut
stone, and it had two entrances—one lateral, the other in front,
and in both you descended by three steps to the level of the
church. Its floor was unpaved, and its roof was of wood, covered
with slates. The interior of the church presented the form of a
cross, and in size corresponded with the church of S. Maria del
Popolo in Rome. Its central nave was separated by stone pillars
from the aisles. Its choir was of wood, and at the head of the
choir was placed the high altar.[Pg 108] Its sacristy was well supplied
with vestments and other sacred ornaments. It had a mitre and
crucifixes; its chalices were of solid silver, some of them being
gilt, and its crozier was also of silver. In the cemetery, outside
the church, there was a belfry built in the form of a tower, in
which there was one large bell. As for the dignitaries of the
church, there was a Dean with a yearly income of 12 marks, an
Archdeacon with 20 marks, and a Chancellor with 8 marks. There were
also twelve Canons, each having a revenue of 4 marks, and four
Vicars with a similar income. All these assist daily in choir, and
celebrate low Mass. On the festival days a solemn Mass is sung. The
Canons reside here and there through the diocese, which is twenty
miles in extent. The Bishop’s residence is about half-a-mile from
the city, and is pleasantly situated on the sea-shore. The
episcopal revenue consists of corn, tithes, and pasturage, and
amounts annually to 60 marks. There are also twenty-four benefices
in the Bishop’s collation”—(Theiner, Ib., pag. 528-9).

Before the close of 1517, Dr. O’Murrily was duly proclaimed in
consistory Bishop of Ross. He governed the see, however, for little more
than one year, and had for his successor a Spaniard named Bonaventura,
of whom it is recorded that he founded a monastery in the small island
of Dursey, which lies at the head of the peninsula between Bantry and
Kenmare—(O’Sullivan. Hist. Cath., pag. 238). This monastery and its
adjoining church of St. Michael shared the fate of most of the monuments
of our ancient faith during the persecution of Elizabeth, and in 1602
was levelled to the ground.

Of the immediately succeeding Bishops we know little more than the mere
names. Herrera tels us that an Augustinian friar, by name Herphardus,
was promoted to an Irish see in the consistory of 21st February, 1530.
By an error of the consistorial copyist, that see is styled Sodorensis
in Hibernia. Elsius and some modern writers supposed the true reading
to be Ossoriensis; but this arbitrary substitution is irreconcilable
with the history of the see of Ossory; and it seems much more probable
that the true reading of the consistorial record would be Sedes
Rossensis in Hibernia.

The next Bishop that we find is Dermit M’Domnuil, styled in the
consistorial acts Dermitius Macarius, who was appointed about 1540,
and died in 1553. He was succeeded by Maurice O’Fihely (or Phelim), a
Franciscan friar, and professor of Theology. The following is the
consistorial entry: “Die 22º Januarii 1554 providit Sanctitas Sua
Ecclesiae Rossensi in Hibernia vacanti per obitum Dermitii Macarii de
persona D. Mauritii O’Fihely ord. FF. Min. et Theologiae professoris”.
Early in 1559 this bishop, too, passed to his eternal reward, and his
successor’s appointment is thus registered in the same consistorial
acts: “Die 15 Martii 1559, referente Reverendissimo Dño.[Pg 109] Cardinale
Pacheco fuit provisum Ecclesiae Rossensi in Hibernia per obitum bon.
mem. Mauritii O’Phihil (O’Fihely) pastoris solatio destitutae de persona
R. D. Mauritii Hea, presbyteri Hiberni”.

Dr. O’Hea for less than two years ruled the diocese of Ross, and in the
consistory of 17th December, 1561, Dr. Thomas O’Herlihy was appointed to
the vacant see: “Die 17º Decembris 1561, referente Cardinale Morono Sua
Sanctitas providit ecclesiae Rossensi in Hibernia per obitum bon. mem.
Mauritii O’Hea extra Romanam curiam defucti, vacanti, de persona D.
Thomae O’Hierlahii presbyteri de nobili genere ex utroque parente
procreati, vita ac scientia idonei, in curia praesentis, quem pater
David sacerdos Soc. Jesu in Hibernia existens suis litteris commendavit,
cum retentione beneficiorum competentium et jurium quae obtinet”.

It would require a much longer article than our present limits allow, to
give an adequate idea of the sufferings and zealous labours of this
illustrious confessor of our holy faith. He was a native of the parish
of Kilmacabea, and many members of his family were reckoned amongst the
ancient dynasts of the district. Being consecrated in Rome, he hastened
to take part in the deliberations of the council of Trent; and in the
metrical catalogue of the bishops of that sacred assembly we find him
described as being in the flower of his age and adorned with the
comeliness of every episcopal virtue. Towards the close of 1563 he
landed on the Irish coast, anxious to share the perils of his faithful
flock and to guard them against the many dangers by which they were now
menaced. O’Sullivan attests that “his labours were incredible in
preaching against heresy, administering the sacraments, and ordaining
youthful Levites for the sanctuary”. After some time, however, he was
seized on by the emissaries of Elizabeth, and thrown into the dungeons
of London, where, for three years and seven months, he was the companion
in suffering of the renowned Archbishop of Armagh, Dr. Creagh. After his
liberation, he continued his apostolical labours throughout the whole
kingdom. Many important commissions from the Holy See were confided to
him, as may be seen in the Hibernia Dominicana and elsewhere. A
Vatican paper of 1578, reckoning the strenuous upholders of the Catholic
cause in Ireland, mentions amongst others “Episcopus Rossensis doctus
qui interfuit Concilio Tridentino”; but adds that he was then “an exile
from his see”. Many other particulars connected with this holy bishop,
may be seen in Introduction to the Lives of the Archbishops of Dublin,
page 137. It is the tradition of the country that he died in prison;
however, Wadding and Ware inform us that he died in the territory of
Muskerry, and was interred in the convent of Kilchree. The[Pg 110] day of his
death has, also, been happily transmitted to us; it was the 11th of
March, 1580; or, according to the old computation, the 1st of March,
1579.

His successor was without delay appointed by the Holy See, but owing to
the destruction of the monuments of our Church, his name has not come
down to us. He is thus commemorated in 1583 by the English agent in
Italy: “In April there came from Rome to Naples an Irishman, whom the
Pope created Bishop of Ross in Ireland” (Letter of Francis Touker to
Lord Burghley, 22nd July, 1583). He is also mentioned by the Bishop of
Killaloe, Dr. Cornelius O’Mulrian, in a letter addressed from Lisbon to
Rome, on the 29th October, 1584: “Episcopus Limericensis et Episcopus
Rossensis postquam venerant Romam in curia Regis Hispaniarum degunt”
(Ex Archiv. Vatic.) No further particulars connected with this Bishop
of Ross have come down to us. He had for his successor the renowned Owen
M’Egan, who with the title and authority of Vicar-Apostolic of this see
was sent to our island by Pope Clement VIII. in 1601. A bull of the same
Pontiff granting some minor benefices to the same Owen M’Egan in 1595,
is preserved in the Hibernia Pacata, page 670. In it he is described
as a priest of the diocese of Cork, bachelor in Theology, master of arts
and “most commendable for his learning, moral conduct, and manifold
virtues”. Towards the close of the century he undertook a journey to
Spain to procure aid for Florence M’Carthy and the other confederate
princes of the South: and he himself on arriving in Ireland as
Vicar-Apostolic in 1601, shared all the privations and dangers of the
Catholic camp. At length, as Wadding informs us, he was mortally wounded
while attending the dying soldiers, and on the 5th January, 1602-3,
passed to his eternal reward. The hatred borne to him by the agents of
Elizabeth is the best proof of his disinterestedness and zeal. His
death, says the author of Hibernia Pacata, “was doubtlessly more
beneficial to the state than to have secured the head of the most
capital rebel in Munster” (page 662).

As regards the Bishops nominated by the civil power, we find one
commemorated during Henry’s reign. So little, however, is known about
him, and that little belonging to a period when a canonically appointed
Bishop held the see, that even Protestant historians scarcely allow him
a place amongst the bishops of Ross. During Elizabeth’s reign Dr.
O’Herlihy was indeed deprived of the temporalities of the see in 1570,
yet no Protestant occupant was appointed till 1582. Sir Henry Sidney
wrote to her Majesty in 1576, soliciting this bishopric for a certain
Cornelius, but his petition was without effect. Lyons was more
successful; he not only obtained the see of Ross in 1582, but
sub[Pg 111]sequently annexed to it the dioceses of Cork and Cloyne. The
following extract contains the local tradition regarding the reception
given to this Protestant Bishop, and has been kindly supplied by a
priest of the diocese, whose parish was, in early times, the theatre of
the apostolate of many a distinguished saint of our Irish Church:—

“Lyons was an apostate from the beginning; he went to England and
acknowledged the Queen’s supremacy, and was left in quiet
possession of the revenues of the diocese till his death, a period
of about thirty-five years. On his return from England he was
deserted by his clergy, who secreted all the plate connected with
the cathedral and monastery, as also the bells, and chimes of
bells, all solid silver, which were then valued at £7,000. The
commissioners subsequently hanged all the aged friars that
remained, on pretence that they knew where the above-named property
was concealed, and refused to reveal it. At all events, the plate
remained concealed, and to this day it never has been found.
Tradition says it was all buried in the strand, which contains two
or three hundred acres of waste, covered by every tide, having
three feet of sand in most places, and underneath a considerable
depth of turf mould”.

The account here given of the diocesan plate is certainly confirmed by
the consistorial record already cited in the beginning of this article.
Whilst, however, the clergy thus resolved to remove the sacred plate at
least from the grasp of the Protestant prelate, the people were
determined that the old Catholic episcopal mansion should not be
contaminated by his presence. The commissioners of the crown in 1615,
report that he found no house on his arrival in his see of Ross, “but
only a place to build one on”. They further add, that he, without delay,
built a fine house for himself which cost £300, but even this “in three
years was burnt down by the rebel O’Donovan”—(Records of Ross, etc.,
iii.-50). It will suffice to mention one other fact connected with his
episcopal career. In Rymer we find a patent dated 12th June, 1595, and
amongst others it is addressed to our Protestant dignitary,
commissioning him “to consider and find out ways and means to people
Munster with English inhabitants”.—Rym., tom. 16, pag. 276.

P.F.M.

[Pg 112]

THE RULE OF ST. CARTHACH. (OB. A.D. 636.)

[The learned O’Curry, in his eighteenth lecture on the MSS.
materials of Irish History, when enumerating the Ecclesiastical
manuscripts, gives the second place to the ancient monastic rules.
He says (page 373-4):

“The second class of these religious remains consists of the
Ecclesiastical and Monastic Rules. Of these we have ancient copies
of eight in Dublin; of which six are in verse, and two in prose;
seven in vellum MSS., and one on paper.

“Of the authenticity of these ancient pieces there can be no
reasonable doubt; the language, the style, and the matter, are
quite in accordance with the times of the authors. It is hardly
necessary to say that they all recite and inculcate the precise
doctrines and discipline of the Catholic Church in Erinn, even as
it is at this day.

“It would, as you must at once see, be quite inconsistent with the
plan of these introductory Lectures to enter into details of
compositions of this kind; and I shall therefore content myself by
placing before you a simple list of them in the chronological order
of their authors, and with a very few observations on their
character by way of explanation.

“The fifth in chronological order is the Rule of St. Carthach,
who was familiarly called Mochuda. He was the founder of the
ancient ecclesiastical city of Raithin [near Tullamore, in the
present King’s County], and of the famous city of Lis Mór
[Lismore, in the present county of Waterford]; he died at the
latter place on the 14th day of May, in the year 636.

“This is a poem of 580 lines, divided into sections, each addressed
to a different object or person. The first division consists of
eight stanzas or 32 lines, inculcating the love of God and our
neighbour, and the strict observance of the commandments of God,
which are set out generally both in word and in spirit. The second
section consists of nine stanzas, or 36 lines, on the office and
duties of a bishop. The third section consists of twenty stanzas,
or 80 lines, on the office and duties of the abbot of a church. The
fourth section consists of seven stanzas, or 28 lines, on the
office and duties of a priest. The fifth section consists of
twenty-two stanzas, or 88 lines, minutely describing the office and
duties of a father confessor, as well in his general character of
an ordinary priest, as in his particular relation to his penitents.
The sixth section consists of nineteen stanzas, or 76 lines, on the
life and duties of a monk. The seventh section consists of twelve
stanzas, or 48 lines, on the life and duties of the Célidhé Dé,
or Culdees. The eighth section consists of thirty stanzas, or 120
lines, on the rule and order of the refectory, prayers, ablutions,
vespers, and the feasts and fasts of the year. The ninth and last
section consists of nineteen stanzas, or 76 lines, on the duties of
the kingly office, and the evil consequences that result to king
and people from their neglect or unfaithful discharge”.

Among the manuscripts of Professor O’Curry in the Catholic
University, there are two lives of the holy author of this rule.
One of these lives is in Irish; the other a translation from the
Irish.

We publish to-day about one-half of the “Rule”, the remainder, with
any notes deemed necessary for its elucidation, shall appear in our
next number.]

“Incipit the Regulum (sic) of (St.) Mochuda, Preaching the Commandments
to Every Person”.

FOR A BISHOP.

FOR THE ABBOT OF A CHURCH.

OF THE DUTIES OF A PRIEST.

OF THE DUTIES OF A SOUL’S FRIEND WHO TAKES UNTO HIM PENITENTS HERE.

[TO BE CONTINUED.]

[Pg 119]

THE IRISH CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT.

Is Good News from Ireland True? Remarks on the position and prospects
of the Irish Church Establishment. By H. S. Cunningham, of the Inner
Temple, Barrister-at-Law. London, Longman, 1864; pp. 45.

Autumn leaves do not fall in Vallombrosa more frequent than the
invectives which, for the last thirty years, have been constantly
directed against the Irish Church Establishment. Men of views the most
unlike, have contributed their share to this hostile literature. Lord
Normanby and Count Cavour present very dissimilar types of mind and
feeling, and yet both are of accord in condemning the Establishment in
Ireland. Lord Palmerston and Mr. Disraeli see things from opposite
standpoints, and yet neither of them has praise to bestow upon it. Every
species of composition which could be employed as a weapon of offence
has been made to tell the wrath of men against the monster grievance.
This rich variety of arguments against the Establishment has its
advantage and its disadvantage. It is, no doubt, an advantage that light
should be poured in upon every side of a question so important. But it
is a disadvantage to discover the question to have so many sides, that
it becomes a task to master them all. It is not our present purpose to
increase the literature of this subject by adding another to the already
large list of attacks of which we have spoken above. Our object is
rather to set forth the one argument against the Establishment, which,
upon an analysis of that literature, is found to underlie all the
others. If we consider the various charges against the Law-Church in
Ireland mainly in reference to what they have in common, we discover
that they are, generally speaking, modifications of this one objection,
viz., that the Irish Establishment is an unjust application of state
funds. No doubt there are other and more solemn reasons to be urged
against it. No Catholic can be indifferent to the presence within it of
that poison of error which robs the Church of so many children, and
Heaven of so many souls. Judged upon grounds such as these, it is
already condemned. But the struggle is now mainly transferred to a field
other than that of religious principles. We base our objections against
the Establishment on this—that it is a political and social injustice.
We cannot expect all to agree with us in believing the Establishment to
be a fountain of erroneous doctrine; but Mr. Cunningham’s little work,
named at the head of this article, is an excellent proof that
right-minded men, of whatever creed, will join us in protesting against
it as a political and social wrong. The proof that the Established
Church is an unjust application of state funds may be stated thus:—

The State has some six hundred thousand pounds to administer[Pg 120] every year
in the religious interests of the population of Ireland. Of that
population, seventy-seven per cent. are Catholics, the remainder
belonging to various sects of Protestantism. The State, when it does not
persecute, at least completely ignores the religion of the seventy-seven
per cent., and gives that enormous sum of the public money of the
country to the religion of the remaining fraction of the population. Can
any injustice be more flagrant than this?

The force of this argument rests on two assertions: One, that the
Catholics have an immense numerical majority over the Protestants; the
other, that an enormous sum of public money is squandered upon the
Establishment. If these assertions can be once proved, the argument is
simply crushing in its conclusiveness. Now, the proof of these
assertions is easy, and cannot be too often repeated to the Catholics of
Ireland.

On the 17th of April, 1861, the resident population of Ireland were
taken as follows:—

Thus out of a total population of 5,798,900, there were in round
numbers, Catholics, four millions and a half; Protestants of all
denominations, rather more than a million and a quarter. In Connaught
the Catholics are 94.8 per cent. of the inhabitants; in Munster, 93; in
Leinster, 85; in Ulster, 50 per cent. The Presbyterians in Ulster are
26.3 per cent. of the whole population. In none of the other provinces
do they reach one per cent.

“The Established Church ranges from 38.4 per cent. in the county of
Fermanagh, its highest level, to 2 per cent. in Clare. In Armagh it
numbers 30 per cent.; in the suburbs of Dublin 35 per cent.; in the
counties of Dublin, Wicklow, Antrim, and Londonderry, between 15
and 20 per cent.; in King’s and Queen’s counties, Cavan, Carlow,
Kildare, Donegal, Monaghan, and the City of Cork, between 10 and
15; in the counties of Longford, Louth, Meath, Westmeath, Wexford,
Cork, Tipperary (North Riding), Leitrim, and Sligo, and in the
cities of Kilkenny, Limerick, and Waterford, members of the
Establishment are between 5 and 10 per cent.; in the counties of
Kilkenny, Limerick, the South Riding of Tipperary, Kerry,
Roscommon, and the town of Galway, the per-centage is between 3 and
5; while in the counties of Waterford, Galway, and Mayo it is
between 2 and 3, sinking at last to 2 per cent. in Clare.

“The Roman Catholic population has decreased by very nearly two
millions, from 6,430,000 to 4,500,000. The dioceses where the loss[Pg 121]
has been greatest have been those of Tuam, Killaloe, Meath, Elphin,
and Cloyne; each of which has lost something more than one-third of
its Catholic inhabitants. Achonry has escaped with the loss of
one-thirtieth, Waterford of that of one-eleventh, while the two
Dioceses of Dublin and Connor have the rare distinction of showing
a slight increase in numbers. In nine dioceses Roman Catholics are
between 95 and 99 per cent. of the total population; in ten they
range between 90 and 95; in four, between 85 and 90; in one,
between 80 and 85; in two, between 75 and 80; while in three their
numbers fall as low as between 26 and 35 per cent….

“Turning to the classification of parishes, we find that there are
at present 199 parishes—5 less than in 1834—containing no member
of the Established Church; 575—nearly one-fourth of the entire
number—containing more than 1 and less than 20 members; 416
containing more than 20 and less than 50 members; 349 where there
are between 50 and 100; and 270 with between 100 and 200 members;
309 between 200 and 300; 141 between 500 and 1,000; 106 between
1,000 and 2,000; 53 between 2,000 and 5,000; 8 parishes only range
as high as 5,000 to 10,000, and 2 between 20,000 and 30,000.

“The Roman Catholics have 532 parishes, to set against 53
Protestant, in which their numbers range between 2,000 and 5,000;
133 parishes with from 5,000 to 10,000 members; 32 in which the
numbers lie between 10,000 to 20,000; and 3 ranging from 20,000 to
30,000. Of landed proprietors 4,000 are registered as Protestant
Episcopalians, 3,500 as Roman Catholics, which seems to prove that
a considerable area of land has now passed into the hands of
Catholic owners, who have accordingly a good right to be heard as
to the employment of state funds, with which the soil is primarily
chargeable”.

In face of these statistics there can be no doubt but that the first
assertion is abundantly proved.

As to the second, all the state aid granted to Catholics is involved in
the grant to Maynooth. The Presbyterians have the “Regium Donum”, first
given by Charles II., who allowed them £600 secret service money.
William III. made it £1,200 per annum. In 1752 it amounted to £5,000.
To-day it amounts very nearly to £40,000, and is capable of extension on
very easy terms.

The funds of the Established Church, in round numbers, may be stated as
follows:

These figures give an inadequate idea of the real riches of the Church.[Pg 122]
The Dublin University Magazine, quoted by Mr. Cunningham, says:

“We have before us a letter from a dignitary, whose statement is,
that his predecessor was twenty years in possession, that he leased
severally to one relation after another, as each dropped off, the
lands from which came the emoluments of his office; and, finally,
to his son, who for twenty years after his death is to hold the
land for one-sixth of Griffith’s valuation, which, as every one
knows, is as a general rule twenty-five per cent. under the rental,
with a small renewal fine. So that though this dignitary did not
preach in any of his parishes, for he was a pluralist also, for
nearly thirty years, and died leaving a very large sum of money, he
managed to impoverish his successor for the benefit of his heirs
for twenty years after his death. Qualis artifex pereo! must, we
should imagine, have been the reflection of this successor of the
Apostles, as he lay on his bed of death and reflected complacently
on his literal fulfilment of the scriptural mandate, to provide
‘for them of his own household’, no less than for the interests of
‘the Church of God'”.

Besides this pilfering on the part of the prelates, we must not forget
the enormous sums sent into this country to help the proselytising
societies in their work. Let Mr. Cunningham give us a few examples from
which we may gain a fair idea of the working of the rest.

“The Hibernian Bible Society, established for diffusing copies of
the Scriptures, of course in a Protestant interest, has, since
1806, spent £80,000 in this way, and has given away more than
3,000,000 copies. The Primitive Wesleyan Methodist Home Missionary
Society has for its object ‘the propagation of the Gospel in
Ireland’, and employs fifty missionary agents and upwards of fifty
circuit preachers. The Hibernian Wesleyan Methodist Missionary
Society has an income of £137,000,849 missionaries, 1,000 paid, and
15,000 unpaid agents, of whom 25 missionaries, 54 day-school
teachers, and 166 Sunday school teachers are employed in Ireland.
Besides these there are the Irish Evangelical Society, ‘for
promoting the Evangelization of Ireland, by the agency of
ministers, evangelists, town missionaries, schools, etc.’; the
Parochial Visitors’ Society, for enabling the clergy near Dublin to
‘have the assistance of fit persons to act under their direction in
matters which the spirit and constitution of the United Church of
England and Ireland allow its clergy to depute to such agents’; the
Scripture Readers’ Society for Ireland, with sixty-four readers,
each with a regular district; the Incorporated Society for
promoting English Protestant schools in Ireland; the Islands and
Coast Society, ‘for promoting the scriptural education of the
inhabitants of the islands and coast’; the Irish branch of the
Evangelical Alliance, under the presidency of the Earl of Roden;
the Society for promoting the Education of the Poor in Ireland,
which has educated at its model schools in Kildare Street, 43,000
children, trained[Pg 123] 3,000 teachers, and issued a million and a half
of cheap school books; the Church Education Society, maintained in
distinct antagonism to the national system, and to all appearance a
very formidable rival; it has fifteen hundred schools in connection
with it, and 74,000 children on its rolls, of whom, be it observed,
no less than 10,000 are Catholics, receiving ‘scriptural
instruction’ at the hands of Protestant teachers, and consequently
the objects of as distinct proselytism as can be well imagined.
Then, under the presidency of the Dowager Duchess of Beaufort,
there is the Ladies’ Hibernian Female School Society, for
‘combining a scriptural education with instruction in plain
needlework’; Gardiner’s Charity for apprenticing Protestant boys;
the Sunday School Society, with 2,700 schools on its books, 21,000
gratuitous teachers, and 228,000 scholars; the Irish Society for
promoting the ‘scriptural education of Irish Roman Catholics’; the
Ladies’ Irish Association, with a similar object; Morgan’s Endowed
School, ‘for forty boys of respectable Protestant parentage’;
Mercer’s Endowed School, ‘for forty girls of respectable Protestant
parentage’; the Protestant Society, with 430 orphans; the
Charitable Protestant Orphan Union, for ‘orphans who, having had
only one Protestant parent, are therefore ineligible for the
Protestant Orphan Society’; and last, though not least, on the
imposing catalogue, the Society for Irish Church Missions to Roman
Catholics, and the West Connaught Endowment Fund Society”.

In addition, then, to six hundred thousand pounds of public money, all
this enormous income is yearly spent to uphold in Ireland the religion
of a fraction of the population!

It would take us too far out of our way to follow the author in his
investigation of the results obtained by these powerful resources,
especially in the west of Ireland. Let it be enough to say that he
rejects the current stories about wholesale conversions to Protestantism
among the peasants of the West. But we cannot pass over the following
remarks made by Mr. Cunningham on the handbill method of controversy
adopted by the proselytisers.

“After politely requesting the reader not to ‘be offended on
receiving this’, the handbill goes on to state that the invocations
of the Madonna and saints are ‘pronounced by the Bible to be the
awful sin of idolatry, and that all idolaters have their place in
the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone. Do not be hurt’,
continues this agreeable mentor, ‘at this strong statement, but
think! is it true?’ Do not be hurt! And this, after a summary
statement that the religion of three-fourths of the Christian
world, the creed of whole generations of the best, purest, and most
devoted of mankind, the hope and joy in life and death of millions
of humble and faithful saints—is pronounced by the Bible to be
punishable with the everlasting torments of hell fire! Verily, if
this be the ‘spirit and manner’ of these ‘true Christian pastors’,
the less we hear of this new Reformation the better!”

[Pg 124]

The charge of being a political and social injustice, which we have
brought against the Establishment, is fully proved by what has hitherto
been said. Even if there were no other arguments on which to rest our
case, save the single one which we have developed above, it must be
admitted that we have made good our accusation. “I hold”, said Lord
Palmerston in 1845, “that the revenues of the Church of Ireland were
destined primarily for the religious instruction of the people of
Ireland…. It is impossible, in my opinion, that the present state of
things in Ireland, in regard to the establishments of the two sects, can
be permanent”. But there is more. Evil is ever the parent of evil; and
in one comprehensive injustice like the Irish Establishment are involved
a thousand minor wrongs. The effects of these wrongs in Ireland, and the
mischief wrought by them on our people, we daily see with our own eyes,
and hear with our own ears. But to Mr. Cunningham we are indebted for a
striking and rather novel view of the Establishment, as a source of
mischief to England also. The very guilt she has incurred by the
perpetration of so great an injustice, is, in Mr. Cunningham’s opinion,
the greatest of misfortunes. “To do wrong is a far greater misfortune
than to endure it. No man enjoys a wrongful privilege, tramples on his
fellow-citizens, or violates fair play, without forthwith incurring a
moral loss, compared with which, any external advantage is a bauble
indeed”. Noble words these: and most refreshingly do they fall upon
Catholic ears, wearied with the noisy utilitarian philosophy of the day.
Nor does the Establishment confer any external or material advantage on
England. On the contrary, it is preparing for her some grievous and
humiliating calamity. Who sows the wind must expect to reap the
whirlwind; and no other harvest but calamity can possibly be gathered
from the evil seed of disaffection on one side, and of tyranny on the
other, which the Establishment has sown in Ireland. Mr. Cunningham thus
describes how the chronic disaffection of Irishmen is produced:

“The church funds of Ireland belong, without the possibility of a
cavil, to the Irish nation; that nation has, from one reason or
another, persistently refused to follow us in deserting the general
creed of Christendom. They have clung and still cling to their
faith with that desperate tenacity which persecution best
engenders…. But the gradual abandonment of the atrocious penal
code—as one by one its provisions became revolting to the
increased humanity of the age—was a virtual confession that we
gave up all hope of driving the Irish Catholics within the pale of
our church…. Angry at resistance, the English government,
coöperating with English fanaticism, set itself deliberately to
persecute, degrade, almost destroy, those whom it could not succeed
in converting. All has been tried, and the Establishment remains,
as of old, the privilege of a powerful minority, the[Pg 125] badge of
conquest upon a prostrate race, a perpetual source of
irritation—and nothing more. So far from being Protestantised, the
Irish are already the hottest Ultramontanes in Europe, and are
assuming more and more the triumphant air to which their numerical
ascendancy entitles them. There is not the ghost of a chance of
Ireland becoming other than she is, or of the Establishment making
such strides as might render her present position less
transparently absurd. The one question is this, whether we choose
to perpetuate a state of things condemned by all statesmen as
vicious in principle, and proved by long experience to be
productive of nothing but a tyrannising temper, on the one hand,
and chronic disaffection on the other. Every Irish peasant has
sense enough to appreciate the injustice of the arrangement which
obliges him to build his chapel, pay the priest, and gives his
landlord a church and parson for nothing. He may be excused too for
a feeling of annoyance, as he trudges past the empty parish church,
supported at the public expense, to some remote chapel crowded with
peasants, out of whose abject poverty the necessary funds for its
support have to be wrung. He may be excused if his notions of fair
play, equal rights, and political loyalty, are somewhat indistinct,
and that where the law is from the outset a manifest wrong-doer, it
should be sometimes superseded by rougher and more effective
expedients. He is naturally a rebel, because the state proclaims
herself his enemy. He naturally thinks it monstrous that any
proprietor of the soil should have it in his power to refuse the
inhabitants a spot of ground on which to celebrate their religious
rites; that men, women, and children should be obliged to walk
five, six, and even ten miles to the nearest place of worship; that
education should be constantly refused, except coupled with open
and systematic proselytism; that terrorism and coercion, the mean
contrivances of bigotry, should be suffered to do their worst,
without the strong hand of government intervening to lighten the
blow, or provide means of protection”—pages 28, 29.

All this is well said: nor is the author less happy in his description
of the tyrannising temper which it fosters on the part of the
Protestants.

“And if the Establishment works ill as regards the Catholic masses,
its effects on the privileged minority seem to us scarcely less
disastrous. It engenders a tone of arrogant, violent, uncharitable
bigotry, which happily is unknown in this country beyond the
precincts of Exeter Hall and the columns of the ‘religious’
newspapers. Indeed, we have only to turn to ‘Good News from
Ireland’, to assure ourselves of the detestable temper in which
these modern Reformers set about the process of evangelisation, and
of the extraordinary hardihood of assertion by which their
ministrations are characterised. The creed of an Irish peasant may
be superstitious—where is the peasant whose creed is anything
else?—but religion in Ireland has at any rate, in the true spirit
of Christianity, found its way to the wretched, the degraded, the
despairing: it has refined, comforted, ennobled those whom[Pg 126]
external circumstances seemed expressly designed to crush them into
absolute brutality. The Irish peasant is never the mere animal that
for centuries English legislators tried to make him. He is a
troublesome subject, indeed, and has a code of his own as to the
‘wild justice’ to which the oppressed may, in the last instance,
resort; but in the domestic virtues, chastity, kindliness,
hospitality, he stands, at least, as well as English or Scotch of
the same condition in life. As regards domestic purity, indeed,
Ireland, by universal confession, rises as much above the ordinary
standard as Scotland falls below it: and as regards intemperance,
there has been in Ireland of late years a marked improvement, for
which unhappily no counterpart is to be found in any other part of
the United Kingdom. Yet we are gravely invited to believe, on the
testimony of a few hot-brained fanatics, that the whole Catholic
system in Ireland is one vast conspiracy against piety, happiness,
and civilisation….

“That Protestants are perfectly well aware of the mortification
entailed upon their Catholic fellow-subjects by the existing state
of things, and regard it with complacent acquiescence, is not the
least painful feature of the case. The Irish Church is bad, not
only in itself, but as being the last of a long series of
oppressions which fear, passion, or necessity have at various times
led the English to inflict upon their feeble neighbour. There have
been periods when the deliberate idea of even intelligent
politicians was, that the one population should exterminate the
other; and Burke has pointed out how the religious animosities,
which seem now the great cause of dispute, are in reality only a
new phase of far earlier hostility, grounded originally on
conquest, and strengthened by the cruelties which conquest
involved. It is to some such fierce mood, traditionally familiar to
the ruling race, that an institution so unjust in principle, so
troublesome in practice, so incurably barren of all useful result,
can appeal for sanction and support. The blind and almost ferocious
bigotry of Irish Presbyterians is owing, one would fain hope, less
to personal temperament than to the tastes and convictions of a
ruder age, embodied in evil customs and a conventionally violent
phraseology. And the same is more or less true of their
Episcopalian brethren. It is from the calmer feelings and more
discriminating judgment of the English nation that any remedial
measure is expected”—pages 33-37.

We have nothing to add to this. Every Catholic will recognize the truth
of the picture thus ably drawn. Our obligations to Mr. Cunningham do
not, however, end here. There is still another lesson which, although he
does not mean to teach it, we are glad to learn from him. It is this.
Speaking of the paid clergy of the Establishment, he says:—

“So far from assisting the government in its schemes, they are
among its bitterest opponents. Dr. Cullen himself is hardly more
hostile to the National Education System than these paid officials
of the state, for whom the one possible excuse would be an
unflinch[Pg 127]ing support of state measures. The Church Education
Society numbers something like two-thirds of the Established clergy
among its adherents, and is one of the most serious difficulties
with which at present the cause of National Education has to
contend. What shall be done with these spaniels that forget to
cringe, but bark and snap at the hand that feeds them? Might they
not, at any rate, be scourged and starved into a more submissive
mood?”—page 43.

These words reveal to us the position which men of the world would
expect a clergy paid by the state to assume towards the state. From
being ministers of God, they are to become paid officials of the state;
from being the stewards of things divine, they are to recommend
themselves to their masters by an unflinching support of the state
measures. And if conscience should at any time call upon them to refuse
the support demanded at their hands, the government has the power and
the will to scourge and starve them into a more submissive mood. What a
practical commentary does Mr. Cunningham here offer on the words used by
Mgr. Brancadoro,[C] in declining the pension offered by the British
Government in 1805! Better, far better, poverty with the liberty of the
sanctuary, than rich endowments with slavery. We demand the abolition of
the Establishment on the broad grounds of social equality and justice,
and not because we wish to enrich ourselves with its spoils. We are rich
enough in the love of that noble Irish race, than which none other ever
gave more blessed consolation to the ministers of Christ.

ANCIENT RELIGIOUS FOUNDATIONS OF ARDAGH.

I.

SAINT BRIGID’S DOMINICAN CONVENT, LONGFORD.

The early history of the See of Ardagh is involved in much obscurity and
some little confusion. After Saint Mel, its first bishop, and Melchuo,
his brother and successor, for several centuries there is little
available information of the state of the diocese, the succession of its
bishops, or the condition of its religious foundations. For the most
part, up to the twelfth century, we find only the names of the bishops,
of which the meagre list is very incomplete and defective; in some
instances whole centuries are passed over, of which we have no published
record at all.

In the absence of other ecclesiastical monuments, the history of this
See, like many others, can be traced only in a fragmentary manner, as it
is found mixed up with the history of the several [Pg 128]religious houses
scattered over it, or as it may be unravelled from the various legends
and traditions connected with them. These Religious foundations were
numerous in Ardagh, and some of them rank among the most ancient in the
island; thus, in the Tripartite Life of Saint Patrick, we find that
the two daughters of the Saint’s old master, Milcho, after the death of
their father, took the veil in the convent of Augustin nuns, founded by
Saint Patrick at Cluain Bronach, near Granard in Teffia (Clonbroncy,
County Longford), which must, therefore, have been one of the most
ancient foundations for Religious women in Ireland. Time, and the hand
of the spoiler have dealt hardly with these old houses, and few traces
can be found of them to-day. The same may be said even of those more
modern ones, which, like the Dominican Convent of Saint Brigid,
Longford, or the Cistercian Abbey of Saint Mary, Granard, border more
nearly on the times of authentic and known history.

In the spoliations of Henry and Elizabeth, the convent lands were
granted away to laymen, and the edifices either razed to the ground, or
perverted to the uses of the new creed. The few that escaped
confiscation were soon deserted under the penal and relentless
persecution that followed, and the departing Religious carried with them
the records of most of our old foundations, which, if existing, are now
to be found only in the MSS. of the Munich, Barberini, Vatican, and
other continental libraries. Yet, from the earliest foundation of Saint
Mel, at Ardagh, or of Saint Columba, in Innismore, Lough Gowna, down to
the latest convent in the islands of Lough Ree, each has its story, its
legends and traditions, which we, perhaps, may live to tell. Of some
extensive ruins still remain, and about their ivied walls there clings
many an old legend and oft-told tradition, that yet may help to clear up
the obscure history of those times. In many instances, however, we must
confess, that few vestiges have escaped the ruthless hand of the
spoiler, and save a few crumbling ivy-covered walls, and the green
mounds that mark the last resting place of their dead, there is little
left, either of storied arch or cloistered aisle to tell of the extent
of the edifices, or of the zeal and labours of the pious souls who dwelt
within them.

The Dominican Convent of Saint Brigid, at Longford, was one of the most
modern of the religious foundations of Ardagh, having been founded by
one of the O’Ferralls in 1400. A sketch of its history will, however,
serve as a first contribution towards the early history of that ancient
church, and may perhaps prove interesting to the reader, as from local
circumstances it has been to us.

O’Heyne tells us, “This convent was built for the Dominicans in 1400, by
O’Ferrall, a very illustrious, ancient, and, for those[Pg 129] times, powerful
dynast of Annaly”. Harris, in his edition of Sir James Ware’s
Antiquities, distinctly names Cornelius O’Ferrall, the Dominican Bishop
of Ardagh, as the founder. De Burgo, in his Hibernia Dominicana, from
which most of our information is taken, shows that in the year 1400, in
which the Convent of Saint Brigid was founded, Adam Lyons, a Dominican
Friar, succeeded Gilbert MacBrady in the See of Ardagh; that Adam Lyons
died in 1416, and was succeeded by Cornelius O’Ferrall, who was
consecrated in February, 1418, when the Convent of Saint Brigid had been
built and inhabited nearly eighteen years. Hence, it is very clear, that
if Cornelius O’Ferrall was the founder, it must have been before his
consecration as bishop, and very probably before his admission to
Religion as a Dominican. It is not improbable that, like others of his
name, he was dynast of Annaly before he assumed the mitre of Ardagh, and
that having in his boyhood been a pupil of the Dominicans, as we learn
from the Bull of his consecration, he had founded this convent for them
long before he thought of joining the order himself.

Cornelius O’Ferrall died, “celebrated for his liberality to the poor”,
as Ware tells us, for which he was popularly known by the name
“Eleemosynarius“, or the “Almsgiver“, and he was buried in the Abbey
of Saint Brigid in 1424. The family of the O’Ferralls made repeated and
ample grants to the convent, and, after the example of Bishop Cornelius,
made the abbey their family burial place.

The church attached to the convent stood on the site now occupied by the
Protestant parochial church of Longford, on the north side of the river
Camlin. From it a raised causeway or road led through the meadows by the
river side, to the coenobium, or convent proper, which stood on the
opposite, or south side of the river, about a quarter of a mile distant.
This church was destroyed by fire, and the convent reduced to ruins in
1428. The extent and character of this first convent may be gathered
from O’Heyne, who says, it was a most extensive and magnificent
structure, as shown by the magnitude of the ruins still remaining in his
day (1750). The importance and influence which, in a very few years, the
abbey had been able to attain, may be inferred from the fact, that Bulls
were issued by several popes, granting indulgences to the faithful who
would contribute to its restoration.

Of these the Bull of Martin V., March 1429, informs us, that the convent
was of the “Strict Observance”. From the Bull of Eugene IV., March,
1433, in the relation of the motives for granting the Indulgence, we
learn the character and extent of the disaster which had befallen Saint
Brigid’s. “In consequence[Pg 130] of the wars prevailing in these parts,
especially during the last six years, the church of St. Brigid at
Longford had been destroyed by fire, and all the other buildings of the
convent reduced to ruins. The necessary ornaments for decent celebration
of divine worship were wanting, and the Religious had been of necessity
compelled to pass to other houses”. In a second Bull of the same pope,
July 1438, we are told, “the Church of Saint Brigid had been consumed by
fire, and most of the convent buildings laid in ruins”. The
devastation is thus in some sort limited, which in the first was
described as total.

The church was rebuilt, and the convent restored, but not at all on the
same scale of magnificence that O’Heyne so extols in the first. For
several centuries, however, it continued to exercise a great influence
on religion in the district, and to send forth able, fervent, and
illustrious pupils, to maintain and defend the faith, at home and
abroad. Thus we find Doctor Gregory O’Ferrall, an alumnus of Saint
Brigid’s, Provincial of Ireland in 1644. Afterwards we find him lending
energetic aid to the confederate Catholics at Kilkenny. When the
treachery and intrigues of Ormond had seduced the Catholic chiefs into a
deceitful peace, without any guarantee for the free exercise of their
religion, the name of the Dominican provincial Gregory O’Ferrall is one
of the signatures to the spirited and indignant protest of the national
synod convened at Waterford in 1646, by the celebrated John Baptist
Rinuccini, to condemn the conduct of the men who had agreed to such a
peace, at once unjust, iniquitous, and pernicious to the Catholic cause,
which they had sworn to defend. “Gregory O’Ferrall”, says O’Heyne, “was
a man of most meek and mortified appearance, and was esteemed by the
people a mirror of every virtue”. He died in 1672.

Anthony O’Molloy, another alumnus of Saint Brigid’s, was about the same
time procurator-general of the Dominicans in Ireland. For about forty
years he discharged, with wonderful zeal and ability, the dangerous duty
of conducting the newly-professed Dominicans of Ireland to Spain, and
then aiding and directing their return after the completion of their
ecclesiastical studies. This was at the time penal, and the delicate and
difficult task was performed at the constant risk of his life. His
labours, however, were crowned with singular success. He was known by
the name of Father Antony of the Rosary, because of his admirable
devotion to that pious exercise and to everything tending to the service
of the Blessed Mother of God, through whose intercession, in moments of
danger and difficulty, he is said, several times to have obtained
miraculous deliverance. He died about 1680.

Laurence O’Ferrall was, about the same time, sent from Saint[Pg 131] Brigid’s
as missionary apostolic into England, when the penal persecution of the
times left the flock stripped of a pastor. He was arrested and flung
into prison at London, where for more than a year he suffered many
hardships. After a time, through the mercy of God, he was discharged,
and fled to Belgium, where he long laboured under grievous illness,
brought on by this imprisonment. As soon as he was sufficiently
recovered, he set out again for England, but he was a second time
arrested and flung into prison as a returned friar. Through the
intercession of the Archduke Charles, afterwards Emperor Charles the
Sixth, who was then in England, he obtained his discharge as a German
subject, and was permitted to leave for Portugal. From thence he passed
into Spain, where he was appointed chaplain to the Irish Brigade serving
under Fitzjames Duke of Berwick. He died in 1708.

The names of other remarkable men, alumni of Saint Brigid’s, might be
cited if space permitted. Even so late as 1756, not more than a century
ago, De Burgo speaks of James O’Ferrall, the prior, Nicholas Travers,
and Francis O’Ferrall, as surviving representatives of that convent.

Few traces of either church or convent now remain. The causeway leading
from the church to the abbey may still be recognized; and a crumbling
portion of ivy-clad wall, within the Protestant glebe, on the other side
of the river, shows where the coenobium stood. The lands attached to the
convent were granted away for ever to Richard Nugent by 4th and 5th
Philip and Mary. By 20th Elizabeth, this Friary, containing half an
acre, house, cottage, twenty-eight acres of land, and six acres of
demesne, was granted to Sir Nicholas Malby and his heirs, at 16s. per
annum. Finally, January 29, 1615, James I. bestowed this monastery on
Francis, Viscount Valentia. About 1756 the lands passed into the hands
of Thomas Pakenham, when he was created Baron Longford, on the death of
the last Baron Aungier, and the extinction of that ancient family. What
was the extent and precise position of the abbey lands it is now
impossible to tell. O’Heyne assures us they were ample and valuable, and
even if we look only to the extent embraced under the church and
coenobium, together with the townlands which, from their names, we can
still recognize as abbey property, as Abbeycartron, there can be little
doubt they were very extensive.

Among the legends preserved in connection with Saint Brigid’s, the story
of the martyrdom of Bernard and Laurence O’Ferrall, who died there for
the faith in 1651, deserves to be recorded.

The short but brilliant struggle of the Confederate Catholics, marred by
divided councils and the incapacity of some of its chiefs, was over. The
seven years’ war ended with an unsatis[Pg 132]factory peace, when the execution
of the King in January, 1649, threw the country once more into turmoil
and confusion. Then came the brief but sanguinary struggle against the
parliamentary army under Cromwell. After the fall of Drogheda, Wexford,
and other towns, in which massacres of the most fearful kind had been
perpetrated, the parliamentary army, broken up into scattered bands,
traversed the country in search of disaffected, and Papists, sacking and
plundering with a license and cruelty that spread terror and desolation
everywhere, so that there is scarce a hamlet or village in which the
memory of the savage deeds of Cromwell’s soldiery is not dwelt upon with
horror to this day. A troop of these fanatics was stationed at Longford,
and in the terror of their presence and bloody deeds, the Convent of
Saint Brigid was abandoned, and the church deserted by the friars. Early
one morning, either by accident or treachery, two of the friars, who had
come there to pray, were seized by the soldiery. One of them, Bernard
O’Ferrall, attempted to escape, and was struck down with four-and-twenty
mortal wounds, in the doorway of the church, at the threshold of which
he was left for dead. He survived to be carried to a place of safety,
where he received the last Sacrament from one of the brotherhood who was
hiding in the neighbourhood. Laurence O’Ferrall, the other, was seized
within the church, and hurried before their officer by the exulting
soldiery, who anticipated a day’s savage sport in roasting or hanging
the Popish priest, not an unusual amusement with them. He was recognized
by the officer as an adherent of the Catholic army during the late
troubles, and was ordered out for execution next day. A respite of three
days was granted at the intercession of some persons, whose advocacy the
martyr complained of, as unprofitable and unwelcome, and during the
three days’ interval he ceased not to pray, with abundant tears, that
God would not suffer the palm of martyrdom to be snatched from him. On
the third morning, when led out for execution, he addressed the
assembled people from the scaffold in eloquent, fervent language, and
denounced the bloody persecutions and violence of the fanatics with such
force, that the officer in charge—stung to rage—ordered him to be
silenced with the rope, and flung off without further parley. He then
bade farewell to the people, and having placed his rosary around his
neck, and taken the crucifix in his right hand, he calmly arranged both
hands under the scapular of his habit, and submitted himself to the
executioner. After he had been cast off, and when he was hanging at the
end of the fatal rope, and life extinct, both hands were drawn from
under the habit, and uniting raised the crucifix over his head as the
symbol and pledge of his triumph. This most extraordinary sight made a
very great impression on the[Pg 133] beholders, and the officer himself was so
much struck and terrified that he ordered the body to be at once cut
down respectfully, and gave it over to the people to be buried without
molestation. We find that a safe-conduct was even given to some of the
priests hiding in the neighbourhood to attend his obsequies, at which
the people too attended in an immense concourse. The story of Bernard
and Laurence O’Ferrall is only one of many instances of the bloody deeds
of that fearful time.

Whilst thus we close our sketch, we venture a hope that at no distant
day the present venerated successor of Saint Mel may, in the cause of
Catholic education, be able to introduce the cloistered sisters of Saint
Dominic to revive the name, the spirit, and the good works of the old
Dominican Convent of Saint Brigid.

J. R.

LITURGICAL QUESTIONS

(From M. Bouix’s “Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques”).

1. At Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, ought the profound
inclination be made during the singing of the two verses Tantum ergo
Sacramentum, Veneremur cernui, or only during the singing of the words
Veneremur cernui?

2. What ceremonies are to be observed by the deacon, or by the assistant
priest, when, acting on the permission given by the Decree of the 12th
August, 1854, the deacon consigns the ostensorium to the celebrant
before the Benediction, and receives it from him after the Benediction
has been given?

3. What rule should a priest follow when he finds in the Ordo a
regulation which he believes to be certainly incorrect?

1. It is beyond doubt, that the inclination ought to be made whilst the
entire verses Tantum ergo Sacramentum, Veneremur cernui, are being
sung; and if, in any church, custom has limited the inclination to the
two last words, it has arisen from this, that whenever the celebrant
intones the hymn, he makes the inclination only after the intonation.
The ministers, however, are wrong in imitating him in this.

“Tum in officio divino”, says Cavalieri, t. iv., c. viii., Inst.
Clem., § 33, n. 49, “quam in precibus omnibus coram SS.
Sacramento, dum praedictus versus Tantum ergo dicitur, ab omnibus
omnino persistendum erit in inclinatione usque ad cernui. Haec
est”, says Gardellini (Inst. cl. ibid. n. 19), “praxis quae
obtinet in majoribus Urbis basilicis”.

This doctrine is followed by modern authors.[Pg 134]

2. Before we reply to the question, it will be useful to make two
remarks. The first has reference to the difference between the functions
of the deacon and those of the assistant priest. If the celebrant be
assisted by a deacon and sub-deacon, the assistant need not do more than
place the Blessed Sacrament on the throne, and lower it thence at the
proper time. He may also extract the Blessed Sacrament from the
tabernacle before the exposition, and replace it therein after the
Benediction. The office of assistant appears to have been instituted as
a measure of precaution against the danger which might result from the
near approach of the deacon’s vestments to the lights, in case he took
down the ostensorium, or to guard against other inconveniences. But
there is no reason why the assistant should present the ostensorium to
the celebrant when the deacon and sub-deacon are present.

We should remark, in the next place, that, according to the text of the
Ceremoniale Episcoporum, and of the Instructio Clementina, the
priest, after receiving the humeral veil, mounts the steps without the
ministers, and himself takes the ostensorium. Authors prescribe that the
deacon and sub-deacon should kneel on the highest step, and support the
celebrant’s cope during the benediction. In their absence, this is done
by the master of ceremonies, or two clerks. When the benediction has
been given, the priest having completed the circle, places the Blessed
Sacrament in the corporal, genuflects, and descends with the sub-deacon,
whilst the deacon restores the Blessed Sacrament to the tabernacle,
unless this be done by the assistant priest, in which case the deacon
descends with the celebrant and the sub-deacon. According to Baldeschi,
the veil is removed from the celebrant when he genuflects in the
predella, after having given the benediction.

The rubric of the Ceremoniale Episcoporum (l. ii. c. xxiii., n. 27)
makes no mention of the assistant priest, supposes that the bishop
himself takes the ostensorium from the altar, and expressly declares
that he himself replaces it on the corporal.

“Accedat ad altare et accepto tabernaculo seu ostensorio cum
sanctissimo Sacramento, illud ambabus manibus velatis elevatum
tenens, vertens se ad populum, cum illo signum crucis super populum
ter faciet nihil dicens. Quo facto iterum deponet sanctissimum
Sacramentum super altare”.

We read in the Instructio Clementina (§ xxxi.): “The celebrant, on his
knees, will take the humeral veil, and ascending the altar without
attendants, after due reverence, will take the ostensorium in his hands,
which are covered with the extremity of the humeral veil, and with it
will give the benediction to the people; and having replaced the Blessed
Sacrament on the corporal, will[Pg 135] descend, and remain on his knees in his
place. The deacon, or a priest with stole, will immediately, after due
reverence, enclose the Blessed Sacrament in the tabernacle”. This
Instructio has been explained by Cavalieri, Tetamo, and Gardellini,
who thus express themselves—

“Sacerdos”, says Cavalieri (t. iv., c. ix.), “ascendit … ad
altare, et ibi, facta genuflexione unico genu accipit in manibus
coöpertis per ejusdem veli extremitates ostensorium…. Quando
sacerdos ascendit ut supra altare, una cum eo ascendunt itidem
sacri ministri, sed hi genuflectunt postea in ore suppedanei, ubi
inclinati elevant pluvialis fimbrias dum sacerdos benedicit
populum. In defectu autem ministrorum sacrorum id praestant
sacerdos adjutor et caeremoniarius, vel alii clerici hinc inde
genuflexi…. Celebrans data benedictione … super corporale
Sacramentum collocat … et deinde facta genuflexione unico genu,
descendit cum subdiacono ad infimum altaris gradum, ubi iterum cum
eodem genuflexus, per eumdem subdiaconum, vel caeremoniarium
exuitur velo humerali. Diaconus interim accedit ad altare, et facta
genuflexione unico genu, tabernaculum aperit et in eo reponit
Sacramentum, cui genuflexione iterum facta, surgens ostiolum
claudit et postea descendit ad locum suum, ad quem cum accesserit,
surgunt omnes…. Quod si ultra sacros ministros adsistat sacerdos
alter, hic imposita sibi stola Sacramentum ut supra recondet, et
diaconus cum celebrante pariter descendet, et ab eo removebit velum
humerale”.

Tetamo (Append., e. iii., n. 48 et 49) thus speaks:

“Sacerdos ascendit ad altare, et ibi facta genuflexione unico genu,
ut expeditius surgat, accipit in manibus coöpertis per ejusdem veli
extremitates, ostensorium…. Benedicit…. Quando sacerdos
ascendit, ut supra, altare, una cum eo ascendunt itidem sacri
ministri, sed hi genuflectunt postea in ore suppedanei, ubi
inclinati elevant pluvialis fimbrias, dum sacerdos benedicit
populum; in defectu autem ministrorum sacrorum, id praestant
sacerdos adjutor et caeremoniarius, vel alii clerici hinc inde
genuflexi. Celebrans, data benedictione … super corporale
Sacramentum collocat”.

Gardellini (n. 12 et 13), in his commentary, writes:

“Quando autem sacerdos ascendit ad altare, cum eo ascendunt etiam
sacri ministri, sed hi genuflectere debent in ore suppedanei, ubi
inclinati elevant pluvialis fimbrias, dum sacerdos benedicit
populum…. Celebrans, data benedictione … collocat super
corporale Sacramentum …; et deinde, facta prius genuflexione,
descendit cum subdiacono ad infimum altaris gradum, ubi genuflexi
ambo manent, amoto interim velo a celebrantis humeris a subdiacono,
vel ut alii malunt, a caeremoniario. Interea diaconus remanens in
suppedaneo altaris, reponit Sacramentum in tabernaculo, factis ante
et post debitis genuflexionibus…. Quamvis vero deceat et congruat
hoc munus per diaconum expleri, non est tamen necessario per eum
implendum: potest alter sacerdos cum superpelliceo et stola hoc
fungi munere, ideirco instructio ait: Il diacono, o un sacerdote
con stola, quemadmodum[Pg 136] fieri debet in aliis expositionibus, in
quibus non parantur ministri sacri”.

All the ancient authors agree with this view.

“Responso a choro Amen“, says Bauldry (part. iv., art. iii., n.
33, 35, et 37), “celebrans, nihil addens, ascendit ad altare,
genuflectit, et sine alterius ministerio accipit velatis manibus,
ut prius, tabernaculum, vertens se ad populum … benedicit …, et
gyrum perficiens, ostensorium collocat super altare…. Interim dum
celebrans benedicit, ministri hinc inde genuflexi, et inclinati
facie versa ad sanctissimum Sacramentum, elevant partes anteriores
pluvialis illius, quod et faciunt assistentes in pari casu….
Deposito sanctissimo Sacramento a celebrante super altare, ipse
statim, genuflexione facta descendit ad secundum gradum ut prius,
ubi genuflexus manet. Tum ponitur, si opus sit, scabellum … pro
diacono qui statim amoto velo ab eo pre subdiaconum vel
caeremoniarium ascendit ad altare, ubi, facta genuflexione, reponit
sanctissimum Sacramentum in tabernaculo”.

Catalani, speaking of the benediction given by the bishop after the
procession of the Blessed Sacrament, says (Cer. Ep., l. ii., c.
xxviii., n. 27):

“Episcopus … accepto tabernaculo sive ostensorio cum sanctissimo
Sacramento, per se scilicet et sine alterius ministerio, illud
ambabus manibus velatis elevatum tenens, vertens se ad populum, cum
illo signum crucis super populum ter faciet…. Dataque
benedictione, Episcopus deponet sanctissimum Sacramentum super
altare”.

Gavantus says the same (sect. i., part iv., tit. xii., n. 7):

“Ascendit (celebrans) ad altare, genuflectit, et ipsemet nullo
diaconi ministerio accipit velatis manibus, ut prius, tabernaculum,
benedicit cum eo populum … nihil dicens, et gyrum perficiens
reverenter reponit”.

Merati thus comments on the passage:

“Celebrans … ascendit ad altare … et absque alterius ministerio
accipit velatis manibus ostensorium”.

Baldeschi gives the same directions.

But in spite of these authorities, it is customary in some churches for
the deacon to ascend with the priest, to take the ostensorium, and
present it to the celebrant, to receive it from the same after the
benediction, and to replace it on the corporal. This usage is
established in Rome, and has been confirmed by a decree of the 12th
August, 1854, published in the Analecta.

Question: “An liceat sacerdoti accipere ostensorium per manus
diaconi istud ex altari acceptum porrigentis, ut populo benedictio
impertiatur, et post benedictionem remittere ostensorium diacono,
qui super altare deponet, prout fit in nonnullis ecclesiis? Vel
ipsemet sacerdos debeat accipere ostensorium ex altari, et data
benedictione, super altare deponere, sicut expresse docent Gavantus
in rubrica Miss. part. vi., tit. xiii., n. 7; Merati in Gavantum”,
etc.

[Pg 137]

Answer: “Quoad primam partem, licere etiam ex praxi ecclesiarum
Urbis; quoad secundam partem, provisum in primo”.

Hence it appears that the Instructio Clementina and the Caeremoniale
have been too rigorously interpreted by old authors. We are at liberty
to choose whichever of the two usages may agree better with the
arrangements of the altar, and may be more easy to carry out. This is
the common opinion of recent authors, and is founded on Roman usage and
on the decision just cited. In addition, if the deacon is to receive the
ostensorium from the priest’s hands, the priest is not bound to complete
the circle: he returns towards the altar, on the epistle side, where the
deacon is. This follows from the decree of the 21st March, 1676, No.
2776:

Question: “An in benedicendo populum cum sanctissimo Sacramento
sit servandus modus infrascriptus: Cum sacerdos stat ante populum,
ostensorium ante pectus tenet, tum elevat illud decenti mora non
supra caput, sed tantum usque ad oculos, et eodem modo illud
demittit infra pectus, mox iterum recte illud attollit usque ad
pectus, et deinde ad sinistrum humerum ducit, et reducit ad
dexterum, et rursus ante pectus reducit, ibique aliquantulum sistit
quasi peracta ad omnes mundi partes cruce, eam etiam venerandam
omnibus praebet: tunc gyrum perficiens, collocat ostensorium super
altare?”

Answer: “Si placet, potest observare supradictum modum…. Sin
minus, servandus est modus dispositus in Caer. Ep., l. ii., c.
xxxiii., ubi requiritur tantummodo ut cum eodem SS. Sacramento
celebrans producat signum crucis super populum”.

It is now easy to fix the ceremonies to be observed in cases where the
deacon presents the ostensorium to the priest, and receives it from him
after the benediction. First, the celebrant kneels in receiving the
Blessed Sacrament from the deacon, and the deacon, when he receives it
from the celebrant. This is a standing liturgical rule—the rubric of
the Missal for Holy Thursday says:

“Finita Missa … fit processio…. Celebrans indutus pluviali albo
… in medio genuflexus … accepto calice cum Sacramento de manu
diaconi stantis…. Cum autem ventum fuerit ad locum paratum
diaconus genuflexus a sacerdote stante accipit calicem cum
Sacramento”.

In the Cer. Ep. (l. ii., c. xxiii., n. 12 et 13):

“Diaconus assistens … capit SS. Sacramentum de altari, et illud,
stans, offert episcopo genuflexo. Cum pervenerit ad sacellum ubi
Sacramentum deponi debet … cum erit episcopus ante supremum
gradum altaris, diaconus accipiet de manu ipsius stantis SS.
Sacramentum genuflexus”.

In the rubric for the procession of Corpus Christi (ibid., c. xxxiii.,
nos. 20 et 24):

“Diaconus assistens a dexteris accedet ad altare, et cum debitis
reverentiis accipiet tabernaculum sive ostensorium cum SS.
Sacramento[Pg 138] de altari, et illud in manibus Episcopi genuflexi
collocabit…. Postquam Episcopus pervenerit ad supremum altaris
gradum, diaconus a dextris cum debita reverentia et genuflexione
… accipiet de manu ipsius Episcopi stantis SS. Sacramentum”.

Some respectable authorities allow the Blessed Sacrament to be received
by the sacred minister standing. We see no reasons in support of this
opinion. The ceremonies to be observed are the following:—The
celebrant, having received the humeral veil, ascends the altar with the
sacred ministers. The celebrant and subdeacon stop at the upper step,
and kneel on the extremity of the predella; the deacon goes up to the
altar, genuflects, takes the ostensorium, hands it to the celebrant, and
then kneels on the epistle side of the predella. The celebrant, having
received the ostensorium, rises, gives the benediction, consigns the
ostensorium to the deacon, and kneels once more on the extremity of the
predella. The deacon, after receiving the ostensorium, stands up, places
it on the corporal, and restores the Blessed Sacrament to the
tabernacle. Meantime the celebrant, laying aside the veil, descends to
his place at the foot of the altar, as soon as the Blessed Sacrament has
been removed.

3. It is clear that in such case he ought to follow the general Rubric.
The Ordo is intended to set forth the application of liturgical rules to
particular cases; and it is no wonder that in a task so minute, errors
should sometimes occur. But if the mistake be not clearly and evidently
such, the priest should follow the Ordo. “When the bishop publishes a
directory”, says M. Falise (pag. 276, 3rd edition), “the priests of the
diocese are bound to conform to it not only in what is certain, but also
in questions on which a difference of opinion exists among authors, and
even when the contrary of what is prescribed appears certain. But this
rule does not hold when the regulations are evidently contrary to the
Rubrics”. The following decrees bear on this point:—

1st Decree. Question. “An in casibus dubiis adhaerendum est
kalendario dioecesis, sive quoad officium publicum et privatum,
sive quoad Missam, sive quoad vestium sacrarum colorem, etiamsi
quibusdam probabilior videtur sententia kalendario opposita? Et
quatenus affirmative, an idem dicendum de casu quo certum alicui
videretur errare kalendarium?” Answer. “Standum kalendario”.
(Decree 23 May, 1833, n. 4746, q. 2).

2nd Decree. Question. ” … 6. Cum pro nonnullis sanctis propriis
regni Hispaniarum de quibus recitatur officium ritu dupl. min.
habeantur lectiones primi nocturni de communi, pro aliis vero de
scriptura occurrente, quaeritur quae certa regula servari debeat
quoad numeratas primi nocturni lectiones in officiis duplicibus
minoribus? 7. An quoad easdem lectiones primi nocturni in
duplicibus minoribus standum sit dispositionibus directorii, vel
breviarii? 8. An[Pg 139] licitum sit in duplicibus minoribus, et etiam
semiduplicibus, lectiones primi nocturni pro lubitu desumere vel de
communi, vel de scriptura, quando diversitas extat inter
dispositionem directorii et breviarii?” Answer. ” … Ad 6.
Lectiones primi nocturni in casu esse de scriptura, nisi diversae
in indulto expresse assignentur. Ad 7. Jam provisum in proximo. Ad
8. Ut ad proximum”. (Decree 27 August, 1863, n. 4787, q. 6, 7, et
8).

DOCUMENTS.

I.

LETTER FROM THE HOLY OFFICE TO THE ENGLISH BISHOPS.

The following is the text of the letter received from the Holy Office by
the English Bishops, in condemnation of the society lately established
in England for promoting the union of Christian Churches:

Supremae S. Romanae et Universalis Inquisitionis Epistola ad omnes
Angliae Episcopos.

Apostolicae Sedi nuntiatum est, catholicos nonnullos et
ecclesiasticos quoque viros Societati ad procurandam, uti aiunt,
Christianitatis unitatem Londini anno 1857 erectae, nomen
dedisse, et jam plures evulgatos esse ephemeridum articulos, qui
catholicorum huic Societati plaudentium nomine inscribuntur, vel ab
ecclesiasticis viris eamdem Societatem commendantibus exarati
perhibentur. Et sane quaenam sit huius Societatis indoles vel quo
ea spectet, nedum ex articulis ephemeridis cui titulus “the union
review”, sed ex ipso folio quo socii invitantur et adscribuntur,
facile intelligitur. A protestantibus quippe efformata et directa
eo excitata est spiritu, quem expresse profitetur, tres videlicet
christianas communiones romano-catholicam, graeco-schismaticam et
anglicanam, quamvis invicem separatas ac divisas, aequo tamen jure
catholicum nomen sibi vindicare. Aditus igitur in illam patet
omnibus ubique locorum degentibus tum catholicis, tum
graeco-shismaticis, tum anglicanis, ea tamen lege ut nemini liceat
de variis doctrinae capitibus in quibus dissentiunt quaestionem
movere, et singulis fas sit propriae religiosae confessionis
placita tranquillo animo sectari. Sociis vero omnibus preces ipsa
recitandas, et sacerdotibus Sacrificia celebranda indicit iuxta
suam intentionem: ut nempe tres memoratae christianae communiones,
utpote quae, prout supponitur, Ecclesiam catholicam omnes simul iam
constituunt, ad unum corpus efformandum tandem aliquando coeant.

[Pg 140]

Suprema S. O. Congregatio, ad cuius examen hoc negotium de more
delatum est, re mature perpensa, necessarium iudicavit sedulam
ponendam esse operam, ut edoceantur fideles ne haereticorum ductu
hanc cum iisdem haereticis et schismaticis societatem ineant. Non
dubitant profecto Eminentissimi Patres Cardinales una mecum
praepositi Sacrae Inquisitioni, quin istius regionis Episcopi pro
ea, qua eminent, caritate et doctrina omnem iam adhibeant
diligentiam ad vitia demonstranda, quibus ista Societas scatet, et
ad propulsanda quae secum affert pericula: nihilominus muneri suo
deesse viderentur, si pastoralem eorumdem Episcoporum zelum in re
adeo gravi vehementius non inflammarent: eo enim periculosior est
haec novitas, quo ad speciem pia et de christianae Societatis
unitate admodum sollicita videtur.

Fundamentum cui ipsa innititur huiusmodi est quod divinam Ecclesiae
constitutionem susque deque vertit. Tota enim in eo est, ut
supponat veram Iesu Christi Ecclesiam constare partim ex romana
Ecclesia per universum orbem diffusa et propagata, partimvero ex
schismate photiano et ex anglicana haeresi, quibus aeque ac
Ecclesiae romanae unus sit Dominus, una fides et unum baptisma.
Ad removendas vero dissensiones, quibus hae tres christianae
communiones cum gravi scandalo et cum veritatis et caritatis
dispendio divexantur, preces et sacrificia indicit, ut a Deo gratia
unitatis impetretur. Nihil certe viro catholico potius esse debet,
quam ut inter Christianos schismata et dissensiones a radice
evellantur, et Christiani omnes sint solliciti servare unitatem
spiritus in vinculo pacis (Ephes, 4). Quapropter Ecclesia
Catholica preces Deo O. M. fundit et Christifideles ad orandum
excitat, ut ad veram fidem convertantur et in gratiam cum Sancta
Romana Ecclesia, extra quam non est salus, eiuratis erroribus,
restituantur quicumque omnes ab eadem Ecclesia recesserunt: imo ut
omnes homines ad agnitionem veritatis, Deo bene iuvante,
perveniant. At quod Christifideles et ecclesiastici viri
haereticorum ductu, et quod peius est, iuxta intentionem haeresi
quammaxime pollutam et infectam pro christiana unitate orent,
tolerari nullo modo potest. Vera Iesu Christi Ecclesia quadruplici
nota, quam in symbolo credendam asserimus, auctoritate divina
constituitur et dignoscitur: et quaelibet ex hisce notis ita cum
aliis cohaeret ut ab iis nequeat seiungi: hinc fit, ut quae vere
est et dicitur catholica, unitatis simul, sanctitatis et
Apostolicae successionis praerogativa debeat effulgere. Ecclesia
igitur catholica una est unitate conspicua perfectaque orbis terrae
et omnium gentium, ea profecto unitate, cuius principium, radix et
origo indefectibilis est beati Petri Apostolorum Principis eiusque
in Cathedra romana Successorum suprema auctoritas et potior
principalitas. Nec alia est Ecclesia catholica nisi quae super unum
Petrum aedificata in unum connexum corpus atque compactum unitate
fidei et caritatis assurgit: quod beatus Cyprianus in epl. 45.
sincere professus est, dum Cornelium Papam in hunc modum
alloquebatur: ut Te collegae nostri et communionem tuam idest
Catholicae Ecclesiae unitatem pariter et caritatem probarent
firmiter ac tenerent. Et idipsum quoque Hormisdas Pontifex ab
Episcopis acaci[Pg 141]anum schisma eiurantibus assertum voluit in formula
totius christianae antiquitatis suffragio comprobata, ubi
sequestrati a communione Ecclesiae catholicae ii dicuntur, qui
sunt non consentientes in omnibus Sedi Apostolicae. Et tantum
abest quin communiones a romana Sede separatae iure suo catholicae
nominari et haberi possint, ut potius ex hac ipsa separatione et
discordia dignoscatur quaenam societates et quinam christiani nec
veram fidem teneant nec veram Christi doctrinam: quemadmodum iam
inde a secundo Ecclesiae saeculo luculentissime demonstrabat S.
Irenaeus lib. 3. contra haeres. c. 3. Caveant igitur summo studio
Christifideles ne hisce societatibus coniungantur, quibus salva
fidei integritate nequeant adhaerere; et audiant sanctum Augustinum
docentem, nec veritatem nec pietatem esse posse ubi christiana
unitas et Sancti Spiritus caritas deest.

Praeterea inde quoque a londinensi Societate fideles abhorrere
summopere debent, quod conspirantes in eam et indifferentismo
favent et scandalum ingerunt. Societas illa, vel saltem eiusdem
conditores et rectores profitentur, photianismum et anglicanismum
duas esse eiusdem verae christianae religionis formas, in quibus
aeque ac in Ecclesia catholica Deo placere datum sit: et
dissensionibus utique christianas huiusmodi communiones invicem
urgeri, sed citra fidei violationem, propterea quia una eademque
manet earumdem fides. Haec tamen est summa pestilentissimae
indifferentiae in negotio religionis, quae hac potissimum aetate in
maximam serpit animarum perniciem. Quare non est cur demonstretur
catholicos huic Societati adhaerentes spiritualis ruinae catholicis
iuxta atque acatholicis occasionem praebere, praesertim quum ex
vana expectatione ut tres memoratae communiones integrae et in sua
quaeque persuasione persistentes simul in unum coeant, Societas
illa acatholicorum conversiones ad fidem aversetur et per
ephemerides a se evulgatas impedire conetur.

Maxima igitur sollicitudine curandum est, ne catholici vel specie
pietatis vel mala sententia decepti Societati, de qua hic habitus
est sermo, aliisque similibus adscribantur vel quoquomodo faveant,
et ne fallaci novae christianae unitatis desiderio abrepti ab ea
desciscant unitate perfecta, quae mirabili munere gratiae Dei in
Petri soliditate consistit.

Romae hac die 16. septembris 1864.

C. Card. Patrizi.

[Pg 142]

II.

ANSWERS OF THE S. POENITENTIARIA AND OF THE PROPAGANDA TO SOME QUESTIONS
CONCERNING FASTING AND ABSTINENCE.

Quidam Sacerdotes regnorum Belgii et Hollandiae petunt solutionem
sequentium dubiorum:

Gury, Scavini, et alii referunt tanquam responsa S.
Poenitentiariae, data die 16 Januarii 1834:

“Posse personis quae sunt in potestate patrisfamilias, cui facta
est legitima facultas edendi carnes, permitti uti cibis
patrifamilias indultis, adjecta conditione de non permiscendis
licitis atque interdictis epulis, et de unica comestione in die,
iis qui jejunare tenentur”.

Igitur Quaeritur.

1. An haec resolutio valeat ubique terrarum?

2. Dum dicitur “permitti posse“, petitur à quo ista permissio
danda sit, et an sufficiat permissio data à simplici confessario?

Altera resolutio: “Fideles qui ratione aetatis vel laboris jejunare
non tenentur, licitè posse in quadragesima, dum indultum concessum
est, omnibus diebus indulto comprehensis, vesci carnibus aut
lacticiniis per idem indultum permissis, quoties per diem edunt”.

Dubitatur igitur an haec resolutio valeat in dioecesi cujus Epus,
auctoritate apostolica concedit fidelibus ut feria 2^a. 3^a.
5^a. temporis quadragesimae possint semel in die vesci carnibus
et ovis, iis verò qui ratione aetatis vel laboris jejunare non
tenentur, permittit ut ovis saepius in die utantur?

Quaeritur Itaque.

1. An, non obstantibus memorata phrasi “ovis saepius in die
utantur” et tenore concessionis, possint ii, qui ratione aetatis
vel laboris jejunare non tenentur, vi dictae resolutionis vesci
carnibus quoties per diem edunt?

2. An iis qui jejunare non tenentur ratione aetatis vel laboris,
aequiparandi sint qui ratione infirmae valetudinis à jejunio
excusantur, adeo ut istis quoque pluries in die vesci carnibus
liceat?

S. Poenitentiaria, maturè consideratis propositis dubiis, dilecto
in Christo oratori in primis respondet transmittendo declarationem
ab ipsa S. Poenitentiaria alias datam, scilicet: “Ratio
permissionis de qua in resolutione data à S. Poenitentiaria 16 Jan.
1834, non est indultum patrifamilias concessum, sed impotentia, in
qua versantur filii familias, observandi praeceptum”.

Deinde ad duo priora dubia respondet: Quoad primum, affirmativè.
Quoad secundum, sufficere permissionem factam à simplici
confessario.[Pg 143]

Ad duo verò posteriora dubia respondet: Quoad primum,
negativè—Quoad secundum, non aequiparari.

Datum Romae in S. Poenitentiaria, die 27 Maii, 1863.

A. M. Card. Cagiano, M.P.

Letter of the Cardinal Prefect of Propaganda to the Bishop of
Southwark, explaining the foregoing answer.

From your letter of February 19th, 1864, I gather that you would
wish to know the reason why the S. P. replied on the 27th of May,
1863, Non aequiparari to this question: An iis qui jejunare non
tenentur ratione aetatis vel laboris, aequiparandi sint qui ratione
infirmae valetudinis à jejunio excusantur, adeo ut istis quoque
pluries in die vesci carnibus liceat?

After having made due inquiry, I am now enabled to state the reason
why the sick are not, in respect of the quality of food on days
subject to the prohibition of the Church, on the same level with
those who are excused from fasting by reason of age or labour; and
it is, that the latter may eat such prohibited food as the Indult
permits, solely in force of the Lenten Indult, which may vary in
its limitations or dispensations from year to year; whereas the
sick may eat prohibited food according to their state of health and
the judgment of their doctor. Thus, e.g., on some days the Lenten
Indult may perchance not allow lard to be used as a condiment, and
on such days persons dispensed from the fast on account of age or
labour must abstain from using it as a condiment, whilst a sick
person may eat meat even on the excepted days if his health
requires it. I think this explanation will help you to put an end
to the doubts described in your letter.

Original.

Dalla sua lettera del 9 Febbrajo p.p. ho potuto rilevare che VS.
gradirebbe di conoscer la ragione per cui al dubbio: An iis qui
jejunare non tenentur ratione aetatis vel laboris aequiparandi sint
qui ratione infirmae valetudinis à jejunio excusantur, adeo ut
illis quoque pluries in die vesci carnibus liceat? la S.
Penitenzieria abbia risposto in data del 27 maggio 1863, Non
aequiparari. Ora avendo preso in proposito le notizie opportune,
sono in caso di significarle, che la ragione per cui gl’ infermi
riguardo alla qualità dei cibi nei giorni soggetti alla proibizione
della chiesa non sono da equipararsi a quelli che sono scusati dal
digiuno per ragione di età o di fatica, si è che questi ultimi
possono usare dei cibi proibiti in forza soltanto dell’ Indulto, it
quale può subire minori o maggiori limitazioni; mentre gl’ infermi
possono usare dei cibi vietati secondo lo stato loro di salute, ed
il giudizio del Medico. Così p. e. in alcuni giorni l’ Indulto
potrebbe non ammettere il condimento di grasso, e in tal caso chi è
dispensato dal digiuno per ragione di età o di fatica deve
astenersi dal condimento anzidetto; ma l’ infermo anche nei giorni
eccettuati può mangiar di grasso, se così esigge lo stato di sua
salute. Una tale spiegazione[Pg 144] parmi possa servirle a togliere le
incertezze che mi accennò nell’ anzidetta sua. Roma, 8 Marzo 1864.

Al. Card. Barnabo, Prefetto.

A. Capalti, Segretario.

III.

LETTER OF THE CARDINAL PREFECT OF THE CONGREGATION OF THE INDEX TO THE
BISHOPS.

Eminentissime ac Reverendissime Domine,

Inter multiplices calamitates, quibus Ecclesia Dei luctuosis hisce
temporibus undique premitur, recensenda profecto est pravorum
librorum colluvies universum pene orbem inundans, qua per nefarios
ac perditos homines divina Christi Religio, quae ab omnibus in
honore est habenda, despicitur, boni mores, incautæ praesertim
juventutis penitus labefactantur, et socialis quoque consuetudinis
jura et ordo susdeque vertitur, et omnimode perturbatur. Neque ut
vetus ipsorum mos erat, id praestare tantum nituntur libris magno
apparatu scientiae elaboratis, sed et parvis, qui minimi veneunt
libellis, et per publicas, atque ad hoc confectas ephemerides, ut
non litteratis modo et scientibus virus illud insinuent, sed
rudioris ejusque et infimi populi fidem, simplicitatemque
corrumpant.

Qui autem super gregem Christi vigilias agunt legitimi Pastores, ut
hanc perniciem a populis sibi commissis avertant ad Sacram Indicis
Congregationem quoscumque ex iis libris de more deferunt zelo
adlaborantes, ut Romanae Sedis habito judicio, et proscriptione a
vetita lectione talium librorum fideles deterreant. Neque iis
difficilem se praebuit, et praebet S. Congregatio, quae quotidianam
operam studiumque impendit, ut officio sibi a Romanis Pontificibus
demandato satisfaciat. Quia tamen ex toto Christiano Orbe
increbrescentibus denuntiationibus praegravatur, non id praestare
perpetuo valet, ut promptum et expeditum super quavis causa ferat
judicium: ex quo fit, ut aliquando serotina nimis sit provisio, et
inefficax remedium, cum jam ex lectione istorum librorum enormia
damna processere.

Ad hoc incommodum avertendum non semel Romani Pontifices
prospexerunt, et ut aliarum aetatum exempla taceamus, aevo nostro
per S. M. Leonem XII. Mandatum editum est, sub die 26 Martii 1825,
ad calcem Regularum Indicis insertum, et hisce litteris adjunctum,
vi cujus Ordinariis locorum praecipitur, ut libros omnes noxios in
sua dioecesi editos, vel diffusos, propria auctoritate proscribere,
et e manibus fidelium avellere studeant.

Cum autem hujus Apostolici Mandati provida constitutio praesentibus
fidelium necessitatibus, et tuendae doctrinae morumque incolumitati
optime respondeat, Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio Papae IX. placuit
ejus memoriam esse recolendam, tenorem iterum vulgandum[Pg 145] et ab
Ordinariis locorum observantiam exigendam, quod excitatoriis hisce
nostris litteris, nomine et auctoritate Apostolicae Sedis sollicite
praestamus. Queis si debita obedientia respondeat (sicuti pro certo
habemus), gravissima mala removentur in iis praesertim dioecesibus,
in quibus promptae coercitionis urgeat necessitas. Ne vero quis
praetextu defectus jurisdictionis, aut alio quaesito colore
Ordinariorum sententias et proscriptiones ausu temerario spernere,
vel pro non latis habere praesumat, Eis Sanctitas Sua concessit,
sicut Nomine et Auctoritate Ejus praesentibus conceditur, ut in hac
re, etiam tamquam Apostolicae Sedis Delegati, contrariis
quibuscumque non obstantibus, procedant.

Ad Apostolicum autem Judicium ea deferantur opera vel scripta quae
profundius examen exigant, vel in quibus ad salutarem effectum
consequendum Supremae Auctoritatis sententia requiratur.

Interim Tibi Eminentissime et Reverendissime Domine copiosa
divinorum charismatum incrementa ex animo precamur, et ad pergrata
quaeque officia nos paratissimos exhibemus.

Datum Romae, die 24 Augusti 1864.
Amplitudinis Tuae, Addictissimus,

Ludovicus Cardinalis de Alteriis,

S. Indicis Congregationis Praefectus.

Locus ✠ Sigilli.
   Fr. Angelus Vincentius Modena Ord. Praed. Sacrae Indis. Congr.
a Secretis.

MANDATUM.

S. M. Leonis XII. additum Decreto Sac. Congreg. Indicis, die
Sabbati 26 Martii 1823.

Sanctitas Sua mandavit in memoriam revocanda esse universis
Patriarchis, Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, aliisque in Ecclesiarum
regimen praepositis ea quae in Regulis Indicis Sacrosanctae Synodi
Tridentinae jussu editis atque in observationibus, Instructione,
Additione, et generalibus Decretis Summorum Pontificum Clementis
VIII., Alexandri VII. et Benedicti XVI., auctoritate ad pravos
libros proscribendos, abolendosque Indici Librorum Prohibitorum
praeposita sunt, ut nimirum, quia prorsus impossibile est, libros
omnes noxios incessanter prodeuntes in Indicem referre, propria
auctoritate illos e manibus Fidelium evellere studeant, ac per eos
ipsimet fideles edoceantur quod pabuli genus sibi salutare, quod
noxium ac mortiferum ducere debeant, ne ulla in eo suscipiendo
capiantur specie, ac pervertantur illecebra.

IV.

DECREE OF THE S. CONGREGATION OF RITES.

Most priests will have observed that missals and breviaries differ with
regard to the rite of the Feast of St. Andrew Avellino, some giving it
as a double, others as a semi-double. The following decree settles the
question:

[Pg 146]

Decretum Generale.

Quum nonnulli Rmi. per orbem Ordinarii pluries exquisierint et modo
a Sancta Sede requirantutrum quarto Idus Novembris in Ecclesia
universali Festum S. Andreae Avellini Confessoris recoli debeat
ritu duplici minori, quem praseferunt recentiores editiones
Breviarii et Missalis Romani, Subscriptus Secretarius S. R. C. sui
muneris esse duxit Ssmi. Domini Nostri Pii Papae IX. desuper
exposcere oraculum. Sanctitas porro Sua clementer declaravit ut
amodo festum S. Andreae Avellini Confessoris ab utroque clero Urbis
et Orbis, ipsis non exclusis Sanctimonialibus, agatur ritu duplici
minori quem obtinet in alma Urbe, et pluribus Dioecesibus; dummodo
Rubricae serventur. Contrariis non obstantibus quibuscumque. Die 21
Januarii, 1864.

V.

FORMULA FOR THE BLESSING OF RAILWAYS, APPROVED BY THE S. CONGREGATION OF
RITES.

Benedictio Viae Ferreae et Curruum.

℣. Adjutorium nostrum in nomine Domini.
℟. Qui fecit coelum et terram.
℣. Dominus vobiscum.
℟]. Et cum spiritu tuo.

Oremus.

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus qui omnia elementa ad tuam gloriam,
utilitatemque hominum condidisti; dignare quaesumus hanc viam
ferream, ejusque instrumenta bene✠dicere, et
benigna semper tua providentia tueri; et dum famuli tui velociter
properant in via, in lege tua ambulantes, et viam mandatorum tuorum
currentes, ad coelestem patriam feliciter pervenire valeant. Per
Christum Dominum nostrum.

℟. Amen.

Oremus.

Propitiare Domine Deus supplicationibus nostris, et bene✠dic
currus istos dextera tua sancta; adjunge ad ipsos sanctos
Angelos tuos ut omnes qui in eis vehentur, liberent et custodiant
semper a periculis universis: et quemadmodum viro Æthiopi super
currum suum sedenti et sacra eloquia legenti, per Apostolum tuum
fidem et gratiam contulisti; ita famulis tuis viam salutis ostende,
qui tua gratia adjuti, bonisque operibus jugiter intenti post omnes
viae et vitae hujus varietates aeterna gaudia consequi mereantur
per Christum Dominum nostrum.

Amen.

Deinde Sacerdos aspergat viam et currus aqua benedicta.

[Pg 147]

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

I.
Variae lectiones Vulgatae Bibliorum Editionis, quas Carolus Vercellone
sodalis Barnabites digessit. Tom. II. Romae, apud Josephim Spithöver,
anno 1864, 4º, pagg. 561.

The minute attention which Biblical students have paid to the original
Hebrew and to the Septuagint version, with a view to fix the genuine
readings of the text, has hitherto not been given to the Vulgate. Not to
speak of the labours of Mill, Kennicott, and others, the Italian priest,
John Bernard De Rossi collated more than seven hundred MSS. of the
Hebrew text; and in his private library at Parma, 712 such codices were
brought together by his industry. Walton’s Polyglot, the publications of
Tischendorf, and the collections made by Cardinal Mai, have contributed
much to establish with accuracy the text of the Septuagint. It remained
for Father Vercellone to undertake, in our day, a similar task in favour
of the Vulgate. His master, the learned Father Ungarelli, had already
commenced the work, and between 1830 and 1845, had amassed a
considerable amount of materials for a book on the variae lectiones of
the Vulgate. In 1845, shortly before his death, he confided these
materials to his disciple, Father Vercellone, of whose erudition and
critical judgment he had had so many proofs. To the old riches his
master had brought forth from his storehouse, the scholar added new
treasures of his own; and the result of his labours upon and among both,
is to be found in the work under notice.

We shall now briefly state the method which the author has followed. As
the basis of his researches, he has taken the Clementine edition of
1592, purified from typographical errors, according to the other Vatican
editions of 1595 and 1598. The editors of the Clementine of 1592, did
but correct the text of the Sixtine edition of 1590. From the documents
belonging to the congregation appointed by Sixtus V. to edit the Vulgate
in that year, it appears that the editors took as the foundation of
their corrections the text of the folio edition published by the
Dominican Father, John Hunter, in 1583. But as the Hunterian edition of
1583 is identical with the Louvain folio edition published by Hunter in
1547, it follows that the Louvain text of 1547 may be considered as the
basis upon which all the subsequent Vatican corrections have been made.

To correct this text, Father Vercellone has directed his studies,[Pg 148] and
in the volumes before us the fruit of his labours has been given to the
world. How arduous these labours have been, and what confidence we may
feel in his selection of readings, will best be learned from an
enumeration of the sources whence, with incredible pains, he has drawn
the information required for the execution of his design. These sources
may be classed under three heads: Vatican papers, MSS. codices, and
printed books. As to the first class, Pius IX. has assisted Father
Vercellone by placing at his disposal the treasures stored up in the
Vatican archives. Hence, our author has been enabled to examine, 1º,
the documents of the corrections proposed and adopted by the
congregation appointed to edit the Vulgate under Saint Pius V. in 1569,
which documents he has compared with the writings of Cardinal Serleto,
who had a great share in making those corrections; 2º, the documents
concerning the corrections proposed or adopted in a similar
congregation, under Sixtus V. in 1588 and 1589; 3º, the Sixtine edition
of 1590; 4º, notes of the corrections discussed in the congregations
appointed under Gregory XIV. and Clement VIII. to free the Sixtine
edition, from its many mistakes of the press; 5º, the readings proposed
by the learned Angelo Rocca; 6º, the annotations of Cardinal Toleto,
preserved in the Vatican; and 7º, the Clementine edition of 1592.

As to the MSS., our author has confined himself to a few, but these few
are of the highest authority. Of the twenty consulted by him, the
remarkable Florentine Codex of Monte Amiata is deservedly placed first.
Saint Pius V. had caused the Benedictines of Florence to collate 12
codices, and the archivist of Monte Cassino to examine 24 others. The
notes of both these undertakings are still in the Vatican, and have been
of great assistance to Father Vercellone.

Of printed editions prior to the Clementine of 1590, the author has
consulted more than 80, many of them the work of excellent critical
scholars. To these are to be added liturgical books, for example, the
works of the B. Cardinal Thomasi, the Mozarabic liturgy, edited by
Cardinal Lorenzana, and the Roman liturgy. To these again we must add,
the Latin Fathers, whose works give much valuable assistance in
determining the text of the Vulgate. Finally, F. Vercellone has
carefully studied the commentaries of Hesychius, Rodolphus, Bruno of
Asti, and the publications of Cardinals Mai and Pitra. This is the
labour of a life, and few indeed could be found with the qualities
required to undertake it and bring it to a happy termination.

We shall now set before our readers a few specimens of the practical
results of F. Vercellone’s researches. The first volume treats of the
various readings that occur in the Pentateuch; the second volume of
those in the books of Josue, Judges, Ruth,[Pg 149] and the four books of Kings.
It is a well known fact that there are to be found in the Vulgate some
additions (additamenta) which are wanting in the Hebrew text, and even
in the best codices of St Jerome’s version. These additions have been
distributed by F. Vercellone in four classes: 1º, those found only in
codices of no great antiquity; 2º, those found in old and accurate
editions of the Vulgate; 3º, those allowed to stand in the Sixtine
edition; 4º, those allowed to stand even in the Clementine. It must not
be believed that the Vatican editors were ignorant of the character of
these additions, or that they admitted them through carelessness; for,
in their preface, they distinctly say, “Nonnulla quae mutanda
videbantur, consulto immutata relicta sunt, ad offensionem populorum
vitandam”…. These additions found their way into the text, according
to our author, from four sources; 1. most of them from the Greek
version, or the Vetus Itala; 2. not a few from a double version made of
a verse, and transcribed as if the translation of two distinct verses;
3. from marginal glosses; and, 4. lastly, from parallel passages in the
Scripture.

In the first two books of Kings, the author discovers sixty-nine such
additions. Of these, thirty have been allowed to remain in the
Clementine, fifteen more in the Sixtine, and nine more in the early
editions, making in all fifty-four, fifteen others being found in MSS.
of no great antiquity. The fifteen in the Clementine which we daily use,
are as follows:—I. Reg., iv. 1; v. 6, v. 9; viii. 18; ix. 25; x. i;
xi. 1; xiii. 15; xiv. 22; xiv. 41; xv. 3; xv. 12-13; xvii. 36; xix. 21;
xx. 15; xxi. 11; xxiii. 13-14; xxx. 15. II. Reg., i. 18; i. 26; iv. 5;
v. 23; vi. 12; x. 19; xiii. 21; xiii. 27; xiv. 30; xv. 18; xv. 20.

A few of these examples will show the author’s method of dealing with
such additions. I. Reg., iv. 1, we read, Et factum est in diebus
illis, convenerunt Philisthiim in pugnam, et egressus est Israel obviam
Philisthiim in praelium et castrametatus est, etc. Now, the words et
factum est, etc., are additions; and upon an examination of MSS. and
editions, the author traces them to the LXX. version (vol. ii. page
194).

In II. Reg., i. 26, we read: “Doleo super te frater mi Jonatha decore
nimis et amabilis super amorem mulierum. Sicut mater unicum amat filium
suum ita ego te diligebam.” The words sicut mater unicum, etc., are
wanting both in the Hebrew and in the Greek, and are probably a marginal
gloss, inserted in the text through the ignorance of copyists. They are
an explanation of the phrase, super amorem mulierum, as our author shows
at page 322.

We need not say any more to show how important is the addition to our
Catholic Biblical literature made by F. Vercellone.

[Pg 150]

II.
S. Pietro in Roma, etc. St. Peter in Rome, or the historical truth of
St. Peter’s journey to Rome, proved against a recent assailant. By John
Perrone, S.J. Rome: Tipografia Forense, 1864—1 vol. 8vo, pag. 168.

Any new work by Father Perrone is sure to be received with respect and
attention. The assailant, whose attack on the historical truth of St.
Peter’s journey to Rome is refuted in this book, is the author of an
anonymous treatise published at Turin in 1861, entitled The historical
impossibility of St. Peter’s journey to Rome demonstrated, by
substituting the true for the false tradition. In an introduction,
headed “The Protestants in Italy”, Father Perrone laments the great
mischief they have done to his country, and at the same time expresses
his hopes that their attempts at proselytism will end in failure. He
commences by an examination of the statements made by his adversary, to
the effect that even Catholic writers of the highest authority had
denied St. Peter’s presence in Rome, that it is proved from the sacred
Scriptures that St. Peter could not have come to Rome either in the time
of Claudius or in that of Nero, and that, therefore, he could not have
been there at all. In reply, F. Perrone proves that no Catholic author
has ever denied St. Peter’s journey to Rome; that we neither can nor
ought to expect from Sacred Scripture a history of the journey in
question, but only a proof that it was possible; and that, because the
precise year of the event is not known, it does not follow that the
event itself could never have taken place. He then proceeds to develope
the arguments which prove the Prince of the Apostles to have been at
Rome. 1º, from the writers of the first three centuries, and then from
those of the fourth; 2º, from the monuments existing at Rome,
sarcophagi, figured glasses from the Catacombs (one of which he
illustrates at great length), inscriptions, and spots ever held sacred
at Rome to the memory of St. Peter; 3º, from the pilgrimages made to
his shrine by Christians from every portion of the Church during the
first three centuries; and 4º, from the catalogues of the Roman
Pontiffs drawn up by writers of the early ages. In the next two chapters
he defends the authority of several of the fathers from the ignorant and
malicious misrepresentations of his adversary, and crowns the work by
reprinting at the end of his volume a dissertation delivered by him some
years ago in one of the Roman academies, in which he proves that “the
love and the hatred men show to Rome are two consequences of the
presence, the episcopate, and the martyrdom of St. Peter in the Eternal
City”.[Pg 151]

III.
Regles pour le Choix d’un Etat de Vie, proposées a la Jeunesse
Chretienne. Par Mgr. J. B. Malou, Evêque de Bruges. Bruxelles,
Goemaers, 1860 (iv.—249 pp.).

Although this book is not of recent publication, we feel it a kind of
duty to bring it under the notice of the clergy of this country. The
prelate who wrote it expressed to us his earnest desire that it might be
translated for the use of the Catholics of Ireland, for whom he ever
professed warm esteem and admiration. Indeed, we have very few books in
which the question of vocations to the ecclesiastical or religious life
is treated with such accuracy and solidity as in the Rules of Monsignor
Malou. On the other hand, vocations are, through the grace of God, so
abundant in Ireland, that there is hardly any priest, having care of
souls, who must not have felt, at times, the want of some help to enable
him to determine with confidence the state of life to which some
youthful member of his flock may have been called. Such a guide he may
find in the book under notice. Chapter i. treats of the nature of a
state of life, and limits the number of such states to four, viz., the
priesthood, the religious state, matrimony, and celibacy in the world.
The second chapter examines the nature of a vocation to a state of life,
and how far it imposes an obligation. Mgr. Malou thus defines a
vocation: “A disposition of Divine Providence, which prepares, invites,
and sometimes morally obliges, a Christian soul to embrace one state of
life in preference to another; which disposition is ordinarily
manifested in the qualities, the sentiments, and the position of the
person called”. Chapter iii. shows the necessity of Christian
deliberation before making a choice of a state of life. Chapter iv.
deals with the conditions requisite for a good deliberation, paragraphs
being devoted respectively to interior conditions, to exterior
conditions, and to the method of proceeding in the deliberation. The
vocation to the ecclesiastical state is the subject of the fifth
chapter, in which is shown that this vocation comes from God in a
special manner, and that it is at once a great honour and a great
benefit. The signs of vocation are detailed in the seventh, and the
signs of non-vocation in the ninth chapters; in the tenth, the motives
and the duty of following this vocation. The religious state, its
origin, its end, its nature, and its properties; the different religious
orders to which a person may be called; the vocation to the religious
state; its principal signs; the deliberation required before adopting it
are the subjects of the next five chapters. The sixteenth and last
chapter discusses the question of vocation to[Pg 152] the foreign missions,
considered with respect to its motives, the qualities it demands, and
the precautions which should be taken in carrying it into effect. This
is the substance of the entire treatise; and for accuracy of doctrine,
clearness of style, unction of Catholic spirit, it is worthy of its
important subject and of its author.

IV.

RECENT PUBLICATIONS.

1. L’Evangile et la Critique, examen de la Vie de Jesus de M. Ernest Renan. Par T. I. Lamy, Professeur a la facultè de
   Theologie, et President du College Marie-Therese a l’Université Catholique de Louvain. Louvain.
2. Bernardi Papiensis, Faventini Episcopi, Summa Decretalium ad Librorum MSS. fidem cum aliis ejusdem scriptoris anecdotis
   , edidit Ern. Ad. Theod. Laspeyres, etc. Ratisbon, apud Manz, 1861, lxiii.-367.
3. Memoir of the Abbè Lacordaire. By the Count de Montalembert,
   one of the forty of the French Academy. Authorized
   translation. Bentley, 1864, xv.-312.
4. Importanza della Storia, considerata nelle cose che le servono
   di materia. Par Domenico Solimani, D.C.D.G. Roma:
   Tipografia Forense, 1861, pp. 529.
5. Percy Grange, or the Ocean of Life, a tale in three books.
   By the Rev. Thomas J. Potter, of All Hallows College.
   Dublin: Duffy, 1864, pp. 320.
6. Tavole Cronologiche Critiche della Storia della Chiesa Universale,
   illustrate con argomenti d’Archeologia e di Geografia,
   Par Ignazio Mozzoni, etc. Roma: Cromolitografia Pontificia.
   1861. Vols. i. to ix.
7. Notes upon the Errors of Geology illustrated by reference to
   facts observed in Ireland. By John Kelly, Vice-President
   of the Royal Geological Society of Ireland. Dublin: John
   F. Fowler, 1864, pp. xvi.-300.
8. Address Introductory to the Clinical Session 1864-65, delivered
   November 9, 1864, at the Mater Misericordiae
   Hospital, Eccles Street, Dublin. By Thomas Hayden,
   F.R.C.S.I., etc. Dublin: John F. Fowler, pp. 26.