Judge Keogh And Catholic
Doctrines.

We have read the
address of Mr. Justice Keogh1 with
feelings of surprise and sorrow. It is un-Catholic in its language,
it is un-Catholic in its spirit, it is un-Catholic in its principles.
If it had come from a member of a hostile sect, we could well afford
to let it pass unnoticed; to let it live its short life, and die a
natural death. But when the calumnies, the sneers, the sarcasms of
our enemies are turned against us by one who is enrolled under the
banner of Catholic faith, we can no longer remain silent in safety.
The weapons which are powerless in the hands of a declared enemy, are
dangerous indeed when they are wielded by a traitor in the camp.

Mr. Justice Keogh
is no ordinary man. His mind is adorned with talents well fitted to
amuse, to delight, to instruct an audience. In his short but
brilliant career as an orator and a statesman, he won for himself a
great name at the bar and in the senate. And now he is lifted up
above his fellows, and placed in a position of high trust and
extensive influence. When such a man comes forward, with forethought
and preparation, as one of the instructors of the age, he is a
conspicuous object of interest and attraction. He is looked upon, by
those who are not acquainted with his antecedents, as the exponent of
Catholic views, the representative of Catholic intelligence and
education. We are therefore compelled, in self-defence, to declare
that the opinions he has expressed are not the opinions of the
Catholic Church, and the language he has thought fit to use cannot be
regarded, by the Catholic people of Ireland, but as offensive and
insulting.

His lecture
contains little originality of thought or novelty of [pg 450] argument. It does but reflect the spirit
of the age in which we live. The opinions and the views which it sets
forth have long been familiar to our ears: they pervade the shallow
current literature of England, of Germany, of Italy, of France.
Intellectual freedom, unbounded, unrestrained; freedom of thought in
the search after truth, without any regard to authority; freedom of
speech in the circulation of every view and opinion; freedom to pull
down old theories, freedom to build up new theories; freedom to roam
at large without any guide over the vast fields of speculation,
adopting that which private judgment commends, rejecting that which
human reason disapproves; these are the popular dogmas of the present
day; and these are the topics which Mr. Justice Keogh proposes to
illustrate and to enforce by the life and writings of our great
English poet.

Now, we are not
the enemies of freedom. The Catholic Church is not the enemy of
freedom. But we should expect that one who comes forward to enlighten
the world on this important subject, would tell us how far
human reason is to be left without restraint in the search after
truth. It is easy to talk of intolerance, persecution, narrow-minded
bigotry; but these words have no meaning unless we first clearly
understand what that freedom is—in thought, in word, in action—which
is the natural right of all men; which it is intolerance to deny,
which it is tyranny to extinguish. First of all, if the fact of a
Divine Revelation be once admitted, it is clear that human reason is
not exempt from all restraint: it must be controlled
at least by the Word of God. We are surely bound to believe what God
has taught: and when reason would lead us to conclusions contrary to
His teaching, as may sometimes happen, we are bound to check our
reason and to abandon those conclusions. For, reason may be
deceived, but God can not. This is what we understand by
the words of St. Paul when he speaks of “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the
obedience of Christ”—II. Cor., x. 5.

With this
preliminary remark we shall now submit to our readers the opinions of
Mr. Justice Keogh:—

We do not propose
to offer any remarks on the subject of political liberty. But the
principles here enunciated are of universal application. Milton waged
the “successful war” of freedom not
less in matters of religion than in matters of state. And Mr. Justice
Keogh adopts his principles without any limitation. He asserts with
Milton “the right of all men to exercise
unrestrained their intellectual faculties upon
all the gifts of God—to determine for themselves what is
truth and what is falsehood”. If we take these words literally
as they stand, they are inconsistent not with the Catholic religion
only, but with every system of Christianity that has ever existed.
Luther, the great champion of intellectual freedom, though he shook
off the yoke of church authority, set up in its stead the authority
of the Bible. Even he was willing to admit that the wanderings of the
human mind should be restricted by the teaching of the Word of God.
It is clearly contrary to the common principles of Christianity to
assert that in metaphysics, in ethics, in psychology, in any human
science, the mind is at liberty to embrace opinions incompatible with
the truths which God has revealed. And if it be not at liberty to do
so, then it is not “unrestrained”.

It may be said,
however, that the author of this address does not really intend to
assert what his words seem to convey. How then are we to guess at his
meaning? He insists upon [pg
452]
“the right of all men to exercise unrestrained their intellectual
faculties” in the pursuit of truth. If he does not mean this,
what does he mean? If he does not wish to
exclude all
restraint on the “intellectual
faculties” of men, what restraint is he willing to admit? Upon
this point there seem to be just two opinions between which he has to
choose: the one is the common doctrine of all Catholics; the other is
the fundamental principle of the Protestant Church. Let us pause for
a moment to examine these two systems.

According to
Catholic faith, our Divine Lord has established in His Church an
infallible tribunal, to pronounce, in matters of religion, what is
true and what is false. Hence, it is never lawful, whether there be
question of religious belief or of human science, to adopt opinions
at variance with the teaching of this infallible tribunal. Here
indeed is a check upon intellectual freedom, but a check which must,
of necessity, be admitted by all who belong to the Catholic Church.
And surely it is no great sacrifice to submit our finite
understanding, so frail and erring, to the authority of God’s Word,
explained by a tribunal which He has Himself established, and to
which He has promised His never-failing help.

Protestants, on
the other hand, maintain the right of each one to interpret for
himself, according to the best of his private judgment, the
Revelation which God has given to man. The liberty of the human mind
is therefore unfettered by any human authority. In this all sects are
agreed. Some, indeed, believe that the Church has authority to teach,
and some reject this opinion; but all maintain that there is no
obligation in conscience to accept her teaching. She has not the gift
of infallibility. Just as individuals may fall into error, so too may
the Church herself fall into error. Her teaching may be true, or it
may be false; each one is to judge for himself. The only check upon
the freedom of thought is the Divine Message sent to us from on High,
and recorded in the pages of Holy Writ.

We maintain, of
course, that the Catholic system which we have just explained is
true, and the Protestant system false. If we were engaged in
controversy with a Protestant, it would be our duty at once to
establish and to defend our doctrine; to demonstrate that the Church
of Christ is infallible, and that the right of private judgment is
contrary alike to the teaching of Scripture and to the dictates of
common sense. But in the case before us, there is no call for proof:
Mr. Justice Keogh is a Catholic. It remains then only to examine if
the language of his address is not calculated to convey an opinion
quite inconsistent with the faith which he professes.

The question we
wish to raise is simply this: “Does the
address [pg 453] before us admit that
the human mind in the pursuit of truth should be restrained by the
authoritative definitions of the Catholic Church, or does it rather
exclude this restraint?” Now, in the first place, it is to be
remembered that this restriction of intellectual freedom is denied by
all Protestants in this country, and maintained by all Catholics.
When a lecturer, then, addressing a mixed audience, in a written
discourse, tells them that “all men have a
right to exercise their intellectual faculties unrestrained”, do not the
circumstances of the case fix upon his words a Protestant
signification? Will not his hearers naturally say that he has chosen
the Protestant side of the controversy, and not the Catholic? Again,
according to the Protestant doctrine, each one is at liberty to
construct a system of religious belief for himself: according to the
Catholic doctrine, every one should accept the tenets of his faith on
the authority of the Church. Now we are told in the address, that all
men have “a right to determine
for themselves what is truth and what is
falsehood”. Has this phraseology a Catholic or a Protestant
complexion? Lastly, the lecturer exhorts his hearers to go themselves
to the pages of Milton, there to learn the doctrine of intellectual
freedom. It will, therefore, naturally be supposed, that the doctrine
is defended by the lecturer in the same sense in which it is defended
by the poet. Now Milton denied again and again, not in his writings
only, but also by his acts, that the Church has any right to
interfere with the speculations of the human mind. It is evident,
therefore, that the language of Mr. Justice Keogh, whether considered
in itself, or understood by the light of the context, is incompatible
with the principles of the Catholic Religion.

Freedom of thought
is not enough: freedom of speech is also an essential dogma of the
new philosophy. We are assured that all men have a right “to circulate their thoughts from one to another, from
land to land, from tribe to tribe, from nation to nation, free as
‘the winds that from four quarters
blow’; to raise their thoughts, and to pour forth their words
above the level of vulgar superstition, unrestricted by any illiberal
or illiterate licenser”. Accordingly, amongst the various
prose works of Milton, there is one which our lecturer selects for
especial commendation. It is entitled: Areopagitica, a Speech
for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing. This little
tract is distinguished, no doubt, for its learning, wit, and
eloquence; but these high qualities are devoted to the defence of
opinions which we cannot accept. The book and its principles are thus
introduced to his audience by Mr. Justice Keogh:

Notwithstanding
this ardent and enthusiastic declaration, we yet think it would be
unfair to impute to the learned lecturer every casual expression or
even every deliberate opinion set forth in the speech he so much
admires. It is, however, clear that he adopts as his own at least the
main features of the doctrine enunciated, and the general character
of the argument by which it is defended. This doctrine may be
explained in two words: unbounded liberty, on the one hand, to
publish and to circulate all manner of opinions; unbounded liberty,
on the other, to read all manner of books. The State, it is
contended, has no right to forbid, or to repress, those publications
which are dangerous to the welfare of society; neither has the Church
a right to forbid or to repress those publications which are hostile
to the spiritual interests of the faithful. These views we believe to
be false and pernicious both as regards the power of the State and
the power of the Church. It is, however, under the latter aspect
alone that we propose to consider the subject.

The pastors of the
Church have received a divine command to guard the integrity of faith
and to watch over the purity of morals. Therefore have they also
received from God that authority which is necessary for the due
fulfilment of this high charge. And such is the authority to prohibit
and, as far as [pg
455] may
be, to repress those publications of which the only tendency is to
introduce error and to disseminate vice. For it is impossible to
preserve truth incorrupt in a community, if error may be circulated
without restriction, dressed up in the delusive garb of sophistry; it
is impossible to preserve morals pure, if vice may be freely
exhibited in the most seductive and alluring forms. A great writer
and a wise philosopher, Samuel Johnson, even though a Protestant, had
the vigour of mind to seize this important principle, which he has
expressed with a singular felicity of diction and an epigrammatic
power peculiarly his own: “If every murmurer
at government”, he says, “may diffuse
discontent, there can be no peace; and if every sceptic in theology
may teach his follies, there can be no religion”.3

We confess indeed
that this is a question full of difficulty to members of the
Protestant Church. They believe that each one has a right to judge
for himself what is true and what is false: and it is not easy to see
how this right can be exercised, unless each one be free to examine
every form of belief, every variety of error. But we are at a loss to
understand how a Catholic should go astray on a subject so plain.
From the earliest ages the Catholic Church has ever claimed and
exercised the right to condemn and prohibit those books which are
contrary to faith and dangerous to morals. Now it would be an error
in doctrine to suppose that the Catholic Church could claim such a
right if she had not received it from her Divine Founder.

If we pass from
the doctrine of Milton to his arguments, we shall have much greater
reason to wonder how it should have come to pass that we are asked,
by a Catholic lecturer, to accept his views. He does not defend the
circulation of bad books as a necessary evil, which it is inexpedient
or impossible to check. On the contrary, he maintains it is a
positive good, which ought to be encouraged. According to his notion,
the promiscuous reading of bad books is the furnace in which our love
for truth and virtue is to be tried. There can be no merit in truth,
he argues, for him who is not acquainted with error; there can be no
merit in virtue for him who is not familiar with vice. These are
sentiments so utterly repugnant to the common instincts of our
nature, that we could not believe they came from our illustrious
poet, if his own words did not bear witness against him:—

We shall offer no
commentary on this passage. Principles like these carry with them
their own condemnation. And yet such are the principles advanced in a
tract, which has made so favourable an impression on Mr. Justice
Keogh, that the oftener he reads it, the more he takes it to his
heart, and which he fondly hopes may make a like
impression on the minds of his audience.

When we are
assured by Mr. Justice Keogh that Milton was “the fast friend of toleration”, we can scarcely
believe that he is serious. Lest, however, our readers should be led
astray, we shall briefly tell them what Milton really
thought and said on the subject of religious
toleration. Towards the close of his life, he wrote a very important
treatise5 in which
he discusses the question, and explains his views with his usual
clearness and force. He maintains in this treatise that all religious
sects are to be tolerated, with one exception; and that exception is
the Roman
Catholic Church. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists,
Socinians, Arminians, in a word, all
Protestants, whatever their religious opinions may be,
should have liberty to preach, to discuss, to worship, unmolested:
but Catholics must not be tolerated; they must not be permitted to
defend their doctrines; they must not be permitted to worship either
in public or in private.6 This, he
contends, is one of the best means to prevent the growth of
Popery.7 Here is
the champion of intellectual liberty that Mr. [pg 457] Justice Keogh would hold up to the
admiration of his audience! Here is “the fast
friend of toleration”, “the staunchest
friend of freedom and truth that ever lived”, the man who
“has made the most successful war against
tyranny and falsehood”! We must charitably suppose that the
learned lecturer has formed his opinion of Milton without reading his
works.

We are told by the
biographers of Milton that his father, who was the son of a zealous
Roman Catholic, abandoned the religion of his ancestors, and was on
that account deprived of his inheritance. The act of apostasy is one
that the Catholic Church can never contemplate without the deepest
sorrow and abhorrence. According to the principles of our faith, he
who separates himself from the one True Church transgresses the
command of God and forfeits his claim to everlasting happiness. Yet,
it would seem, Mr. Justice Keogh finds in this act nothing to
deplore, but much to admire. Speaking of the poet, he says:—

If we understand
these words aright, our author regards with complacency the conduct
of one who renounced the true faith, to embrace a religion which, in
the eyes of all Catholics, is false and heretical. To his mind the
act of apostasy is a sacrifice for conscience’ sake.
This is liberality of sentiment indeed! But it is a liberality of
sentiment which we cannot reconcile with the maxims of sacred
Scripture. Not so did the great apostle speak of those who had
“made shipwreck concerning the faith”.
“Of whom”, he said, “is Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to
Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme”—I. Tim., i.
19. 20. And again: “And their speech
spreadeth like a canker; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have
erred from the truth, saying that the resurrection is past
already”—II. Tim., ii. 17, 18.

Our readers,
perhaps, will not be unwilling to know what was the effect of this
training on the religious principles of Milton. His rich and vigorous
mind was, indeed, a fertile soil. The seed which was sown in the
spring time of youth, did not fail to grow up into a luxuriant tree,
and to bring forth fruit in due season, according to its kind. In the
maturity of life he constructed a system of theology which he
professed to derive from Scripture alone. It is recorded by his own
pen in his treatise De Doctrina Christiana, which,
having been lost for a hundred and fifty years, has come to light
within the present century. The peculiar tenets which he sets forth
in this remarkable book may be briefly told. He defends the
lawfulness of polygamy and divorce; he [pg 458] maintains that matter exists from eternity; he
denies the doctrine of the Trinity; the Son is inferior to the
Father, and produced in time; the Holy Ghost is inferior to the
Father and the Son. An able writer has described “the result of the whole work” as “a system of theology not merely in discordance with the
Church of England, but with every sect by which we are divided; an
incoherent and conflicting theory, which combines Arianism,
Anabaptism, Latitudinarianism, Quakerism, and we know not what to
add, on account of his opinions on polygamy, but
Mahometanism”.8 These
results are the ripe fruit of that early instruction in “all Scriptural lore” which Milton received, and
for which Mr. Justice Keogh would seek our sympathy and approval.

After what we have
seen, we cannot be surprised that our learned lecturer should point
the finger of scorn and ridicule at the Roman Inquisition. Speaking
of Milton’s travels in Italy, he says: “There
it was his fortune to visit Gallileo, confined in the prison of the
Inquisition for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan
and Dominican believers”. We do not propose here to defend the
Inquisition: neither shall we attempt to disprove the charge, which
Mr. Justice Keogh would fain convey, that the Catholic Church is the
enemy of scientific truth. We shall wait for an adversary who deals
in arguments and not in sneers. We cannot, however, forbear to notice
a gross inaccuracy in the statement of fact. It is asserted that it
was the fortune of Milton “to visit Gallileo
confined in
the prison of the Inquisition”. This assertion is
simply false. Milton’s visit must have occurred about the year 1638,
and it is well known to all who are acquainted with the subject, that
Gallileo was then living at home in his own house at Arcetri, quietly
pursuing his astronomical studies. In point of law, indeed, he was
still technically a prisoner of the Inquisition, but this is widely
different from being confined in the prison of the
Inquisition. It is only fair to observe that the words of
Milton himself, from whom the lecturer has taken his statement, are,
on this point, strictly correct. “There it
was that I found and visited the famous Gallileo, grown old,
a prisoner
to the Inquisition, for thinking in astronomy otherwise
than the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought”.9 Our
lecturer, therefore, in borrowing the language of the poet, has not
only contrived to introduce an error, but he has taken care that this
error shall be on the side most unfavourable to the Catholic
Church.

We shall not
trouble the reader with our own views or arguments on the hackneyed
controversy of Gallileo’s persecution. We shall be content to
contrast the opinion of Mr. Justice Keogh with that of a learned and
able Protestant writer, who has devoted [pg 459] much study to the life and times of the great
astronomer, and who is himself honourably distinguished in kindred
fields of science. Sir David Brewster, with all his strong
anti-Catholic prejudices, distinctly maintains that the trials of
Gallileo, such as they were, are not to be ascribed to his opinions
in matters of astronomy, but rather to his “personal imprudence” and to his “irreligious sentiments”.10 The
character of the persecution which he had to endure at the hands of
the Catholic Church may be gathered from the testimony of the same
eminent writer. In the year 1623, long after he had been tried before
the tribunal of the Inquisition, having occasion to come to Rome, he
met with a noble and generous reception from the Father of the
faithful. “The kindness of his
Holiness”, says Sir David Brewster, “was of the most marked description. He not only loaded
Gallileo with presents, and promised him a pension for his son
Vincenzo, but wrote a letter to Ferdinand II., who had just succeeded
Cosmo as Grand Duke of Tuscany, recommending Gallileo to his
particular patronage”.11 And
again he says:

There are many
other blots in the address of Mr. Justice Keogh, which a severe
critic would not pass by without censure. He would ask, perhaps, how
comes it that the lecturer takes his Scriptural quotations from the
Protestant and not from the Catholic Bible? Is it that the Protestant
Bible is the only one with which he is familiar? Can it be that the
Protestant Bible is the source from which he derives his views in
philosophy and in theology? We fully recognize the literary merits of
the English Authorized Version; but there can be no doubt that the
religious prejudices of its authors have led them into many serious
errors. At all events it is not usual for a Catholic to quote from
its pages [pg
460]
without some apology or some explanation. Again, why does he tell his
audience that the names of Spenser, of Shakespeare, of Scott, are to
be found on the Index Expurgatorius? Did he
consult the Index himself and find these names
upon it? It cannot be: they are not there. Was he induced to make the
assertion on the authority of some trustworthy witness? We can
scarcely believe it was so: no writer who cares for his reputation
would commit himself to a statement so easily disproved. Was it,
then, that he wished to cast unfounded aspersions on the Catholic
Church, and to bring her institutions into discredit with all who
cherish the names of those illustrious writers? Once more: Mr.
Justice Keogh, forgetting, for the moment, his country as well as his
religion, introduces to the favourable notice of his audience
“our glorious deliverer, William
III.”! What a startling phrase to hear from the lips of an
Irishman and a Catholic! William III. possessed many eminent
qualities: he was a brave soldier and an able statesmen. But in the
annals of Ireland his name must be for ever associated with
persecution and with perfidy.13

[pg 461]

Our limited space
is now drawing to a close; and, in good truth, we are weary of
passing censure. It is time that we lift up our eyes from the right
honourable lecturer to fix them for a few moments on the more noble
and majestic proportions of the great poet himself. When we
contemplate that venerable figure, as it stands forth to view on the
canvas of history, if we speak in the language of censure, it must be
blended with the language of genuine love and veneration. His errors
we cannot defend; his faults we do not wish to extenuate; we are
obliged to protest against his principles, and those who eulogise
them. But amidst the varied fortunes of his chequered career he
displayed many great qualities, which cannot fail to win the
admiration of every generous heart.

Of his public
conduct as a statesman we cannot indeed speak with approval. It seems
to us that all the arguments advanced in his defence carry with them
also his condemnation. He sided with the parliament against the king,
because, it is said, he wished to uphold the constitution of his
country; and yet he defended the trial and execution of the king,
which were conducted in defiance of that same constitution. He
abandoned his lawful sovereign to support the fortunes of Cromwell,
because he believed that Charles was a despot; and yet he clung to
the cause of Cromwell when Cromwell was not only a despot but an
usurper. If the constitution was to be upheld, then the execution of
the king was indefensible. If a tyrant should forfeit the allegiance
of his subjects, then Cromwell had no claim to be obeyed. Yet however
much he erred, it must be ever borne in mind that those who took a
part in the turbulent events of the great rebellion, had not the same
opportunities to form a calm and impartial judgment which we now
possess. Men distinguished by great vigour of mind and great public
spirit, were to be found on opposite sides in the senate and in the
camp. None could have told, when the breach first appeared between
Charles and his parliament, that it would lead to civil war and end
in the crime of regicide. It was necessary to make a choice; and the
choice once made, it required more than ordinary virtue, more than
ordinary courage, to recede; virtue and courage with which Milton was
not endowed.

Those, however,
who would form a just estimate of Milton’s character must seek him
far away from the din of war and the strife of parties. He had borne
a conspicuous part in a memorable political struggle; his fame had
been carried abroad to distant lands; and yet he retires without
regret from public life, to commune with his own mind in the
obscurity of an humble lodging. The world admires the magnanimity of
the old Roman who, having saved his country from destruction,
returned again [pg
462] to
his plough and to the simple pleasures of his rustic home. But there
is far more to admire in the closing period of Milton’s career. The
hour of his prosperity had passed away; the vigour of youth was gone.
Disappointed in his hopes, neglected by an age unworthy of his
genius, poor, and blind, and old, his splendid mind rose superior to
all these calamities, which would have crushed a less noble spirit.
As if now, at length, released from the captivity of earthly bonds,
he soars aloft to higher thoughts, and pours forth from an
overflowing soul the lofty strains of his unrivalled poem, the glory
of English literature, the wonder and delight of every succeeding
age. Not often does the history of the world present to us a
spectacle so sublime.

Yet how little
does genius avail in the one great and important affair of religion,
unless guided and controlled by that infallible authority which God
has established in His Church! The great doctrinal errors of Milton
cannot be imputed to any want of intellectual power; for, in the
natural gifts of intellect, he was eminently conspicuous. Much rather
must they be ascribed to the erroneous system he employed in the
search of Revealed truth. Starting from false principles, the more
boldly he advanced, the more deeply did he plunge into error. In
common with other Protestants, he accepted the doctrine of private
judgment; but he was distinguished from others by the logical
consistency and inflexible resolution with which he ever clung to
this fundamental principle. Having been taught not to subject his
reason to the authority of a Church which claimed to be infallible,
he refused to submit to the teaching of a Church which had renounced
that claim. His errors were more extravagant than those of other
Protestant writers, only because he was more fearless in his
speculations, more consistent in his principles, more honest in his
speech. Others are often saved from error because they hesitate to
follow the light of reason, when reason would lead them too far from
the beaten track of received opinions. But such timidity and
inconsistency were little in harmony with the spirit of Milton. He
had learned in early youth, as a first principle, that, in the matter
of religion, Scripture should be his only authority, reason his only
guide; and in after life he was ever prepared to follow that guide
whithersoever it might conduct.

The religious
career of Milton appears to us, therefore, in a remarkable manner, at
once to illustrate and to disprove the Protestant Rule of
Faith. In him it was fairly tried, and it was found
wanting. It would be difficult, we believe, to select from the whole
range of Protestant writers any one who possessed in a higher degree,
those qualities which are [pg
463]
favourable to the exercise of private judgment. His distinguished
biographer, Mr. Mitford, who was himself a Protestant clergyman, has
spoken on this subject with great candour and ability. Referring to
the treatise De Doctrina Christiana, he
says:—

He not only
failed, but he seems to have been a perfect type of that unsteadiness
in error which St. Paul describes in his Epistle to the Ephesians: he
was as a little child “tossed to and fro, and
carried about with every wind of doctrine”. He wandered, we
are told, “from Puritanism to Calvinism, from
Calvinism to an esteem for Arminius, and finally, from an accordance
with the Independents and Anabaptists to a dereliction of every
denomination of Protestants”.15 When
this was the fate of his gigantic intellect, how can humbler minds
hope to attain success if they employ the same means?

It seems to us,
therefore, that we can find some excuse for the errors of Milton in
the false principles which he had imbibed in his youth. And, with all
his faults, we cannot but revere the magnanimity of his spirit, the
splendour of his genius. But we have no sympathy with those who,
having the rich inheritance of an infallible authority for their
guide in matters of religion, would yet claim for themselves the
right to launch forth into the boundless sea of thought without
restriction or restraint; who blindly embrace the conclusions of
Milton, while they reject his premises; and who imitate him in his
wanderings, while they cannot imitate that nobility of sentiment and
that loftiness of eloquence which shed a lustre even around his
errors.

The See Of Killaloe In The Sixteenth
Century.

In the year 1463,
Matthew or Mahoun
O’Griffa was appointed by Pope Pius II., Bishop of
Killaloe. He had hitherto held the canonry and prebend of
Teampul-monin, in the diocese of Limerick, the annual revenue of
which amounted to twenty marks, and the Monumenta
Vaticana preserve an interesting fragment, which
records the appointment of Donald Magillapadrig as his successor in
that dignity: “Confertur ipsi canonicatus et
prebenda de Tampolmonin in Ecclesia Limericensi quorum fructus
viginti marcharum sterlingorum non excedunt et quos Mattheus electus
Laonensis tempore suae promotionis obtinebat” (17 Decemb.,
1463; pag. 455).

Dr. O’Griffa died
in 1482, and was succeeded the same year by Terence O’Brien, who
ruled the see for forty-three years, and, as Ware informs us,
“was a prelate of great account among his
people for his liberality and hospitality”.

Richard Hogan, a
Franciscan, was chosen his successor in 1525, and after an episcopate
of fourteen years, was translated to Clonmacnoise by Pope Paul III.,
on 16th June, 1539. He, however, enjoyed this new dignity only for a
little while, as, a few days after his translation, he was summoned
to his eternal reward.

It is remarkable
that the episcopate of his successor in the see of Killaloe was
equally short; for, Tirlogh, in Latin Theodoricus
O’Brien, appointed its bishop in June, 1539, died
before December the same year. Both sees being thus vacant at the
same time, Dr. Florence O’Gerawan,
i.e. Kirwan, was appointed bishop
of Clonmacnoise and Killaloe on 15th December, 1539, the union of
these sees being at the same time limited to the lifetime of this
bishop. The following is the consistorial entry:—

We have already
had occasion to speak of this bishop when treating of the see of
Clonmacnoise (Record, part 1., pag. 157); his
episcopate was marked by many signal events, and his zeal in the
defence of the Catholic faith merited for him the hatred of the
enemies of our holy Church. He died in 1554, and had for his
successor Terence O’Brien, who received his appointment in the
beginning of Queen Mary’s reign, and continued [pg 465] to administer the see till his death,
which is registered by the Four Masters in 1569.

Malachy
O’Molony was next proclaimed in consistory on 10th
January, 1571. He suffered much from the agents of the Protestant
establishment: “Plurima ab haereticis mala et
nonnunquam carceris acrumnas passus est” (Mooney, MS. Hist.
Francis.); and on 22nd of August, 1576, his translation
to Kilmacduagh was solemnly promulgated in the Roman court.

His successor,
Cornelius
O’Melrian, O.S.F., was appointed the same month, viz.,
26th August, 1576, and for forty-one years, till his death in 1617,
he continued bishop of this ancient see. This prelate played an
important part in the last great struggle of the Desmond chieftains;
and we have intentionally passed rapidly over the preceding bishops,
that space might remain for dwelling on the unpublished documents
connected with his history. At the time of his appointment to the see
of Killaloe, James Fitzmaurice was actively engaged on the Continent
in enlisting the aid of the Catholic powers in favour of the Irish
confederates. Before setting sail from Lisbon on 30th October, 1577,
this chieftain wrote to Gaspar de Quiroza, Archbishop of Toledo,
acquainting him with the disaster which had befallen our Bishop
Cornelius, who, a little while before, having sailed from Rochelle
for the Irish coast, was captured by pirates, and being despoiled of
all he possessed, was obliged to return to the Continent. Fitzmaurice
adds:—

The letter
terminates with the sweet old Irish invocation “spes nostra Jesus et
Maria”.

When at length a
considerable body of Spanish troops set sail for Ireland, under the
command of the unfortunate colonel St. José, the bishop of Killaloe
accompanied them, but soon quitted their ranks to join the Irish camp
and assist the native Desmond princes by his sacred ministry and
counsel. In 1582 he was instructed by the Earl of Desmond to proceed
to Spain and Rome, and negotiate whatever measures might tend to the
succour of Ireland. The following letters addressed by this Irish
chieftain to the reigning pontiff Gregory XIII., will be read with
interest by all who are acquainted with that sad period of our
history; they are extracted from the Vatican archives:

Two months later
the second letter was addressed to the same great pontiff:

A third letter,
dated 18th June in the following year, repeats the same sentiments of
devoted attachment to the Holy See, and petitions that the lands of
the deceased James Geraldine should be granted to his son, Gerald. It
thus concludes:

In the Vatican
archives is also preserved a series of letters of our bishop
Cornelius, addressed to Rome in the years 1582, 1583, and 1584. They
are all connected with the diplomatic mission which he received from
the Geraldine princes, and some of them throw considerable light on
the contemporary civil and ecclesiastical history of our island.

Before, however,
we present them to the reader, we deem it [pg 468] necessary to remark that the relations of our
bishops and of the Holy See with the native princes during the wars
of Elizabeth’s reign have often been misconstrued, in the writings of
those who were led away by the frenzy of political agitation. The
Irish chieftains had at this period the title and privileges of
independent princes; and as such they were entitled to defend with
the sword those religious and civil rights which the government of
Elizabeth attempted to destroy. Hence, their struggle merited the
sympathy of the Holy See and the blessing of our martyr-clergy. But
far more distant than heaven is from earth were the chivalry of James
Fitzmaurice and the heroism of Hugh O’Neill from that accursed Fenian
blight which, alas! has now-a-days fallen upon some of our benighted
and deluded countrymen!

We give these
letters in chronological order, and in their original language, that
thus our readers may be the better able to appreciate the sentiments
of this distinguished bishop of Killaloe.

1. The first
letter is dated Lisbon, 22nd September, 1582, and was addressed to
his Eminence Cardinal de Como:—

2. The second
letter is addressed to Pope Gregory XIII., from Madrid, the 4th
December, 1582:

3. The letter to
the Holy Father was accompanied by another short letter addressed to
the Cardinalis Comensis as
follows:

4. On the 26th of
May, the following year, the next letter was addressed from Madrid to
the same cardinal:

5. Six weeks
later, the Bishop of Killaloe again writes to the Cardinal de Como,
acquainting him with the measures taken by the Spanish monarch:

6. The next letter
is dated from Lisbon, the 1st August, 1583, and is addressed to the
Holy Father Gregory XIII.:

7. The seventh
letter is addressed from Lisbon on 26th Nov. 1583, to Cardinal de
Como:

8. Three months
later another letter was addressed to the same cardinal, conveying
the sad intelligence of the assassination of the Earl of Desmond:

IX. On the 7th of
September, 1584, our Bishop again writes to His Eminence:—

X. Another letter
was addressed to the Pope on the same day:

[pg 474]

XI. The last and
most important of Dr. O’Melrian’s letters is dated the 29th October,
1584. It is addressed to Cardinal de Como, and besides many
particulars connected with the Archbishops of Cashel and Tuam, and
the Bishops of Emly, Ferns, Ossory, Ross, and Limerick, we also
gather from it that our bishop, before his promotion to Killaloe, had
held some other see, probably that of Kilmacduagh:

This is the last
letter we have met with from the illustrious Bishop of Killaloe, Dr.
O’Melrian. His episcopate continued till 1617; yet the only event
recorded concerning him during this long interval is his having
examined the work of Stanihurst, De Moribus et Rebus
Hiberniae, and on the margin opposite each error his
solemn condemnation was found marked with the simple formula:
mentitur (Hist.
Cath., pag. 121).

As regards the
bishops of the Establishment, that of James
Curyn, or Corrin, seems to have been the
first appointment made by King Henry VIII. Some call him Bishop of
Killaloe as early as 1529, during the episcopate of Dr. Hogan; others
date his appointment from 1539/40. At all events it is probable he is
the bishop that is referred to in the letter of Dr. Browne to Lord
Cromwell on 16th February, 1539/40, when he complains that the Lord
Deputy in
O’Brien’s country “deposed a
bishop who was promoted by the king’s highness, … and he that the
Lord Deputy hath now promoted to the same is a Gray Friar (Dr.
O’Kirwan), one of the holy confessors of the late Garrantys, even as
rank a traitor as ever they were” (State
Papers, iii. 123). Dr. Corrin resigned the see in 1546,
and Cornelius O’Dea was appointed by the king in July, the same year,
and, [pg 477] as Ware tells us, he
held the see about nine years. The next crown nominee was Moriertach
O’Brien. Though appointed by Queen Elizabeth in 1570, he was for a
long time content with the enjoyment of the temporalities of the see,
and it was only in 1577 that he received episcopal consecration. John
Rider, the next Protestant bishop, was appointed in 1612: he is
chiefly remarkable for a Latin dictionary which he compiled, and in
which he was accused of taking both the substance and words from the
Lexicon of Thomas Thomatius.

The Sacrament Of Penance In The Early
Irish Church.

The name
Soul’s-friend (in Irish,) was a
characteristic title used in the old Irish language to designate
those who are now called confessors, whose mission it is to
receive the confessions of the faithful and to heal by the sacrament
of penance, the spiritual wounds inflicted on the soul after baptism.
“Sure we are”, writes Usher,
“that it was the custom of the faithful in
our ancient Church, to confess their sins to the priests, that they
might be made partakers of the benefit of the keys for the quieting
of their troubled consciences”—Discourse on the
Religion, etc., p. 46.

Our old
commentator, Claudius, more than once repeats this doctrine, and
teaches that the power of forgiving sins was granted by the divine
Redeemer to His apostles and their successors in the priesthood:
“The power of loosing and binding”, he
says, “was granted to all the apostles by our
Saviour, when, appearing to them after His resurrection, He breathed
upon them, and said: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: whose sins you shall
forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins you shall retain, they are
retained. Even to the present day this duty devolves upon the Church
in its bishops and priests, and having examined each sinner’s cause,
they absolve those whom they find humble and truly penitent, from the
fear of eternal death, but such as they find to persist in their
sins, these are bound down unto never-ending
torments”—In Matth. Codex Vatican., fol.
149, b.

Elsewhere,
expounding the history of the man who was sick with the palsy, he
remarks: “The scribes say truly that none can
forgive sins save God alone, who also it is that forgives through
those to whom he has given the power of forgiving”. And again,
“St. John teaches us, in regard to the
remission of sins, that our Saviour after His resurrection promised
to His disciples [pg
478]
that those shall be bound whom they shall bind, and those shall be
loosened whom they shall loosen”—In Matth.
ibid., fol. 81, and Usher,
loc. cit., pag. 48.

The old
penitential canons of our Church will serve as a practical commentary
on these texts of Claudius. Thus, in the synod held by our apostle,
together with Auxilius and Isernimus, about the year 450, we find the
canon:

St. Finnian too
prescribes:

The synodical
canons de
Arreis, in one decree declare as the substitute for the
penance of a year:

And in another
case they enact a similar penance:

The penitential of
St. Cummian commands him who had innocently told an untruth
“to confess his fault to the person whom he
deceived and to the priest”.19 Again,
youths before their twentieth year committing certain sins, were
ordered for the first offence “having
confessed, to do penance for twenty days before they should approach
the holy Communion”.20

St. Columbanus is
even more minute in treating of this sacrament. Thus, in canon the
fourteenth, he lays down the penance for the sin of adultery, and
adds that this penance being performed by the sinner “culpa illius per sacerdotem abstergatur”. Should
his sin be a sin of desire, “Confiteatur
culpam suam sacerdoti et ita quadraginta diebus in pane et aqua
poeniteat”.21 Special
diligence, too, was to be observed when preparing to approach
[pg 479] the Holy Eucharist, and not
only the heinous crimes, but even the venial faults were to be
confessed. “Confessiones autem dari
diligentius praecipitur, maxime de commotionibus animi, antequam ad
missam eatur, ne forte quis accedat indignus ad altare, id est si cor
mundum non habuerit”.22

In the ancient
collection of canons made for the use of our Irish Church about the
year 700, there is one book (the 48th) entitled de
Poenitentia. The thirty-three chapters into which it is
divided are for the most part moral or disciplinary: as, for
instance, the twenty-fifth chapter, which enjoins that all penitents
should receive imposition of hands from the priests
during Lent, moreover, should carry the dead to the place of
sepulture, and there inter them, and, in fine, should present
themselves kneeling at all the functions of the Church from Easter to
Pentecost. There are, however, some incidental passages which
beautifully illustrate the idea entertained by our fathers of the
necessity and advantages of sacramental confession. Thus in the third
chapter the words of St. Augustine are adopted:

Subsequently it
adopts the well-known passage from the Homilies of St. Gregory the
Great:

In the other
fragments which are still preserved of our early literature, we find
many passages connected with the same great sacrament. Thus St.
Mochta, in his Apologia, amongst the other
articles of faith, professes: “Poenitentiam
peccatorum plenissima fide suscipimus ac veluti secundam gratiam
suspicamur” (see Essays on the Early Irish Church,
pag. 302); that is to say, it is the only plank that remains to him
after shipwreck.

[pg
480]

Amongst the Irish
MSS. preserved in the public library of Basle, in Switzerland, there
is one (Ff. iii. 15) which presents a curious form of prayer to be
observed by our clergy when administering the sacrament of penance.
We give it in full in its original language; the reader will remark
that it omits the form of absolution, for which it refers to
the
sacramentary, and the words which we here enclose within
parentheses are written as rubric in the original manuscript:

Thus terminates
this curious fragment of the ritual observances of our early Church.
Another Irish manuscript of the same library in Basle contains a long
penitential prayer, the language of which has a striking resemblance
with the prayers of St. Colgu [pg 481] and Aileran, already published in the early
numbers of the Record. It thus begins:

The “Rule for the Celi-De”, composed by St. Maelruan
about the year 780, reckons “the divulging of
confession, so as to say, this is what the man
did”, as so heinous a crime “that it
is not penanced in the land of Erinn”.23 It also
contains several regulations connected with the sacrament of penance.
Thus, on the eve of the chief festivals, all feasting is prohibited,
“because of going under the hand
to-morrow”. To which words Dr. Reeves adds the following note:
“The priest raises his hand in the
absolution, whence the modern expression going under the hand
of the priest denotes going to confession” (pag.
202). Subsequently the Rule enacts:

[pg 482]

Some instructions
are also given for the guidance of the confessor:

In fine, it is
also decreed that the bishop “who confers
noble orders upon any one who is not able to instruct in religion and
reading, and soul-friendship, and who has not a knowledge of laws and
rules, and of the proper remedy for all sins in general, is an enemy
to God and man; for that bishop has offered an insult to Christ and
His Church, and hence shall do penance for six years, and he shall
pay seven cumhals in gold as a penalty to
God.24”

The Rule of St.
Carthage (who was familiarly called Mochuda)
has already been published in full in the December and January
numbers of the Record. Frequent mention is made
in it of the holy sacrament of penance, and as St. Carthage died
before the year 640, we are thus enabled to trace back the Catholic
tenets of our fathers even to the beginning of the seventh
[pg 483] century. At page 116, among
the duties
of a priest is commemorated:

Whilst confession
was thus enjoined on the faithful, it was not less necessary for the
religious themselves:

And again, when
laying down special rules for monks, St. Carthage commands them to
exercise modesty and meekness:

The testimony of
these religious rules is of great importance: they not only convey to
us the teaching of individuals remarkable for their piety and
learning, but they moreover record for our instruction those
disciplinary enactments which received the solemn sanction of the
greatest saints of our ancient Church, and which guided in the paths
of perfection thousands of our countrymen whose virtues and miracles
won for our island a wide-spread fame for sanctity throughout the
sixth and succeeding centuries.

We may now refer
to facts connected with these sainted fathers of our Church which
throw much light on the practice of confession, from the earliest
period of faith in our island. Thus, of St. Adamnan we read that,
being troubled about some sin of his early youth “he resorted to a priest from whom he hoped to learn the
way of salvation, and confessing his fault [pg 484] prayed for such counsel as might enable him to
flee from the avenging anger of God”.26

In the life of St.
Columba, too, it is recorded that one day an Irishman from Connaught,
by name Ildran, landed on the beach of Iona and proceeded to the
guest-house of the monastery. On the following morning he made known
to the saint the object of his journey, viz.: to do penance for his
sins, and “at the same hour he confessed all
his sins and promised to fulfil the laws of penance”.27 On
another occasion St. Columba was visited by a person named Fiachna,
who, being touched with remorse for some crime, fell at the saint’s
feet and “confessed his sins before all that
were there present”, whereupon the holy man weeping embraced
him, and said, “Arise, my son, and be
comforted; thy sins are forgiven thee, for, as it is written, the
contrite and humble heart God doth not despise”.28

In the case of a
chieftain named Suibhne, it is mentioned that, though truly penitent,
he was ordered by St. Pulcherius to confess his sins.29 We find
also St. Maidoc of Ferns earnestly soliciting to have a wise
confessor divinely destined for his guidance. St. Molua of
Clonfert-molua was the person chosen by him, and hence, amongst other
titles given to this last-named saint, is “Father of the Confession of Maidoc”.30 Again,
in the life of St. Finbar it is mentioned that a young man from
Leinster went to Iona to be guided by Columba: being obliged soon
after to return to his native country, he thus affectionately
addressed the holy abbot: “O sancte Dei!
quomodo in patria mea vivam et tibi confitear peccata
mea?”31

In the
Martyrology
of Donegal, St. Meallan of Loch Oirbsen, in Connaught,
is styled the Anmehara of St. Furse, who since
the middle of the seventh century is venerated as patron of Peronne
in France (pag. 40, I.A.S., 1865). In the Felire of
Aenghus, St. Donnan of Eigg is also said to have gone to St.
Columcille “to make him his soul’s
friend” (Reeves’ Columba, p. 305). This title of
Anmchara is given to the divine
Redeemer himself by St. Aileran, in the beautiful prayer printed in
the Record, [pg 485] pag. 64, and, as we have already said, was the
name given by the faithful in our early Church to those who in the
Latin records are styled Confessarii, or Patres
Confessionis. The Book of Fenagh in one of its most
ancient records states, that “Columba plus
venit ad S. Kilianum et ei confessus est peccata sua” (I.A.S.
Miscellany, vol. i., pag. 118). Of
St. Finbarr it is also recorded that, on the death of his spiritual
director, he went to St. Olan to make him patrem confessionis suae, or at
least to be directed by him as to the person whom he should select;
and the legend adds that St. Olan replied: “Christ Himself will be your confessor, and He will
receive your hand”; meaning, probably, that the hour of his
death was come, for the next fact mentioned in St. Finbarr’s life is
his happy passage to eternity (Life of St. Finbarr, edited by R.
Caulfield. London, 1864, pag. 21).

Probus, in the
life of our great Apostle (chap. 20), mentions that one of the chief
petitions which he made to God, during the time of his penitential
retirement on Croaghpatrick, was: “Ut
unusquisque homo fidelis Hibernorum per poenitentiam et confessionem
Deo satisfaciens licet in extremo vitae suae spatio, ab ipso
elementer suscipiatur”. It was to become sharer of this great
privilege that St. Cormac, Bishop and King of Cashel, baying foretold
his death, summoned to him St. Macsuach, Abbot of Castledermot, to
whom he made his confession, and received from his hands the holy
sacrament of the Eucharist. (I.A.S. 1860. Annals,
pag. 203).

The confession
even of venial faults was especially dwelt upon by St. Molua. One of
his religious was negligent on this head, and St. Molua took occasion
to correct him by his own example. As they were journeying together
on a certain day, St. Molua said to him: “Peccavi vere hodie quia confessionem alicui seniori non
feci de his quae egi hodie: me igitur hic sustine modicum donec vadam
illuc et confitear”. The religious was struck with terror, and
asked “would it not suffice to confess these
sins to God alone?” but the saint replied that unless we
confess even our venial transgressions, we can only obtain pardon for
them by severe penitential deeds here and hereafter, and added the
well-known illustration: “Sicut pavimentum
domus scopâ quotidie tergitur, ita anima quotidianâ
confessione”. The ancient life concludes; “Hoc audiens monachus a suo sancto Abbate, promisit
confiteri sua offendicula; et confitebatur fideliter, et sanatus est
ille frater a sua praeterita audacia” (Vita ex Vet. Cod.
Armac., edited by Fleming, cap. 32.)

There is only one
document to which the enemies of our holy faith can appeal as
evidencing a disregard for the sacrament of penance in our early
Church: it is a letter of Alcuin, addressed, in the text of Canisius,
dilectissimis viris fratribus et patribus
[pg 486]in provincia Scotorum, in which he
mentions the rumour which had reached him, that the laity had refused
“confessionem sacerdotibus dare”. Here
(writes Dean Murray) is a clear rejection of Popery. However,
antiquarians have long since decided that this text has no reference
to sacramental confession (see Lanigan, iv. 67): and as the good
Protestant dean had given his citation from Usher, he should have
added that in Usher’s opinion the title of this letter of Alcuin was
erroneous, and that it was addressed to some faithful quite distinct
from our old Celtic forefathers. This opinion no longer admits of any
doubt. Canisius himself remarked “that in the
MS. from which he published this letter, it was addressed
de
dilectissimis, etc. in provincia Gothorum”, and
he merely substituted the word Scotorum, as a conjecture, not
knowing that there were any people in the days of Alcuin who still
retained the name of Gothic. Later discoveries,
however, have proved that the very province of Languedoc, in which
territory Alcuin lived for a long time, was designated by this name.
The learned Quercetanus discovered a letter of Alcuin himself (ep.
99), addressed to the faithful “in diversis Gothiae
partibus”; and Baluzius, in his Miscellanea (i. 377), published
another letter of the same Alcuin, “iis qui sunt in Gothiae
partibus”. The errors of Felix Urgellitanus,
which are here referred to, fix more and more the district to which
this letter was addressed; for whilst they had begun to creep in
amongst the faithful of France, they were wholly unheard of in the
Island of Saints.

Richard Fitz-Ralph, Archbishop Of
Armagh.

Purgatory Of St. Patrick In Lough
Derg.

As at this season
many pious Christians visit the Purgatory of St. Patrick in Lough
Derg, for the performance of penitential works, we have been
requested to supply, from authentic sources, a history of that
pilgrimage. In compliance with this request we give the following
account of it, extracted from Dr. Moran’s History of the
Archbishops Of Dublin, where he treats of Dr.
Fleming.44 That
Archbishop writing on the 20th of August, 1625, to the Internuncio in
Brusselles, makes the following statement:

Liturgical Questions.

We purpose in this
number of the Record to answer a few practical
questions connected with the office of the dead, which have been
forwarded to us:

1. Is it proper
for the president of the choir to wear the alb and cincture during
the recitation of the office of the dead—the matins and lauds?

2. Should he wear
stole and cope, or either?

3. Is it correct
to say the Requiem aeternam after the prayer at lauds when the Mass
follows?

4. is it proper
for the priest who presides in the choir to perform the absolution
after Mass?

1. It is not
proper for the president of the choir to wear the alb and cincture at
matins and lauds. There is a decree of the Sacred Congregation of
Rites which appears to bear on this subject.

The question
proposed was:

It is evident from
this decree that the vestments are not to be worn at the office of
the dead, for they are not allowed even in a case which would appear
one of necessity, viz.: when there is only one priest present, and
when some delay must necessarily occur between the office and the
mass, if the celebrant must wait to say the prayer at the end of
Lauds before he puts on the vestments. If in such an extreme case,
when there arises some delay between the office and mass, which is
most objectionable and always to be avoided in ceremonies, the alb
and cincture cannot be worn, they cannot surely be used on ordinary
occasions when such necessity does not exist.

2. With regard to
the second question, the Roman Ritual does not prescribe even the use
of a stole or of a cope, as far as we are aware, and we think that
the practice of not wearing one or the other at the office is the
most correct and to be recommended, [pg 501] though we are well aware that the contrary
practice is adopted by many. The Roman Ritual, treating of the
procession in which the remains are carried to the church, has the
following words:

But these words do
not apply to the office. The Caeremoniale Episcoporum, treating of
the ceremony on All Souls’ Day, does make mention of the stole and
cope (book ii., chap. 10, n. 10):

The words of the
Caeremoniale gave rise to the
following question proposed to the Sacred Congregation of Rites:
“An in officio defunctorum celebrans inducre
debeat stolam vel saltem possit, uti erui posse videtur ex
Caeremoniali lib 2o. cap. 10.

“Resp. Negative extra casum in
caeremoniali contemplatum. 7 Septembris, 1850”.

There is another
decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites referring to this
matter:—

We may observe
that a direct answer is not given to the question, which was proposed
with the view of ascertaining what should be done in two special
cases, and the only answer given was “in
utroque casu licere”. Hence a priest might wear the stole and
cope, but should he not do so, he would not follow a course at
variance with this decree. No doubt, in some rubrical works, express
mention is made of the stole and cope, and still more frequently of
one or the other; but the Roman Ritual, as we said, does not
prescribe either at the office of the dead, and when their use is
pointed out, it generally refers to the cathedral churches, where the
ceremonies are carried out with greater pomp and solemnity, than in
those rural churches to which our correspondent refers. We may also
observe that the decree above quoted, does not contemplate the use of
the stole and cope apart from the procession. On the whole,
considering the circumstances of our churches, we would in practice
[pg 502] dispense with stole and cope
at the office, while we would be slow to condemn the use of the cope,
if such a custom existed in any church that in other respects carried
out the ceremonies of the Church with accuracy and decorum. But we
consider that the decree of 7th September, 1850, above quoted,
clearly lays down that the stole ought not to be used, though we find
it more frequently used on such occasions than the cope, on the
ground, perhaps, that it is an emblem of jurisdiction in the person
who presides.

3. In reply to the
third question, we beg to say that the Mass should commence
immediately at the end of the lauds, which terminate with the prayer,
and after the prayer, the Requiem aeternam, etc., and Requiescant in
pace should not be said: it is only when the ceremony concludes that
these are to be said.

The prayer at the
end of Lauds on such occasions should be said cum conclusione brevi.
We give the following extracts from Cavalieri, a distinguished
rubricist, who writes, in tom. 3, cap. 2, decr. 16, n. 13:—

With regard to the
fourth question the Roman ritual is quite clear. “Finita Missa sacerdos deposita casula seu planeta et
manipulo accipit pluviale nigri coloris”…. It is always laid
down that the celebrant of the Mass, unless the bishop be present,
performs this part of the ceremony. The Caeremoniale
Episcoporum, cap. 37, lib. 2o, has
the following words, which we here quote:—

It is evident from
all this what answer is to be given to the fourth question, viz.:
that in all cases the celebrant, and no other priest, should give the
absolution when the bishop is not present.

Notices Of Books.

Adjamenta Oratoris
Sacri, seu, Divisiones, Sententiae, et Documenta de iis Christianae
vitae veritatibus et officiis, quae frequentius e sacro pulpito
proponenda sunt, collecta atque ordine digesta opera
Francisci Xaverii Schouppe, S.J. Brussels, Goemare, pp. 543.
1865.

From the materials
here collected and prepared by Father Schouppe, the preacher may
build his discourse with ease and advantage. And yet, though the
materials are placed ready to his hand, the work will still be all
his own. The author does not undertake to supersede labour, but to
lighten the preacher’s fatigue by lending his friendly help. He
supplies matter for the discourse, he even traces the outline of its
form, and then leaves to the preacher himself the task of
construction. In the opening pages he addresses himself to the
question, how is a priest, especially a young priest, to
render himself a useful and even a perfect preacher of the Word of
God? In [pg
504]
answer to this question, he touches in a masterly way on these two
points, 1. What is a preacher of the Gospel, and what is the
perfection that belongs to him? 2. By what process may a preacher
attain to this perfection? Part of this process consists, of course,
in the preparation of the sermon, and it is to facilitate this
preparation that the work before us has been compiled. The author
reduces to fifty heads the entire cycle of subjects suited for
pastoral exhortation, embracing in this number whatever can serve to
bring the sinner to justification, to guide him in the path of a
Christian life, and to conduct him to Heaven. He gives on each of
these fifty subjects a treatise which is a marvel of brevity and
fulness. So judicious is the arrangement of the texts bearing on the
subject; so clear and full the statement of the case; so simple the
division of the arguments, that each of these little treatises makes
the reader complete master of the subject of which it treats. On the
more important subjects, and on those which require more frequent
handling, the author supplies many and different divisions or
outlines of sermons, thus guarding against the monotony that arises
when a subject is presented often under the same form. One other
merit we would signalise in this work. It deals with the wants,
defects, and vices of the men of our own times. The books of sermons
which are to be found on the shelves of the clergy generally belong
to an extinct period; the exhortations they contain are coloured by
circumstances that have long ceased to exist. Modern modes of
thought, modern manners, modern literature, have given rise to a
peculiar class of temptations and of dangers, and as these differ
quite from those of a century ago, so also do they demand peculiar
treatment and special remedies.

Father Schouppe
has not forgotten this, and takes care to grapple with the
difficulties that beset the Christian life of the nineteenth century.
Two indexes close the volume. One exhibits a general synopsis of the
contents; the other refers to the various passages whence materials
may be drawn for a sermon appropriate to the gospel of each Sunday
and holiday in the year. Both indexes enhance the practical value of
this excellent book, which we do not hesitate to call a real boon for
the clergy.

The Cromwellian
Settlement of Ireland. By John P. Prendergast, Esq.
London: Longmans, 1865.

This is a valuable
accession to Irish history. It gives an account of the cruelties
practised on our people in the Cromwellian Confiscations. It
confirms, from official sources, the painful details contained in Dr.
Moran’s lately published sketch of the persecutions of the Irish
Catholics in the seventeenth century. The Irish land question cannot
be well understood without the aid of Mr. Prendergast’s excellent
book.