THE IRISH
ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

JANUARY, 1865.

THE SEE OF CLONMACNOISE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.
CARDINAL CONSALVI AND NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.
ST. BRIGID’S ORPHANAGE.
THE MSS. REMAINS OF PROFESSOR O’CURRY IN THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY.
ASSOCIATION OF ST. PETER’S PENCE, DUBLIN.
POLAND.
LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.
DOCUMENTS.
NOTICES OF BOOKS.

THE SEE OF CLONMACNOISE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

In the beginning of the sixteenth century the See of St. Kieran
was reckoned among the dioceses of the ecclesiastical province
of Tuam. Dr. Walter Blake was then its bishop; he was a
native of Galway, and Canon of Enaghdune, and by the provision
of Pope Innocent VIII., was appointed to this See on
the 26th of March, 1487. During twenty-one years he governed
the faithful of Clonmacnoise with prudence and zeal, and died in
May, 1508.

Thomas O’Mullally was appointed his successor the same
year, and after administering this diocese for five years, was,
in 1513, translated to the archiepiscopal see of Tuam.

There are still preserved in the Vatican archives two original
letters written by King Henry VIII., on the 18th of June,
1515, soliciting the appointment of Father Quintinus Ohnygyn,
of the Order of St. Francis, as successor to Dr. Mullally.
These letters should, of themselves, suffice to set at rest for
ever the plea which some modern theorists have advanced,
that the course pursued by the English monarch in the
latter years of his reign, in appointing bishops by his own authority
to the episcopal sees, was the traditional right of the
crown, ever exercised by him and his predecessors on the throne
of England. The first letter is addressed to the reigning pontiff,
Leo X., as follows:

The second letter was addressed to Cardinal Julius de Medicis,
and is dated the same day. It seeks to conciliate for the petition
contained in the letter first cited, the patronage of Cardinal de
Medicis, who was known to exercise unbounded influence in the
councils of Pope Leo:

Though the king was thus so eager to have Dr. O’Hnygyn appointed
without delay to the vacant see, it was only in the month
of November the following year (1516) that the consistorial investigation
was made for the appointment of this prelate. The
record of this inquiry is still happily preserved, and though
there was only one witness present who was a native of Ardfert,
by name Nicholas Horan, still, from his scanty evidence we may
glean some interesting particulars regarding the ancient See and
Cathedral of St. Kieran.

[Pg 155]
The town of Clonmacnoise, he says, is situated in the ecclesiastical
province of Tuam, at the distance of a day’s journey from
the sea coast. It is small, consisting of only twelve houses,
which are built of rushes and mud, and are thatched with straw.
At one side flows the river Shannon, and the surrounding country
is thickly set with trees. Towards the west stands the cathedral,
which is in a ruinous condition. Its roof has fallen, and there
is but one altar, which is sheltered by a straw roof: it has a crucifix
of bronze, and only one poor vestment: its sacristy, too, is
small, but its belfry has two bells. Enshrined in the church is
the body of the Irish saint whose name it bears: nevertheless
the holy sacrifice of the Mass is seldom offered up, and the whole
revenue of the see amounts to only thirty-three crowns. As to
Father Quintin, it was further stated, that having been himself
in Rome, he was already well known to many members of the
Sacred College, and he is described as “in Presbyteratus ordine
constitutus, vir doctus, praedicator, bonis moribus et famâ, aliisque
virtutibus praeditus”. (ap. Theiner, page 519.)

Pope Leo X. did not hesitate much longer in appointing
one so highly commended to the vacant see, and before
the close of 1516 Dr. O’Hnygyn was consecrated Bishop of
Clonmacnoise. During the twenty-two years which he ruled
this diocese he displayed great energy in reanimating the fervour
of the faithful and restoring the ancient splendour of religion.
The cathedral was repaired: stained-glass windows and
paintings set forth once more the triumph of faith, whilst many
precious gems and other decorations were added, as voluntary
offerings from his faithful flock. The following description of
the cathedral, extracted from Ware, will serve to give a more
complete idea of this venerable structure:

“Nine other churches were subject to the cathedral, being, as
it were, in one and the same churchyard, which contained about
two Irish acres in circuit, on the west whereof the bishops of
Clonmacnoise afterwards built their episcopal palace, the ruins
of which are yet visible. The situation of this place is not unpleasant.
It stands on a green bank, high raised above the river,
but encompassed to the east and the north-east with large bogs.
The nine churches were most of them built by the kings and
petty princes of those parts for their places of sepulture; who
though at perpetual wars in their lives, were contented to lie
here peaceably in death. One of these churches, called Temple-Ri,
or the King’s Church, was built by O’Melaghlin, King of
Meath, and to this day is the burial place of that family.
Another, called Temple-Connor, was built by the O’Connor
Don; a third and fourth by O’Kelly and MacCarthy More of
Munster. The largest of all was erected by MacDermot, and is
[Pg 156]
called after his name. The rest by others. Before the west
door of MacDermot’s church stood a large old-fashioned cross
or monument, much injured by time, on which was an inscription
in antique characters, which nobody that I could hear of
could read. The west and north door of this church, although but
mean and low, are guarded about with fine-wrought, small
marble pillars, curiously hewn. Another of the churches
hath an arch of a greenish marble, flat-wrought and neatly
hewn and polished, and the joints so close and even set, that
the whole arch seems but one entire stone, as smooth as either
glass or crystal. The memory of St. Kieran is yet fresh and
precious in the minds of the neighbouring inhabitants. In the
great church was heretofore preserved a piece of the bone of one
of St. Kieran’s hands as a sacred relique. The 9th of September
is annually observed as the patron-day of this saint, and great
numbers from all parts flock to Clonmacnoise in devotion and
pilgrimage. The cathedral was heretofore endowed with large
possessions, and was above all others famous for the sepulchres of
the nobility and bishops, as also for some monuments and inscriptions,
partly in Irish and partly in Hebrew. Yet it declined
by degrees, and was in the end reduced to a most shameful
poverty”. (Harris’s Ware, pag. 166.)

The famous cross of Clonmacnoise, to which Ware refers in
the above passage, was erected about the year 920; and though
two centuries ago its inscription was deemed illegible, the illustrious
Petrie has deciphered it in our own times. The first part
of the inscription is: “A prayer for Flann, son of Maelsechlainn”;
and the second part is: “A prayer for Colman who
made this cross over the King Flann”. (Petrie, Round Towers,
pag. 268.) This ancient cross is, moreover, richly ornamented
with relievos and ornamental net-work: “The sculptures on its
west side”, says Petrie, “relate to the history of the original
foundation of Clonmacnoise by St. Kieran; while the sculptures
on the other sides represent the principal events in the life of our
Saviour, as recorded in the Scripture; and hence the cross was
subsequently known by the appellation of Cros na Screaptra, i.e.,
the Cross of the Scriptures, under which name it is noticed in the
Annals of Tighernach at the year 1060″. Amongst the sacred
subjects thus sculptured on this venerable cross we may mention,
the Crucifixion—the Blessed Virgin bearing the Divine Infant
in her arms—and the adoration by the Magi.

Dr. O’Hnygyn died in 1538, and had for his successor Richard
Hogan, who, after presiding for fourteen years in the See of Killaloe,
was translated to Clonmacnoise on the 17th July, 1539:
he, however, died the same year, and as Ware informs us,
“within a few days after his translation”. Another bishop was
[Pg 157]
appointed without delay, and on the 15th December, 1539, Dr.
Florence O’Gerawan or Kirwan was proclaimed in consistory as
successor to St. Kieran. He held this See about fourteen years,
and died soon after the accession of Queen Mary. The death of
the good prelate was probably hastened by the sad ruin which
fell upon his cathedral before the close of 1552. In the spirit of
Vandalism to which the noblest monuments of our ancient faith
became a prey at this period, the English garrison of Athlone
plundered and pillaged the venerable church of Clonmacnoise—an
event, the memory of which is still as vividly preserved in
local tradition, as though it were only an occurrence of yesterday.
It is thus recorded in the Annals of the Four Masters
under the year 1552: “Clonmacnoise was plundered and devastated
by the English (Galls) of Athlone, and the large bells were
carried from the round tower. There was not left, moreover, a
bell, small or large, an image or an altar, or a book, or a gem, or
even glass in the window, from the walls of the church out,
which was not carried off. Lamentable was this deed, the
plundering of the city of Kieran, the holy patron”.

In the “Patent Rolls”, an invaluable work for which we are
indebted to the persevering energy of Mr. Morrin, is registered
under date of 15th September, 1541, “the confirmation of
Florence Gerawan in the Bishoprick of Clonmacnoise, to which he
had been promoted by the Pope; and his presentation to the
vicarage of Lymanaghan in the same Diocese on his surrender
of the Pope’s Bull”. (vol. I. pag. 82.) The editor, indeed, inadvertently
substituted Cloyne for Clonmacnoise in this passage,
the Latin name Cluanensis being common to both Sees. Cloyne,
however, was at this time united with Cork, and Mr. Morrin
may easily be pardoned this error, since it is shared by the
learned De Burgo and by Dr. Maziere Brady in the Third
volume of his “Records of Cork, Cloyne, and Ross“. (London,
1864, pag. 97.) The surrender of the Pope’s Bull was regarded
at this period as a merely civil ceremony, required by law as a
condition to obtain possession of the temporalities of the See,
and we find an instance of it even in Catholic times on the appointment
of Dr. Oliver Cantwell to the See of Ossory in the
year 1488. At all events, the fact just now recorded, of the
plunder of his church sufficiently proves that Dr. O’Kirwan, at
the close of his episcopate, did not enjoy the favour and patronage
of the courtiers of Edward VI.

Dr. Peter Wall, of the Order of St. Dominick, was the next
bishop of this See. He had for a while been led astray by the
novelties of the preceding reigns, but, as the Consistorial register
records, returned repentant to the bosom of Holy Church, and
was now absolved from all the censures which he had incurred.
[Pg 158]
He was appointed Bishop on the 4th of May, 1556, and for
twelve years remained in undisturbed possession of his See. He
died in 1568; and though the heretical government annexed
this diocese to Meath, the Sovereign Pontiff never recognized
the union, and Clonmacnoise continued to be governed by
Vicars till, after a widowhood of eighty years, it again received a
chief pastor, in the person of Anthony M’Geoghegan, who was
appointed its bishop on 22nd of January, 1647.

The reader may here expect some remarks on the vicissitudes
of this see, and its successive connection with the provinces of
Tuam and Armagh. When as yet there were only two archiepiscopal
sees in our island, extending to Leath Cuinn and Leath
Mogha, all Connacht, and with it Clonmacnoise, was comprised
in the northern district. Gradually, however, Tuam grew into
the proportions of a distinct province, and in the synod of Rathbreasil,
held by St. Celsus of Armagh in 1110, we find the five
sees of Tuam, Clonfert, Cong, Killalla, and Ardchame or Ardagh,
clustered together, though still subject to the Archbishop of
Armagh. When at length, in the synod of Kells, in 1152, Tuam
received the archiepiscopal pallium from the hands of Cardinal
Paparo, Ardagh was assigned to the primatial see, but Clonmacnoise
was referred to the new province of Tuam. This division
soon became a subject of controversy. Tuam claimed the diocese
of Ardagh for the western province, whilst Armagh declared
that the Shannon was its boundary, and hence reckoned Clonmacnoise
as a northern see, and at the same time claimed, as subject
to its own metropolitical jurisdiction, the churches of Killmedoin,
Croagh-patrick, Killtulagh, and some others of the diocese
of Tuam. At the Council of Lateran, held in Rome in
1215, Felix O’Ruadhan, Archbishop of Tuam, and Eugene MacGillividen,
Archbishop of Armagh, were both present, and laid
their dispute before the great Pontiff Innocent III., and a decree
soon after emanated, assigning indeed the above named churches
to Tuam, but deferring to a future day the decision of the other
points of controversy. In the meantime Armagh was in possession
of both sees, and for more than a hundred years they continued
thus subject to its metropolitical jurisdiction. As to
Ardagh, the question was never after mooted; but towards the
middle of the fourteenth century, Clonmacnoise seems to have
been again numbered amongst the dioceses of the western province.
This change probably took place during the episcopate
of Bishop Symon, of the Order of St. Dominick, who, though
omitted in the lists of Ware and De Burgo, was appointed to this
see on the death of Dr. Henry, in 1349. This prelate, in the
bull of his appointment, is declared to be “Priorem fratrum
ordinis Praedicatorum de Roscommon, Elfinensis diœcesis, in
[Pg 159]
sacerdotio constitutum et cui de religionis zelo, litterarum scientia,
vitae ac morum honestate et aliis virtutum meritis laudabilia
testimonia perhibentur” (ap. Theiner, pag. 291). At all events,
soon after this period we find a list of Irish bishoprics which is
now preserved in the Barberini archives at Rome, and in it the
see of Clonmacnoise is referred to the province of Tuam. In the
consistorial record of the appointment of Dr. O’Higgins, cited
above, it is in like manner described as subject to the metropolitical
jurisdiction of St. Jarlath’s. The episcopate of Dr.
O’Hnygyn seems to have been the period when at last all controversy
was hushed, and this diocese was finally adjudged to the
province of Armagh. This prelate assisted indeed at the Provincial
Synod of Tuam, held in 1523, but, in the preamble to
the Synod, he is expressly described as “Dominus Kyntius (i.e.,
Quintinus) Dei gratiâ Episcopus Cluanensis Provinciae Armachanae”.
(Irish Arch. Soc. Miscellany, vol. I., p. 77.) An
official list of all the dioceses was drawn up and published
during the pontificate of Pope Paul III., in 1546, and in it
Clonmacnoise is marked as belonging to the primatial see. The
era of persecution during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I.
produced no change in this arrangement; and when a momentary
peace again smiled on the Irish Church, in 1632, we find
the vicar-apostolic of Clonmacnoise, Rev. John Gafney, after
administering this see for thirty-five years, taking his place
among the assembled fathers in the provincial synod of Armagh.

P. F. M.

CARDINAL CONSALVI AND NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.

The concordat signed at Paris on the 15th July, 1801, between
Pius VII. and Napoleon, is one of the most important
facts of modern history. The magnitude of its results may best
be learned from the contrast between the present state of religion
in France and that which existed during, and for long
after, the Revolution. “There is no negotiation”, says M. Thiers,
“which is more deserving of serious meditation than that of the
Concordat”; but up to the present day the materials for such a
study have been wanting. At length the full light of history
has been let in upon the secret conferences in which the articles
of that treaty were prepared; and the hand which has traced
for us their history is the same which signed the Concordat
itself. The memoirs of Cardinal Consalvi, who took part in the
negotiations as the plenipotentiary of the Roman Pontiff, penned
[Pg 160]
by him during the days of his exile, have at length been given
to the world.[1] Since the Cardinal’s death in 1824, these memoirs
have been religiously left in the obscurity to which their
author condemned them, and which he willed should last as long
as the life of the principal personages of whom he has made
mention in his pages. But when at length, in 1858, there appeared
no reason for further silence, they were handed over by
Consalvi’s executors to M. Crétineau-Joly, who has published,
not the original text, but what he assures us is a faithful version
of it. We propose to give our readers a sketch of the history
of the Concordat as it is recorded in these memoirs, and in doing
so, we shall make use as often as we can of the Cardinal’s own
words.

The victory of Marengo, gained June 14, 1800, made the
First Consul master of Italy. Five days after the battle, passing
through Vercelli at the head of his army, he charged Cardinal
Martiniana, bishop of that city, to communicate to the Pope his
desire of negotiating a settlement of the religious affairs of France,
and for this purpose he requested that Mgr. Spina, archbishop of
Corinth, might be sent to him to Turin. His request was gladly
complied with. But scarcely had that prelate entered Turin
than he was ordered to set out at once for Paris, where Napoleon
awaited his arrival. It needed but a short stay in that capital
to convince Mgr. Spina that the projects of concordat proposed
by the consul were absolutely inadmissible, as being founded on
a basis completely at variance with the laws of the Church. In
vain did the Pope, in his anxiety to promote the good of religion,
forward to Paris an amended plan of concordat, in which he
made every concession permitted by his duty as head of the
Church. The only answer he received was an intimation from
M. Cacault, the French agent at Rome, that unless within five
days the proposals made by Napoleon were accepted without the
slightest change, the least restriction or correction, he, Cacault,
should declare a rupture between the Holy See and France, and
immediately leave Rome to join General Murat at Florence.
To all these threats, and to the menace of the loss of his temporal
power, the Pope had but one reply, that same reply which
we have heard from Pius IX. in our own day—that non possumus
against which all the assaults of the masters of legions have ever
failed, and evermore shall fail.

M. Cacault, not daring to disobey the orders he had received,
prepared at once for his departure, but his excellent heart and
his affection for Rome suggested to him a means of preventing
[Pg 161]
the mischief that was sure to follow from the anger of Napoleon,
if once kindled against the Holy See. He proposed that Cardinal
Consalvi, the Pope’s secretary of state, should at once set
out for Paris, to lay before the First Consul the imperious reasons
by which the Holy Father was forced to refuse the proffered
concordat. The French agent felt confident that, whilst it
would flatter Napoleon’s pride to be able to exhibit to the Parisians
a Cardinal prime minister in waiting upon his will, the
presence of Consalvi would also be a proof of the Pope’s anxious
desire to come to a favourable understanding on the affairs of the
French Church. After mature deliberation this plan was adopted.
The Cardinal took care that to the credentials usually given in
cases of treaties, the Pope should add a most precise command
that his envoy was to consider the project of concordat which
had been corrected at Rome, and hitherto rejected at Paris, not
only as the basis of the future treaty, but as the concordat itself.
Powers were granted, however, to make such changes as did not
alter the substance of the document. “I thought it necessary”,
says the Cardinal, “to have my hands tied in this way, because
I foresaw that, unless I were in a position to show the French
government how limited were my powers, they would soon force
my entrenchments”.

Leaving Rome in company with M. Cacault, Cardinal Consalvi
arrived at Paris at night, after a tedious journey of fifteen
days, and took up his abode with Mgr. Spina and his theologian,
P. Caselli, afterwards Cardinal. Early in the morning he sent to
acquaint Bonaparte of his arrival, and to learn at what hour he
could have the honour of seeing the First Consul. He inquired
also in what costume he should present himself, as at that period
the ecclesiastical dress had been abandoned by the French clergy.
These communications were made through the Abbé Bernier,
who, from having been one of the leaders in the war of La
Vendèe against the Republic, had taken a great part in the
pacification of these provinces upon the terms offered by the
consular government, and had thereby secured for himself the
favour of Bonaparte. He was appointed negotiator on the part
of the government, and brought to his task much theological
knowledge, diplomatic skill, and the advantage of being agreeable
to both the contracting parties. This ecclesiastic soon returned
to Consalvi with the intimation that the First Consul
would receive him that same morning at two o’clock, and that
he was to come in the fullest possible cardinalitial costume. The
Cardinal, however, did not gratify him in this latter particular,
believing it to be his duty to present himself in the dress usually
worn out of doors by cardinals when not in function. He was
introduced to Napoleon under circumstances well calculated to
[Pg 162]
embarrass a less evenly poised mind than his own. “I know”,
said the First Consul, “why you have come to France. I wish
the conferences to be opened without delay. I allow you five
days time, and I warn you that if on the fifth day the negotiations
are not concluded, you must go back to Rome, as I have
already decided what to do in such a case”. Consalvi replied with
calm dignity, and was soon afterwards conducted to his hotel. On
the same day the Abbé Bernier came again to Consalvi, and asked
him for a memorial setting forth the reasons which had constrained
the Pope to accept the project which had been presented
at Rome by M. Cacault. Although wearied by his long journey,
the Cardinal spent the watches of the night in drawing up the
memorial, which on the following day was communicated by the
Abbé Bernier to Talleyrand, who, in turn, was to report upon it
and lay it before the First Consul. The design of the memorial
was to justify the refusal of the Concordat in the terms in which
it had been drawn up by the French Government, and to show
how reasonable and just were the modifications insisted on by
the Pope. This design was not attained. Talleyrand wrote on
the margin of the first page of the memorial these words, well
calculated to confirm Napoleon in his idea that the Pope’s minister
was actuated by personal enmity towards the French Government:
“Cardinal Consalvi’s memorial does more to throw back the
negotiations than all that has hitherto been written on the subject”.
These words, although they produced an unfavourable
impression on the First Consul, did not however retard the negotiations.
The fatigue of these negotiations was very great. Twice
each day for many days beyond the five granted by Bonaparte,
the Cardinal held conferences with the Abbé Bernier, always in
the presence of Mgr. Spina and P. Caselli. The nights were
frequently spent in drawing up and correcting memorials to be
presented to the government. It was at this period in the negotiations
that the limit which the Pope had placed to the Cardinal’s
powers was found to be of the greatest practical advantage.
The Abbé Bernier, when any difficulty occurred, incessantly declared
that, however strong his own convictions, he could decide
nothing of himself without referring the matter to the First Consul.
On the contrary, the Cardinal was never allowed to despatch
a courier to consult the Pope and receive his commands.
The pretext for this prohibition was, that the Concordat should
absolutely be finished the next day. Under these circumstances,
his limited powers were the only means left to Consalvi by which
he might resist the pressure brought to bear against him. The
orders he had received from the Pope were, not to break off the
negotiations and refuse the Concordat because he could not
make it as favourable as might be, but, on the other hand, not to
[Pg 163]
sign it by overstepping those instructions given him before he
left Rome, of which we have spoken above. For twenty-five
days the conferences continued. Every nerve was strained to
avert a rupture on the one hand, and undue concessions on the
other. The consequences of a rupture were frequently laid before
the Cardinal during these days, which he calls “days of
anguish”, by the Count de Cobenzel, Austrian ambassador at
Paris. He was asked to consider that if the First Consul should
break with Rome, and definitely separate from the head of the
Catholic Church, he would, as he had often threatened, force
Germany, Spain, Italy, Switzerland, and Holland, to become
the accomplices of his apostacy.

Finally, after incredible fatigue, after sufferings and anguish
of every kind, the day came which brought with it the long-looked
for conclusion of their task. The Abbé Bernier, who
reported every evening to Bonaparte the results of the daily
conferences, at length announced that the First Consul accepted
all the disputed articles, and that on the following day they
should proceed to sign two authentic copies of the treaty, one
copy to remain in the hands of each of the contracting parties.
The project thus accepted, was substantially the same as the one
which, having been amended at Rome, had been rejected by the
French government before the Cardinal’s journey, and which
had led to M. Cacault’s withdrawal from Rome within five days.
It was arranged that the signatures should be six; three on each
side. The Cardinal, Mgr. Spina, and P. Caselli, were to sign
on behalf of the Holy See; Joseph Bonaparte, brother of the
First Consul, Cretet, councillor of state, and the Abbé Bernier,
on behalf of the French government. It was further arranged
that the Abbé Bernier should call for the three ecclesiastics
at a little before four o’clock on the following day, 14th July,
and conduct them to the residence of Joseph Bonaparte, where
the solemn act was to be completed.

“There”, said Bernier, “we shall be able to do all in a
quarter of an hour, as we have only to write six names, and
this, including the congratulations, will not take even so long”.
He also showed them the Moniteur of the day, in which the government
officially announced the conclusion of the negotiations.
He added, that on the next day, anniversary of the taking of the
Bastile, the First Consul intended to proclaim at a grand dinner
of more than three hundred guests, that the Concordat was signed,
and a treaty concluded between the Holy See and the government,
of far more importance than even the Concordat between
Francis I. and Leo X.

Shortly before four o’clock the next day, the Abbé Bernier
made his appearance, having in his hand a roll of paper, which
[Pg 164]
he said was the copy of the Concordat to be signed. On their
arrival at Joseph Bonaparte’s, they took their places at a table,
and after a short discussion as to who should be the first to sign,
Joseph yielded that honour to the claims of the Cardinal. He
took the pen in his hand, and then followed a scene which must
be described in his own words: “What was my surprise when
I saw the Abbé Bernier place before me the copy which he took
from his roll, as if to make me sign without reading it, and when
on running my eye over it, I found that it was not the treaty
which had been agreed on by the respective commissioners and
accepted by the First Consul himself, but one altogether different!
The difference I perceived in the first lines led me to
examine the rest with the most scrupulous care, and I satisfied
myself that this copy not only contained the project which the
Pope had refused to accept, but that it moreover included certain
points which had been rejected as inadmissible before the
project had been forwarded to Rome at all. This occurrence,
incredible but true, paralysed my hand when about to sign my
name. I gave expression to my surprise, and declared in plain
language that on no account could I accept such a document.
The First Consul’s brother appeared equally astonished at hearing
me speak so. He said that he did not know what to think
of what he saw. He added that he had heard from the First
Consul himself, that every thing had been arranged, and that
there was nothing for him to do but affix his signature. As
the other official, the state councillor, Cretet, made the same
declaration, protesting his total ignorance, and refusing to believe
my statement about the change of documents, until I had proved
it by confronting the two copies, I could not restrain myself
from turning rather sharply towards the Abbé Bernier. I told
him that no one could confirm the truth of my assertion better
than he could; that I was exceedingly astonished at the studied
silence which I observed him to keep in the matter; and that I
expressly called upon him to communicate to us what he had
such good reason to know.

“With a confused air and in an embarrassed tone, he stuttered
out that he could not deny the truth of my words and the difference
between the copies of the Concordat, but that the First
Consul had given orders to that effect, affirming that changes
were allowable as long as the document was not signed. ‘And
so’, added Bernier, ‘he insists on these changes, because upon
mature deliberation he is not satisfied with the stipulations we
have agreed upon’.

“I will not here relate what I said in answer to a discourse so
strange…. I spoke warmly of this attempt to succeed by
surprise; I resolutely protested that I would never accept such
[Pg 165]
an act, expressly contrary to the Pope’s will. I therefore declared
that if, on their part, they either could not or would not
sign the document we had agreed upon, the sitting must come to
an end”.

Joseph Bonaparte then spoke. He depicted the fatal consequences
which would result to religion and to the state from
breaking off the negotiations; he exhorted them to use every
means in their power to come to some understanding between
themselves, on that very day, seeing that the conclusion of the
treaty had been announced in the newspapers, and that the news
of its having been signed was to be proclaimed at to-morrow’s
grand banquet. It was easy, added he, to imagine the indignation
and fury of one so headstrong as his brother, when he should have
to appear before the public as having published in his own
journals false news on a matter of such importance. But no
arguments could persuade the Cardinal to negotiate on the basis
of the substituted project of Concordat. He consented, however,
to discuss once more the articles of the treaty on which
they had agreed before. The discussion commenced about five
o’clock in the evening. “To understand how serious it was,
how exact, what warm debates it gave rise to on both sides, how
laborious, how painful, it will be enough to say that it lasted
without any interruption or repose for nineteen consecutive
hours, that is to say, to noon on the following day. We
spent the entire night at it, without dismissing our servants or
carriages, like men who hope every hour to finish the business
on which they are engaged. At mid-day we had come
to an understanding on all the articles, with one single exception”.
This one article, of which we shall speak later,
appeared to the Cardinal to be a substantial question, and to
involve a principle which, as has often been the case, the
Holy See might tolerate as a fact, but which it could never
sanction (canonizzare) as an express article of a treaty. The
hour when Joseph Bonaparte must leave to appear before
the First Consul was at hand, and “it would be impossible”,
says the Cardinal, “to enumerate the assaults made on me at that
moment to induce me to yield on this point, that he might not
have to carry to his brother the fatal news of a rupture”. But
nothing could shake the resolution of the Papal minister or lead
him to act contrary to his most sacred duties. He yielded so far,
however, as to propose that they should omit the disputed article,
and draw out a copy of the Concordat in which it should not
appear, and that this copy should be brought to Bonaparte.
Meantime the Holy See could be consulted on the subject of the
article under debate, and the difficulty could be settled before the
ratification of the Concordat. This plan was adopted. In less
[Pg 166]
than an hour, Joseph returned from the Tuileries with sorrow
depicted on his countenance. He announced that the First
Consul, on hearing his report, had given himself up to a fit of extreme
fury; in the violence of his passion he had torn in a hundred
pieces the paper on which the Concordat was written; but
finally, after a world of entreaties and arguments, he had consented
with indescribable repugnance, to admit all the articles
that had been agreed on, but with respect to the one article
which had been left unsettled, he was inflexible. Joseph was
commanded to tell the Cardinal that he, Bonaparte, absolutely
insisted on that article just as it was couched in the Abbé
Bernier’s paper, and that only two courses were open to the
Pope’s minister, either to sign the Concordat with that article
inserted as it stood, or to break off the negotiation altogether.
It was the Consul’s unalterable determination to announce at
the banquet that very day either the signing of the Concordat,
or the rupture between the parties.

“It is easy to imagine the consternation into which we were
thrown by this message. It still wanted three hours to five
o’clock, the time fixed for the banquet at which we were all
to assist. It is impossible to repeat all that was said by the
brother of the First Consul, and by the other two, to urge me to
yield to his will. The consequences of the rupture were of the
most gloomy kind. They represented to me that I was about to
make myself responsible for these evils, both to France and
Europe, and to my own sovereign and Rome. They told me
that at Rome I should be charged with untimely obstinacy, and
that the blame of having provoked the results of my refusal
would be laid at my door. I began to taste the bitterness of
death. All that was terrible in the future they described to me
rose up vividly before my mind. I shared at that moment (if I
may venture so to speak) the anguish of the Man of Sorrows.
But, by the help of Heaven, duty carried the day. I did not
betray it. During the two hours of that struggle I persisted in
my refusal, and the negotiation was broken off.

“This was the end of that gloomy sitting which had lasted full
twenty-four hours, from four o’clock of the preceding evening to
four of that unhappy day, with much bodily suffering, as may be
supposed, but with much more terrible mental anguish, which
can be appreciated only by those who have experienced it.

“I was condemned, and this I felt to be the most cruel inconvenience
of my position, to appear within an hour at the splendid
banquet of the day. It was my fate to bear in public the first
shock of the violent passion which the news of the failure of the
negotiations was sure to rouse in the breast of the First Consul.
My two companions and I returned for a few minutes to our
[Pg 167]
hotel, and after making some hasty preparations, we proceeded to
the Tuileries.

“The First Consul was present in a saloon, which was thronged
by a crowd of magistrates, officers, state dignitaries, ministers,
ambassadors, and strangers of the highest rank, who had been invited
to the banquet. He had already seen his brother, and it
is easy to imagine the reception he gave us as soon as we had
entered the apartment. The moment he perceived me, with a
flushed face and in a loud and disdainful voice, he cried out:

“‘Well, M. le Cardinal, it is, then, your wish to quarrel! So be
it. I have no need of Rome. I will manage for myself. If Henry
VIII., without the twentieth part of my power, succeeded in
changing the religion of his country, much more shall I be able
to do the like. By changing religion in France, I will change
it throughout almost the whole of Europe, wherever my power
extends. Rome shall look on at her losses; she shall weep over
them, but there will be no help for it then. You may be gone;
it is the best thing left for you to do. You have wished to quarrel—well,
then, be it so, since you have wished it. When do
you leave, I say?'”

“After dinner, General”, calmly replied the Cardinal.

(TO BE CONCLUDED IN OUR NEXT.)

ST. BRIGID’S ORPHANAGE.

St. Brigid’s Orphanage for Five Hundred Children. Eighth Annual
Report. Powell, 10 Essex Bridge, Dublin.

It would be interesting to trace the various arts and devices
which have been adopted for the propagation of Protestantism
in this country. Its authors certainly never intended to
spread it through the world in the way in which the Gospel was
introduced by the disciples of our Lord. The apostles gained
over unbelievers to the truth by patience, by prayer, by good
example, and by the performance of wonderful works. Their
spirit was that of charity, their only object was the salvation of
souls. So far from being supported by an arm of flesh, all the
powers of the earth persecuted them and conspired for their destruction.

But how was Protestantism propagated in Ireland? By acts
of parliament fraudulently obtained, by the violence and influence
of two most corrupt and unprincipled sovereigns—Henry
VIII. and Elizabeth. Under their sway great numbers of Irish
[Pg 168]
Catholics were put to death because they would not renounce
the ancient faith; convents and monasteries were suppressed
because their inmates were faithful to their vows; the parochial
clergy and bishops were persecuted and spoiled, and many put
to death, because they adhered to the religion of their fathers,
and would not separate themselves from the communion of the
Catholic Church, spread over the whole world.

Moreover, the property of the Catholics was confiscated, and
the nobles of the land were reduced to poverty, because their consciences
would not allow them to bow to the supremacy of the
crown in religious matters. What shall we say of the ingenious
system of penal laws, which, with Draconian cruelty, was enacted
against Catholicity? A father was not allowed to give a Catholic
education to his children; and the child of Catholic parents,
if he became a Protestant, could disinherit his brothers, and reduce
his father to beggary. Catholic education and Catholic
schools were proscribed. A Protestant university was instituted
and richly endowed with confiscated property, in order that it
might be an engine for assailing Catholicity, and a bulwark of
Protestantism. Charter schools were established for the purpose
of infecting poor children with heresy. A court of wards was
instituted, in order that the children of the nobility might be
seized on, and brought up in the errors of the new religion. It
was in this way that the Earls of Kildare and other noble families
lost their faith. Catholics were excluded from all offices of trust;
they could not be members of parliament, they had no right of
voting at elections, and they were not even allowed to hold
leases of the lands from which their fathers had been violently
and unjustly expelled. Such were the evangelical arts adopted
to spread Protestantism in Ireland. What a contrast with the
means employed by Providence to propagate the Gospel of Jesus
Christ!

Thanks be to God, the faith of the people of Ireland overcame
all the agencies which were employed for its destruction,
and is now producing wonderful works of piety and charity at
home, and bringing the blessings of salvation to foreign lands
that heretofore were sitting in darkness and the shades of death.
However, active efforts are still made to propagate the religion of
Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, and it is hoped that what those corrupt
and wicked, but powerful and despotic, sovereigns could not
effect by fire and sword, by cruel penal laws, and confiscation of
property, may be compassed by a degraded and contemptible system
of pecuniary proselytism, which consists in collecting money
in England for the purpose of bribing poor Catholics to become
hypocrites and to deny their faith, or of purchasing children from
miserable or wicked parents, in order to educate them in the
[Pg 169]
religion, whatever that may be, of the Church Establishment, or
more probably in no religion at all.

The Report of St. Brigid’s Orphanage, mentioned at the head
of this notice, gives most interesting details regarding this new
method of propagating the errors of Luther and Calvin. This
document, though brief, is most worthy of the perusal of every
Catholic. It describes the activity and perfidy of the proselytisers,
and it shows that they have immense resources, even hundreds of
thousands of pounds per annum, at their disposal. The zeal of
those men and their sacrifices in a bad cause, must be a reproach
to Catholics, if they are not ready to stand forth and exert themselves
in defence of the Holy Catholic and Apostolical Church,
out of which there is no salvation.

The Association of St. Brigid in the few years of its existence
has saved a large number of children from the fangs of proselytism.
It has been able to perform so great a work of charity because its
funds, though small, are managed with great economy. No expense
is incurred for buildings, or for the rent of houses, or for
a staff of masters and mistresses. The ladies who manage the
orphanage receive no remuneration, but give their services for
the love of God. The poor orphans are sent to the country, and
placed under the care of honest and religious families, who, for five
or six pounds for each per annum, bring them up in the humble
manner in which the peasants of Ireland are accustomed to live.
In this way the orphans acquire that love for God, and that
spirit of religion, for which this country is distinguished, and, at
the same time, they become strong and vigorous like the other
inhabitants of the country, and are prepared to bear the hardships
to which persons of their class are generally exposed in
life. Were those children educated in large orphanages and in
the smoky air of the city, they would perhaps be weak and
delicate, incapable of bearing hard work, and likely to fail in the
day of trial.

The education of the orphans of St. Brigid is not overlooked
by the managers. They require the nurses not only to teach the
children by word and example, but also to send them to good
schools, where they learn reading, and writing, the catechism, and
all that is necessary for persons in their sphere of life. Some of
the ladies of the association call them together from time to time
for examination, and considerable premiums are awarded to the
families in which the children are found to have made the
greatest progress. In this way great emulation is excited, and
a considerable progress in knowledge is secured.

When the orphans grow up, as they are generally strong and
healthy and able for farm work, they are easily provided for.
Many of them are adopted by those who reared them. In this
[Pg 170]
way great economy is observed, and this is a consideration which
cannot be overlooked in a poor country like Ireland, where the
charity of the faithful has so many demands upon it. However,
everything necessary is attained, as the orphans are prepared
to earn a livelihood in this world, and trained up in the practice
of those Christian virtues and practices by which they may save
their souls.

The report of the Orphanage is followed by the speeches which
were made by several gentlemen at a late meeting of the Association,
held on the 16th November last. They will be read with
great interest. Canon M’Cabe’s address thus sums up the results
already obtained by St. Brigid’s Association:—

What a contrast with such happy results does the sterility of
all Protestant religious undertakings present! This is illustrated
in the course of his discourse by the learned Canon. We give
the following extract:—

Not to be too long, we merely refer the reader to Alderman
Dillon’s speech, in which he shows that the Protestant Church
Establishment has been for centuries and is at present the unhappy
source of all the evils of Ireland. With him we join in a
fervent wish that a political institution, the creature and the slave
of the state, an institution so useless and so mischievous, may soon
reach the end of its career. Its present position may be understood
from the following statistics given by Mr. Dillon, and
which are founded on the authority of the last census:—

We conclude by recommending the Orphanage of St. Brigid
to the charity, not only of Dublin, but of all Ireland. It is a
national institution. In a few years it has rendered great
services to the country at large and to religion by saving so large
a number of children from error and perversion; it is conducted
on principles of the strictest economy, so necessary in the depressed
state to which our population is reduced; and it is especially
recommended by the way it brings up the poor orphans, assimilating
them to our healthy and vigorous country people, and
inspiring them with the same love for God and fatherland which
distinguishes the peasants of Ireland. St. Brigid, the Mary of
Ireland, will not fail to protect all who assist her orphans.

THE MSS. REMAINS OF PROFESSOR O’CURRY IN THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY.

NO. III.

The Rule of St. Carthach, ob. 636.—Part II.

OF THE CONDUCT OF A MONK.

FOR THE CELE DE (CULDU), OR THE REGULAR CLERIC.

OF THE ORDER OF REFECTION, AND OF THE REFECTORY.

OF THE DUTIES OF A KING.

[There were a few stanzas more, but they are illegible.]

It is unnecessary for us to dwell at any great length on the
importance of this venerable document. It not only illustrates
in an extraordinary manner many points of Catholic dogma, but
also shows that several of the disciplinary observances now in
[Pg 179]
force in the Church were faithfully observed by our fathers in
the seventh century. For instance, the respectful and loving
homage due to the Blessed Mother of God is insinuated in the
fifth strophe; in the ninth and following strophes we are taught
the authority with which bishops are invested in the Church—authority
which extends over every class no matter how exalted:
“Check the noble kings: be thou the vigilant pastor”. In the
eighteenth and following we are instructed in the duty of
honouring superiors as we honour Christ Himself. From the
thirty-eighth to the sixty-sixth we are taught the great and
most important offices of a priest, especially with regard to
offering the Holy Body and Blood of Our Lord, the practice of
daily Mass, the celebration of Requiem Masses for the dead, the
administration of the Holy Communion in life and death, and
the necessity of receiving the confessions of the faithful, both
before Communion and at the last moment.

The disciplinary observances which we chiefly remark in the
Rule are the raising up of the hands, the striking the breasts,
and the genuflexions prescribed at the time of prayers and of
the Holy Sacrifice; the perpetual psalmody: “To sing the three
times fifty (Psalms) is an indispensable practice”; the purity of
life required in the priest: “There shall be no permanent love in
thy heart, but the love of God alone; for pure is the Body which
thou receivest: purely must thou go to receive it” (strophe 65).
The use of the sign of the Cross is mentioned at strophe eighty-eight;
and at eighty-six we find mention of the canonical hours,
and at eighty-nine of the ancient custom, still preserved in many
parts of the Liturgy, of praying erect, of not kneeling on Sundays,
and of genuflecting on entering the church or place where God’s
glory dwells. The practice of fasting, and of other corporal
austerities, is also inculcated; and while in the 102nd and 106th
strophes, Sundays and festivals are exempted from the law of
fasting, the fast of Lent (strophes 105, 109, and following), of
Advent (strophe 111), of two fasting days in each week,
(strophe 110), and of the Quarter Tense (strophe 114), are
specially mentioned. We also find an enumeration of the festivals
as they are celebrated by the Church even at our day; the
Sundays, festivals of the apostles, of noble martyrs, and of all the
saints; the “night of great Christmas”, the Epiphany, when
the star led the wise men to Bethlehem; Easter; “the festivals
of the King of Truth”; Pentecost; and even the festival of the
birth of St. John the Baptist.

On reading over this remarkable document we are struck with
the truth of the remark of the eloquent Ozanam in the chapter
of his work Etudes Germaniques, he has devoted to the “preaching
of the Irish”. He says: “We must not here repeat that
[Pg 180]
accusation so often brought against the Church of Ireland, viz.,
that being instructed in sacred learning from Asia, she rejected
the authority of the Popes; and that in union with the
Culdees of Brittany, her monks preserved their religious independence
in the midst of the universal spiritual bondage of the
middle ages. If the founders of Irish monasteries, in the provisions
and very terms of their rules, often recall to mind the institutions
of the east, it was at Lerins and in the writings of
Cassian they learned them. It was from Rome that Patrick
received his mission; from Rome he received the language of
his liturgy, the dogmas he taught, and the religious observances
he propagated. Run over all that remains of these first centuries
(of the Irish Church), the decrees of national synods, the penitentials,
the legends: you will find in them everything which
the enemies of Rome have rejected; the Eucharistic Sacrifice,
the invocation of saints, prayers for the dead, the practice of
confession, of fasting, and of abstinence. The differences between
her and the Churches of the continent are reducible to
three points: the form of the tonsure, some of the minor ceremonies
of baptism, and the time of keeping Easter, and these
slight differences disappeared when the Fathers of the Council
of Lene (A.D. 630), ‘having had recourse’, as they tell us, ‘to
the chief of Christian cities, as children to their mother‘, adopted
the customs of the rest of Christendom. The religious communities
of Ireland were not, then, the jealous guardians of some
unheard-of heterodox Christianity. They were the colonies and
(as it were) the out-posts of Latin civilization. They maintained
learning as well as faith, and their schools imitated the Roman
schools in Gaul, whence had come forth the bright luminaries of
the Church, Honoratus, Cassian, Salvian, and Sulpicius Severus”.

How beautiful is the description of one of these monastic
rules, that of Benchor, found in the ancient Antiphonary of that
monastery, published by Muratori, and quoted by the same
distinguished writer:—

After giving this glowing picture of the monasteries of Ireland
[Pg 181]
we are not surprised to find this same learned writer exclaiming,
“That the monastic race of the ages of barbarism, the missionary
race destined to bear aloft the light of faith and learning
amidst the increasing darkness of the west, was the Irish people,
whose misfortunes are better known than the great services they
rendered to European civilization, and whose wonderful vocation
has never been studied as it deserves”.

In a future number we hope to enter again upon this most
interesting subject, when reviewing a valuable contribution just
given to our national literature by the learned Dr. Reeves on
the Culdees of the British Isles.

ASSOCIATION OF ST. PETER’S PENCE,
DUBLIN.

This association was founded in the end of the year 1861, by
the pious Catholics of Dublin, for the purpose of aiding the
Pope in the distress and difficulties to which he has been reduced
by the perfidy and violence of the Sardinian Government and
other enemies of the Church of God.

Since its foundation, three years ago, this association has forwarded
to Rome the sums of which we publish the annexed
account. In a preceding collection, made on the first Sunday of
Lent, 1861, about eighteen thousand pounds were contributed
in Dublin, to which we do not refer on the present occasion.

All we shall now say is, that the generosity of the faithful of
Dublin, and their anxiety to assist the Pope, supply the best
proofs of the vitality and strength of their faith.

The Pope is the common father of all, the Chief Pastor of the
Church of God, the Vicegerent of Christ, the inheritor of the
dignity and office of St. Peter. He is the servant of the servants
of God, obliged to toil incessantly for the welfare of the Church
and the salvation of souls. Were the benign influence of the
Popes destroyed, the Church would split into factions, and unity
and Catholicity would cease to distinguish it.

Whilst the successor of St. Peter has the claims of a father and
of a pastor, and so many other claims on his children and spiritual
subjects, those who look with indifference on his afflictions
or who rejoice when he is plundered by his enemies, are liable to
the charge of want of filial affection, of gratitude, and indeed of
a proper spirit of religion.

It is a consolation to know that the Catholics of almost every
country and every diocese of the world have proved themselves
worthy of their calling, and made great exertions to relieve the
Pope. France, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Ireland, and even the
[Pg 182]
oppressed and persecuted Catholics of Sardinia, have done their
duty most nobly. The consequence is, that by the aid of the
alms of the faithful, the Pope is able to meet his engagements,
and continue uninterruptedly the administration of the affairs of
the Universal Church. And he is powerful in his weakness. At
the same time, the excommunicated King of Sardinia and his
ministers, notwithstanding the robberies they have committed,
find their hands and their treasury quite empty, and must soon
terminate in a state of public bankruptcy.

It is evident that our Divine Redeemer watches over the Holy
See, and defeats all the assaults of the powers of darkness that
are directed against it. It is Heaven that inspires the Catholics
of the world to institute associations for the relief of the Vicar of
Christ on earth, and to aid in bringing about the triumph of
truth over error, and of light over darkness. Ireland, we trust,
will always be ready to assist the good cause even from the
depths of her poverty. The few who sneer at the sufferings of
their father, and refuse him sympathy and relief, are unworthy
of the name of Irish Catholics; they are degenerate children of
forefathers who died rather than renounce their attachment to
the See of Peter.

POLAND.

His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin has honoured us by addressing
to us the following letter:—

LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.

One of the objects which the founders of the Irish Ecclesiastical
Record had proposed to themselves from the very
beginning of their undertaking was to offer to the Irish clergy in
its pages an appropriate place for the discussion of liturgical questions.
They judged that they could not better recommend this
object to their readers than by laying before them a sample of the
actual working of the liturgical department of an ecclesiastical
periodical of long standing and renown. With this view it was
resolved to insert in our early numbers some of the questions
which from time to time had been asked by French clergymen in
the Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques (edited by the learned Abbé
Bouix), adding in each case the answers given by those charged
with that part of the Review. No official character has ever
been claimed for these answers by their authors, who invariably
give for what they are worth the arguments on which their
answers rest. In the same way the excellent Archivio dell’Ecclesiastico
of Florence devotes every month a portion of its
pages to the liturgical questions which are continually addressed
to the Editor by the clergy of Northern Italy. We are happy
to announce to-day that several distinguished ecclesiastics who
have devoted much time and study to liturgical pursuits have
undertaken to attend to any similar questions that may be addressed
to the Record by the clergy of Ireland. Following the
custom of the periodicals just mentioned, all information shall
be withheld concerning the sources whence the questions have
come, except where publicity is expressly desired. Every
question with which we may be honoured, shall be carefully attended
to. We hope that every priest will assist us in this effort
to make the Irish Ecclesiastical Record a work of practical
benefit to the clergy of Ireland.

We give to-day a collection of the decrees of the S. Congregation
of Rites on various points of the Rubrics of the Missal.
[Pg 187]
We extract them from the first Ratisbon edition of the Manuale
Ordinandorum, March 1842. In order that the words of each
decree of the S. Congregation may be distinguished from those
of the editors, the former are printed in Italics.

EX DECRETIS S. RITUUM CONGREGATIONIS.

Ad § II. De ingressu sacerdotis ad altare.

1. Acolythus aut alius accendens cereos ante Missam, aut ante
aliam sacram functionem, incipere debet a cereis qui sunt a cornu
evangelii, quippe nobiliori parte. 12 Aug. 1253 (Anal. II. p.
2201).

2. Non licet sacerdotibus deferre manutergium supra calicem
tam eundo quam redeundo ab altari. 1 Sept. 1703 in u. Pisaur.

3. Sacerdos pergens ad celebrandum et calicem manu sinistra
portans, ad ianuam sacristiae signet se, si commode fieri potest,
aqua benedicta; sin minus, se abstineat. 27 Mart. 1779 in u.
Ord. Min. ad 14.

4. Si sacristia est post altare, a sacristia ad illud e sinistra
egrediendum, a dextera ad illam accedendum. 12 Aug. 1854 in
u. Brioc. ad 17.

5. Sacerdos Missam celebraturus transiens ante altare, ubi fit
populi Communio, non debet permanere genuflexus, quousque
terminetur Communio. 5 Jul. 1698 in u. Collen. ad 17.—In
quaestione: quomodo se gerere debeat sacerdos celebraturus, dum
transit ante altare, in quo sit publice expositum Ss. Sacramentum?
An post factam genuflexionem detecto capite, surgens debeat
caput tegere, donec ad altare pervenerit? an vero detecto capite
iter prosequi ob reverentiam tanti Sacramenti sic publice expositi,
cum rubrica Missalis Romani non videatur loqui de hac praecisa
adoratione in casu de quo agitur? servandae sunt rubricae Missalis
Romani, quae videntur innuere, quod post factam adorationem
genibus flexis, detecto capite, surgens caput operiat. 24
Jul. 1638 in u. Urb.

6. Tam in ingressu Sacerdotis ad altare, quam ante principium
Missae, reverentia Sacerdotis debet esse profunda capitis et corporis,
non capitis tantum, inclinatio, juxta rubricam 8. April.
1808. in u. Compostell. ad 5.—In accessu ad altare, in quo habetur
Ss. Sacramentum, sive expositum, sive in tabernaculo reconditum
et in recessu, in plano est genuflectendum; in infimo autem
gradu altaris, quoties (alias ante altare) genuflectere occurrat (e. g.
in principio Missae). 12. Nov. 1831 in u Mars. ad 51.—Inter
Missam privatam a ministro in transitu tantum ante medium
altaris genuflectendum, (si Ss. Sacramentum inclusum est in
tabernaculo), vel inclinandum. 12. Aug. 1854 ad 70 et 71 (Anal.
II. 2200).

7. Si multae sunt particulae consecrandae, satius est eas ponere
[Pg 188]
in pixide;[7] si paucae poni possunt in alia patena; nunquam
vero in alio Corporali complicato. 12. Aug. 1854 ad 19 (Anal.
II. p. 2192)

8. In Missis privatis non potest permitti ministro aperire
Missale et invenire Missam; et serventur rubricae. 7. Sept. 1816
in u. Tuden. ad 11; neque potest permitti ministro, si fuerit
sacerdos vel diaconus sive subdiaconus, ut praeparet calicem, et
ipsum extergat in fine post ablutiones. Ibid. ad 12.

Ad § III. De principio Missae et Confessione facienda.

In Missa dicendum est Confiteor pure et simpliciter, prout habetur
in Missali Romano, absque additione alicujus Sancti etiam
Patroni, nisi adsit speciale indultum Apostolicae Sedis. 13.
Febr. 1666 in u. Ord. Min. ad 5; Jul. 1704 in u. Valent.

Ad § IV. De Introitu, Kyrie, et Gloria.

In quaestione: an post signum crucis, quod fit in fine “Gloria
in excelsis”, “Credo” et “Sanctus” manus sint jungendae,
etiamsi nihil hujusmodi praescribat rubrica? serventur rubricae,
12. Nov. 1831 in u. Mars. ad 30.

Ad § V. De Oratione.

Congruit, ut fert praxis universalis, praesertim Urbis, quod
fiat inclinatio capitis, cum pronunciatur nomen Ss. Trinitatis,
sicut fit, cum profertur nomen Jesus. 7. Sept. 1816 in u.
Tuden. ad 40.

Ad § VI. De Epistola usque ad Offertorium.

1. Juxta rubricas in elevatione oculorum crux est aspicienda.
22. Jul. 1848 in u. Adiacen. ad. 3.

2. Manus sinistra poni debet super missale ad Evangelium,
cum dextera fit signum crucis super ipsum. 7. Sept. 1816 in u.
Tuden. ad 25.

3. In Missis privatis ad verba “Et incarnatus est”, Celebrans
genuflectere debet unico genu. 22. Aug. 1818 in u. Hispal. ad
10.

Ad § VII. De Offertorio usque ad Canonem.

1. In dubio: an in Missa privata, quando minister non est
superpelliceo indutus, debeat eum, lecto Offertorio a Celebrante,
ad altare ascendere, accipere et plicare velum calicis, vel hic ritus
reservari debeat ministris superpelliceo indutis vel etiam Celebrans
ipse debeat plicare velum et super altare ponere? servanda
est consuetudo. 12. Aug. 1854 ad 69 (Anal. II. p. 2200).

2. In quaestione: utrum parvi cochlearis pro aqua in calicem
[Pg 189]
infundenda usus sit omnibus licitus? servanda est rubrica. 7.
Sept. 1850 in u. Rupel. ad 13.

3. Praxis extergendi calicem cum purificatorio ad abstergendas
guttas vini adhaerentes lateribus interioribus cuppae calicis,
quae aliquando resiliunt, dum praeparatur ipsemet calix, magis
congruit et summopere laudabilis est. 7. Sept. 1816 in u. Tuden.
ad 28.—Relinqui vero potest Sacerdotis arbitrio utrum purificatorium
ponere velit super pedem calicis dum praeparatur (vinum
ad offertorium infunditur), vel potius super patenam. Ibid. ad 29.

4. Oratio “Deus qui humanae” incipienda est a sacerdote
eodem momento, quo benedicit aquam; non vero prius aqua
benedicatur nihil dicendo, atque tunc demum, facto signo crucis,
illa oratio incipiatur. 12. Aug. 1854 ad d. 25. (Anal. Jur.
Pontif. II. p. 2193).

5. Cruces quæ fiunt super oblata a sacerdote, non debent fieri
manu transversa sed manu recta. 4. Aug. 1663 in u. Dalmat.
ad 4.—In benedictionibus congruentior juxta rubricas et ritum
videtur modus benedicendi manu recta, et digitis simul unitis et
extensis. 24. Jun. 1683 in u. Abling. ad 6.

6. Congruit, ut fert praxis universalis, praesertim Urbis, quod
fiat inclinatio capitis in fine Psalmi “Lavabo” (ad “Gloria
Patri”), qui dicitur in Missa, sicut praescribitur in principio
Missae. 7. Sept. 1816 in u. Tuden. ad 37.

Ad § VIII. De Canone usque ad Consecrationem.

1. Ad quaestionem: an Sacerdos dicere debeat “Te igitur”
in principio Canonis, dum elevat manus et oculos; vel incipere
debeat, dum est jam in profundo inclinatus? servanda est rubrica
de ritu servando in celebratione Missae tit. 8, num. 1, et altera
Canoni praefixa. 7. Sept. 1816 in u. Tuden. ad 33.

2. Omnes sacerdotes celebrantes, dum in Canone Missae
Papam nominant, debent juxta rubricam caput inclinare. 23.
Mai 1846 in u. Tuden. ad 6.

3. In Canone nomine Antistitis non sunt nominandi superiores
Regularium 13. Febr. 1666 in decret. ad Missal. ad 11.—Ii Religiosi,
qui, Antistitis nomine tacito, ejus loco in precibus sive in
Canone suae Religionis Superiorem nominant, contra caritatem
faciunt. 12. Nov. 1605 in u. Ulixbon.—In Canone et in Collectis
omnino, facienda est mentio de Episcopo etiam ab exemptis
25. Sept. 1649 in u. Tornac. ad 6.

4. Debet Sacerdos pronuncians in Canone Missae nomen
alicujus Sancti, de quo factum est Officium, vel saltem Commemoratio,
facere inclinationem capitis. 7. Sep. 1816 in u.
Tuden. ad 34—Nomen S. Joseph Sponsi B. M. V. non potest
addi in Canone. Permittitur vero hujus nominis additio in
Collecta “A cunctis”. 17. Sep. 1815 in u. Urbis et Orbis.

[Pg 190]
5. A “Hanc igitur oblationem” manus sacerdotis ita debent
extendi, ut palmae sint apertae, pollice dextero super sinistrum
in modum crucis supra manus posito. 4. Aug. 1663 in u. Dalmat.
ad 5.

[THE REMAINDER IN OUR NEXT.]

DOCUMENTS.

I.
PLENARY INDULGENCE IN ARTICULO MORTIS.

The experience of Catholics proves that nothing tends more
effectually to promote practices of piety and to enkindle a religious
spirit, than the doctrine of the Catholic Church regarding
indulgences. Take, for example, the case of a plenary indulgence.
How many penitential and meritorious works are required
to secure a participation in so precious a treasure? The person
wishing to gain an indulgence of this kind must diligently examine
his conscience, excite himself to contrition for his sins,
make an humble confession, and perform some penitential work
in reparation for the past. Besides, the holy Sacrament of the
altar must be worthily received, prayers recited for a pious purpose,
and some work of charity or religion performed.

Considering the good thus done, the Church grants plenary indulgences
to the faithful on many festivals; but she is never so
liberal in dispensing her treasures, as when there is question of
persons in immediate danger of death. When that dreadful
moment arrives, as on it depends our fate for all eternity, reserved
cases are no longer maintained, and all priests are allowed
to absolve from every censure. For the consolation also of the
dying, and to promote their spiritual welfare, every facility is
granted for the obtaining of plenary indulgences.

Benedict XIV. treats at great length of this important matter
in a Bull which commences “Pia mater”, published on the
5th April, 1747. To each bishop who has once obtained
from the Holy See the privilege of imparting indulgences in
articulo mortis, he grants the power of communicating the same
faculty to such priests subject to his jurisdiction as he may desire.
In a rescript of the Propaganda, dated 5th April, 1772,
Clement XIV. extends that privilege very considerably for all
[Pg 191]
countries where Catholics live mixed up with persons of other
religious denominations; and when it happens that no priest can
be found to grant the indulgence in the usual form, his Holiness,
in the abundance of his charity, grants a plenary indulgence to
all who invoke the holy name of Jesus at least in their heart,
and who with Christian humility and resignation receive death
from the hand of God, commending their souls into the hands
of their Creator.

In order that the valuable privilege granted to the prelates of
the Church and to the faithful in general may be known to all,
we publish the rescript of Clement XIV., as it is found in Dr.
Burke’s Hibernia Dominicana, Appendix, page 936:—

[Pg 192]

II.
THE STATIONS OF THE CROSS FOR THE SICK.

The Holy See has long since granted to the general, the
provincials and guardians of the Franciscan order, the faculty of
blessing crucifixes, to enable sick persons, prisoners, and others,
unable for lawful reasons to make the stations of the cross, to
gain all the indulgences of the said stations.

Such persons have only to recite twenty times, the Pater,
Ave, and Gloria, before the cross thus blessed, and which they
are required to hold in their hands during these prayers.

Pius IX. in the following brief extends this faculty to those
who in the Franciscan convents take the place of the guardians,
when these latter for any reason are called away from home.

III.
LETTER OF CARD. PATRIZI TO THE BISHOPS
OF BELGIUM, ON SOME DOCTRINES TAUGHT
AT LOUVAIN.

Illustrissime ac Reverendissime Domine uti Frater,

Quum non levis momenti sit pluribus ab hinc annis istis in regionibus
agitata quaestio circa doctrinam a nonnullis Universitatis Lovaniensis
doctoribus traditam de vi nativa humanae rationis, Sanctissimus
D. N. qui in Apostolicae Sedis fastigio positus advigilare pro suo munere
debet, ne qua minus recta doctrina diffundatur, quaestionem illam
examinandam commisit duobus S. R. E. Cardinalium conciliis, tum S.
Officii tum Indicis. Jam vero cum esset hujusmodi examen instituendum,
prae oculis habitae sunt resolutiones quae sacrum idem concilium
Indicis edidit, jam inde ab annis 1843 et 1844, posteaquam ad illius
judicium delata sunt opera Gerardi Ubaghs in Lov. Univ. doctoris decurialis,
in primisque tractatus logicae ac theodiceae. Etenim sacer
ille consessus mature adhibita deliberatione duobus in conventibus
habitis die 23 mens. Jun. An. 1843, ac die 8 Aug. an. 1844, emendandas
indicavit expositas tam in logica quam in theodicea doctrinas de
humanarum cognitionum origine sive ordinem metaphysicum spectent
sive moralem, et illarum praesertim quae Dei existentiam respiciant.
Id sane constat ex duobus notationum foliis, quae ex ejusdem sacri
consessus sententia Gregorii XVI. SS. PP. auctoritate confirmata ad
Emum. Card. archiep. Mechliniensem per Nuntiaturam Apost. transmissa
fuerunt, monendi causa auctorem operis—ut nova aliqua editione
librum suum emendandum curet, atque interim in scholasticis suis
lectionibus ab iis sententiis docendis abstinere velit.—Quae duo notationum
folia, modo res spectetur, simillima omnino sunt; si namque
in folio posteriori aliqua facta est specie tenus immutatio, id ex eo repetendum
est, quod auctor accepto priori folio libellum die 8 Dec. an.
1843, Emo. Archiepiscopo tradidit, quo libello doctrinae suae rationem
[Pg 194]
explicare atque ab omni erroris suspicione purgare nitebatur. Quem
sane libellum, licet idem Emorum. Patrum concilium accurate perpendisset,
minime tamen a sententia discessit, atque adeo tractatus illos
ac nominatim tractatum de Theodicea, qui typis impressi in omnium
versabantur manibus, atque in Universitate aliisque scholis publice
explicabantur, corrigendos judicavit. Fatendum quidem est, post
annum 1844 nonnullos intervenisse actus, quibus praedicto Lov.
doctori laus tribuebatur, perinde ac si in posterioribus sui operis editionibus
sacri consessus voto ac sententiae paruisset, sed tamen uti
firmum ratumque est bina illa notationum folia post sacri ejusdem
concilii sententiam SS. P. auctoritate comprobatam fuisse conscripta,
ita pariter certum est, posteriores illos actus haudquaquam S. consessus,
multoque minus SS. P. continere sententiam, quod quidem
actus illos legentibus videre licet. Quae quum ita sint, necessarium
investigare ac perpendere visum est, num memoratus Lov. doctor in
editionibus logicae ac theodiceae, quas post diem 8 mens. Aug. an
1844 confecit, accurate sit exsequutus quod a S. Concilio libris notandis
inculcatum ei fuit in memoratis notationum foliis per Card. archiepiscopum
eidem auctori transmissis. Hujusmodi porro instituto examine
rebusque diu multum ponderatis, memorati cardinales tum qui
S. Inquisitioni tum qui libris notandis praepositi sunt, conventu habito
die 21 sept. proxime praeteriti judicarunt recentes eorumdem tractatuum
editiones minime fuisse emendatas juxtas praedicti sacri consessus notationes,
in iisque adhuc reperiri ea doctrinae principia quae uti praescriptum
fuerat, corrigere oportebat.

Quod quidem auctor ipse recenti in epistola ad Emum. Card. Ludovicum
Altieri praef. S. C. libris notandis missa aperte fatetur. Scribit
enim quatuor adhuc se publicasse theodiceae editiones, 1^o nimirum an.
1844, quae primitus subjecta est S. Sedis judicio; 2^o an. 1845, typis
impressam haud ita multo post notationes a S. Card. consessu propositas.
Utraque vero editio, quemadmodum suis ipse verbis fatetur
auctor, similes prorsus sunt, idem capitum, paragraphorum et paginarum
numerus, eaedem locutiones; hoc solum differunt, quod secunda editio
aliquot diversi generis notas et paucas phrases incidentes continet, quae
simul paginas forte duodecim implere possint. Editiones vero, ut ipse
prosequitur, tertia an. 1852, et quarta an. 1863, etiam in se similes sunt
et a praecedentibus, si formam exteriorem, non doctrinam spectes, multum
differunt. Ad logicam porro quod spectat, cum illius tractatum iterum
typis mandavit, post acceptas S. consessus notationes haec in praefatione
significavit: Quantuncumque scripta immutaverim, nunquam
minime recedendum esse duxi a principiis, quae in primis editionibus assumpseram,
quae tamen repudiare vel mutare me non puderet, si illa falsa
vel minus recta esse quisquam ostendisset.—Hinc pariter memorati Cardinales
judicarunt, exsequendum ab auctore esse quod minime adhuc
praestitit, nimirum emendandam illi esse expositam doctrinam in
cunctis iis locis seu capitibus quae S. consessus librorum notandorum
judex minus probavit, juxta notationes in supradictis duobus foliis
comprehensas et peculiariter in primo, utpote quod rem apertius ac distinctius
explicat. Ex quo tamen haudquaquam intelligendum est
[Pg 195]
probari doctrinas reliquas, quae in recentioribus operum praedictorum
editionibus continentur. Hanc porro Emorum. Patrum sententiam
SSmus. D. N. Pius IX. auctoritate sua ratam habuit et confirmavit.

Quae cum ita se habeant, dum Emus. Car. Mechliniensis juxta demandatas
ei partes memoratum doctorem Gerardum Casimirum Ubaghs
admonebit officii sui eique vehementius inculcabit, ut doctrinam
suam ad exhibitas S. consessus notationes omnino componat, erit
vigilantiae tuique studii pastoralis una cum archiepiscopo aliisque suffraganeis
episcopis omnem dare operam ut hujusmodi Emorum. Patrum
sententia executioni nulla interjecta mora mandetur, neque in ista
Lovan. Universitate, quae ab Archiep. Mechl. et suffrag. antistitum
auctoritate pendet, neque in seminariorum scholis aliisque lyceis illae
amplius explicentur doctrinae, quae uti primum ad Apost. Sedis judicium
delatae fuerunt, visae sunt a scholis catholicis amandandae.

Haec significanda mihi erant Emorum. Patrum nomine Amplitudini
Tuae cui fausta omnia ac felicia precor a Domino.

Amplitudinis Tuae
Addictissimus uti Frater,
C. Card. Patrizi.

Romae d. 11 Oct., 1864.

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

I.

The vast erudition which has made the name of Cardinal
Mai for ever illustrious in the history of ecclesiastical literature,
reappears in Cardinal Pitra, whom the wisdom of Pius IX. has
lately called to be honoured by, and to do honour to, the
Roman purple. The book before us is worthy of the reputation
of the learned Benedictine, to whom we owe the Spicilegium
Solesmense, and in whose person the best glories of
the Maurini Editores have been revived. As the title imports,
the volume is divided into two parts, one being devoted to the
monuments, the other to the history, of the Greek ecclesiastical
law. Of these monuments there are two distinct classes. The
first contains all such as may be styled juris apostolici, viz., the
canons of the apostles, their constitutions de mystico ministerio,
their sentences, the acts of the council of Antioch, select portions
[Pg 196]
of the apostolic constitutions, penitential canons, and the eight
books of the constitutions. The second embraces the canons of
councils held during the fourth and fifth centuries—the councils
of Nice, of Ancyra, of Neo-Caesarea, of Gangre, of Constantinople,
of Ephesus, and of Chalcedon. Next follow the canonical
epistles of the Fathers—viz., two letters of St. Dionysius of
Alexandria, one to Basilides, the second to Conon, which latter
is here published for the first time. The canons of St. Peter of
Alexandria, derived from two sermons on Pentecost and Easter;
the canonical letter of St. Gregory of Neo-Caesarea, and his exposition
of faith; three epistles of St. Athanasius; the epistles of
St. Basil the Great to Amphilochius, to Gregory the Priest, to the
chor episcopi, and to the bishops; the epistle of St. Gregory of
Nyssa to Letorius; the canonical replies of Timothy of Alexandria;
the edict of Theophilus of Alexandria, concerning the
Theophaniæ; the commonitorium to Ammon; the declaration
concerning the Cathari, and his replies to the bishops Agatho
and Menas, all by the same Theophilus; the three letters of St.
Cyril of Alexandria, to Domnus, Maximus, and Gennadius; and
finally, two catalogues of the inspired books, drawn up in verse
by St. Gregory Nazianzen. These precious monuments are
given both in their original language and in a Latin version.
The text of the original is as perfect as a patient collation of
MSS. and editions could make it, and the translation which accompanies
it, is either the best already known, or a new one made
by the eminent author. The notes are all that can be desired.

The history of Greek Ecclesiastical law is divided by the author
into five periods. The first extends from the first to the
sixth century; the second, from Justinian to Basil the Macedonian;
the third, from the ninth to the twelfth century; the
fourth, to the fall of the Empire; the fifth, to our own day. In
the first epoch Ecclesiastical jurisprudence was in a most flourishing
condition. In the following periods it lost its vigour,
owing to the loss of the sacerdotal spirit among the bishops who
sought favour at court, to the craft of the civil lawyers, to imperial
tyranny, and at last to the Ottoman yoke. The method
to be pursued in tracing the history of Greek Ecclesiastical law,
according to our author, is to examine in each of these epochs,
first, the canons in detail; next, the collections of canons; and
finally, the interpretations and comments made upon them.

The volume is furthermore enriched by copious indexes of
MSS. editions and libraries, and by a collection of the most
striking passages of the Fathers and Councils which prove the
primacy of the Apostolic See.

[Pg 197]

II.

This little work so unpretending in appearance comes before us
honoured with an approbation which the most splendid volumes
might be proud to deserve. The preachers of the Lenten sermons
in Rome are accustomed to assemble at the commencement of that
season in one of the halls of the Vatican to receive from the Holy
Father, together with his blessing, their commission to preach the
Word of God. On occasion of this ceremony before the Lent
of 1861, Pius IX. distributed with his own hand to each of the
preachers a copy of the Italian translation of the work under notice,
saying: “This little book, which has come to us from France, has
already done a great deal of good; it ought to be given to every
child who makes his first communion. Every parish priest
ought to have it, for it contains the true rules about communion,
such as the Council of Trent understands them, and such as
I wish to be put in practice“. Besides, in an Apostolic Brief,
dated 29th September, 1860, the Holy Father approves of
the doctrine which serves as the foundation of all the rules laid
down by the author concerning frequent communion. The leading
principle of the work is this: that Holy Communion is not a
recompense for sanctity already acquired, but a means of preserving
and of augmenting grace, and thereby of arriving at sanctity.
Holy Communion, therefore, should be an ordinary and habitual
act of the Christian life, and frequent communion should be the
rule of the good Christian’s conduct. There are, however, some
important distinctions to be made. To go to communion every
day, or almost every day, or three or four times a week, is frequent
communion in its absolute sense, and frequent with respect to
every class of person. To go to communion every Sunday and
Holiday, a practice indirectly recommended to all by the Council
of Trent, is not frequent communion for priests, members of religious
orders, ecclesiastical students, or in general for such as aim
at perfection; but it is frequent communion for children and for
the mass of the faithful, who have but scanty leisure to devote to
pious exercises. To communicate every month and on the great
festivals, is not frequent communion at all, even for the poor and
the labouring class. It is, no doubt, an excellent practice, and
to be recommended to all, but it cannot be called frequent communion.

These principles once laid down and proved by the authority
of Councils and Fathers, M. de Segur proceeds to give a plain
and convincing reply to the difficulties urged by those who,
[Pg 198]
having the dispositions required for frequent communion, are
unwilling to permit it to themselves or to others. Of such difficulties
he examines fifteen, which we here enumerate, in
order that the eminently practical character of the book may
be apparent to all: 1. To go frequently to communion, I
ought to be better than I am; 2. I am not worthy to come
so close to God; 3. Communion, when frequent, produces no
effect; 4. I don’t like to grow too familiar with holy things;
5. I am afraid to go to communion without first going to confession,
and I cannot go to confession so often; 6. It is
bad to go to communion without preparation, and I have no
time to prepare myself as I ought; 7. I do not feel any fervour
when I communicate; I am full of distraction and without devotion;
8. I do not dare to communicate often; I always relapse
into the same faults; 9. I am afraid of surprising and scandalizing
my acquaintances by going so often to Communion; 10. My
family will be displeased if I become a frequent communicant;
11. I know many pious persons who communicate but seldom;
12. I am most anxious to communicate frequently, but my confessor
will not allow me; 13. Frequent communion is not the
custom in this country; 14. It is quite enough to go to communion
on the great festivals, or at most once a month; 15.
Your doctrine on frequent communion goes to extremes, and
cannot be put in practice. These objections are solved in a
manner at once convincing and pleasing. To the charm of a
most agreeable style, and a great knowledge of the world of to-day,
Mgr. de Segur unites the still higher excellence of sound
learning and the spirit of the most tender piety. These qualities
are especially remarkable in the sections which, at the end of
his work, he devotes to prove how beneficial frequent communion
is to children, to young persons, to Ecclesiastical students,
and to the sick and afflicted.

It will serve as a further recommendation of this little book to
know that the Curé of Ars, who was an intimate friend of Mgr.
de Segur, acted according to its maxims in the discharge of his
ministry, and with what abundance of good to souls, France
and the world well know.

III.

The society at the inauguration of which this address was delivered,
owes its origin to the zeal of some excellent young priests
of the diocese of New York. They founded it that they might
[Pg 199]
have in it at once a help and an incentive to keep up amid
the labours of the mission that acquaintance with theology
which they had cultivated in college. At each of the monthly
meetings of the society two dissertations are read on some subject
of Dogmatic Theology; and by the prudent advice of Dr.
M’Closkey, the new Archbishop of New York, the discussion of
a moral case has been added on each occasion. It speaks well for
the sacerdotal spirit of the American clergy, that we can find
flourishing among them this and similar associations, created by
themselves and conducted with so much vigour and judgment.
The New York Theological Society deserves from the priests of
Ireland the highest praise these latter can bestow—the praise
which consists in the imitation of what we admire. The range
fixed for the society’s labours naturally suggested to Dr. Cummings
the subject of his inaugural discourse, and led him to
address himself to the solution of this question: “What are the
distinctive features of religious controversy as it occupies the
public mind in our own age and country?” Among the distinctive
features of American controversy he places the fact that the
old political differences which ranged Protestants against Catholics
in Europe have no real life or significance beyond the
Atlantic. The Englishman’s dread of Catholicism as a foreignism
has no hold on the mind of an intelligent American. No
doubt, there is even in American Protestants much bitterness
against the Catholic Church, but it is merely the same spirit of
opposition to lawful authority which ever has been and ever will
continue to be in the world. But, with all his freedom of
thought, there is in the case of the inquiring American a great
difficulty to overcome.

Seeking thus the Kingdom of God, the Catholic priests of
America will find that through their labours God has added
unto their country all good things even in the temporal order.
The Church in America is exhibiting every day more clearly
her wondrous power as the civilizer of the nations. This is in
no wise surprising to us who know her: but it is cheering to
learn from such an authority as Dr. Cummings, that even those
who are not her children are beginning to follow with reverent
looks the traces she leaves in society by her influence on the
hearts of men.

IV.

Even the nettle has its flower; and Lord Clancarty’s pamphlet,
bristling as it is with stinging points against the Catholic religion,
is not without something to recommend it. The author says
of the Catholic Church that, “while she was the depository of
learning, and especially of the sacred writings, she neither furthered
the interests of science, nor disseminated the knowledge
of God’s written word”, and in the same breath he calls upon the
state to countenance the Catholic University, “for which so ardent,
and it must be admitted so legitimate, a desire is manifested
by the Roman Catholic body”. He raises, and satisfactorily disposes
of, all the arguments that can be brought against the grant
of a charter to the University. It is not the first time that lips
opened to utter hard things against God’s people have been made
to become the vehicle of good wishes towards the same.