Produced by Bryan Ness, Josephine Paolucci and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net. (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries.)








THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

FEBRUARY, 1865.




CARDINAL CONSALVI AND NAPOLEON BONAPARTE.

[Concluded from page 167.]


This laconic answer produced on Napoleon an extraordinary effect. He
started, and fixed on the Cardinal a long and searching look. The man of
iron will felt that he had to deal with another will, which, while it
matched his own for firmness, surpassed it in the power that ever
springs from self-control. Taking advantage of the Consul's surprise,
Consalvi went on to say that he could not exceed his powers, nor could
he agree to terms in opposition to the principles of the Holy See; that
it was not possible in ecclesiastical matters to act as freely as was
allowable in urgent cases wherein only temporal matters were concerned.
Besides, in fairness the rupture could not be laid to the Pope's charge,
seeing that his minister had agreed to all the articles with one single
exception, and that even this one had not been definitely rejected, but
merely referred to the judgment of his Holiness.

Somewhat calmed, the Consul interrupted, saying that he did not wish to
leave after him unfinished works; he would have all or none. The
Cardinal having replied that he had no power to negotiate on the article
in question as long as it remained in its present shape, Napoleon's
former excitement flashed out once more as he repeated with fire his
resolution to insist on it just as it was, without a syllable more or
less. "Then I will never sign it", replied the Cardinal, "for I have no
power to do so". "And that is the very reason", cried the other, "why I
say that you wished to break off the negotiations, and that I look on
the business as settled, and that Rome shall open her eyes, and shall
shed tears of blood for this rupture". Then almost rudely pushing his
way through the company, he went about in every direction, declaring
that he would change the religion of Europe; that no power could resist
him; that he would not be alone in getting rid of the Pope, but would
throw the whole of Europe into confusion: it was all the Pope's fault,
and the Pope should pay the penalty.

The Austrian minister, the Count de Cobenzel, full of consternation at
the scene, ran at once towards the Cardinal, and with warm entreaty,
implored of him to find some means of averting so dreadful a calamity.
Once more had the Cardinal to hear from lips to which fear lent most
earnest eloquence, the harrowing description of the evils in store for
religion and for Europe. "But what can be done", he replied, "in the
face of the obstinate determination of the First Consul, to resist all
change in the form of the article?" The conversation was here
interrupted by the summons to dinner. The meal was short, and was the
most bitter the Cardinal had ever tasted in his life. When they returned
to the saloon, the Count resumed his expostulations. Bonaparte seeing
them in conversation, came up to the Count, and said that it was a loss
of time to try to overcome the obstinacy of the Pope's minister; and
then, with his usual vivacity and energy, he repeated his former
threats. The Count respectfully answered that, on the contrary, he found
the Pope's minister sincerely anxious to come to terms, and full of
regret at the rupture; no one but the First Consul himself could lead
the way to a reconciliation. "In what manner?" asked Bonaparte, with
great interest. "By authorising the commissioners to hold another
sitting", replied the Count, "and to endeavour to introduce some such
modification of the contested point as might satisfy both parties".
These and other remarks of the Count were urged with such tact and
grace, that after some resistance, Napoleon at last yielded. "Well,
then", cried he, "to prove to you that it is not I who seek to quarrel,
I consent that the commissioners shall meet on to-morrow for the last
time. Let them see if there be any possibility of an agreement; but, if
they separate without coming to terms, the rupture may be looked on as
final, and the Cardinal may go. I declare, likewise, that I insist on
this article just as it stands, and I will allow no change to be made in
it". And so saying, he abruptly turned his back on the two ministers.

These words, ungracious and contradictory as they were, nevertheless
contained the promise of a respite. It was resolved at once to hold a
sitting the next day at noon in the usual place, in the hope that,
having come to some agreement between themselves, they might win the
First Consul's consent, through the influence of his brother Joseph, who
had a great regard for De Cobenzel, and who was desirous of peace.

That night, following a day of such anxiety, and preceding a day of
dreadful struggle, brought but little repose to Cardinal Consalvi. But
when the morning came, a circumstance occurred which filled to
overflowing the cup of bitterness he had been condemned to drain. At an
early hour Mgr. Spina came into his room with sorrow and embarrassment
in his countenance, to report that the theologian, P. Caselli, had just
left him, after having announced that he had spent the night in
reflecting on the incalculable mischief likely to follow from such a
rupture; that its consequences would be most fatal to religion, and, as
the case of England proved, without a remedy; that, seeing the First
Consul inflexibly bent on refusing any modification of the disputed
article, he had come to the determination of signing it as it stood;
that in his opinion, it did not touch doctrine, and the unparalleled
character of the circumstances would justify the Pope's condescendence
in such a case. Mgr. Spina added that since this was the opinion of P.
Caselli, who was so much better a theologian than he himself, he had not
courage enough to assume the responsibility of consequences so fatal to
religion, and that he, too, had made up his mind to receive the article
and sign it as it was. In case the Cardinal believed that it was not
competent for them to sign without him, they would be under the
necessity of protesting their acceptation of the article, thereby to
save themselves from being responsible for the consequences of the
rupture.

This declaration, coupled with the thought that he was now alone in the
conflict, deeply affected the Cardinal. But it did not shake his
resolution nor take away his courage. He set himself to the task of
persuading his two friends of their mistake, but his endeavours were in
vain. Perceiving that all his arguments were counterbalanced by the
dread entertained of the consequences, he ended by saying that he was by
no means convinced by their reasons, and even single-handed he was
resolved to persevere in the conflict. He therefore requested them to
defer the announcement of their having accepted the article until the
conference was at an end, if it should be necessary to break off
negotiations. They willingly assented, and promised to give their
support to his arguments in the course of the debate, although they were
resolved not to go as far as a rupture.

Precisely at noon the sitting was opened at the residence of Joseph
Bonaparte. It lasted twelve hours, the clock having struck midnight as
they arose from the table. Eleven hours were devoted to the discussion
of the article of the Concordat which had been the cause of so many
disputes. It is now time to redeem our promise to enter somewhat into
detail concerning this famous question.

At Rome two things were considered as absolutely essential to the
Concordat, of which they were declared to be conditions _sine quibus
non_. One of these was the free exercise of the Catholic religion; the
other, that this exercise of religion should be public. The Head of the
Church felt it indispensable that these two points should be proclaimed
in the Concordat, not only because it was necessary to secure for
religion some solid advantage which might justify the extraordinary
concessions made by the Holy See, but also because the spirit of the
secular governments both before, and much more after, the French
Revolution, ever tended to enslave and fetter the Church. Besides, it
had become quite evident in the earlier stage of the negotiations, that
the government of France was obstinately opposed to the recognition of
the Catholic religion as the religion of the State. That government had
ever met the exertions made by Rome to gain this point by reciting the
fundamental principle of the constitution, which asserted the complete
equality of rights, of persons, of religions, and of everything else.
Hence it was looked upon as a great victory, and one for which Cardinal
Consalvi deserved high praise, when he succeeded in extorting the
admission that stands at the head of the Concordat, to the effect that
the Catholic religion in France was the religion of the majority of the
citizens. Another reason there was to insist upon these two points. That
universal toleration, which is one of the leading principles of the _jus
novum_, had long been proved by experience to mean toleration for all
sects, but not for the true Church. The Cardinal had not much difficulty
in obtaining the recognition of the free exercise of the Catholic
religion. Perhaps the government already had thought of the famous
organic laws which it afterwards published, and which effectually
neutralised all its concessions on this point. But a whole host of
invincible difficulties was marshalled against the demand made for
public exercise of the Catholic worship. It was urged with some reason,
and no doubt in a good measure with sincerity, that circumstances had
made it impossible to carry out in public with safety to the general
peace, all the ceremonies of religion, especially in places where the
Catholics were outnumbered by infidels and non-catholics. These latter
would be sure to insult and disturb the processions and other public
functions performed outside the churches; and it was not to be expected
that the Catholics would bear these outrages with patience. Hence, not
being willing to sanction an indefinite right of publicity, the
government expressed its views in these terms:[1] "The Roman Catholic
Apostolic Religion shall be freely exercised in France: _its worship
shall be public, regard being had, however, to police regulations_".
This is the article the discussion of which had occasioned so much
labour and anxiety.

Cardinal Consalvi discovered in the article thus worded two fatal
defects: firstly, it tended to enslave the Church by placing her at the
mercy of the civil power; and secondly, it implied on the part of the
Church a sanction of the principle which would serve to legalise such
enslavement. For many years, court lawyers had spoken but too plainly
concerning the supposed right of the crown to regulate external worship;
and so far had this right been extended in practice, that the Church
found herself almost, or even altogether, the slave of the civil power.
"I had good reason, therefore", says the Cardinal, "to entertain a
sovereign dread of that indefinite and elastic phrase 'regard being had
to' (_en se conformant_)". Besides, many things pointed to the
probability that in virtue of such a convention signed by the Holy See,
the police, or rather the government, would interfere in everything, and
submit everything to its own will and pleasure, without the Church being
able to object, her liberty being tied up by the expression in the
treaty. No doubt the Church frequently finds herself in such
circumstances, as lead her to tolerate _de facto_ violations of her
rights and laws, such toleration being recommended either by prudence,
or by charity, or by lack of power, or by other just motives. But she
never can authorize by a solemn engagement the principle from which such
violations spring.

Whilst fully decided never to accept at any risk an article so fraught
with mischief to the Church, Consalvi was too loyal and too honest to
deny the force of some of the arguments brought into the field by the
French commissioners. Hence he proposed various expedients by help of
which the dreaded dangers to the public peace might be turned away. One
of these expedients was a Papal Bull to the French clergy, commanding
them to abstain for some time from certain public ceremonies in places
where those hostile to Catholicism were numerous or intolerant; another
was, to insert an additional article limiting the duration of the
proposed exception, and determining the cases in which the police might
interfere: but all was in vain; the government obstinately clung to its
idea. The Cardinal tells us that he would have preferred to omit all
mention of the right to publicity of worship, and thus cut the knot it
was so troublesome to unravel; but his orders from Rome to include that
point were too decided, and he was not allowed to send a courier to
solicit fresh instructions from the Holy Father on the subject. He felt,
therefore, that, even at the cost of a rupture between the two
contending parties, he was bound by his most solemn and sacred duty to
refuse his sanction to the obnoxious proposition.

With these convictions Consalvi took his place at the meeting, on the
result of which hung the spiritual interests of so many millions of
souls. We shall not follow out in detail the shifting phases of the
negotiation, but we will come at once to its closing passage. The French
commissioners declared that the state had no wish to enslave the Church;
that the word _police_ did not mean the government, but simply that
department of the executive charged with the maintenance of public
order, which order was as much desired by the Church as by the state.
Now it was absolutely necessary to preserve public order, and no law
could stand in the way of such a result. _Salus populi suprema lex._ It
was impossible, they said, for public order to last throughout parts of
France, if unrestricted publicity were once permitted in religious
ceremonies; and as no other power save the government could judge where
such publicity might be safe and where dangerous, it should be left to
the discretion of the government to impose, for the sake of peace, such
restrictions as the general good required. The Cardinal admitted that
public tranquillity was by all means to be preserved, but he contended
that the article did not restrict, either in point of object or of time,
the power it assigned to the government; that such unrestricted power
was dangerous to the Church; and therefore some clause should be added
to determine more plainly the precise nature and bearing of the
authority to be given to the police to regulate public worship. At
length he urged a dilemma which completely vanquished the commissioners.
"I objected", says he, "thus: either the government is in good faith
when it declares the motive which forces it to subject religious worship
to police regulations to be the necessary maintenance of public
tranquillity, and in that case it cannot and ought not refuse to assert
so much in the article itself; or the government refuses to insert such
an explanation; and then it is not in good faith, and clearly reveals
that its object in imposing this restriction on religion is to enslave
the Church".

Caught between the horns of this dilemma, the commissioners could only
say that the explanation required was already contained in the word
_police_, police regulations being in their very nature regulations
directed to secure public order. "I replied", continues the Cardinal,
"that this was not true, at least in every language; but even supposing
it to be true", said I, "where is the harm in explaining it more
clearly, so as to remove any mistaken interpretation which may be
prejudicial to the liberty of the Church? If you are in good faith, you
can have no difficulty about this; if you have difficulty, it is a sign
you are not in good faith". Pressed more and more by the force of this
dilemma, and unable to extricate themselves, they asked me "what
advantage do you find in this repetition you propose?" (for they
continued to hold that the word _police_ expressed it sufficiently). "I
find in it a very signal advantage", replied I; "for by the very fact of
restricting in clear and express terms the obligation of making public
worship conform to the police regulation, we exclude restriction in
every other ease, for _inclusio unius est exclusio alterius_. Thus the
Church is not made the slave of the lay power, and no principle is
sacrificed by the Pope, who in that case sanctions only what cannot be
helped, for _necessitas non habet legem_".

This reasoning overcame the commissioners, who had no further answer to
make. It was resolved to add to the article an explanatory phrase, which
should narrow its meaning, and preclude the possibility of unfair
interpretations in after days. The amended article read as follows: "The
Roman Catholic Apostolic religion shall be freely exercised in France:
its worship shall be public, regard being had, however, to such police
arrangements _as the government shall judge necessary for the
preservation of the public peace_" (quas gubernium pro publica
tranquillitate necessarias existimabit). The Concordat was thus finally
agreed to by the commissioners of the two contracting parties; and
although Bonaparte had declared himself determined to allow no change to
be made, his representatives resolved to sign the document, modified as
it was. To this step they were strongly urged by Joseph Bonaparte, who,
with keen insight into his brother's character, declared, that if before
signing they should again consult Napoleon, he would refuse to accept
the amendment, whereas, if the Concordat were brought to him already
completed, he would be reluctant to undo what had been done. Joseph
charged himself with the task of endeavouring to secure the First
Consul's consent. On the stroke of midnight the six commissioners placed
their signatures to the important document. Not a word was said about
any other articles save those contained in the Concordat itself.

Another anxious night followed. In the morning Cardinal Consalvi learned
from Joseph Bonaparte that the First Consul had been at first extremely
indignant at the change which had been made, and had refused for a long
time to approve of it; but that at length, thanks to his brother's
entreaties and reasons, after protracted meditation and a long silence,
which later events sufficiently explained, he had accepted the
Concordat, and ordered that the Pope's minister should be at once
informed of his consent.

Universal joy followed the announcement of the signing of the Concordat.
The foreign ambassadors, and especially the Count de Cobenzel, came to
congratulate the Cardinal, and offer their thanks, as for a service
rendered to their respective countries. On the following day Bonaparte
received the six commissioners with marked courtesy. Ever true to his
duty, the Cardinal took care, on this occasion, to make Napoleon observe
that the Holy See had not uttered a single word about its temporal
concerns throughout the whole course of the negotiations. "His Holiness
has wished to prove to France, and to the world, that it is a calumny to
accuse the Holy See of being influenced by temporal motives". He also
announced his own speedy departure within a few days.

Next day he was suddenly summoned to an audience of the First Consul.
For some time he could not detect the object Napoleon had in view in
engaging him in conversation, but at length he was able to perceive that
it was the Consul's intention to appoint some of the constitutional
bishops to the new sees. With much difficulty the Cardinal convinced him
that the appointments of these men would never receive the sanction of
the Holy See, unless they made a formal declaration of having accepted
the Pontifical decision on the civil constitution of the clergy.

During the ensuing three or four days the Cardinal had no private
audience. On the eve of his departure from Paris he saw Napoleon at a
review at which he and the rest of the diplomatic body assisted
according to custom.

It was his intention to address, by way of leave taking, a few words to
the First Consul before they left the saloon; but when that personage
proceeded to make the round of the room, and began by conversing with
the members of the diplomatic body, at the head of which stood Consalvi,
he looked for a moment fixedly at this latter, and passed on without
taking the slightest notice of him, or sending a word of acknowledgment
to the Holy Father. It was probably his intention to show by this public
slight how little he cared for a Cardinal and for the Holy See, now that
he had obtained all he required from them, and to make this insult the
more remarkable, he delayed for a considerable time to converse on
indifferent topics with the Count de Cobenzel, who came next after
Cardinal Consalvi, and then with the other ambassadors in turn. The
Cardinal retired without awaiting his return from the review. When he
had just finished his preparations for his departure, which had been
fixed for that evening, the Abbé Bernier made his appearance at the
hotel to announce that it was the will of the First Consul that between
them they should come to some understanding about the Bull which,
according to custom, was to accompany the treaty. It was in vain to
refuse, and this new labour imposed on the Cardinal another sitting of
eight hours. He rose from the table to enter his carriage, and after
travelling day and night he reached the Eternal City on the 6th August,
more dead than alive, overcome by fatigue, and with his legs so swollen
that they were unable to support him. The Pope received him with
indescribable tenderness, and expressed his perfect satisfaction with
all that had been done. A special consistory of all the Cardinals in
Rome approved of the Concordat, which was solemnly ratified thirty-five
days after it had been signed at Paris.

Thus was completed the great act which has been fruitful of so many
blessings to Europe, and for which, under God, the Church is indebted to
the wisdom of Pius VII. and the firmness of Cardinal Consalvi.

It was long before the Concordat was published at Paris, and when at
length it did appear, what was the pain of the Holy Father to find,
together with the treaty and under the same date, a compilation of the
so-called _organic laws_ which were put forth as forming part of the
Concordat, and included in the approbation of the Holy See! Of the
organic laws it is enough to say, that they almost entirely overthrew
the new edifice which Cardinal Consalvi had found so difficult to erect.
In spite of the solemn protestations of the Popes these laws still
remain, but they remain as a standing proof of the dishonesty which
Cardinal Consalvi has shown to have marked the entire conduct of
Napoleon Bonaparte in the negotiations for the Concordat.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Art. i. §. 6. Religio Catholica Apostolica Romana libere in Gallia
exercebitur: cultus publicus erit, habita tamen ratione ordinationum
quoad politiam.




THE SEE OF ACHONRY IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.


Few dioceses of Ireland present so uninterrupted a succession of bishops
as Achonry in the sixteenth century. Thomas Ford, Master of Arts, and an
Augustin Canon of the Abbey of Saint Mary and Saint Petroc, in the
diocese of Exeter, was appointed its bishop on the 13th of October,
1492, and after an episcopate of only a few years, had for his successor
Thomas O'Congalan, "a man in great reputation, not only for his wisdom,
but also for his charity to the poor". He, too, was summoned to his
reward in 1508, and a Dominican Father, named Eugene O'Flanagan, was
appointed to succeed him on the 22nd December, the same year. The Bull
of his appointment to the See of Achonry is given by De Burgo, page 480,
and it describes Dr. Eugene as "ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum
professorem ac in Theologia Baccalaureum, in sacerdotio et aetate
legitima constitutum cui apud Nos de Religionis zelo, literarum
scientia, vitae munditiâ, honestate morum, spiritualium providentia, et
temporalium circumspectione, ac aliis multiplicium virtutum donis, fide
digna testimonia perhibentur". The learned historian of the Dominican
order gives two other Briefs of the then reigning Pontiff, Julius the
Second, by one of which the newly-appointed bishop was absolved from all
irregularities and censures which he might perchance have incurred
during his past life, whilst the other authorized him to receive
episcopal consecration from any Catholic bishop he might choose, having
communion with the Apostolic See. Dr. O'Flanagan was present in Rome at
the time of his appointment to the see of Saint Nathy, and before his
departure received from the Holy Father commendatory letters to King
Henry the Seventh, from which we wish to give one extract, in order to
place in clearer light the relations, so often mistaken or
misrepresented, which subsisted between the English monarchs and the
occupants of our episcopal sees. After stating that by Apostolic
authority he had constituted Dr. O'Flanagan bishop of the vacant See of
Achonry, Pope Julius thus addresses the English king:

     "Cum itaque, Fili charissime, sit virtutis opus, Dei
     ministros benigno favore prosequi, ac eos verbis et operibus
     pro regis aeterni gloria venerari, serenitatem Vestram
     Regiam rogamus et hortamur attente quatenus eundem Eugenium
     electum, et praefatam Ecclesiam suae curae commissam, habens
     pro Nostra et Apostolicae Sedis reverentia propensius
     commendatos, in ampliandis et conservandis juribus suis sic
     eos benigni favoris auxilio prosequaris, ut idem Eugenius
     electus, tuae celsitudinis fultus praesidio in commisso sibi
     curae Pastoralis officio, possit, Deo propitio prosperari ac
     tibi exinde a Deo perennis vitae praemium, et a Nobis
     condigna proveniat actio gratiarum".

Dr. O'Flanagan had for his successor a bishop named _Cormac_, who seems
to have held this see for about twelve years, and died before the close
of 1529. During his episcopate a provincial synod was held in Galway the
27th of March, 1523, and amongst the signatures appended to its acts was
that of "Cormacus Episcopus Akadensis manu propria". It was in this
synod that the famous will of Dominick Lynch received the sanction of
the western bishops. This will is memorable in the history of the
period, not only as showing the affluence of the burgher class, but also
on account of the testator's munificence to the Church, as an instance
of which we may mention that among his various bequests there is one
item assigning a legacy _to all the Convents of Ireland_. (See _Irish
Arch. Miscel._, vol. i. pag. 76 seq.). Dr. Cormac was succeeded by a
Dominican Father, named Owen, or Eugene, who, as is mentioned in a
manuscript catalogue of Dominican bishops, held this see in 1530, and by
his death in 1546, left it vacant for Fr. Thomas O'Fihely, of the order
of Saint Augustine. This bishop was appointed on the 15th of January,
1547, as appears from the following consistorial record: "1547, die 15
Januarii S.S. providit Ecclesiae Achadensi in Hibernia vacanti per
obitum Eugenii de persona P. Thomae Abbatis monasterii S. Augustini
Mageonen. cum retentione monasterii". Dr. O'Fihely governed this see for
eight years, till his translation to Leighlin, as we find thus recorded
in the same consistorial acts: "1555, die 30 Augusti: S.S. praefecit
Ecclesiae Laghlinensi Thomam Episcopum Acadensem cum retentione
parochialis Ecclesiae Debellyns, Dublinensis Dioecesis". This
translation to Leighlin is also commemorated by Herrera in his
"Alphabetum Augustinianum", pag. 450. The Elizabethan Chancellor of
Leighlin, Thady Dowling, in his Annals under the year 1554, gives the
following entry: "Thomas Filay, alias Fighill, Minorum frater
auctoritate Apostolica Episcopus Leighlinensis". (I.A.S. 1849, part 2nd,
pag. 40.) The apparent discrepancy between this entry and the
consistorial record may, perhaps, be referred to the well-known
inaccuracy of the Anglo-Irish annalists, or perhaps the bishop himself
exchanged the Augustinian order for that of St. Francis--similar changes
from one religious order to another not being unfrequent in the
sixteenth century.

Cormac O'Coyne was appointed his successor in the See of Achonry in
1556, and died in 1561. This prelate belonged to the order of Saint
Francis, and was probably the same as "frater Cormacus, guardianus
conventus fratrum Minorum de Galvia", who signed the decrees of the
provincial synod of 1523 (I.A.S. Miscell., vol. i. pag. 81). The next
bishop was appointed on 28th January, 1562, as is thus registered in the
consistorial acts:--

     "1562, die 28 Januarii: Referente Cardinale Morono Sua
     Sanctitas providit Ecclesiae Achadensi vacanti per obitum
     bon. mem. Cormaci O'Coyn nuper Episcopi Achadensis extra
     Romanam curiam defuncti de persona D. Eugenii O'Harth
     Hiberni ordinis praedicatorum Professoris, nobilis Catholici
     et concionatoris egregii commendati a R. P. Davide".

The _Pater David_ here referred to, was David Wolf, of the Society of
Jesus, who was sent to Ireland as Apostolic Delegate in 1560, and
received special instructions from the Holy See to select the most
worthy members of the clergy for promotion to the various
ecclesiastical preferments. One of the first thus chosen by Father Wolf
and recommended to the Sovereign Pontiff, was Eugene O'Hart. The result
more than justified his choice, for during the whole long reign of
Elizabeth, Dr. O'Hart continued to illustrate our Church by his zeal,
learning, and virtues. One of the good Jesuit's letters is still happily
preserved. It is dated the 12th of October 1561, and gives us the
following interesting particulars connected with the See of Achonry and
its future bishop, Eugene O'Hart:--

     "Bernard O'Huyghin, Bishop of Elphin, has resigned his
     bishoprick in favour of a Dominican Father, the Prior of
     Sligo, named Andrew Crean, a man of piety and sanctity, who
     is, moreover, held in great esteem by the laity, not so much
     for his learning as for his amiability and holiness....
     Father Andrew is accompanied by another religious of the
     same order, named _Owen_ or _Eugene O'Harty_, a great
     preacher, of exemplary life, and full of zeal for the glory
     of God: he lived for about eight years in Paris, and I am of
     opinion (though he knows nothing of it, and goes thither on
     a quite different errand) that he would be a person well
     suited for a bishoprick. And should anything happen to
     Father Andrew, for accidents are the common lot of all,
     Father Eugene would be a good substitute, although the
     present bishop did not resign in his favour. Should it
     please God, however, to preserve Father Andrew, and appoint
     him to the See of Elphin, his companion might be appointed
     to the See of Achonry, which diocese has remained vacant
     since the demise of Cormac O'Coyn of happy memory, of the
     order of Saint Francis. The Cathedral Church of Achonry is
     at present used as a fortress by the gentry of the
     neighbourhood, and does not retain one vestige of the
     semblance of religion; and I am convinced that the aforesaid
     Eugene, by his good example and holy life, and with the aid
     of his friends, would be able to take back that church, and
     act with it as Dr. Christopher (Bodkin) did in Tuam". (See
     _Introd. to Abps. of Dublin_, pag. 86 seq.)

From this passage we learn that the Statement of De Burgo in regard of
Dr. Eugene, is inexact: "from being Prior of the Convent of Sligo", he
says "he was made Bishop of Achonry". (_Hib. Dom._, 486.) Dr. Eugene's
companion, however, was the Prior, and not Dr. Eugene himself. His was a
still higher post amongst the illustrious fathers of the Dominican
Order, as we will just now learn from another ancient record.

The published writings of Rev. John Lynch, Archdeacon of Tuam, throw
great light on the history of Ireland during the sixteenth and the
beginning of the seventeenth century. He was known, however, to have
composed other works, which till late years were supposed to be
irretrievably lost. It was only two or three years ago that a large
treatise "on the History of the Irish Church", by this learned
archdeacon, was discovered in the Bodleian Library, and we learn from a
few extracts which have been kindly communicated to us, that it is a
work of paramount importance for illustrating the lives of some of the
greatest ornaments of our island during the sad era of persecution. As
regards the appointment of Dr. O'Hart, this work informs us that he was
nephew of the preceding bishop, whom he styles _Cormack O'Quinn_, and
when young, took the habit of the order of Saint Dominick in the convent
of Sligo. In after years he was chosen Prior of this same convent, from
which post he was advanced to be Provincial of the order in Ireland. It
was whilst he discharged the duties of this important office that the
sessions of the Council of Trent were re-opened in 1562, and he was
unanimously chosen by his religious brethren to proceed thither as their
procurator and representative. Father Wolf, however, made him bearer of
letters to the Pope of still more momentous import, "_ut eum ad
Episcopalem in Achadensi sede dignitatem eveheret_". Dr. Lynch adds,
regarding his companion on this journey: "On his journey to Trent he was
accompanied by another member of the convent of Sligo, Andrew O'Crean,
who fell sick in France, and not being able to proceed further, there
received letters from the Pope, appointing him Bishop of Elphin".

It was probably in Rome that Dr. O'Hart was raised to the episcopal
dignity, and on the 25th of May, 1562, and accompanied by Dr. O'Herlihy,
Bishop of Ross, and MacConghail, Bishop of Raphoe, he took his place
amongst the assembled Fathers of Trent. The metrical catalogue of the
bishops of this great Council describes these three ornaments of our
Church as

    "... Tres juvenes quos frigida Hibernia legat
    Eugenium, Thomamque bonos, justumque Donaldum
    Omnes ornatos ingens virtutibus orbis
    Misit ut hanc scabiem tollant, morbumque malignum
    Sacratis omnes induti tempora mitris".

The votes and arguments of Dr. O'Hart are especially commemorated in the
acts of the subsequent sessions of the Council. Thus, on the question of
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, some were anxious to expressly define that
episcopal jurisdiction was derived immediately from God. This opinion,
however, was warmly impugned by the Bishop of Achonry, who assigned the
three following motives for rejecting it:--"1st, Were this jurisdiction
derived immediately from God, we would have innumerable independent
sources of authority, which would lead to anarchy and confusion. 2nd,
Such an opinion leads towards the heretical tenets, and seems to favour
the Anglican opinion, that the king is head of the Church, and that the
bishops being consecrated by three other bishops, receive their
authority from God. 3rd, Were such a doctrine once admitted, the
Sovereign Pontiff could not deprive bishops of their jurisdiction,
which is contrary to the prerogatives of the Holy See, and repugnant to
the primary notion of the Christian Church". The opinion of Dr. O'Hart
was embraced by almost all the other bishops, and the historian of the
council adds: "Quae sententia omnibus placere maxime visa fuit". Even
the Papal legates, when subsequently dealing with this controversy,
expressly refer to the reasoning of our bishop. On another occasion,
when the question of episcopal residence was discussed, an Irish bishop,
who was probably Dr. Eugene, stated the following curious fact:--

     "Est necessarium ut Praelati intersint in conciliis regum et
     principum, alias actum esset de religione in multis regnis.
     Nam in Hibernia cum ageretur concilium reginae Mariae et duo
     contenderent de Episcopatu, alter Catholicus, alter
     haereticus, dixit advocatus Catholici, adversarium esse
     repellendum quia obtinuit Episcopatum a rege schismatico
     Henrico VIII.; tunc statim praefecti consilio judicaverunt
     illium reum esse laesae majestatis. Ille respondit: rogo ut
     me audiatis; nam si Henricus fuit Catholicus, necesse est ut
     regina sit schismatica aut e contra; eligite ergo utrum
     velitis. Tunc praefecti, his auditis, illum absolverunt et
     eidem Episcopatum concesserunt".

The Acts of the Council register Dr. Eugene's name as
follows:--"Eugenius Ohairt, Hibernus, ordinis Praedicatorum, Episcopus
Acadensis". The synod being happily brought to a close, the good bishop
hastened to his spiritual flock, and during the long eventful period of
Elizabeth's reign, laboured indefatigably in ministering to their wants,
and breaking to them the bread of life. He enjoyed at the same time the
confidence of the Holy See, and several important commissions were
entrusted to him. When in 1568 Dr. Creagh wrote from his prison to Rome,
praying the Holy Father to appoint without delay a new bishop to the see
of Clogher, Cardinal Morone presented his petition, and added: "Causa
committi posset in partibus D. Episcopo Acadensi et aliquibus aliis
comprovincialibus Episcopis". Amongst the papers of the same illustrious
Cardinal, who was at this time "Protector of Ireland", there is another
minute which records the following resolutions regarding our Irish
Church: "The administration of the see of Armagh should be given to some
prelate during the imprisonment of the archbishop, and should the Holy
Father so approve, this prelate should be the Bishop of Achonry. The sum
which is given to assist the Primate of Armagh should be transmitted
through the President of the College of Louvain. In each province of
Ireland one Catholic Bishop should be chosen by the Apostolic See, to
give testimonials to those of the clergy who come to Rome, viz., in
Ulster, the Bishop of Achonry, during the imprisonment of the
Metropolitan; in Munster, the Bishop of Limerick; in Connaught, the
same Bishop of Achonry; and in Leinster, too, the Bishop of Limerick"
(_Ex Archiv. Sec. Vatic._). A few years later we find a brief addressed
to "Eugenio Accadensi", granting him some special faculties, and
moreover, authorizing him to make use of them throughout "the whole
province of Tuam". The only other notice I have met with regarding Dr.
Eugene connected with this period of his episcopate, is from the Vatican
list of 1578, which gives the names of the clergy who were actually
engaged in the mission in Ireland. The first name on the list is
"Reverendissimus Edmundus Episcopus Corchagiensis, pulsus tamen
Episcopatu". Next comes "Episcopus Rossensis doctus qui interfuit
concilio Tridentino et ipse exulans". The third name is that of Dr.
O'Hart, "Episcopus Accadensis ex ordine Praedicatorum".

Our Bishop was subjected to many annoyances and persecutions whilst
Bingham administered the government of Connaught. This governor was a
worthy agent of Elizabeth, imbued with her principles, and animated with
her hatred of the Catholic faith: his cruel exactions and barbarity
became proverbial in the West, and he reaped a rich harvest of
maledictions from the good natives of that province. In Dowera's
narrative, published by the Celtic Society in 1849, mention is
incidentally made of an excursion of this governor to the episcopal town
of Dr. Eugene: "he passed the mountain", says this narrative (pag. 207),
"not far from an abbey called Banada, and encamped at night at O'Conroy
(Achonry) a town of the Bishop Oharte". It seems to have been in some
such excursion that Dr. Eugene was arrested in the beginning of 1585,
and sent a close prisoner to Dublin Castle. Sir John Perrott, who was
then Lord Deputy, commissioned the Protestant Archbishop of Armagh, Dr.
Long, to visit him, and a fulsome letter of this dignitary to
Walsingham, dated 4th June, 1585, reveals to us the important fact that
the hopes and desires of the government of that period were precisely
like those of the soupers of our own days. Dr. Long's letter is as
follows: "Owen O'Hart, Bishop of Achanore, alias Achadensis, committed
unto me by his Lordship to be conferred with, who was at the Council of
Trent, is brought by the Lord's good direction to acknowledge his
blindness, to prostrate himself before her majesty, whom he afore agreed
to accurse in religion. So persuaded, I doubt not of great goodness to
ensue by his means. He has resigned his Bishoprick and _no doubt_ (void
of all temporizing) is thoroughly persuaded that the man of sin sitteth
in Rome. I assure your honour if we used not this people more for gain
than for conscience, here would the Lord's work be mightily advanced".
(_Record Office, Ir. Cor._, vol. cxvii.) The Protestant primate soon
found that these his desires and hopes were as groundless as his
tenets, and hence, as soon as the circumstances permitted, Dr. Eugene
was deprived of his temporalities, and a crown nominee was appointed to
administer the see of Achonry. Perrott, however, was for the present
anxious to conciliate the powerful septs of the Western Province, most
of whom were closely allied to the O'Harts, and hence he gave full
liberty to our Bishop on his acknowledging the sovereignty of Elizabeth.
In an indenture made on 23rd September, 1585, the various members of the
O'Hart family and other Western septs submitted to hold their lands from
the crown, and amongst the favours granted in return by the lord deputy,
we find it decreed "that the Lord Bishop of Aghconry shall have four
quarters of land adjoining his house or town of Skrine in the barony of
Tireragh, free, and six quarters as a demesne to his house or town of
Achonry in the barony of Magheraleyny, free" (_Morrin's Calendar_, ii.
pag. 150; and publications of I. A. S. 1846, pag. 345). In another
inquisition which was held in 1558, we find it further mentioned that
the Bishop of Achonry was allowed to hold one quarter of land in Kilmore
in the barony of Belaghanes, commonly called Mac Costello's country
(_Morrin_, ib., pag. 141). There is also a State Paper of 1586, which
not only mentions Dr. O'Hart as Bishop of Achonry, but further adds that
the friars then held in peace their abbeys and houses throughout all
Sligo and Mayo. As soon, however, as the government found itself
sufficiently strong to despise the O'Harts and their dependants, a
Protestant Bishop was appointed to hold this see. Dr. Mant, indeed, is
of opinion that Miler McGrath, appointed in 1607, was the first crown
nominee to Achonry. Archdeacon Cotton is more discreet in his statement:
"Queen Elizabeth", he says, "appears to have neglected filling up this
see, as well as some few others, during great part of her reign". Ware,
too, only obscurely hinted that, besides the Catholic Bishop Eugene,
there was another contemporary of the same name holding from the crown
the see of Achonry. Nothing more, however, was known about this Bishop
till the manuscript history by Archdeacon Lynch, above referred to,
disclosed to us some remarkable features of his ministry. This
contemporary Protestant Bishop of Achonry was Eugene O'Conor, who, from
being dean of this see, was appointed by letters patent of 1st December,
1591, Bishop of Killala and administrator of Achonry. Dr. O'Hart had
been in early life the friend and school companion of this court
favourite, and hence easily persuaded him not to interfere in the
spiritual administration of the diocese, engaging, on the other hand, to
pay him annually one hundred and eighty marks, that is, the full revenue
of the see. One passage of this narrative is so important, that we must
cite the original words of the learned Lynch: "Id etiam commodi ex
episcopatibus Achadensi et Alladensi Eugenio O'Conor ab Elizabeth Regina
collatis hausit, ut ab illa sede sua minime motus fuerit, utpote cui
arcto amicitiae nexu ante religionis mutationem devinctus fuerat, sed
centum et octaginta marcarum censu veteri sodali quotannis persoluto
quietem sibi et functiones episcopales intra suae Dioecesis fines
obeundi potestatem comparavit. Et alter ille Eugenius ideo tantum a fide
descivit, ut se fluxis et caducis divitiis et voluptatibus expleret". By
this means Dr. O'Hart secured peace for his diocese during the remainder
of Elizabeth's reign; if the temporalities were lost, his spiritual
fold, at least, was preserved from the wolves that threatened it, and
the good Bishop was enabled to continue undisturbed to instruct his
faithful children, and dispense to them the blessings of our holy faith.
It was in 1597 that the Franciscan Superior, Father Mooney, visited the
western convents of his order. During this visitation he met with Dr.
O'Hart, and in the narrative which he subsequently composed, he
describes our good bishop as being then venerable for his years, and
still not deficient in strength and energy, "grandaevus, robustus
tamen". For six years more Dr. O'Hart continued to rule the see of
Achonry, till at length, having survived the arch-enemy of his Church
and country, he, in 1603, yielded his soul to God, having attained the
forty-third year of his episcopate, and the one-hundredth of his age. He
was interred in his cathedral church, and Lynch describes his place of
sepulture as being "prope aram principalem suae Ecclesiae in cornu
Evangelii".




THE ETERNAL PUNISHMENT OF THE WICKED.

     _Eternal Punishment and Eternal Death._ An Essay. By James
     Barlow, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Trinity College, Dublin.
     London: Longman and Co., 1865.


There is a class of writers at the present day, who believe themselves
good Christians, and yet whose spirit contrasts very strangely with the
spirit of the Gospel. It was a maxim of St. Paul, that every
understanding should be made "captive unto the obedience of Christ".[2]
But in the nineteenth century Christian philosophers are found who
presume to sit in judgment on the doctrine of Christ, and to measure it
by the standard of human reason. Mr. Barlow's book, we regret to say,
partakes largely of this spirit, equally at variance with the faith of
the Catholic Church and with the maxims of Inspired Scripture. It is
fit, therefore, that the _Irish Ecclesiastical Record_ should raise its
voice to expose the dangerous tendency of his principles and the fallacy
of his arguments.

The Apostle Paul was "rapt even to the third heaven", and was there
favoured with those mysterious revelations "which it is not granted to
man to utter".[3] Nevertheless, when he looked into the profound depths
of God's decrees, and saw at the same time the littleness of human
reason, he was forced to exclaim: "How incomprehensible are His
judgments, and how unsearchable His ways!"[4] Not so Mr. Barlow. He has
ventured to sound those depths which St. Paul could not fathom; he has
been bold enough to scrutinize those judgments which St. Paul could not
comprehend. The decree of eternal punishment, pronounced by Jesus Christ
against the wicked, does not harmonize with Mr. Barlow's notions of
morality.[5] He has weighed the malice of sin in the scales of human
philosophy, and he has pronounced that it does not "deserve" eternal
torments. Therefore, he concludes, must this "detestable dogma" (p. 135)
"be struck from the popular creed" (p. 144). Such is the general scope
and tenor of a book on which we propose to offer a few remarks.

Our readers are well aware that the eternal punishment of the wicked is
the unmistakable doctrine of Sacred Scripture. It is foreshadowed in
glowing imagery by the Prophets; it is set forth in simple and emphatic
words by Jesus Christ; it is borne to the farthest end of the earth by
the burning zeal of the Apostles. We need not be at any pains to search
for texts. The following are familiar to us all. "Then shall He say to
them also that be on His left hand: Depart from me, you cursed into
_everlasting_ fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels".
"And these shall go into _everlasting_ punishment; but the just into
life _everlasting_".[6] Let it be observed, that the punishment of the
wicked is here declared everlasting, in the very same sense as the
happiness of the good is said to be everlasting. On another occasion our
Divine Lord thus admonishes His disciples: "If thy hand or thy foot
scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee. It is better for
thee to go into life maimed or lame, than, having two hands or two feet,
to be cast into _everlasting_ fire".[7] Or, as St. Mark has it: "To be
cast into _unquenchable_ fire; where their worm _dieth not_, and the
fire _is not extinguished_".[8] This dreadful judgment of the wicked had
been already announced by St. John the Baptist to the multitude who
flocked around him in the desert of Judea. Speaking of Christ, whose
coming he announced, he said: "He will gather His wheat into His barn,
but the chaff He will burn with _unquenchable_ fire".[9] And long
before, it was written by the prophet Isaias: "And they shall go out,
and see the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me;
their worm _shall not die_, and their fire _shall not be quenched_".[10]
Again, we read in the Apocalypse: "And the devil, who seduced them, was
cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast and the
false prophet shall be tormented day and night _for ever and ever_....
And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into
the pool of fire".[11] These passages speak plainly for themselves; they
stand in need of no commentary from us. True, it is an awful doom; and
he who ponders well upon that fire which shall never be quenched, that
worm which shall never die, must look forward to the great accounting
day with "fear and trembling". But we must not hesitate to accept a
doctrine which comes to us from the lips of Eternal Truth, in language
so clear, so simple, so divine.

Indeed, some of the texts we have adduced seem to Mr. Barlow himself so
very conclusive, that he candidly admits he can offer no satisfactory
solution. "I trust I shall not be misunderstood to assert that there are
no passages in the New Testament relating to the question, which present
formidable difficulties. This would be simple dishonesty. Such passages
exist, and though the difficulties involved in them may be much
extenuated, they cannot be wholly removed"--p. 86. The "difficulties",
indeed, are "formidable", and "cannot be wholly removed", because in
these passages it is simply asserted that the punishment of the wicked
will be eternal, whereas Mr. Barlow maintains that it will _not_.

So far the testimony of Scripture. As for Tradition, we shall content
ourselves with Mr. Barlow's own admission. He tells us that "the
eternity of future punishments has been, in truth, the immemorial
doctrine of the great majority of the Church"--_Preface_, p. v. And in
another place, he speaks of "a longing to make out a doctrine of
everlasting punishment, which has in all ages characterized the genuine
theologian"--p. 86. Such, then, are the overwhelming odds against which
this intrepid writer boldly takes his stand, the clear and obvious
meaning of the sacred text, "the immemorial doctrine of the great
majority of the Church", and the teaching of "the genuine theologian in
all ages". Surely he is a dauntless warrior, and must come forth to the
conflict armed with mighty weapons, and clad in impenetrable armour. Not
so, indeed; but his understanding, which should have been made "captive
unto the obedience of Christ", has shaken off that sweet and gentle
yoke; he has looked with too curious a scrutiny into the mysterious
decrees of God, until at length his dizzy reason has become the dupe of
false principles and fallacious arguments.

"The civilization of the nineteenth century jars with a belief in
everlasting torments, to be inflicted by the All-Merciful on the
creatures of His hand"--_Preface_, p. iv. This is the sum and substance
of Mr. Barlow's difficulty. The words of eternal truth, and the faith of
the universal Church, are weighed in the balance against the
civilization of the nineteenth century; they are found wanting, and they
must be cast aside. We cannot contemplate this sentiment without a
feeling of horror and amazement. One would think that, if such a
contradiction did really exist, it would be the duty of a Christian
writer to elevate modern civilization to the standard of revealed truth.
But this is not the principle of Mr. Barlow. He looks down, as it were,
from the vantage ground of the nineteenth century, and he proposes to
reform the faith of Christ, and to raise it up to the level of his own
philosophy.

We are satisfied that this dreadful principle contains the germ of all
that Mr. Barlow has written against the doctrine of eternal punishment.
But it does not always appear in its naked deformity. Sometimes it
assumes the grave and imposing garb of philosophical argument; sometimes
it is adorned with the graces of rhetoric; and thus for a time it is
made to appear plausible, and even attractive. In the following passage
it may be recognized without much difficulty: "I cannot conceive any
finite sin _deserving_ such a doom. I cannot conceive it proceeding from
a _merciful_ being. The sentence appears to be clearly repugnant not
only to mercy, but to justice. It surely requires some explanation. The
_onus probandi_ rests upon its supporters; let us see what they have to
allege on its behalf".[12]

Mr. Barlow "_cannot conceive_ any finite Sin deserving such a doom!" Mr.
Barlow "_cannot conceive_" eternal punishment proceeding from a merciful
being! That is to say, one of the "incomprehensible decrees" of God
exceeds the limits of Mr. Barlow's conception, and this is a sufficient
reason "to strike it from the popular creed" (p. 144), and to reform the
venerable symbols of Christian faith.[13] He adds, indeed, that "the
sentence appears to be clearly repugnant not only to mercy, but to
justice". But when we look for a proof of this daring assertion, we are
told that the _onus probandi_ rests upon us. Now, this is a simple
issue. Does the _onus probandi_ rest with us or with Mr. Barlow? Let our
readers judge for themselves. Mr. Barlow professes to believe in the
Bible. We urge upon him the solemn declaration, so often repeated by
Christ and His Apostles, that the wicked "shall go into everlasting
punishment". True, he replies, I cannot gainsay these words; but "I
believe that the doctrine is untenable" (_Preface_, p. iv.), because it
is repugnant to the attributes of God. Surely it devolves upon him to
prove this alleged contradiction between the attributes of God and the
words of Christ. As for us, we have nothing to prove. We cling fast to
the words of eternal truth, with a firm confidence that they cannot be
shaken by the arguments of human wisdom, nor even by the boasted
civilization of the nineteenth century.

The ingenious sophistry by which our author seeks to shift the burthen
of proof from his own shoulders, may be exposed more clearly by the
following illustration: God alone exists from eternity. This world,
therefore, which we inhabit must have been created by Him _out of
nothing_. This is an obvious and a certain conclusion. But some one
might object: "This opinion is untenable if creation out of nothing is
an impossibility; and 'I cannot conceive' that it is possible. How do
you prove that it is consistent with the Divine attributes?" Mr. Barlow,
we think, would give little quarter to such an objector. And yet this is
the very course of reasoning he has himself pursued. The answer in each
case is exactly the same. We _know_ that creation is possible, because
it has actually taken place. And so, too, we _know_ that the doctrine of
eternal punishment is in harmony with the attributes of God, because He
that cannot deceive has told us that the doctrine is true. If we cannot
_see_ that harmony, it is because the judgments of God are
incomprehensible, His ways unsearchable to our finite understanding.

But we must do justice to Mr. Barlow. Though he maintains that the
burthen of proof rests with his adversaries, yet he does set himself to
demonstrate that the doctrine of eternal punishment contradicts the
attributes of God. Now, in this part of his task, we freely admit that
much of his reasoning is cogent and indeed conclusive: but it falls very
short of the conclusion which he labours to establish. Thus, for
example, in the case of a little child that "cries about taking its
medicine", Mr. Barlow cannot bear the idea that this trivial fault will
be punished with eternal flames (pp. 19, 20). Or, "you fall asleep for a
minute or two in church, at afternoon service on a hot day: of course
you have not been attending to the service; but, honestly and truly, do
you clearly see and feel that those two minutes' sleep _deserves at the
hand of Infinite Justice_ everlasting agony?" (p. 38, _note_). Again, "a
quick little child of two years old, or even younger, knows very well
that it is naughty to get into a passion and strike his mother or his
nurse: his elders, however, do not think a great deal of this little
ebullition of temper, and consider it amply expiated by sending him to
bed. But the child may suddenly die in his sin. Will the 'All Merciful'
consign him to everlasting tortures?" (p. 44). In another place (chap.
v.) he adduces several texts to prove that "punishment after death,
finite in duration, as the lot of _some_, is the unambiguous doctrine of
Holy Scripture" (p. 116). There is nothing in all this to which we can
object. But we maintain that such arguments are worthless in the cause
of which Mr. Barlow is the advocate. He proves, indeed, that there are
many sins which do not deserve eternal punishment. He proves too from
the Inspired Writings, that, beyond the grave there is a state of
expiation, in which many souls must needs be purged from such minor
transgressions before they can appear in those mansions of heavenly
purity where "nothing defiled shall enter".[14]

Our readers will here recognize without difficulty the Catholic doctrine
of venial sin, and the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Unconsciously Mr.
Barlow has become for a time the champion of Catholic faith. But the
question at issue has not to do with the innocent little babe that beats
its nurse, nor the wayward child that refuses its medicine, nor yet with
the just man that, through human frailty, "shall fall seven times, and
shall rise again".[15] The controversy in which Mr. Barlow has engaged
regards the future lot of the _wicked_--of those who, _with full
deliberation_, have committed _grievous_ sin; of whom St. Paul has said
that they "shall not possess the kingdom of God";[16] in a word, of that
unhappy band to whom the Great Judge will one day speak those dreadful
words: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire". It yet
remains for Mr. Barlow to demonstrate that this fire will _not_ last for
ever, that it will one day be extinguished, and that the torments of the
_wicked_ will cease.

We may pass on, then, to other proofs. "How beautiful are the feet of
them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring glad tidings of good
things".[17] This is the sentiment of St. Paul and of the Prophet
Isaias. But, argues Mr. Barlow, if the gospel of eternal punishment be
true, he that goes forth to preach the gospel to the heathen is a curse
and not a blessing. Now what are the practical results of our missions
to the heathen? "Is not the testimony of all unbiassed witnesses who
have travelled among them uniform? Success is infinitesimal, failure
all but universal. What impression has been made by our associations on
the hundred and fifty millions of India? Taking the estimates of the
missionaries themselves, who are not unnaturally disposed to magnify the
good results of their work, the nominal converts are barely one in two
thousand, while the number of _bonâ fide_ native Christians, 'possessed
of saving faith', may be regarded as practically evanescent.
Remembering, then, these facts, and assuming as a not improbable
proportion, that a zealous missionary preaches the Gospel to a thousand
who reject it for one whom he converts to Christ--God help him--the load
of human misery which that man has brought about must surely weigh heavy
on his soul.... Has any tyrant, a recognized scourge of the human race,
brought down such storms of misery on his species as must be ascribed to
the active missionary who has failed? And they have all failed--failed a
thousand times over for once they have been successful" (p. 14, 15).

On reading this very remarkable passage we are struck with the ingenuous
candour of the writer. It is nothing new for us to learn that Protestant
missions in pagan countries have been all but absolutely barren. But it
is something new to find a distinguished Protestant Divine, who frankly
admits this inconvenient fact. Mr. Barlow must, indeed, find it
difficult to persuade himself that the Church which sends forth such
missions, is the same as that which Isaias addressed in those well known
words: "Enlarge the place of thy tent, and stretch out the skins of thy
tabernacles; spare not; lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes.
For thou shalt pass on to the right hand, and to the left, and thy seed
shall inherit the gentiles".[18] "And the gentiles shall walk in thy
light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thy eyes round
about and see: all these are gathered together, they are come to thee:
thy sons shall come from afar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy
side. Then shalt thou see, and abound, and thy heart shall wonder and be
enlarged, when the multitude of the sea shall be converted to thee, the
strength of the gentiles shall come to thee". This magnificent prophecy,
Mr. Barlow must confess, has no fulfilment in the Protestant Church.

But let that pass. It is not with the _fact_ but with the _argument_
that we purpose to deal. And first, it occurs to us that the argument,
if valid, would prove not only against the doctrine which Mr. Barlow
impugns, but also against that which he defends. He certainly will admit
that a grievous sin against God is a dreadful crime; that it far
transcends every other evil which exists or can be conceived. He
maintains, moreover, that each one will receive, in the world to come,
rewards and punishment "_according to his works_". Therefore, the
punishment reserved for the sinner, even though it were not eternal,
must yet be something dreadful to contemplate. And the missionary, the
number of whose real converts, "'possessed of saving faith', may be
regarded as practically evanescent", brings down this dreadful
punishment on all to whom he preaches the gospel. Hence, if we accept
Mr. Barlow's argument, even on his own doctrine of finite punishment,
the missionary will be a curse to heathen nations; not indeed _so great_
a curse as if the punishment of sin were eternal, but still a _curse_
and _not_ a blessing. He must therefore answer his own argument, or else
he will be forced to maintain that there is no punishment for sin in the
world to come.

To us his reasoning offers little difficulty. If the heathen, when he
rejects the Christian faith, commits a deliberate grievous sin, he will
certainly be punished accordingly. But this punishment must surely be
ascribed to his own wickedness, and not to the labours of the
missionary. The work of the missionary is a blessed work; it is the
heathen himself that has changed it into a curse. We may illustrate this
explanation from the pages of Sacred Scripture. The wicked servant in
the gospel, if he had not received the one talent from his master, could
not have buried that talent in the earth. And yet, for this fault he is
"cast into exterior darkness", and condemned to "weeping and gnashing of
teeth".[19] Will Mr. Barlow say that the gift of his master was not a
blessing but a curse? If so, he arraigns the conduct of God Himself,
whom this master represents. Again, if our Divine Lord had not selected
Judea for the scene of His public mission, the Jews would never have
been guilty of the frightful crime of Deicide, nor would they have
incurred the terrible chastisement with which that crime was punished.
Yet who will deny that the presence of the Incarnate Word amongst them
was a special favour--the last and greatest--vouchsafed by a loving
Father to that unhappy people? We need only add that the words of holy
Simeon, addressed to the Virgin Mother on the presentation of her Infant
Son in the Temple, are still applicable to every zealous missionary:
"Behold, He is set up for the fall and for the resurrection of many in
Israel";[20] for the resurrection of those who hearken to the glad
tidings, and eagerly accept the grace which He brings; for the fall of
those who spurn the one, and trample the other under foot.

The next argument to which we shall invite the attention of our readers,
is founded on the condition of the blessed in Heaven. "But the terrible
difficulty arising from the relations of the saved to the lost cannot
even be mitigated" (p. 22). This "terrible difficulty" is presented to
us in two different forms. First, Mr. Barlow implicitly appeals to the
divine precept of fraternal charity. Every one is bound to love his
neighbour as himself. Now, if the blessed in Heaven fulfil this precept,
they must be intensely miserable. For the proof of true charity is that
we feel for our neighbour's sufferings, the same grief as if they were
our own. Therefore the saints must experience the same internal anguish
for the torments of the damned as if they endured these torments
themselves.[21] This argument may be dismissed in a few words. The
precept of fraternal charity does not extend to the future life. The
blessed inhabitants of Heaven _cannot_ love the wicked in Hell; much
less are they _bound_ to love them. They see God face to face, and they
love Him with a resistless impulse. Whatever else is good and pleasing
to Him, that they love for His sake; whatever is bad and offensive in
His sight, they _cannot_ love, because they _see_ that it is unworthy of
their love. A divine precept to love the devil and his unhappy
companions in misery, is an idea peculiar to Mr. Barlow.

The second form in which this "terrible difficulty" appears is more
plausible than the first. Many a saint in Heaven will miss from the
mansions of the blessed the friend of his bosom. Many a fond sister will
look in vain for her gay and dissipated, but yet warm-hearted and
affectionate brother. Many a loving mother will behold afar off the
undying torments of her darling son. Are we to suppose that the generous
affections of the human heart are extinguished in Heaven? If so, then
man must be morally worse in Heaven than he was upon earth. And if not,
it cannot be true that "mourning and sorrow shall be no more"[22] in the
City of God. Here is the argument as it is put by Mr. Barlow. "I firmly
believe that if, in the fruition of the Heavenly Kingdom, a time should
come when I shall be capable of forgetting that one who truly loved me
in this world ... is alive in hopeless torment--scorched by the
everlasting flame--gnawed by the undying worm--I must have sunk down
lower in the moral scale before this came to pass. I must have become
more deeply immersed in heartless selfishness than I am now. And this,
which I believe of myself, I believe of every one else. There is only
one explanation of this frightful difficulty. We must assume that the
redeemed are morally worse in Heaven than they were on Earth" (p. 24).

This difficulty, which appeals more strongly to the feelings than to the
judgment, is by no means peculiar to the doctrine of _eternal_
punishment. It must be explained as well by those who say the torments
of the damned will come to an end, as by those who say they will not.
If the saints must grieve at the _eternal_ punishment of their friends,
they must certainly grieve at the _temporal_ punishment of their
friends. The latter grief will be less poignant, it is true; but it will
still be inconsistent with _perfect_ happiness. Let Mr. Barlow explain
how the inhabitants of Heaven will be free from _all_ sorrow, if the
punishment of Hell be limited in duration, and it will be easy to show
they will be equally free if the punishment be eternal.

As for us, we see no necessity for any explanation. God has promised to
make His saints happy. Surely He is able to do it. Mr. Barlow thinks
they will be weeping for their friends. But is it not written that "God
will wipe away all tears from their eyes"?[23] In what manner this will
be done it is not necessary for us to explain. Yet we may be allowed to
offer a conjecture, which, as it seems to us, is supported alike by
reason and by revelation. We would say that, in the saints every
affection that has not for its object what is good and pleasing to God,
will be utterly extinguished; and therefore they will _cease to love_
those unhappy souls that have been condemned to Hell. The reason is
clear. The saints in Heaven see things as they are; and hence they
_cannot_ love that which is wicked and hateful in the sight of God. In
Mr. Barlow's mind this severance of earthly ties must come from an
increase of "heartless selfishness". To us it seems to flow from perfect
love of God. Neither does it follow, as he supposes, that the saints
have "sunk down lower in the moral scale". On the contrary, it is
manifest they have been raised up immeasurably higher. On Earth their
affections were often guided by mere human motives, and, at best, were
governed by an erring human judgment; in Heaven, they are moulded with
the most perfect fidelity after a Divine model.

With these remarks, we take leave of Mr. Barlow and his book. We cannot,
however, close this brief paper without directing the attention of our
readers to a very serious consideration which this book suggests. The
Reverend Mr. Barlow is a Fellow of Trinity College. And there are many
who would ask Catholic parents to entrust the education of their
children to him and his colleagues. We have seen a specimen of his
principles; in particular we have seen that, according to his views,
"the civilization of the nineteenth century jars" with a doctrine which
every Catholic is bound to believe. Is it safe, then, for a Catholic
youth to gather his ideas of modern civilization from the lips of such a
teacher as Mr. Barlow? We are told, indeed, it is for _secular
education_ alone that a Catholic student should go to Trinity College:
that he may learn his religion from other sources. But, if we
understand the words aright, secular education must surely include
modern civilization, and modern civilization, as taught by Mr. Barlow,
is contrary to Catholic faith. These are simple facts. Our readers may
draw their own conclusion.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] II. _Cor._, x. 5.

[3] II. _Cor._, xii. 2-4.

[4] _Rom._, xi. 33.

[5] See Mr. Barlow's book, pp. 37 (note), 38, 39.

[6] _Matth._, xxv. 41-46.

[7] _Matth._, xviii. 8.

[8] _Mark_, ix. 42, 43, 44, 45, 47.

[9] _Matth._, iii. 12.

[10] _Is._, lxvi. 24.

[11] _Apoc._, xx. 9, 10, 15.

[12] Pp. 38-39. The words in italics are so printed in Mr. Barlow's
book.

[13] See pp. 7-8, where this principle is advanced in a still more
confident tone, and with even less regard for the maxims of the Gospel.
We extract the following passage: "I do truly believe that if every man,
before repeating the Athanasian Creed, would sit down quietly, and--say
for five minutes--steadily endeavour to realize in his imagination, as
far as he is capable of doing it, what the contents of the notion
'Eternal Torments' are, we should find an enormous increase of so-called
heresy with respect to these portions [the "damnatory clauses"] of the
Creed. The responses, 'Which faith except every one do keep whole and
undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly', would be nearly
confined to the clerk". Five minutes' reflection is quite enough, in the
estimate of Mr. Barlow, to convince every man that he ought to abandon
the faith of ages.

[14] _Apoc._, xxi. 27.

[15] _Prov._, xxiv. 16.

[16] I. _Cor._, vi. 9, 10; _Gal._, v. 21.

[17] _Rom._, x. 15; _Isaias_, lii. 7.

[18] _Isaias_, liv 2, 3.

[19] _Matth._, xxxv. 30

[20] _Luke_, ii. 34.

[21] See Mr. Barlow's book, p. 22; also p. 17.

[22] _Apoc._, xxi. 4.

[23] _Apoc._, xxi. 4.




CATHOLIC EDUCATION--DISENDOWMENT OF THE PROTESTANT ESTABLISHMENT.


The last year terminated with the establishment in Dublin of an
association, which, we trust, whilst protecting the material interests
of the country, will contribute to put an end to religious oppression
and intolerance, and to spread the blessings of Catholic education
through all Ireland. Undertaking a task so meritorious in itself, and so
much in accordance with the objects of the _Record_, the association
will have our best wishes and co-operation. Its first meeting was held
in the Rotundo on the 29th of December last, and a vast number of
influential and respectable laymen, from city and country, many
clergymen, and several archbishops and bishops attended. Its proceedings
were most impressive, and the speakers all displayed great moderation
accompanied with energy and firmness in their addresses. We may add that
the speeches of the Archbishop of Cashel and the Bishop of Cloyne, on
the claims of tenants for compensation for beneficial improvements, were
most eloquent and convincing; that the Bishop of Elphin made an
excellent and learned defence of the rights of Catholics to a Catholic
system of education; and that the Archbishop of Dublin, supported by Mr.
O'Neill Daunt, proved to the satisfaction of all present that the
Protestant Establishment in Ireland is a nuisance and an insult, and
ought to be abolished. We regret that the limits of this periodical will
not allow us to enter fully into the various questions discussed at the
meeting: we must restrict ourselves to a brief article on the topics
most closely connected with the objects of the _Record_--we mean the
question of education and of the Church. We cannot, however, but
recommend our readers to assist the association by their influence,
their counsels, and contributions, being full of hope that Ireland will
derive great advantages, temporal and spiritual, from its labours.

The Lord Mayor, by whose influence and authority the meeting had been
convened, having taken the chair, the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Cullen,
was called on to propose the first resolution. Before doing so he
explained the objects of the association, and showed that they were so
moderate, so reasonable, and so necessary, that no liberal minded man
could refuse to support them.

     "It is proposed", said he, "to protect liberty of religion
     by relieving the great majority of the inhabitants of this
     country from an oppressive and degrading burden, forced on
     them for the maintenance of the Protestant Establishment,
     which they look on as a galling and permanent insult; it is
     proposed to encourage the growth of learning, by holding out
     equal hopes to every class, and putting on a footing of
     equality all who engage in the career of letters and
     science; and finally it is proposed to restore prosperity to
     this country, by giving inducements to the people to invest
     their capital in useful and permanent improvements".

Having thus stated the reasons for founding the new association, the
Archbishop briefly alluded to the necessity of a good education, to the
services of the Catholic Church in promoting science and letters, and to
the glorious mission of carrying the light of the gospel and true
civilization to pagan nations, which was given to Ireland for centuries
after her conversion. That mission was interrupted by Danish and
Anglo-Saxon invasions. Continued attempts to force the Reformation on
our forefathers, the prohibition of Catholic schools, and a most galling
system of penal laws, afterwards reduced our country to a state of
misery and degradation, in which it was impossible for the masses of the
people to approach the fountains of knowledge, or to render services to
other countries. As soon, however, as liberty began to dawn, active
efforts were made by the Catholic laity and clergy to repair the ruins
of past times, and within the present century innumerable schools,
colleges, convents, and other educational establishments, have been
called into existence, which are rendering great services to the
country, and preparing to make it again what it once was--a land of
sages and saints. The exertions and sacrifices made in this holy cause
are a proof of the zeal of the Catholics of Ireland for education, and
reflect the greatest honour on their charity and generosity.

Let us now look to what government has done in regard to Catholic
education. In the first place, our rulers in past times prohibited all
Catholic schools under the severest penalties, determined, it would
appear, to sink the people into the degrading depths of ignorance, or to
compel them when acquiring knowledge to imbibe at the same time
Protestant doctrines. Secondly, a Protestant university and Protestant
schools were founded and richly endowed with the confiscated property of
Catholic schools or monasteries, and all possible privileges and honours
were lavishly conferred on them by the state, in order to give them
weight and influence, and to render them more powerful in their assaults
on the ancient creed of Ireland. Thirdly, these institutions are still
preserved, and possess immense property, nearly all derived from public
grants. Besides other vast sources of income, Trinity College holds
about two hundred thousand acres of land, and the several endowed
schools are worth seventy or eighty thousand a year and own a great deal
of landed property. Fourthly, it is to be observed that the management
of these schools is altogether in Protestant hands, the teaching
Protestant, and their atmosphere thoroughly impregnated with
Protestantism. If any Catholic be admitted into those institutions, his
faith is exposed to great danger, and unhappily it is too true that many
who ventured to run the risk, perished therein, so that we find it
recorded that several Catholics, when passing through the ordeal of
Protestant education, lost their faith and became ministers and
preachers of error. At present there are Protestant bishops and
archdeacons, and other dignitaries, now enemies of the ancient faith,
who commenced their career in Trinity College as very humble members of
the Catholic Church. I say nothing of the many Catholics who, in
consequence of the training received in Trinity College, never frequent
any sacrament of their Church, and neglect all religious duties. The
parents who expose their children to such dangers cannot be excused from
a grievous breach of the trust committed to them by God. Can they be
admitted to sacraments?

Keeping in mind the facts just stated, may we not ask, were not
Protestants provided with everything they could desire for educational
purposes? was it necessary to adopt other measures in their favour?

Now such being the case, had not we a right to expect that when new
educational arrangements were to be made, the past sufferings of
Catholics, the spoliation of their property, and their actual wants,
should be taken into account? Was it to be supposed that _their_ claims
should be overlooked in order to give further advantage to
Protestantism? Reason and sound policy would have prohibited such
suppositions. But "aliter superis visum". Instead of repairing past
injustice and making some compensation for the confiscations of times
gone by, the government, in all new measures for promoting education,
seemed to forget the Catholics, and to think only of Protestant
interests, just as if they were not abundantly provided for already.
Thus, when the Queen's Colleges were projected, it was determined to
establish them, and to endow them at the expense of the Catholics of the
country, and on principles so hostile to Catholicity, that the Sovereign
Pontiff and Irish bishops were obliged to condemn them as dangerous to
faith and morals, whilst a Protestant statesman admitted that they were
a gigantic scheme of godless education. Hence, no Catholic parent,
though taxed for their support, unless he be ready to immolate his
children to Baal, can send them to institutions thus anathematised. Have
not Catholics great ground to complain upon this head?

The national system was also founded on bad principles, and to protect
the consciences of Protestant children, even in schools where they never
attend, Catholic instruction was prohibited in them during the common
hours of class.

To illustrate the effects of this prohibition, the Archbishop refers to
part of his own diocese--the county Dublin--in which there are 145
so-called National Schools, frequented by 36,826 Catholic children,
without the intermixture of one single Protestant, and asks is it not
most unjust and insulting to banish Catholic books, Catholic practices,
the history of the Catholic Church, from such schools, and to treat them
as if they were mixed or filled with Protestants? If the case were
reversed--if there were so large a number of Protestant children in
schools without any mixture of Catholics, would Protestants tolerate any
regulation by which every mention of their religion would be banished
from such schools? Why apply one rule to Catholics and another to
Protestants? The Archbishop then adds:

     "Let me repeat it: Catholic children in purely Catholic
     schools must pass the greater part of the day without any
     act or word of religion, lest they should offend Protestants
     who are present only in imagination. No crucifix, no image
     of the Blessed Mother of God, no sacred pictures, no
     religious emblems, though experience teaches that such
     objects make excellent impressions on the youthful mind, are
     tolerated in National schools, even when no Protestant
     frequents them. No Catholic book can be used, and even the
     works of such men as Bossuet, Massillon, Fenelon, the most
     eloquent writers of modern times, must be excluded because
     they were Catholics and inculcate Catholic doctrines. The
     only books used by Catholics in these schools have been
     compiled by the late rationalistic Archbishop of Dublin, by
     Dr. Carlisle, a Presbyterian, and other Protestants, and are
     tinged with an anti-Catholic spirit. It is to be added, that
     the history of our Irish saints and missionaries and of the
     ancient Church of Ireland and its doctrines, as well as the
     sad narrative of our sufferings and persecutions, is
     completely ignored. Were it necessary to throw still greater
     light on the spirit of the mixed system, we could show that
     the late Dr. Whately, one of its great patrons, declared in
     his last pastoral charge to the clergy of Kildare, that his
     object in introducing certain Scripture lessons into the
     schools was to shake the religious convictions of the
     people, and to dispel what he is pleased to call their
     _scriptural darkness_. When things are thus conducted, have
     we not here again great reason to complain?"

The Archbishop also urges against the national system, its tendency to
throw the education of this Catholic country into the hands of a
Protestant government, whose past history proves that it has been
always hostile to Catholic interests. Model and training and
agricultural schools, which are completely withdrawn from Catholic
control, have this tendency. Are not inspectors and other managers of
the system altogether government nominees? When books were to be
selected, was not the same object promoted by deputing to compile them
Protestant archbishops, Presbyterian ministers, and other Protestants,
who banished from them everything Catholic and national, and made them
breathe a spirit of English supremacy and anti-Catholic prejudice? May
not the experience of past ages be appealed to to prove that education
under such government control becomes hostile to true religion, tends to
introduce a spirit of despotism, and to rob the subject of his liberty?
This was the tendency of all government enactments on education in
Ireland for centuries. The Archbishop observes:

     "Robespierre and other French despots fully understood all
     this, when they proclaimed that all children were the
     property of the state, to be educated under its care, at the
     public expense. When the instruction of the rising
     generations and the direction of schools falls under the
     absolute control of the ruling powers of the Earth, that
     sort of wisdom which Saint Paul calls earthly, sensual,
     diabolical, soon begins to prevail; the wisdom from above
     falls away, and neither religion nor true Christian liberty
     can be safe".

Having examined in this way the present defects and shortcomings of
education in Ireland, as far as it receives aid from the state, the
Archbishop insisted that Catholics have a decided claim to a Catholic
university, with every privilege and right conferred upon Protestant
universities, to Catholic training and model schools, and to a system of
education under which the faith and morals of Catholic children would be
safe from all danger. In England[24] the schools for the people
supported by government are denominational, and the Catholics, though
only a fraction of the population, have all the advantages of a Catholic
system of education. Why should Ireland be deprived of rights which are
freely granted to every class of people not only in England and
Scotland, but in all the British colonies? Are the Catholics of this
country to be degraded and insulted on account of their religion? Would
such a mode of acting be in conformity with the liberality of the
present age?

Since the Archbishop made the foregoing observations, the Holy Father,
our supreme guide in matters of religion, has published a series of
propositions which he had condemned and reprobated on various occasions.
We insert three of those propositions which bear upon education:

The forty-fifth is as follows:

     "XLV. The entire government of public schools in which the
     youth of any Christian state is educated, except (to a
     certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and
     ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so
     far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized
     as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the
     schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of
     degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers".

The forty-seventh adds:

     "XLVII. The best theory of civil society requires that
     popular schools open to the children of every class of the
     people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for
     instruction in letters and philosophical sciences, and for
     carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all
     ecclesiastical authority, control, and interference, and
     should be fully subjected to the civil and political power,
     at the pleasure of the rulers and according to the standard
     of the prevalent opinions of the age".

The forty-eighth bears on the same subject:

     "XLVIII. Catholics may approve of a system of educating
     youth, unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the
     Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural
     things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly
     social life".

Let our readers attentively consider these propositions. They
undoubtedly reprobate what is called mixed education, or the system
which endeavours to separate education from religion, as the Queen's
Colleges profess to do. They appear to us also most distinctly to
condemn the principles on which the National Schools are founded. In
many of those schools all religious education is excluded, and in those
which are under Presbyterian and other similar patrons, as well as in
model and training schools, the rights of the bishops of the Catholic
Church, to whom Christ gave the power of teaching all nations, are
completely ignored. In every National School the teaching and practice
of religion are strictly prohibited during the hours of class. Such a
system appears to fall under the condemnation of the Holy See. We shall
return to this matter again on some future occasion. In the mean time,
we shall merely add, that if we wish to be true children of the Church,
we must receive with humility, and in a spirit of obedience, the
decisions of Christ's vicar on Earth, and reprobate and condemn from the
inmost of our hearts the propositions which he, using the power given
to him by the Eternal Shepherd of our souls, reprobates and condemns.
The only view his Holiness proposed to himself in censuring the
propositions we refer to was, to secure for the rising generations the
greatest blessing that can be conferred on them--a good religious
education, and the preservation of their faith from danger. As dutiful
members of the true Church we ought to act on the lessons of wisdom that
have been given to us.

Having treated at some length of the education question, the Archbishop
next directed the attention of the meeting to the condition of the
agricultural and manufacturing interests of Ireland, showing that it is
the duty of those in power to apply immediate remedies to the evils of
the country, which menace us with universal ruin, and then proceeded to
examine the proposed disendowment of the Protestant Establishment.
History informs us that the Irish Protestant Church had its origin in an
act declaring Henry VIII. head of the Church, which was passed by the
Irish parliament in 1536, and in another act of the same parliament by
which a similar dignity was conferred on Queen Elizabeth. A statement on
this subject made by Dr. Gregg, Protestant Bishop of Cork, in a late
pastoral charge, is altogether at variance with history. His Lordship's
words are:

     "She (the Protestant Church) sprang from the truth, was
     nurtured in truth, laden with truth, in truth she delights,
     to the truth she appeals, and by God's gracious blessing, in
     mighty truth shall she stand".

These are emphatic words; but, if he wished to speak correctly, the
writer should have said that the Church he eulogises sprang from the
passions and despotism of Henry VIII.; was nurtured by the avarice,
hypocrisy, ambition, and corruption of Elizabeth; derived spiritual
powers from a body of men who had no such powers themselves; that to the
sword, the gibbet, and penal laws she owes her propagation; that her
existence still depends upon brute force; and that, so little does she
stand on or uphold truth, that she is not able to defend the Gospel any
longer, or to support the doctrines and ordinances of religion. She
could not restrain the late Protestant Archbishop of Dublin from
explaining away the fundamental mysteries of the Trinity and
Incarnation, nor Dr. Colenso from denying the inspiration of the Sacred
Scriptures, nor Rev. Mr. Barlow, a Fellow of Trinity College, from
impugning the eternity of punishment in another world. She affords so
little light to her children, that, according to a report of the Church
Pastoral Aid Society, signed by several dignitaries of the
Establishment, millions of those children are pining away _in worse than
pagan vice and ignorance_. Finally, so far from resting on truth, her
only support is the arm of the State, whose creature she is, and at
whose nod she may cease to exist.

Having obtained spiritual authority by an act of the temporal power,
much in the same way as the Roman emperors obtained divine honours by
decrees of the senate, Henry VIII. and Elizabeth set about their new
functions, and determined to show themselves worthy leaders of the
Reformation. There were many richly endowed monasteries in Ireland at
the time of Henry, and several continued to exist even till the days of
Elizabeth. The inmates of those institutions passed their time in prayer
and study; they had rendered great services to literature by copying and
preserving the works of classical antiquity, whilst their labours for
religion and the poor were worthy of the highest praise. There were also
many convents of religious ladies, who devoted their lives to the
service of God and their neighbour, to the education of youth, and who
edified the world by the sweet odour of their virtues. By the new heads
of the Church, and the new patrons of the Gospel, those merits were
looked on as crimes, and all religious orders were suppressed.

In Ireland there was an ancient institution founded by St. Patrick,
which for more than a thousand years had maintained its connection with
the Apostolic See, the true rock on which Christ built His Church, and
had always preserved the integrity and purity of the Catholic faith. The
existence of that venerable Irish Church was not consistent with the
supremacy of the crown in spiritual matters, and its destruction was
decreed.

At the same time, a religion, with new doctrines, a new ceremonial, new
liturgical books, and forms of prayer in the English language, then
almost unknown in Ireland, was proclaimed, and all the sanction was
given to it that could be derived from an act of parliament or a royal
decree. It was pretended that this religion was to restore liberty of
conscience to the world; but history shows that it enforced its teaching
by penal laws, by fire and sword, and by every sort of violence.

The monasteries of men, the convents of nuns, the episcopal sees, and
the parochial churches, were possessed, at that time, of considerable
revenues. This property was not the gift of the English government. In
great part it was of ancient origin, as we may conclude from the fact
that in the year 1179, shortly after the English invasion, Pope
Alexander III. confirmed to St. Laurence O'Toole nearly the same
possessions which are still held by the see of Dublin, and which he had
inherited from his predecessors who lived before English rule began in
Ireland. It was also private property, belonging to monasteries and
convents, and to the Church, so that neither king nor parliament had any
claim on it. But ancient rights and justice and prescription were no
longer to be respected; the reforming monarchs did not hesitate to
change the law of God and of nature, and to ignore the maxim that every
one should have his own. Hence, all ecclesiastical property was
confiscated. A large portion was given to the agents and minions of
royal despotism, and another portion was devoted to the support of
bishops and ministers of a new creed and religion, and turned away
altogether from the purposes for which it had been destined by the
donors; so that what was originally given for the support of the
Catholic Church was now handed over to an establishment just called into
existence, whose principal aim has always been to decry and misrepresent
the ancient Church, to persecute its ministers, and to uproot it, if
possible, from the soil.

The heads of the Irish Protestant Establishment, Henry and Elizabeth,
having commenced their spiritual rule by an act of robbery and
spoliation, continued to propagate their new religion by intimidation,
by violence, and penal enactments. The old nobility of Ireland, both of
Norman and Irish descent, were persecuted and robbed of their
possessions in order to convince them of that Gospel truth which first
beamed from Boleyn's eyes; for the same purpose whole provinces were
laid desolate, and torrents of blood inhumanly shed. In such proceedings
we find a great deal to remind us of the persecutions inflicted on the
early Christians by the Roman emperors and a singular resemblance to the
system adopted by Mahomet for the propagation of the impure doctrines of
the Koran; and as that impostor spread desolation through the most
flourishing regions of the East, so did the founders of the Protestant
establishment reduce the blooming fields of Erin to the condition of a
howling wilderness, and like him they became the votaries of ignorance,
and carried on a long and destructive war against Catholic schools and
education.

There was, however, something worse in the mode of propagating the
doctrines of the Reformation than in that which was adopted for the
maintenance or introduction of Paganism and Mahometanism. Those forms of
worship openly avowed their designs, and publicly professed their enmity
to the Christian religion. The proceedings of those who promoted and
supported the Church Establishment were, on the contrary, marked by the
vilest and most degrading hypocrisy. They pretended and professed to be
the sincere friends of liberty of conscience, and of the progress of
education and enlightenment, whilst at the same time they were the most
dangerous enemies of every kind of freedom and progress, and endeavoured
to establish the most galling despotism, and to spread ignorance through
Ireland.

Innumerable proofs are at hand of the despotic tendencies of the
Establishment. We merely give one instance, related by Mant in his
_Ecclesiastical History_ at the year 1636, in which the Protestant
bishops, with Usher at their head, made the following declaration:--that

     "The religion of the Papists is superstitious and
     idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous and
     heretical; their Church, in respect to both, apostatical. To
     give them, therefore, a toleration, or to consent that they
     may freely exercise their religion and profess their faith
     and doctrine, is a grievous sin."--_Mant_, vol. i. p. 510.

And recollect that this declaration was made against the ancient
religion of the country, a religion established in it for more than one
thousand years, and that it was made for the purpose of excluding
millions of the people from every office of trust and emolument. Nothing
worse can be found in the annals of Paganism or Mahometanism. The
Archbishop continues:

     "But, passing over a remoter period, have we not to regret
     that the spirit which then prevailed still continues to
     manifest itself in our own days? And, indeed, were not the
     heads of the Protestant establishment the most active
     opponents of Catholic Emancipation? Who were the great
     promoters of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill? Was not the
     head of the Establishment, in this city, most anxious, a few
     years ago, to put convents and monasteries under police
     control, and to give every annoyance to the holy and pious
     virgins who devote themselves to the service of God and the
     poor? And are not the principles acted on by the
     Establishment still embodied in Protestant oaths? and can we
     be surprised that dissensions exist in this country, and
     that it is reduced to so deplorable a state as it is now in,
     when we reflect that by such oaths and declarations discord
     is excited in the country, rulers and subjects placed in a
     state of hostility, and the people divided into factions and
     parties?"

As to education, we shall merely observe that the supporters of the
Establishment left no means untried to banish it altogether from among
the masses of the people in Ireland. Catholic schools were suppressed,
and their property confiscated; the erection of new schools prohibited;
no Catholic parent allowed to give a Catholic education to his children
at home, and he was subjected to the severest penalties if he sent them
to foreign schools. What more could be done to suppress the knowledge of
the Christian religion by a Julian or a Mahomet? Yet, those who acted in
that way cry out that they alone are the friends of progress and
enlightenment, and that Catholics seek for nothing but darkness. Was
there ever a more decided manifestation of recklessness and hypocrisy?

Having given in detail some other instances of the violent and
persecuting measures which were used for the propagation of
Protestantism, the Archbishop proceeds to examine the results obtained
by them:--

     "Let us now ask", says he, "what have been the fruits of so
     much bigotry, of so much violence, and of so many penal
     laws? The late census tells us that every effort to
     introduce Protestantism has been a complete failure, and
     that notwithstanding so many persecutions and sufferings,
     the old Catholic faith is still the religion of the land,
     deeply rooted in the affections of the people. Without
     entering into details which would occasion too much delay, I
     shall merely state that all the members of the Establishment
     in this kingdom are under seven hundred thousand; that out
     of the two thousand four hundred and twenty-eight parishes
     into which Ireland is divided, there were, in 1861, one
     hundred and ninety-nine parishes containing no members of
     the Establishment, five hundred and seventy-five parishes
     containing not more than twenty, four hundred and sixteen
     containing between twenty and fifty, three hundred and
     forty-nine containing between fifty and one hundred--in all,
     one thousand five hundred and thirty-nine parishes, each
     with fewer than one hundred parishioners. I will add that,
     according to the same census, the parish of St. Peter's, in
     Dublin, contains more Catholics than the eleven dioceses of
     Kilmacduagh, Kilfenora, Killala, Achonry, Ossory, Cashel,
     Emly, Waterford, Lismore, Ross, and Clonfert contain
     Protestants: and that the Catholics of the diocese of Dublin
     exceed by thirty-five thousand all the Protestants of the
     Established Church in twenty-eight dioceses of Ireland;
     indeed, in all the dioceses of Ireland, excepting those of
     Armagh, Clogher, Down, and Dublin. Whilst such figures show
     that all the protection of the State, the persecution of
     Catholics, the confiscation of their property, the
     suppression of Catholic schools, the lavish endowment of
     Protestant schools, and innumerable penal laws, have not
     been able to establish Protestantism in Ireland, they must
     convince us at the same time, that it is most unreasonable,
     and contrary to the interests of the people and to a sound
     policy, to keep up a vast and expensive ecclesiastical
     establishment for the sake of so small a minority, and in
     opposition to the wishes of the great mass of the
     population".

The Archbishop next quoted several authorities from Protestant writers
condemnatory of the Anglican establishment, and among others, that of
Lord Brougham, who, confirming his own views by those of the celebrated
Edmund Burke, says:

     "I well remember a phrase used by one not a foe of Church
     Establishments--I mean Mr. Burke. 'Don't talk of its being a
     church! It is a wholesale robbery!'... I have, my lords,
     heard it called an anomaly, and I say that it is an anomaly
     of so gross a kind, that it outrages every principle of
     common sense, and every one endowed with common reason must
     feel that it is the most gross outrage to that common sense
     as it is also to justice. Such an establishment, kept up for
     such a purpose, kept up by such means, and upheld by such a
     system, is a thing wholly peculiar to Ireland, and could be
     tolerated nowhere else. That such a system should go on in
     the nineteenth century; that such a thing should go on while
     all the arts are in a forward and onward course, while all
     the sciences are progressing, while all morals and religion
     too--for, my lords, there never was more of religion and
     morality than is now presented in all parts of the
     country,--that this gross abuse, the most outrageous of all,
     should be allowed to continue, is really astonishing. It
     cannot be upheld, unless the tide of knowledge shall turn
     back, unless we return to the state in which things were a
     couple of centuries ago".

After quoting several other authorities similar to that of Lord
Brougham, the Archbishop called on his hearers to unite with him in
calling for the abolition of the Establishment.

     "When you consider", said he, "the reasons and the weight of
     authority which I have alleged, I trust you all will admit
     that an establishment which traces back its origin to the
     lust, the avarice, and the despotism of Henry VIII. and his
     daughter; an establishment introduced by force and violence,
     and that has no support save in the protection of the state,
     of which it is the creature and the slave; an establishment
     that has been the persevering enemy of civil and religious
     liberty; that has called for penal laws in every century
     from the days of Elizabeth to the passing of the
     Ecclesiastical Titles Act; that has never failed to oppose
     every proposal for the relaxation of such laws, not only in
     the days of Strafford and Clarendon, but even when there was
     question of emancipation in the midst of the liberality of
     the present century; an establishment that has inflicted
     great evils on Ireland by depriving the mass of the people
     of all the means of education, by persecuting schoolmasters,
     and seizing on and confiscating schools, and that has been
     always the fruitful source of dissensions in the
     country--when you consider all these things, you will
     undoubtedly agree with me, that such an establishment ought
     not to be any longer tolerated in this country--that it
     ought to be disendowed, and its revenues applied to purposes
     of public utility".

FOOTNOTES:

[24] In the report of the Endowed Schools Commission of 1858, p. 284,
there is an excellent letter of Baron Hughes on mixed education. Having
observed that in England Protestant bishops and noblemen are opposed to
it, he says: "I am convinced that the mixed system is wrong in
principle, and cannot, even if right, be carried out in Ireland. I
believe that the separate system is sound in principle; and if that is
doubted, I think it is worthy of being submitted to a fair trial, as the
only alternative the state can adopt".




LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.


In answer to the request made in our last number, some of our reverend
friends have addressed to us several most interesting questions on
Liturgical points. Owing to the great pressure this month on our limited
space, and to the necessity of completing the series of decrees on the
Holy Mass, we are not able to attend to them for this month. In our next
issue we hope to be in a position to satisfy our respected
correspondents.




DECREES ON THE HOLY MASS.

[Concluded from page 190.]


Ad §. IX. _Post Consecrationem usque ad Orationem Dominicam._

1. Dum Sacerdos dicit orationem "Supplices te rogamus", et orationes
ante Communionem, _servandae sunt rubricae, quae jubent manus ponendas
esse super altare, non intra corporale_. 7. Sept. 1816 in u. Tuden, ad
35.

2. Qui in Canone Missae post consecrationem, in oratione "Nobis quoque
peccatoribus", nominatur Joannes, est s. Joannes Baptista, et ideo caput
est ad hoc nomen inclinandum, dum Missa dicitur aut commemoratio fit de
s. Joanne Baptista; _non_ vero quando Missa dicitur aut commemoratio fit
de s. Joanne apostolo et evangelista. 27. Mart. 1824. in u. Panormit. ad
2.


Ad §. X. _De Oratione Dominica usque ad factam Communionem._

1. Signum cum patena faciendum a sacerdote a fronte ad pectus, dum dicit
orationem "Libera nos quaesumus Domine", debet esse _integrum signum
crucis_; et post dictum signum crucis _est deosculanda patena_. 13.
Mart. 1627 in u. Panorm.--Cum Celebrans dicit: "Da pacem Domine in
diebus nostris", _patenam in extremitate, seu oram patenae, congruentius
osculatur_. 24. Jun. 1683 in u. Albingan. ad 5.

2. _Pax, dummodo adsit consuetudo_, in Missa pro sponso et sponsa dari
potest; attamen _danda est semper cum instrumento, numquam vero cum
patena_. 10 Jan., 1852 in u. Cenoman. ad. 8.

3. Pars _inferior_ hostiae _praecidi debet_, non superior, quando
dicitur: "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum". 4 Aug. 1663 in u. Dalmat. ad
6.

4. _Tolerari potest_ consuetudo pulsandi campanulam a ministro in Missa
non solum ad verba "Sanctus", etc. et in elevatione Sanctissimi, sed
etiam ad verba "Domine non sum dignus" ante sumptionem, et quoties
administratur Communio fidelibus, ad praedicta verba. 14 Mai. 1846 in u.
Ord. Min. ad 9.

5. Sacerdos scipsum signans cum hostia et calice consecratis ante
sumptionem Ss. Sacramenti, ad verba "Jesu Christi" debet caput inclinare
_juxta rubricas_. 24 Sept. 1842 in u. Neap. ad 1.

6. In quaestione: an Sacerdos post sumptionem pretiosissimi sanguinis
debeat parumper immorari in adoratione, prout fit post sumptionem sacrae
hostiae? _serventur rubricae_. 24 Sept. 1842 in u. Neap. ad. 2.

7. In quaestione: an pro abluendis vino et aqua pollicibus et indicibus
in secunda purificatione post Communionem debeat Sacerdos e medio
altaris versus cornu epistolae recedere? _serventur rubricae pro
diversitate Missae._[25] 22 Jul. 1848 in u. Tornac.

8. _Ante versiculum quod dicitur "Communio", coöperiendus est velo calix
in anteriori parte, prout ante confessionem._ 1 Mart. 1698 in u. Prag.
ad 1.--_Tam in principio Missae quam post Communionem calix velatus esse
debet totus in parte anteriori._ 12 Jan. 1669 in u. Urbinat.--In
quaestione: an deceat corporale retinere extensum super altare toto
tempore, quo celebrantur Missae, et donec ab ultimo in eo celebrante
reportetur ad sacrarium (sacristiam); et an conveniat corporale extra
bursam deferre? _episcopus incumbat observantiae et executioni
rubricarum._ 13 Sept. 1704 in u. Ravenat.

9. De Communione fidelium intra Missam:

_Consuetudo_ dicendi: "Ecce Agnus Die", et: "Domino non sum dignus",
idiomate vulgari, _est eliminanda_, utpote contraria Rituali et Missali
Romano. 23. Mai. 1835 in u. Ord. Min. Capuc. Helv. ad 5.

Sacerdos _debet_ semper, etiam communicando moniales habentes
fenestrellam in parte evangelii, pro Communione distribuenda _descendere
et reverti per gradus ante riores, et non laterales altaris_. 15 Sept.,
1736, in u. Tolet. ad 8.

Dum Celebrans administrat sacram Communionem in Missa privata, minister
_non_ debet eum comitari cum cereo accenso; sed quum purificationem,
utpote quae pro populo non est in usu,[26] non praebeat, nec mappam
Communionis, utpote cancellis affixam, ante communicantes sustineat,
tunc debet manere genuflexus in latere epistolae. 12 Aug. 1854 ad 72.
(Anal. II p. 2188 sqq.)

_Servetur consuetudo dividendi consecratas particulas, si adsit
necessitas._ 16 Mart. 1833 in u. Veron. ad 1.

In Communione quae inter Missae sacrificium peragitur, _minister
sacrificii, non ratione praeeminentiae, sed ministerii, praeferendus est
ceteris quamvis dignioribus_. 13 Jul. 1658 in u. Galliar.

_Patenae suppositio per sacerdotem cotta indutum in Communione generali,
quae per Dignitates agitur, retinenda est._ 3 Sept. 1661 in u.
Andrien.--_Non_ potest sacerdos sanctam Communionem sive intra sive
extra Missam administrans tenere patenam inter digitos manus sinistrae,
quae sacram pixidem gestat, ut eam sic mento communicantium supponat,
sed _cura et solertia sacerdotis supplere debet_, ut praecaveatur
sacrorum fragmentorum disperditio. 12 Aug. 1854 ad 21 et 22 loc. cit.


Ad §. XII. _De benedictione in fine Missae, et Evangelio Sancti
Joannis._

1. _In fine Missae ad quodcumque altare celebratae, fit reverentia Cruci
infra gradus, capite discoöperto._ 13 Febr. 1666 in decret. ad Missal.
ad 9.

2. _Arbitrio et prudentiae Ordinarii_ relinquitur inducere praxim
lavandi manus in fine Missae, postquam Celebrans exuerit vestes
sacerdotales, in dioecesim, in qua non est in usu; _sed non_ inducatur
_per modum praecepti_. 12 Aug. 1854 ad 28 (Anal. II. p 2193).

FOOTNOTES:

[25] _Missae diversitatem_, de qua decretum loquitur, ita intellexerunt
ac suo tempore exposuerunt ipsius decreti auctores h. e. doctores Romani
a. 1848, ut in _Missis solemnibus numquam_ sit e medio altaris
recedendum ad abluendos digitos; in _Missis non solemnibus_ e contra
_semper_ e medio sit ad cornu Epistolae progrediendum (licet rubrica de
hoc progressu sileat). Haec sententia ipsorum auctorum decreti atque
interpretatio praeclare confirmatur ex universali ac constanti omnium
totius Urbis ecclesiarum praxi. Cf. Attestat. Romani s. Theologiae
Professoris apud Falise p. 77: "Dum revertitur e cornu Epistolae in
medium altaris, digitos purificatorio abstergit".

[26] Juxta Merati (Comment. ad hanc rubr. n. 34) haec purificatio
retinetur solummodo "in aliquibus ecclesiis", Ubi illa non est in usu,
ejusmodi consuetudo servanda est. 12. Aug. 1854 ad 23. loc. supra cit.




DOCUMENTS.


I.

DECREE OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF INDULGENCES.

Urbis et Orbis.--Cum non sit aliud Nomen sub coelo, in quo nos oportet
salvos fieri, nisi Nomen Iesu in quo est vita, salus, et resurrectio
nostra, per quem salvati et liberati sumus, idcirco Sixtus V. fel. rec.
Pont. Max. sub die 11 Iulii 1587 in Bulla _Reddituri_ Indulgentiam
concessit quinquaginta dierum omnibus et singulis Christifidelibus qui
quocumque idiomate sic se salutaverint: _Laudetur Iesus Christus_, vel
responderint: _In saecula_, vel _Amen_, aut _Semper_; plenariam vero in
mortis articulo iis qui hanc laudabilem consuetudinem habuerint, modo
ore, vel corde (si ore non potuerint) Iesu nomen invocaverint.

Nonnullis deinde in locis cum mos invaluisset Iesu Nomini et illud
Mariae in se invicem salutando addere, Clemens PP. XIII. ad humillimas
preces Generalis Ordinis Carmelitarum per Decretum die 30 Novembris 1762
benigne impertitus est pro Carmelitis eamdem Indulgentiam quinquaginta
dierum quotiescumque in mutua salutatione verba usurpaverint: _Sia
lodato Gesù e Maria._[27]

Nunc vero SS mus. Dominus Noster PIUS PAPA IX. nonnullorum Episcoporum
precibus peramanter inclinatus, referente me infrascripto Sacrae
Congregationis Indulgentiarum Cardinali Praefecto in Audientia diei 26
Septembris 1864, ut magis magisque Fideles utriusque Nominis Iesu et
Mariae salutares percipiant effectus, et illa quam saepissime in ore et
corde retineant, camdem concessionem ad omnes et singulos Christifideles
extendit, ita ut qui se invicem salutando hac forma, in quocumque
idiomate, utantur: _Sia lodato Gesù e Maria_,[28] vel responderint:
_Oggi e sempre_,[29] aut similibus verbis, easdem plane Indulgentias,
quae in praefata Bulla memorantur, consequi possint et valeant. Quam
gratiam voluit SANCTITAS SUA perpetuo suffragari absque ulla Brevis
expeditione.

Datum Romae ex Secretaria eiusdem Sacrae Congregationis Indulgentiis
Sacrisque Reliquiis praepositae. Die 26 Septembris 1864.

    FR. ANTONIUS M. CARD. PANEBIANCO S. C. PRAEFECTUS.

    Loco [cross sign] Signi.         _A. Colombo Secretarius._


II.

LETTER FROM THE CARD. PREFECT OF PROPAGANDA TO THE BISHOPS OF IRELAND
CONCERNING THE B. EUCHARIST.

The following letter on the manner in which, in missionary countries,
the Blessed Eucharist is to be conveyed to the sick, is a fresh proof of
the zeal of the Holy See in promoting devotion to the Most Holy
Sacrament.

     ILLUSTRISSIME ET REVERENDISSIME DOMINE,

     Etsi sancta omnia sancte tractanda sint, propterea quod ad
     Deum pertineant qui essentialiter sanctus est, attamen
     augustissimum Eucharistiae sacramentum sicut sacris
     mysteriis omnibus absque ulla comparatione sanctitate
     praeeminet, ita maxima prae ceteris veneratione est
     pertractandum. Nil itaque mirum si tot Ecclesia diversis
     temporibus ediderit decreta, quibus Sanctissimae
     Eucharistiae delatio pro adjunctorum varietate vel
     denegaretur omnino, vel ea qua par esset reverentia
     admitteretur;[30] cum nihil antiquius fuerit Ecclesiae Dei
     quam ut animarum profectum atque aedificationem debito cum
     honore divinorum omnium divinissimi mysterii consociaret.
     Haec porro prae oculis habens Sacrum hoc Consilium
     Christiano Nomini Propagando, cum primum intellexit in
     quibusdam istius regionis Dioecesibus consuetudinem seu
     potius abusum invaluisse, ut Sacerdotes Sanctissimum
     Sacramentum a mane usque ad vesperam secum deferrent ea
     tantum de causa quod in aliquem forte aegrotum incidere
     possent, ad Metropolitanos censuit scribendum, tum ut
     consuetudinem illam ab Ecclesiae praxi omnino abhorrere
     declararet, tum etiam ut ejus extensionem accuratius
     deprehenderet. Responsa Archiepiscoporum brevi ad Sacram
     Congregationem pervenerunt, ex quibus innotuit, multis in
     locis de abusu illo gravem admirationem exortam esse, cum
     aliqua in Dioecesi ne credibilis quidem videretur. Verum
     non defuerunt Antistites qui illius existentiam ejusque
     causas ingenue confessi sunt. Quare Eminentissimis Patribus
     Sacri hujus Consilii in generalibus comitiis die 28
     Septembris elapsi anni habitis omnia quae ad hanc rem
     referebantur exhibita sunt perpendenda, ut quid Sanctissimi
     Sacramenti debitus honor ac veneratio postularent in Domino
     decerneretur. Omnibus igitur maturo examini subjectis,
     statuerunt Eminentissimi Patres literas encyclicas ad
     Archiepiscopos atque Episcopos istius regionis dandas esse,
     quibus constans Ecclesiae rigor circa Eucharistiae
     delationem commemoraretur. Voluit insuper S. C. ut singuli
     Antistites excitarentur, quemadmodum praesentium tenore
     excitantur, ad communem Ecclesiae disciplinam hac in re
     custodiendam, quantum temporis ac locorum adjuncta nec non
     inductarum consuetudinum ratio patiantur, ita tamen ut
     sedulam navent operam ad veros abusus corrigendos atque
     eliminandos. Quam quidem in rem censuerunt Patres
     Eminentissimi apprime conferre frequentem celebrationem
     sacrificii missae, quo videlicet Sacerdotes facile
     necessitati occurrere possunt Sanctissimam Eucharistiam
     secum per multos dies retinendi. Quae cum ita sint hortor
     Amplitudinem Tuam ut in eum finem rurales aediculas
     multiplicandas cures, atque talia edas decreta ex quibus
     delatio Sanctissimi Sacramenti ad urgentes tantum causas,
     atque ad actuale ministerii sacerdotalis exercitium
     coarctetur, injuncta vero presbyteris stricta obligatione
     semper in hisce casibus Sanctam Hostiam super pectus
     deferendi. Denique decreverunt Eminentissimi Patres ut de
     negotio isto gravissimo in Provincialibus Conciliis agatur,
     quo nimirum Antistites eam in suis dioecesibus communem
     normam inducere satagant, quam augustissimum Eucharistiae
     mysterium decere existimaverint. Tandem Amplitudini Tuae
     significare non praetermitto omnia et singula quae superius
     decreta sunt Sanctissimo D. N. Pio PP. IX. per me relata
     fuisse in audientia diei 3 Octobris elapsi anni, eaque a
     Sanctitate Sua in omnibus adprobata fuisse atque apostolica
     auctoritate confirmata.

     Datum Romae ex Aedibus S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide
     die 25 Februarii 1859.

     Amplitudinis Tuae
     Ad officia paratissimus
     AL. C. BARNABO, Praef.
     CAJET ARCHIEPISCOPUS THEBAR. Secretarius.

     R. P. D. PAULO CULLEN,
     Archiepiscopo Dublinensi.

     1. _Ex dubiis propositis pro christianis Sinensibus._ Ad
     propositum dubium "An sacerdotibus Sinensibus liceat in
     itineribus quae longissima sunt secum deferre Eucharistiam
     ne ea priventur?" Resp. Non licere. Qualificatores S. O. die
     27 Martii 1665, et Eminentissimi approbarunt die 15 April.
     1665.

     2. Pro Gubernatoribus navium Lusitaniae qui singulis annis
     in Indias orientales navigant, petentibus licentiam
     deferendi sacramentum Eucharistiae, ne nautae et Rectores
     sine Viatico decedant. Lecto memoriali et auditis votis
     Sanctissimus supradictam petitionem omnino rejecit; ita
     quod nec in posterum ullo modo de ea tractetur. S. C. S. O.
     die 13 Julii 1660.

     3. Bened. XIV. _Inter omnigenas_ "pro Incolis Regni Serviae
     et finitimarum Regionum". "At ubi (sicuti ibidem legitur)
     Turcarum vis praevalet et iniquitas, sacerdos stolam semper
     habeat coopertam vestibus; in sacculo seu bursa pixidem
     recondat quam per funiculos collo appensam in sinu reponat
     et nunquam solus procedat, sed uno saltem fideli, in defectu
     Clerici, associetur".

     4. Honorius III. in cap. _Sane_ de celebratione Miss.
     expresse habet de delatione Eucharistiae quod si "in
     partibus infidelium ob necessitatem S. Viatici permittitur,
     tamen extra necessitatem permittenda non est, cum hodie
     Ecclesiastica lege absolute prohibitum sit ut occulte
     deferatur. Occulte deferre in itinere, nequit moraliter
     fieri absque irreverentia tanti sacramenti".

     5. Verricelli de Apostolicis Missionibus Tit. 8. pag. 136.
     expendit, "An liceat in novo Orbe Missionariis S.
     Eucharistiam collo appensam secum in itinere occulte deferre
     etc. et quidquid sit de veteri disciplina concludit hodie
     universalis Ecclesiae consuetudine et plurimorum Conciliorum
     decretis prohibitum est deferre occulte S. Eucharistiam in
     itinere, nisi pro communicando infirmo, ubi esset timor et
     periculum infidelium, et dummodo ad infirmum non sit nimis
     longum iter sed modicum et unius diei".

     6. Thomas a Jesu de procur. salut. omnium gentium lib. 7.
     "non auderem Evangelii ministros qui in illis regionibus aut
     aliis infidelium provinciis conversantes, si imminente
     mortis periculo secum Viaticum, occulte tamen, deferrent,
     condemnare".


III.

LETTER FROM THE CARD. PREFECT OF PROPAGANDA TO THE BISHOPS OF IRELAND ON
THE _RESIDENCE_ PRESCRIBED BY THE CANONS.

ILLUSTRISSIME AC REVERENDISSIME DOMINE,

Quandoquidem divino praecepto animarum Rectoribus mandatum sit oves suas
agnoscere, easque pascere verbo Dei, sacramentis, atque exemplo bonorum
operum, idcirco ii ad personalem in suis Dioecesibus vel Ecclesiis
residentiam obligantur; sine qua injunctum sibi officium defungi per se
ipsos minime possent. Porro pastoralis residentiae debitum quovis
tempore Ecclesia Dei asserere atque urgere non destitit; cujus
sollicitudinis luculenta exhibent testimonia non modo veteres canones,
sed et sacrosancta Tridentina Synodus Sess. VI. cap. 1. de Refor. et
Sess. XXIII. de Ref. cap. 1. ac novissime Summus Pontifex Benedictus
XIV. qui Constitutione _ad Universae Christianae Reipublicae statum_
edita die 3 Septembris 1746, residentiae obligationem et inculcavit
sedulo et disertissime explicavit.

Quod si ubique locorum Pastores animarum pro officii sui ratione
continenter in medio gregis vivere oportet, ad id potiori etiam titulo
illi tenentur quibus animarum cura demandata est in locis Missionum.
Cum enim fideles in Missionibus graviora passim subire cogantur
pericula, dum minora ut plurimum iis praesto sunt adjumenta virtutum,
peculiari ac praesentissima indigent vigilantia atque ope Pastorum. Haud
igitur mirum si sacro Consilio Christiano Nomini Propagando nil fuerit
antiquius quam datis etiam Decretis curare ut a se dependentes Episcopi
Vicariique Apostolici in suis Missionibus, quoad fieri posset, absque
ulla interruptione residerent. Quam quidem in rem eo usque pervenit
Sancta Sedes, ut laudatis Praesulibus sub gravissimis poenis
prohibuerit, ne Pontificalia munia in aliena Dioecesi vel Districtu
etiam de consensu Ordinarii ullo modo peragerent.

At quoniam, hisce non obstantibus, haud raro contingit ut Praelati
Missionum inconsulta Sede Apostolica et absque vera necessitate aut
causa canonica perlonga suscipiant itinera, ex quo non mediocria
commissae illis Missiones pati possunt detrimenta, propterea
Eminentissimi ac Reverendissimi Patres Sacrae hujus Congregationis in
generalibus comitiis habitis die 21 Januarii hujus anni expedire
censuerunt, ut in memoriam revocarentur praedictorum Praesulum canonicae
sanctiones circa Pastorum residentiam, nec non Decreta quae circa
ejusdem obligationem edita sunt pro locis Missionum, ne quis videlicet
in posterum Dioecesim aut Districtum cui praeest vel ad tempus relinquat
absque praevia licentia ejusdem S. Congregationis. Quod quidem dum
Amplitudini Tuae significo ex mente Eminentissimorum Patrum, Decreta, de
quibus supra, addere non praetermitto (Num. 1).

Praeterea Eminentissimi ac Reverendissimi Patres in iisdem generalibus
comitiis statuerunt, utuniversis Episcopis, Vicariis, ac Praefectis
Apostolicis Missionum _Quaestiones_ transmittantur pro relatione
exhibenda Sacrae Congregationi de statu Dioecesium vel Missionum queis
praesunt. Cum enim ii omnes qui Missionibus praeficiuntur praedictam
relationem statis temporibus subjicere S. Sedi teneantur, voluit Sacrum
Consilium ut eam in posterum exigendam curent ad normam 55 Quaestionum
quae in adjecto folio continentur (Num. 2), utque in iis praesertim
accuratiores se praebeant, quae ad vitam, honestatem ac scientiam
sacerdotum referuntur.

Datum Romae ex Aedibus S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide die 24
Aprilis 1861.

    Amplitudinis Tuae
    AL. C. BARNABO, Praef.

    R. P. D. Archiepiscopo Dublinensi.


Num. 1.

_Decreta et Declarationes S. Congregationis de Propaganda fide super
Residentia praesulum in locis missionum._


I.

_In Congregatione Generali coram Sanctissimo habita die_ 28 _Martii
Anno_ 1651.

"Sanctitas Sua decrevit quod Episcopi S. Congregationi de Propaganda
Fide subordinati non possint exercere Pontificalia in aliis praeterquam
in propriis Ecclesiis, etiamsi esset de consensu Ordinariorum sub poena
suspensionis ipso facto incurrendae, ac eidem Pontifici reservatae,
dummodo a praefata S. Congregatione non sint in certo loco destinati
Vicarii Apostolici, seu Administratores alicajus Ecclesiae deputati".

_Similia Decreta prodierunt ab eadem S. Congregatione die 26 Julii 1662
et 17 Julii 1715._


II.

_In Congregatione particulari de Propaganda Fide habita die 7 Maii
1669._

Cum iteratis per S. C. decretis exercitium Pontificalium extra Dioeceses
Episcopis ejusdem S. C. assignatas prohiberetur, quaesivit Episcopus
Heliopolitanus.

"An dicta decreta intelligenda essent vim suam habere _intra_ fines
Europae tantum, an vero extenderentur etiam ad alia loca, per quae
transeundum esset, cum ad suas Ecclesias proficisceretur".

"S. Congregatio respondit Decreta prohibentia dictum exercitium
Pontificalium extendi ad omnia loca, etiam extra fines Europae".[31]


III.

_In Congregatione Generali habita die 10 Julii 1668._

Eminentissimi ac Reverendissimi Patres S. Consilii Christiano Nom.
Propag. attentis expositis contra Episcopos ab eodem S. Consilio
dependentes qui cum detrimento suarum Dioecesium eas deserebant ut Romam
vel alia loca peterent, statuendum censuerunt.

"Inhibeatur Episcopis S. Congregationi subjectis ne Romam sub quovis
praetextu veniant, absque licentia Sacrae Congregationis. Decretum
editum Anno 1626 renovarunt".


IV.

DECREE OF THE S. CONG. OF PROPAGANDA _QUOAD USUM PONTIFICALIUM EXTRA
DIOCESIUM_.

_Decree of the S. Congregation of Propaganda permitting the English
Bishops to exercise Pontificalia within the Three Kingdoms._

Ex negligentia Antistitum circa onus residentiae si ubique mala
gravissima obvenirent, potissimum id valet quoad regiones, in quibus ob
admixtionem infidelium vel haereticorum gravioribus periculis fideles
objiciuntur; proinde Episcopis et Vicariis Apostolicis regionum ad quos
S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide sollicitudo extenditur, indictum
haud semel fuit, ne extra propriam Dioecesim vel Vicariatum Pontificalia
etiam de consensu Ordinariorum exerceant.

Porro cum dubitari haud valeat de studio Episcoporum Angliae in
hujusmodi residentiae lege servanda, iidemque postulaverint, ut tenor
regulae hujusmodi in suum favorem relaxetur; S. Congregatio de
Propaganda Fide in generali conventu habito die 5 Aprilis 1852 attento
quod haud raro necessarium vel opportunum admodum existat, ut iidem
admitti possint ad Pontificalia exercenda in aliis Angliae ipsius
dioecesibus, aliquando etiam in proximis regionibus Hiberniae et
Scotiae, censuit supplicandum Sanctissimo pro relaxatione memoratae
inhibitionis in favorem Episcoporum Angliae quoad tria regna unita, in
quibus proinde de consensu Ordinariorum Pontificalia iidem exercere
valeant.

Hanc vero S. Congregationis sententiam Sanctissimo D. N. Pio PP. IX. ab
infrascripto Secretario relatam in Aud. diei 6 ejusdem mensis et anni
Sanctitas Sua benigne probavit, et juxta propositum tenorem facultates
concessit, contrariis quibuscumque haud obstantibus.

In epistola data die 6 Feb. 1862. Eminentissimus Dominus Cardinalis S.
Cong. de Prop. Fide Prefectus ad Archiepiscopum Dublinensem scribens
declarat facultatem supra memoratam omnibus Hiberniae praesulibus eodem
mode ac Angliae episcopis fuisse a Sanctissimo Domino N. Pio IX.
concessam.

    [iron cross symbol] PAULUS CULLEN.

FOOTNOTES:

[27] "Praise be to Jesus and Mary".

[28] "Praise be to Jesus and Mary".

[29] "Now and for evermore".

[30] Vid. quae in rem proferuntur in subjecta pagina.

[31] _Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide cum comperisset generalem
inhibitionem quae continetur in superioribus Decretis non mediocri
quandoque incommodo esse, praesertim quum Antistites ob adversam
valetudinem ad ea peragenda quae Episcopalis sunt potestatis vicinum
aliquem Praesulem accersere coguntur, in gen. conventu habito die 2
Augusti 1819, censuit supplicandum Sanctissimo pro eorumdem Decretorum
moderatione, ita ut_ quando rationabili causa vel urgente necessitate
Episcopi seu Vicarii Apostolici ad alienas Dioeceses vel Vicariatus se
conferunt, possint sibi invicem communicare facultatem Pontificalia
exercendi, dummodo tamen semper accedat Episcopi seu Vicarii loci
consensus, inviolatumque de cetero maneat residentiae praeceptum. _Id
autem Summus Pontifex Pius PP. VII. in Aud. diei 8 Augusti ejusdem anni
ratum habuit ac probavit._




NOTICES OF BOOKS.


I.

     _Imagini Scelte della B. Vergine Maria, tratte dalle
     Catacombe Romane._

     [_Select pictures of the Blessed Virgin Mary, from the Roman
     Catacombs, with explanatory text by Cav. G. B. de Rossi._
     Rome, Salviucci, 1863.]

The esteem in which the learned on both sides of the Alps and the sea
have long held Cav. de Rossi, dispenses us from the duty which we would
otherwise gladly discharge, of expressing in his regard our humble
tribute of respect and admiration. But as great reputations can afford
to do without small praise, we shall rather establish his claim to our
readers' gratitude by availing ourselves of his remarks in the work
under notice, to the end that we may show how unmistakably early
Christian art bears witness to the veneration paid by the primitive
Church to the ever glorious Mother of God. Living as we are in the
midst of those who revile us for our devotion to our Blessed Lady, it
will be most useful to have at hand, conducted with scientific accuracy,
a proof of the antiquity of the sacred tradition we follow in this most
cherished practice of our religion. Nor is it only among the vulgar herd
of Protestants, or in the ranks of bigoted controversialists, that we
meet assailants on this point. Even refined and graceful hands play at
times, perhaps unconsciously, with weapons which are not the less
dangerous because they come upon us by surprise, and wound us while we
think but of taking our pleasure in the fair fields of art. Many causes
which we will not here recite, have contributed of late years to diffuse
among educated Catholics a knowledge of Christian art; but, among these
causes, the late Mrs. Jameson's works have had a very wide range. From
what table were her books absent? what library was considered complete
without them? Who would think of visiting the Continental galleries
without first making a preparatory course with the aid of Mrs. Jameson's
pages? And upon the whole, all this is a great gain; but it has its
disadvantages as well. We do not now speak of Mrs. Jameson as a critic,
or of her judgments on points of art, or of the accuracy of her
information on purely technical matters, or of some minor mistakes
caused by her ignorance of Catholic usages, as when speaking of the Pax
of Maso Finiguerra, so well known in the history of engraving, she takes
the Pax to mean the Pix, or vessel for containing the Blessed Sacrament.
But in the two subjoined passages there are errors of a more serious
character, and in the latter especially there is much which needs the
correction contained in De Rossi's observations.

     "The early Christians had confounded in their horror of
     heathen idolatry all imitative art and all artists; they
     regarded with decided hostility all images, and those who
     wrought them as bound to the service of Satan and
     heathenism; and we find all visible representations of
     sacred personages and actions confined to mystic emblems.
     Thus, the cross signified Redemption; the fish, Baptism; the
     ship represented the Church; the serpent, sin or the spirit
     of evil. When, in the fourth century, the struggle between
     paganism and Christianity ended in the triumph and
     recognition of the latter, and art revived, it was, if not
     in a new form, in a new spirit, by which the old forms were
     to be gradually moulded and modified. The Christians found
     the shell of ancient art remaining; the traditionary
     handicraft still existed: certain models of figure and
     drapery, etc., handed down from antiquity, though
     degenerated and distorted, remained in use, and were applied
     to illustrate, by direct or symbolical representations, the
     tenets of a purer faith".[32]

     "The most ancient representations of the Virgin Mary now
     remaining are the sculptures on the ancient Christian
     Sarcophagi, about the third and fourth centuries, and a
     mosaic in the chapel of San Venanzio at Rome, referred by
     antiquarians to the seventh century. Here she is represented
     as a colossal figure majestically draped, standing with arms
     outspread (the ancient attitude of prayer), and her eyes
     raised to heaven. Then after the seventh century succeeded
     her image in her maternal character, seated on a throne with
     the Infant Saviour in her arms. We must bear in mind, once
     for all, that from the earliest ages of Christianity the
     Virgin Mother of our Lord has been selected as the
     allegorical type of RELIGION in the abstract sense, and to
     this, her symbolical character, must be referred those
     representations of later times in which she appears as
     trampling on the dragon, as folding her votaries within the
     skirts of her ample robes, as interceding for sinners, as
     crowned between Heaven and Earth by the Father and the
     Son".[33]

That these statements are very far from the truth, we now proceed to
show.

That our Blessed Lady has been from the earliest ages selected as the
type of the Church (not of _Religion in the abstract_, whatever that may
mean), is quite true. The most learned antiquarians recognize her in
this character in the female figure in prayer, which in the very oldest
portion of the catacombs is frequently a pendant to the group of the
Good Shepherd. But this fact, which, though incidentally, yet clearly
reveals the depth of the feelings of veneration towards Mary which
suggested her as a fit type of the Spouse of Christ, is far from
establishing her place in art to be purely symbolical, or her character
as intercessor, etc., to belong to her only as inasmuch as she is a type
of Religion in the abstract. A single glance at the chromolithographs to
which De Rossi's text serves as a commentary, will convince every one
that Mrs. Jameson's statements cannot be for a moment maintained. The
subjects of these exquisite plates are representations of our Blessed
Lady, six in number, selected from the many found in the Roman
catacombs, and selected in such wise as that they constitute a series
from the apostolic era down to the fourth century. The selection has
been confined to works of one class. The Blessed Virgin is represented
in ancient monuments, chiefly in two ways,--seated and with her Divine
Son in her arms, or standing with outstretched hands in the attitude of
prayer or intercession. Of the person represented in works of the first
class there can be no doubt, especially when the other figures of the
group show that it is Mary; the works of the second class are more
obscure, although at times the name of Mary is written over the figure.
Hence it would require a lengthened examination before we could safely
say that a given specimen of this class undoubtedly represents the
Blessed Virgin, and this consideration has recommended the selection of
types of the first class only. In these monuments, Mary is represented
with Jesus in her arms. The subject of the composition is determined by
the Magi, who are generally present, though not in every case. When the
Magi are absent, there are other marks to show that we look on the
Mother of God with the Incarnate Word. Even when other signs are
wanting, the very arrangement of the figures, identical with that
employed in undoubted paintings of the Blessed Virgin, affords argument
enough. The Magi appear standing before her in sculptures on sarcophagi,
not only in Rome, but also in other cities of Italy and of France; in
diptychs, and other ivories; in bronzes of the fourth and fifth
centuries; in the mosaic placed at St. Mary Major's by Sixtus III. in
432. This composition came down from the earliest ages, and is first
found in the paintings of the catacombs. From among these De Rossi has
selected four specimens of various types, but all anterior to the days
of Constantine. Our space will not allow us to describe more than one of
these (tav. I.), but that one shall be the oldest, and under every
respect the most interesting of them all.

On the Via Salaria Nuova, about two miles from Rome, the Irish College
has its vineyard, formerly called the Vigna de Cuppis. In this vigna the
excavation of the famous cemetery of Priscilla had its beginning, and
from this it extended its intricate galleries in all directions, passing
beneath the road, and far under the fields on the other side. The
picture we are about to examine is found over a loculus or grave in this
cemetery of Priscilla. In it is depicted a woman, seated and holding in
her arms an infant, who has his face turned towards the spectator. She
has on her head a scanty veil, and wears a tunic with short sleeves, and
over the tunic a _pallium_. The position of these figures and the whole
composition are such as to convince any one who has had experience of
this kind of paintings, that they are intended for the Virgin and Child.
Indeed, all doubt of this has been removed by the painter himself. Near
the top of the painting he has represented the star which is ever
present when our Lady is described as presenting her Son to the Magi, or
as seated by the manger. To the spectator's left, a man youthful in
appearance, with a sparse beard, standing erect and robed only in the
_pallium_, raises his right hand and points towards the Virgin and the
star. In his left he holds a book. At the first sight of this figure it
naturally occurs to the mind that it can be none other than Joseph, the
chaste spouse of the Blessed Virgin, who is represented at her side on
various sarcophagi in Italy and France, in diptychs, and in the mosaics
of St. Mary Major's. Generally speaking, he is described as of a
youthful appearance, and rarely with a beard. But it is unusual to paint
him with the pallium, and with a book in his hand. De Rossi is of
opinion that the figure in question is that of a prophet, it being quite
usual to unite the figure from the Old Testament with the reality in the
New. Besides, in a monument of the ninth century two prophets attired
like our figure stand one each side of our Blessed Lady. He believes it
to be Isaias, who so often foretold the star and the light that was to
shed its rays on the darkness of the pagan world (_Isaias_, ix. 2; lx.
2, 3, 19; _cf._ _Luc._, i. 78, 79). On one of the painted glasses
explained by F. Garnieri, Isaias is represented as a young man. We have
here, therefore, in the heart of the catacombs an undoubted
representation of our Blessed Lady.

We now proceed to determine the age of this painting--a matter of the
greatest importance to our present purpose. What canons of judgment
ought to be followed in such an investigation? First, we should attend
to the style of the painting, and the degree of artistic perfection it
exhibits in conception and execution; secondly, we should confront the
results of this first examination with such information as we may be
able to collect from a close study of the history, topography, and
inscriptions of each subterranean apartment, such a study being
admirably calculated to assist us in fixing the date of the painting. To
do all this in any given case, is not the work of a few pages, but of a
bulky volume. As far as our painting is concerned, all the tests above
mentioned serve to prove its extraordinary antiquity. "Any one can see",
says our author (_page_ 15), "that the scene depicted in the cemetery of
Priscilla is treated in a manner altogether classical, and is a work of
the best period of art. The very costume employed therein suggests a
very remote antiquity; that is to say the _pallium_, without any under
garment, the right arm bared in the figure of the prophet, and still
more the short-sleeved tunic on the Virgin. The beauty of the
composition, the grace and dignity of the features, the freedom and
skill of the drawing, stamp this fresco as belonging to a period of art
so flourishing, that, when first I saw it, I thought I had before me one
of the oldest specimens of Christian painting in the Catacombs. I spoke
of it to my master, the late celebrated P. Marchi, who proceeded to
examine it in company with the illustrious Professor Cav. Minardi, now
member of the Commission, of Sacred Archaeology, and both pronounced it
to be a wonderful specimen of the very earliest Christian art. The
learned and the experts in the study of Greco-Roman monuments who have
seen this fresco, have declared it to be not later than the time of the
first Antonines, and perhaps even prior to that epoch. It remains
therefore to collect such proofs as may fix as closely as possible the
age of this remarkable monument, which all admit to belong to the first
years of Christianity. To this end I will first compare it with other
paintings of more or less certain date, and then confront the results of
the comparison with the history, topography, and inscriptions of the
crypt". He then compares our fresco first with paintings in the cemetery
of Callixtus, which it is admitted belong to the days of Popes
Pontianus, Anteros, and Fabian, and finds that it is far superior to
them in style and execution, and consequently belonging to an older and
more classical school. He next compares them with the ornaments of the
square crypt, discovered last year in the cemetery of Pretextatus, and
belonging to about the year 162. These ornaments, better than the last
mentioned, are still inferior to our fresco. Finally, in the cemetery of
Domitilla, there is a _cubiculum_ adorned with the finest stucco, on
which a pencil more skilled in pagan than in Christian painting has
drawn landscapes and figures that remind you of the houses at Pompeii
and Herculaneum, rather than of the paintings of the catacombs. Compared
even with these, our fresco loses nothing, but, if anything, surpasses
them in composition and design. "Hence", concludes our author, "the
painting in the cemetery of Priscilla, compared with those paintings,
the date of which is more or less determined, is found to be as
beautiful and valuable as the very oldest of them, or even more so; and
allowing that some portion of its merit belongs to the artist and not to
the period, we must still conclude that it is cotemporary with the very
origin of Christian painting, or at least very little distant from it.
In a word, the painting belongs to the period of the Flavii and of the
preaching of the Apostles, or to that immediately following, namely, the
period of Trajan (A.D. 98), of Hadrian (A.D. 117), and at the latest of
the first Antonines" (A.D. 138). The truth of this result is confirmed
on the application of the other tests mentioned above: by the style of
the other ornaments of the place, which being in relief are never found
in a crypt of the third century; by the history of the cemetery, which
is clearly proved to have been the place of burial of the Christian
family of Pudens, the first of whom were cotemporary with the Apostles;
by the topography, for the spot where the painting exists was the very
centre of the excavation; by the style of the inscriptions around it,
which are of the most ancient form, and almost apostolical. All these
arguments, taken together, are invincible, and prove beyond a reasonable
doubt that this beautiful painting of our Blessed Lady was traced almost
beneath the eyes of the Apostles themselves.

FOOTNOTES:

[32] _Lives of the early Italian Painters._ By Mrs. Jameson, p. 2.

[33] Ibid., pag. 4.