THE IRISH

ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

SEPTEMBER, 1865.




DR. COLENSO AND THE OLD TESTAMENT.

NO. IV.


Who is there amongst our readers that has not at some time in his life
stood upon the sea-shore to watch the rising tide? Two mighty powers
meet, as it were in conflict, and each in its turn seems for a time to
prevail. Wave rolls after wave, but each again recedes as if baffled
in the struggle and exhausted by the effort. At one moment the waters
gain upon the land; then in the next the land wins back all that it
had lost; and sometimes even more besides. It is only when some
prominent landmark is reached, which a little while ago stood high and
dry upon the beach, that we can no longer entertain a doubt of the
sure and steady progress of the advancing flood.

Such, as it seems to us, is the conflict which it is the lot of our
age to witness between the flood-tide of infidelity and the
Established Church in these countries. The one is aggressive, the
other is struggling hard to hold its own. On both sides the contest is
carried on with energy and power. To a casual observer it might
perhaps seem that the fortunes of each are almost equal, and the
victory uncertain. But to one who extends the range of his vision and
takes in the distant landmarks, it is plainly evident that one by one
they are fast disappearing, and that the waves of infidelity are
sweeping, slowly indeed, but irresistibly, over the face of the
Established Church.

In the person of Dr. Colenso they have reached at length the episcopal
bench. His brethren, it is true, have taken the alarm, and have made a
show of resistance, but they only demonstrate their own weakness. Like
Canute of old, they command the waters to advance no further, but
their command is vain and fruitless. The great flood is still coming
in, and they who but yesterday were considered, from their high
position, far removed from danger, are to-day surrounded by the waves.
In this perilous crisis the Catholic Church alone affords a home of
undisturbed tranquillity to its children, a safe refuge to the
stranger. It stands indeed in the midst of the danger, but its walls
are too strong to be shaken, its foundation too solid to be
undermined. It has been built by its Divine Founder on a rock, and the
rain may descend, and the floods come, and the winds blow and beat
upon that Church, but it falleth not. We have the promise of God, that
her enemies shall not prevail against her; and therefore we may look
out from our impregnable fortress upon the surging billows with the
same calm sense of security as Noah had when he looked out from the
window of the ark on the waters of the deluge. But though God had
resolved that Noah should be saved from destruction whilst all around
were perishing, yet Noah was not saved without the toil and labour of
his own hands. And so, too, though by a decree of God, error cannot
prevail against His Church, yet has he ordained that the true faith
should be ever defended by human skill and industry. We hope,
therefore, our readers will pardon us if we return once again to the
charges which Dr. Colenso has brought against the truth of the Bible.

The increase of the children of Israel in Egypt, as represented in the
Mosaic narrative, is Dr. Colenso’s favourite objection. It is dressed
out with the most elaborate ingenuity and care. It is set forth with
even more than his usual confidence. It is held up as, in itself,
sufficient to destroy the historical character of the whole narrative.
By this objection, therefore, we may fairly suppose that he is willing
to stand or fall. We have already pointed out two fundamental errors
in the data from which it is deduced; many others yet remain, which we
now proceed to expose.

III. There are two suppositions which would contribute very much to
account for the rapid increase of the Israelites in Egypt; first,
intermarriage with the Egyptians; secondly, the practice of polygamy.
For the purpose of our defence it is quite sufficient that these two
customs were _possible_. Upon Dr. Colenso it devolves to prove that
they _did not prevail_ in point of fact. We may observe, however, that
the Pentateuch indicates clearly enough the existence of such
practices. Judah married a woman of Canaan (_Gen._, xxxiii. 2); so did
Simeon (xlvi. 10); Joseph married an Egyptian (_Gen._, xli. 25). Why
then may we not suppose that their children intermarried with foreign
nations? Was it impossible for them to imitate the example of their
fathers? We must bear in mind, too, that for 100 years at least, the
Hebrew people were high in favour at the court of Pharaoh. During the
years of famine they were supported at the royal expense (_Gen._, xlv.
11; xlvi. 12) while the Egyptians had to part with their money, their
cattle, and even their land, to pay for food (_Gen._, xlvii. 13-26):
they had “the best of the land” for their dwelling (_Gen._, xlvii. 6,
11): above all, they had for their patron and friend, their kinsman,
Joseph who was “lord of all the house of Pharaoh, and ruler throughout
all the land of Egypt” (_Gen._, xlv. 8). An alliance with a race so
wealthy and so favoured must have been eagerly courted by the
Egyptians: and, on the other hand, the Israelites would not have been
disposed to decline a connection which would have strengthened their
position in the country and increased their influence.

It does not appear that intermarriage with the Egyptians was forbidden
or even discouraged. On the contrary, an intimate social intercourse
seems to have existed between the two nations. Even at the very time
of the Exodus, we find that it was not unusual for the Hebrews to
receive the Egyptians as guests or tenants into their houses.[1] It is
not an improbable supposition that such close domestic relations might
in many instances lead to marriage. But we have positive evidence that
marriages of this kind actually did take place, and are in no way
reprehended. Thus we find mention made incidentally of “the son of an
Israelitish woman”, whose _father was an Egyptian_ (_Lev._, xxiv. 10).
He was condemned to death for blasphemy when the Israelites were
encamped under Mount Sinai: he must, therefore, have been born during
the sojourn in Egypt. Again we are told of an Israelite who gave his
daughter in marriage to an Egyptian servant (_I. Paralip._, ii. 34,
35). This occurred certainly after the Exodus. But if the two nations
_sometimes_ intermarried when they lived in _different_ countries, may
we not suppose that they _frequently_ intermarried whilst they were
living in the _same_ country? Hence we conclude (1ᵒ) that the mutual
relations which subsisted between the Egyptians and the Hebrews, would
naturally lead to frequent intermarriage; (2ᵒ) that there is not a
particle of evidence to make such a supposition improbable; (3ᵒ) that
there is positive testimony in its favour.

As regards the plurality of wives or concubines,[2] the Israelites had
before them the example of Abraham, who had at least three (_Gen._,
xvi. 1, 3; xxv. 1, 6), and of Jacob, who had four (_Gen._, xxix. 20,
30; xxx. 4, 9). The practice of polygamy, therefore, had the highest
and the holiest sanction in the eyes of the Hebrew people. It cannot
be objected that, during the sojourn in Egypt, there is no explicit
mention of polygamy in the Mosaic narrative. Moses did not undertake
to write a history of the period. A single chapter in the beginning of
Exodus, contains all that he records of what took place from the death
of Jacob to the birth of Moses. Neither could we expect much
information on this point from the genealogies which are given
elsewhere in the Bible. Every one knows that it was not the ordinary
custom of the Jews to mention the _mothers_ of those whose pedigree
was traced, but only the _fathers_.

Yet we are not left altogether without distinct testimony to the
practice of polygamy among the Hebrew people in Egypt. In one family
alone of the tribe of Judah we find the following examples: Hezron,
the son of Pharez, had two wives, Abiah, and the daughter of Machir
(I. _Paralip._, ii. 21, 24). Caleb, the son of Hezron, had three,
Azuba, Jerioth, and Ephrath (I. _Paralip._, ii. 18, 19).[3] Jerameel,
another son of Hezron, had two, one whose name is not given, and
another called Atarah (I. _Paralip._, ii. 25, 26). Ashur, likewise a
son of Hezron, had also two, Helah and Naarah (I. _Paralip._, iv. 5).
Lastly, we find that Moses himself clearly recognizes this custom as
prevalent. He makes laws regarding it, to prevent abuses, but he does
not forbid it, nor does he even censure it. “If a man _have two
wives_, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him
children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be
hers that was hated,… he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for
the first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath”
(_Deut._, xxiv. 15, 17). With these facts before us, we may judge what
weight is to be attached to the authority of Dr. Colenso when he
states: “There is no indication that polygamy did prevail among the
Hebrews of those days” (p. 120).

IV. Another very probable source of the rapid increase in population
was the accession of fresh servants from without. The early history of
Jacob affords a remarkable illustration of such an increase. He went
into a foreign country _without_ an invitation (_Gen._, xviii. 1-5):
he _served_ in it for twenty years (_Gen._, xxxi. 41): and yet at the
end of that time he tells us, “With my staff passed over this Jordan,
and now I am become as _two camps_” (_Gen._, xxxii. 10). The
Israelites during the first half of the sojourn in Egypt, were much
more favourably circumstanced. We have seen that, immediately upon
their descent into Egypt, they received an enormous increase both in
wealth and importance. This change in their fortunes would naturally
prompt them to add largely to the number of their servants. On the
other hand, the inhabitants of Egypt and Canaan were sore pressed with
famine. They were obliged to give up first their money, then their
cattle, then their land, in exchange for bread (_Gen._, xlvii. 13-20).
Many must thus have been reduced to extreme necessity, and nothing
would seem to have remained for them but to accept of service in the
households of their rich and prosperous neighbours. These dependants,
according to the command of God, should have been circumcised, and
thus have been made sharers in the covenant of which that rite was a
token. Their posterity would, therefore, be reckoned among the 600,000
who followed Moses into the desert.

To the increase by servants we may add a further increase by
proselytes. It would seem that every facility was offered to those who
wished to become incorporated with the Hebrew people. Even in the
celebration of the Passover, all were freely to be admitted if they
would submit to the rite of circumcision. “And if a stranger sojourn
with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let every male of
his be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he
shall be as one that is born in the land” (_Ex._, xii. 48). It is
manifest that Moses thought it likely, even after a century of bondage
and persecution, that many would still be found to join the fortunes
of this oppressed people. Is it unreasonable, then, to suppose that
such converts were more numerous in the days of their prosperity?

V. The average number of children in each family, according to the
calculation of Dr. Colenso, was 4½, or, at the outside, 6――3 sons and
3 daughters. The manner in which he arrives at this conclusion is
singularly characteristic. He prepares the way by assuring us that “we
have no reason whatever, from the data furnished by the sacred books
themselves, to assume that they had families materially larger than
those of the present day” (p. 102). If, however, we turn from the
pages of Dr. Colenso to the pages of the sacred books themselves, we
are told a very different story. “And God spake unto Israel in the
visions of the night,… and he said: I am God, the God of thy father;
fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will make of thee a great
nation” (_Gen._, xlvii. 2, 3). Such was the promise of God; here is
the fulfilment: “And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country
of Goshen; and they held possession of it, and they _grew_ and
_multiplied exceedingly_” (_Gen._, xlvii. 27). “And the children of
Israel _were fruitful_, and _increased abundantly_, and _multiplied_,
and _waxed exceeding mighty_; and _the land was filled_ _with them_….
The more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew”
(_Ex._, i. 7-12). These words clearly imply that the people of Israel
increased _beyond the usual rate at that time_ and _in that country_.
We are told, however, by several ancient writers that the people of
Egypt were wont to increase with extraordinary rapidity.[4] And yet,
in the face of all this, Dr. Colenso asserts that “we have _no reason
whatever_, from the data furnished by the Sacred Books themselves, to
assume that they had families materially larger than those of the
present day”.

He next proceeds to establish his average. The twelve sons of Jacob
had between them 54 children, which gives on an average 4½ to each. It
is worthy of note that in making this estimate, he studiously excludes
the family of Jacob himself, who had _twelve sons_. If this family had
been added to the others, the average would have been considerably
increased. But there is yet a more radical defect in his argument. The
12 sons of Jacob had 54 children _before_ the descent into Egypt; how
many had they after? Dr. Colenso _assumes_ that they had none. His
assumption is not only without proof; it is contrary to every
probability. These men were at the time in the full vigour of life.
Reuben the eldest, if we take Dr. Colenso’s own computation, was about
46; Joseph was but 39; Benjamin younger still. It is, therefore, most
reasonable to suppose that several of them, if not all, had children
born to them during the sojourn in Egypt. This will be the more
evident when we remember that Jacob, their father, had 12 sons born to
him _after he had reached_ the age of 80; and that Isaac, their
grandfather, was 60 when Jacob and Esau were born.

Moreover we can produce a distinct statement with regard to Joseph,
that he had children born to him after the descent, “And Jacob said
unto Joseph: … Thy two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born unto
thee in the land of Egypt, before I came unto the land of Egypt, are
mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, as Reuben and Simeon shall be mine. And
_thy issue which thou begettest after them_, shall be thine, and shall
be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance”
(_Gen._, xlviii. 3, 5, 6). It may be objected that in the twenty-sixth
chapter of Numbers, where the grandsons of Jacob are enumerated, no
mention is made but of those born before the descent. We answer, that
in that chapter those only are enumerated who _gave their names to
families_; and it would seem that the grandsons of Jacob born after
the descent, did not give their names to families, but, like the
younger sons of Joseph, were “called after the name of their brethren
in their inheritance”. We may observe that this oversight of our
author has drawn him into a twofold error. First, it has led him to
_underestimate the average number of children_ in each family;
secondly, it has led him to _underestimate the number of males in the
first generation_, since _all_ the grandsons of Jacob, according to
his argument, belonged to the first generation.

Dr. Colenso refers, however, to the genealogies in the sixth chapter
of Exodus (verses 14-25), and elsewhere, to show that the families
during the sojourn in Egypt were not remarkably large. This argument
is of no value if he do not prove that these genealogies give
_complete lists of all the sons_ in each family. It appears to us that
there is no evidence to this effect. The genealogies were generally
introduced for some specific purpose, as for instance, to trace the
pedigree of the most remarkable men; and for this purpose it was quite
unnecessary that _all the members_ of each family should be distinctly
enumerated. A striking illustration occurs in a passage already
quoted: “And the sons of Pallu; Eliab. And the sons of Eliab; Nemuel
and Dathan, and Abiram” (_Num._, xxvi. 8, 9).[5] It is here explicitly
stated that Pallu had _sons_; and yet only _one_ is named. Eliab is
probably selected from the rest as he was the father of Dathan and
Abiram; for of them it is immediately added that they were “famous in
the congregation”, and that “they strove against Moses and against
Aaron” in the rebellion of Korah.

Enough, we think, has been said to satisfy our readers that Dr.
Colenso has completely failed in his argument. He has failed to show
“beyond a doubt, that it is quite impossible that there should have
been such a number of the people of Israel in Egypt, at the time of
the Exodus, as to have furnished 600,000 warriors in the prime of
life, if we will take the data to be derived from the Pentateuch
itself” (p. 101). On the contrary, we have proved that there are many
circumstances overlooked, misstated, or denied, by Dr. Colenso, which
are quite sufficient to explain what he regards as impossible. More
than this we cannot do. How far each circumstance in particular
contributed to swell the number of the people, must for ever remain
uncertain. While the sacred narrative is silent on the subject, it
would be unreasonable to ask such a question, and absurd to undertake
to answer it. If we wished to imitate the example of Dr. Colenso, we
might easily form conjectures, and set them down as facts. But we
believe that such a course would be injurious to the cause of truth,
which we defend. It is much better candidly to admit that we cannot
determine with accuracy the number of servants that accompanied Jacob
into Egypt, or the number of servants and proselytes that afterwards
became incorporated with the Hebrew people; that we cannot ascertain
the precise number of generations in each family, or the average
number for the entire nation; lastly, that we cannot estimate how far
polygamy and intermarriage with the Egyptians may have conduced to the
wonderful increase of population.

But, though we are unable to say how the population _did increase in
point of fact_, we can easily show how it _may have increased_. For
this purpose we venture to lay before our readers a calculation by
which we account for the fact in a manner perfectly conformable to all
the “data of the Pentateuch”. First, as regards the number of
generations. Since a generation is descent from father to son, the
length of time to be allowed for a generation will be determined in
each particular case by the age of the father when the son is born.
This of course will vary for different families, and even for
different members of the same family. We may, however, fairly suppose
that, among the Hebrew people in Egypt, taking one family with
another, every man on an average had children born to him at the age
of 32. Thus 32 years would be the average length of each generation.
The males of the first generation, as we have before seen, were all
living at least three years before the descent into Egypt, or 218
years before the Exodus. For each succeeding period of 32 years we
must add, according to our calculation, one generation more. In 218
years there are just six periods of 32 years each, and 26 years over.
Therefore the whole of the seventh generation must have been living 26
years before the Exodus.

Next we may estimate the number of males in the first generation at a
hundred and twenty-five. To this generation would belong all those,
who, at the time of the descent, were above the age of three, and
under the age of thirty-five. Those who were three, or less than
three, should not be counted, since they belonged to the second
generation: those above thirty-five should be excluded, because when
the first generation was completed, they had already reached the age
of thirty-two; therefore, according to our calculation, they must at
that time have had children who would belong to the first generation;
they could not then belong to it themselves. Now we may suppose that,
amongst the followers of Jacob, there were at least sixty males of
various ages between these two extremes. This estimate will appear
moderate indeed, when we remember that Abraham had been able to lead
forth an army of 318 _trained servants, born in his house_ (_Gen._,
xiv. 14). It will not be unreasonable to compute the accession of
extra servants and proselytes at 15. If to these 75 we add 50 as the
number of males within the prescribed limits, in Jacob’s own family,
we shall have attained our estimated figure, 125. Lastly, our readers
will find little difficulty in admitting an average of four sons in
each family.

From these data we obtain the following results:

  Number of males in the       all       years before
     _first_ generation, 125 living 218  the Exodus.
     _second_     „      500   „    186      „
     _third_      „    2,000   „    154      „
     _fourth_     „    8,000   „    122      „
     _fifth_      „   32,000   „     90      „
     _sixth_      „  128,000   „     58      „
     _seventh_    „  512,000   „     26      „

It is certain that a large number of the sixth, and probably a few of
the fifth generation were still living at the time of the Exodus.
Moreover, since the eighth had been coming into existence during the
last period of twenty-six years, many of that generation must have
already attained the age of twenty. If to all these we add the entire
of the seventh generation, we shall have no difficulty in making up
600,000 men of twenty years old and upward.

Now we admit that all this calculation is founded on conjectures; and
that it is very likely these conjectures do not in every respect
represent what actually took place. But we maintain that they are at
least possible in themselves, and perfectly consistent with the
narrative of the Pentateuch. Consequently, the number of the
Israelites at the time of the Exodus does not involve any
contradiction, and the thesis of Dr. Colenso is false.

There is another process of calculation by which we may arrive at the
same conclusion. Scientific men have been able to throw some light on
the principles which conduce to a rapid increase of population. With
much research they have collected statistical tables, which afford
results very applicable to our present inquiry. They have conducted
their studies on purely scientific grounds, and without any special
reference to the Bible narrative. We may, therefore, avail ourselves
of their conclusions as representing the unbiassed opinion of
competent and impartial judges. “It has been constantly remarked”,
says Malthus,[6] “that all new colonies, settled in healthy countries,
where room and food were abundant, have constantly made a rapid
progress in population. Many of the colonies from ancient Greece, in
the course of one or two centuries, appear to have rivalled, and even
surpassed their mother cities”. He gives examples also from the
colonies that first settled in North America. Without any fresh
immigrants, the population was doubled sometimes in twenty-five years,
sometimes in twenty-two, sometimes even in fifteen.[7] From a table
given by Euler, it appears that a population may double itself in 12⅘
years; and the author does not hesitate to say that this “is not only
a possible supposition, but has _actually occurred_ for short periods
in more countries than one”.

Now the circumstances of the Israelites in Egypt were peculiarly
favourable to an unusually rapid increase. To say nothing of the
special blessing of God which attended them, they were dwelling in a
country of which the inhabitants were noted for a remarkable
fecundity; the climate was genial; the land fertile; the means of
living abundant. Let us then take a medium between the extreme figures
mentioned above, and suppose that during the whole period of the
sojourn in Egypt, the population was doubled every eighteen years.
This supposition may or may not be true; but it is certainly not less
in harmony with the repeated declarations of the Pentateuch, than it
is with the cold calculations of science. If our former estimate be
accepted, the total population at the commencement of the sojourn in
Egypt would be about 500; that is to say, four times the number of
males between the ages of three and thirty-five:――125×4=500. Upon this
foundation we may construct the following table:――

     year of    Total number of the
  the Sojourn.    Hebrew people,
      1st                500
     18th              1,000
     36th              2,000
     54th              4,000
     72nd              8,000
     90th             16,000
    108th             32,000
    126th             64,000
    144th            128,000
    162nd            256,000
    180th            512,000
    198th          1,024,000
    216th          2,048,000

Thus it would appear that, if we hearken to the authority of
scientific men, who have made the principles of population the subject
of their special study, we may still further confirm the accuracy of
those figures which to the mind of Dr. Colenso present nothing but
“multiplied impossibilities”.

We have led our readers a long and weary journey. We have conducted
them through a bewildering labyrinth of names and numbers, of
intricate genealogies and complicated calculations. Our way indeed lay
through the midst of a beautiful country; and as we passed along, we
now and then caught a glimpse, as it were, from a distance, of some
sublime or touching scene which has many a time inspired the genius of
the poet, the painter, or the sculptor. But we had an end in view
which forbade us to turn aside from our rugged and toilsome path, even
though it were to enjoy the varied charms of the most ancient, the
most simple, the most sacred of histories. Like the soldiers of Saul,
we might not even put forth our hand to taste of the honey that was
dropping from the trees around us. If, however, like them, we have
gained the victory and driven the enemy from his stronghold, our
labours have been richly rewarded, and our readers have not toiled
after us in vain.


ERRATUM.――We beg to call attention to an error which occurs in the
last article on Colenso, page 517. The passage to which we refer is
printed thus:――“According to the Mosaic, etc.… 99,989 families”. Our
readers will observe that the number of families in the case supposed
would be 200,000 instead of 100,000. By this alteration the character
of the argument remains unchanged, but its force is considerably
increased.




THE BISHOPS OF OSSORY.


When illustrating the lives of the Irish Bishops, Ware and Harris, as
well as our modern annalists, seem to have devoted special care to the
See of Ossory, and hence its series of bishops is one of the most
complete and unbroken that we find in the history of our Church. It is
in the latter half of the fourteenth century that the first great
difficulty occurs. In 1367 a parliament was held in Kilkenny, and the
famous Act was passed commonly styled, _The Statute of Kilkenny_,
which, amongst other signatures, presents that of “William, Bishop of
Ossory”.[8] Its accuracy in all the other signatures, and in several
minor details, leaves no doubt as to the genuineness of the prelate’s
name, who at that time ruled the See of St. Canice. Nevertheless, such
a Bishop finds no room in the series of episcopal names given by Ware
and succeeding writers. John of Tatenal, they say, was appointed to
the see in 1360; and his death did not take place till 1370: thus the
above William is altogether excluded from the episcopal succession.

The chroniclers of the Augustinian order, however, enable us to solve
this difficulty. _John de Tatenal_, or as he is sometimes called _de
Tayenal_, was a member of that distinguished religious body, and was
appointed to the See of Ossory in 1370, the same year which saw him
carried to the tomb.

There was, indeed, another Bishop _John_ appointed in 1361. On the
20th of November that year, he promised to pay to the “Camera
Apostolica” the diocesan tax of 200 florins, equal to £40; and it is
remarked that this is a proof of the decay of the revenues of Ossory,
since only forty years before, on the appointment of Bishop Richard,
the tax amounted to 700 florins. On the 9th of January 1361/2
permission was granted to this bishop to return to his see, and from
the brief published in _Monumenta Vaticana_, pag. 319, we learn that
he had been consecrated some time before, by Raymond, Bishop of
Praeneste, then resident with the Papal court in Avignon. In 1364
Urban V. (xii. Kal. Aprilis, an. 2ᵒ) granted to him special faculties
and privileges, but no mention is made of him in the following years.
Thus we have full room for Bishop William, appointed before 1367, and
deceased about 1369.

Dr. John Tatenal, as we have seen, was appointed in 1370, and died
before Christmas the same year. _Alexander Petit_ alias _de Balscot_,
canon of the Cathedral of Kilkenny, a man of great learning and wisdom
(as Ware writes), was elected by the chapter to fill the vacant see;
and though this election was irregular and invalid, Gregory XI.
confirmed him as Bishop of Ossory by Brief of 10th February, 1371. He
subsequently was appointed by the crown to some of the highest offices
of the kingdom, and having held the see for fifteen years, was
translated to Meath in 1386.

_Richard Northalis_, a Carmelite, was next appointed to the See. His
promise to pay the usual tax of 200 florins to the “Camera Apostolica”
is dated 17th Feb. 1386/7. He was translated to Dublin in 1395, not in
1396, as Ware supposed. His successor _Thomas_, a Carmelite, surnamed
_Peverell_,[9] signed the usual obligation a few days after his
appointment on the 3rd of November, 1395, and after an episcopate of
three years, was translated to Leighlin, on 23rd January, 1398/9,
whence on the 2nd July following he was again translated to Llandaff,
in Wales (_Biblioth. Carmelit._). He was succeeded in Ossory by _John_
_Wultham_ (sometimes written _Wulcan_ or _Vulcan_), who was probably
appointed on the very day of Dr. Peverell’s translation to Leighlin,
and on 1st of February, 1398/9, signed an obligation to pay the usual
tax of 200 florins for himself, and in addition 200 florins for his
predecessor Thomas, who had not been as yet able to satisfy his
obligation. This bishop belonged to the order of St. Augustine, and
was translated to Dromore before the month of July, 1399. _Dr. John
Griffin_, Bishop of Leighlin, was soon after translated to our See by
brief of “6to Nonas Julii, 1399”, and on the 12th of July, he signed
an obligation “to pay _185 florins and 44 solidos_ as portion of the
tax unpaid by his predecessor John, and in addition 100 florins still
due from the time of Dr. Thomas Peverell”. It is added that no tax was
imposed upon himself, as his appointment was the second one which had
been made within the term of twelve months.

Early in the following year Dr. Griffin was summoned to his reward,
and in May, 1400, another Bishop _John_ was appointed to the See of
Ossory. This bishop is only known to us from the lists of the
Apostolic Chamber. On the 14th of May, an. Dom. 1400, he signed his
own individual obligation for the sum of 200 florins, and moreover
promised to pay 81 florins and 47 solidos “_pro residuis Domini
Johannis prae-antecessoris sui_”. On the 26th of September, the same
year (1400), Pope Boniface IX. advanced _Roger de Appleby_ to the
vacant see,[10] and on the 28th of the same month, it is entered in
the books of the Apostolic chamber, that he “ratas habuit
obligationes, tum Johannis sui praedecessoris immediati tum alterius
Johannis in Floren. 81 et solid. 47: pro se autem nihil obligavit quia
fuit facta promotio bis in anno”.

The successor of Bishop Rogers was according to Ware, the _John
Vulcan_, whom we have already seen appointed to this see in 1398/9,
and the year 1404 is assigned as the probable date of his accession.
Here again the list of taxes paid to the _Camera_ comes to our aid. It
tells us that, on 17th November, 1402, “_Johannes Walteri_”, Bishop
elect of Ossory, promised the usual sum of 200 florins, and also the
residue of the former debt of his predecessor John, viz., flor. 81,
and solid. 47. It was, probably, the similarity of name that induced
the learned writer to transplace Dr. Wultham, and make him successor
of Roger Appleby in the see of St. Canice.

_Thomas Snell_, Archdeacon of Glendalough, who had held the see of
Waterford and Lismore since 1399, was next appointed to this see.
Ware, indeed, dates his appointment to Ossory in 1405, but the lists
to which we have already so often appealed in this paper, attest that
he signed the usual obligation on being appointed to this see on the
11th March, 1407/8. This bishop bequeathed to his successors a mitre
adorned with precious stones, and presented to his church some richly
ornamented vestments. Rev. William Purcell appeared in the Council of
Constance in the beginning of 1416, as proxy of our bishop, as we
learn from Martene, _Veter. Monument._, tom. vii. col. 1222.

_Patrick Ragged_ on the death of Bishop Thomas, was translated from
the see of Cork to Ossory, by brief of 15th of December, 1417. An
ancient writer gives him the character of “a prelate who governed his
flock with justice and piety, and instructed them both by word and
example.” He was appointed agent of the _Camera Apostolica_ in Ireland
on the 11th January, 1417/8; and he died, not on the 20th of August,
as Ware arbitrarily asserts, but in the first month of 1421.

_Dionysius O’Dea_ was appointed to the see vacant _per obitum
Patritii_, by Pope Martin V., in the beginning of August, 1421, and on
the 6th of the same month signed his obligation for the usual tax of
200 florins assigned for his see.

_Thomas Barry_, or as he is styled in the Roman lists, _Thomas Baury_,
made the usual declaration on the 5th of April, 1527, having been
appointed some days previous Bishop of Ossory. During his episcopate,
a famous controversy was carried on before the tribunal of Pope
Nicholas V., regarding the parochial church of Callan, which is
described as _alias Kilbride_, that is, dedicated to St. Brigid. This
controversy was not decided till the pontificate of Pope Paul II.,
some years after the death of our Prelate.

_David Hacket_, prior of the Augustinian monastery of Ahassel,
dedicated to SS. Edmund and Martin, and situated in the diocese of
Cashel, was advanced to our see by Pope Pius II., and was consecrated
_in curia Romana_ in the year 1460. When signing his usual obligation
on 14th July, 1460, he is still styled _Episcopus Ossoriensis
electus_. He died, according to Ware, on the 24th October, 1478.[11]

_John O’Hadian_, who is styled _Hedayn_ in the Consistorial Acts,
received from the Holy See the Archdeaconries of Cashel and Ossory on
the 8th of January 1459/60 (_Monument. Vatic._, pag. 424), and on the
15th January, 1479, was proclaimed in consistory Bishop of Ossory. It
is added in the record of his appointment that, “die 21 Februarii
sequentis consecratus fuit in ecclesia S. Tryphonis de Urbe a
Benedicto Archiepo. Mitilenensi, assistentibus sibi Stephano Archiepo.
Antibarensi et Stephano Sagiensi Epo”. He was appointed collector of
the Apostolic taxes in Ireland in 1482, and his death is recorded on
6th of January, 1486/7.

_Oliver Cantwell_, who, in various entries of the Vatican archives,
receives the names _Cantnel_ and _Wertell_, was advanced to the
episcopate in consistory of the 26th March, 1487, the see being
described as vacant _per obitum Joannis extra curiam_. This
illustrious bishop belonged to the order of St. Dominick, and De
Burgo, in _Hib. Dominic._, pag. 478, gives a letter of Innocent VIII.,
dated 27th March, 1487, authorizing him to be consecrated by any
bishop holding communion with the Holy See. The first years of his
episcopate were disturbed by the rebellion of Lambert Simnel and its
accompanying disorders, and we find published by Rymer a letter of the
above-named Pontiff, Innocent VIII., exhorting the Bishop of Ossory
and the other Prelates of the Irish Church to use their influence in
quelling the rebellious excitement which prevailed throughout our
island. Dr. Cantwell governed the diocese for almost forty years, and
in a very advanced age he passed to his eternal crown on the 9th of
January, 1526/7.

_Milo Fitzgerald_, better known by the family surname of _Baron_,
belonged to the order of St. Augustine, and was prior of the famous
monastery of Inistiogue. On the death of the aged Bishop Cantwell, Dr.
Fitzgerald was advanced to the vacant see, whilst at the same time he
received an apostolic dispensation permitting him to retain his former
priory. He is commemorated in the papers of the _Camera Apostolica_ as
having paid a portion of the diocesan tax on 10th July, 1528; and from
other sources we learn that he presented to his church a marble altar,
and bequeathed to his successors a pastoral staff of silver. By one of
the usual _voluntary surrenders_ of the 31st year of Henry VIII.
(1540), this good bishop was compelled to hand over his priory to the
agents of the crown. The first to enjoy its spoils was Sir Richard
Butler, but on 20th December, 1551, an order was issued by the Lords
of the Council in England, commanding it to be given to _Edward
Seyntloo_ for twenty-one years, “in consideration of his painful and
diligent services in the late wars in Ireland” (Morrin, i. 255).
Nevertheless, in 1567 Queen Elizabeth ordered it to be again leased to
Sir Edmond Butler, together with the monastery of Connall and the
greater part of the possessions of the Abbey of Baltinglass, and thus
were the offerings of the piety of our fathers sacrilegiously
plundered in order to gratify the vanity and the pleasures of the
retainers of the crown.

Bishop Milo ruled the see of Ossory till his death in 1550. From
several letters written by the Lord Deputy immediately after his
demise, we learn what little progress had been made by the so-called
reformation in Ossory at this period. For instance, he thus writes on
the 5th of December, 1550:――

     “And now as touching the bishoprick void (of Ossory), it
     shall be well done some honest man be placed therein for the
     advancement of religion, which, although it hath been here
     much talked of these two or three years past, yet hath it
     been smally set forth in deed, and perchance if the
     disposition of men here were thoroughly known, it would be
     thought a thing not easy to be brought to pass”. (Shirley,
     _Original Letters_, pag. 46).

It is not easy to understand how this important see was allowed to
remain vacant for more than two years. As yet no record has been
discovered of a canonically appointed successor till the accession of
Queen Mary. But we feel persuaded that, at this time, according to the
unvarying custom of the Holy See, such a successor was appointed by
Rome. Even the king’s letter appointing John Bale to the see, is only
dated 22nd of October, 1552 (Morrin, i. 267). In this letter the king
commands the lord deputy to receive the new bishop as one highly
commended; and yet the order for his consecration was not issued till
the 1st of February following.

Dr. Bale was one of the first founders of the Establishment in our
island: in fact he was for awhile the great pillar of that state
institution, and hence has found many eulogists amongst those who
succeeded him in the enjoyment of its temporalities and rich
benefices. Thus Dr. Mant devotes several pages of his _History of the
Irish Church_ (i. 220, seqq.) to commend “the zeal, assiduity,
activity, and devotion to the reformed faith in opposition to the
Romish errors”, displayed by this apostle of the Established Church.
It will not, therefore, be uninteresting to inquire a little into Dr.
Bale’s true character, although we do not reckon him amongst the
bishops of this see, that thus, whilst we await the _historical_
grounds on which Mr. Whiteside _promises_ to justify that most
monstrous institution which ever provoked a nation’s anathema, we may
supply one faithful sketch at least for the consideration of our
readers.

He was born in Suffolk in 1495, and having embraced a religious life,
passed through the various scientific grades in Norwich and Cambridge.
Notwithstanding his solemn vows, he availed himself of the libertinism
which prevailed in 1530, to take a wife, and adopt the new tenets of
the Reformers. He himself avowed that _a temporal lord_ was the
instrument of his “conversion”, and Nicholson, in his _Historical
Library_, adds, “that in truth his wife Dorothy had as great a hand in
that happy work as the Lord”. More than once he was threatened with
imprisonment, but he always escaped through the protection of Lord
Cromwell, on whose death he fled from the kingdom and took refuge in
Germany. On the accession of Edward VI., he returned to England, and
happening to be presented to the king in Southampton, received at once
a promise of the vacant bishopric. Bale first arrived from England at
Waterford, and he himself attests that “he was forcibly impressed by
the appearance of the old idolatry”;[12] that is, he found there a
fine devoted Catholic people, true to the faith of their fathers. His
consecration in Dublin met with great opposition “_from the popishly
inclined clergy_”, and even the two Irish assistant bishops protested
against the use of the English liturgy on the occasion.[13] During the
six months that he held the temporalities, he tells us that he
“enjoyed great peace”, but at the same time both clergy and people
remained devotedly attached to the Catholic faith: “helpers”, he says,
“I found none among my prebendaries and clergy, but adversaries a
great number”. On the accession of Queen Mary, his episcopal career
was quickly brought to a close in Ossory. “On the 20th day of August”,
he writes, “was the lady Mary with us at Kilkenny proclaimed queen of
England, France, and Ireland, with the greatest solemnity that could
be devised of processions, musters, and disguisings, all the noble
captains and gentlemen thereabout being present. What ado I had that
day with the prebendaries and priests about wearing the cope, crosier,
and mitre in procession, it were too much to write”. On Thursday, the
31st of August, the clergy and people of that Catholic city assembled
to proclaim their faith: as yet no statute or proclamation had been
made, but they could not brook any longer delay: “They rang all the
bells in that cathedral, minster, and parish churches”, (writes Bale),
“they flung up their caps to the battlements of the great temple; they
brought forth their copes, candlesticks, holy water stocks, crosses,
and censers; they mustered forth in general procession most gorgeously
all the town over, with _Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis_, and the rest of
the Latin litany”.

Even here, however, the trials of Dr. Bale were not terminated. A
party of the citizens, having at their head an individual named
_Barnaby Bolger_, surrounded his house, threatening him with death,
unless he ceased to defile by his presence their Catholic county. It
was only by the interposition of the mayor with four hundred soldiers,
that the commotion was partially quelled; at night Bale made his
escape to Dublin. Instead of protection, he found that new dangers
awaited him in that capital of our island; in the disguise of a sailor
he was again obliged to seek safety by flight; sailing for Zealand, as
_Harris_ tells us, he was taken prisoner at sea, and tried for treason
in Cornwall; escaping thence he sailed for the Continent, but was once
more seized by pirates, and sold as a slave;[14] having paid his
ransom, he lived during the following years at Basle and Geneva. On
the accession of Elizabeth he returned to England, but never sought to
be restored to the See of Ossory.

The writings of Bale acquired some celebrity on the continent, where
they were nearly all composed. They are full, however, of the vilest
calumnies against the religious orders and the Holy See, and are
written with characteristic acrimony of style. Hence Fuller, in his
_Catalogue of English Writers_, says: “Bale knew not how to moderate
his passions, and hence deservedly received the agnomen _Biliosus
Balaeus_”. Montacutus also (in _Apparat._, § 83) styles him,
“impotentis linguae et calami scriptor”. Pitseus is still more severe,
for he thus epitomizes Bale’s character, “omnia foedissimus scurra
mendaciis et calumniis replevit”. Andrew Valery, in his preface to the
_Bibliotheca Belgica_, writes, “Joannes Balaeus homo impius quidem,
nominari tamen hoc loco vel ideo potuit ut quis e sordibus gemmas
legat”; and in fine, Gerrard Vossius condemns his bad faith in
treating of the early writers, “unum scio in priorum saeculorum
scriptoribus non raro Balaei fidem claudicare” (_De Historicis
Latinis_, lib. i. cap. 32, pag. 170). Such was the character of this
boasted champion of the established church in our island! But it is
time to return to the successors of saint Canice.

John Thonery, a native of Kilkenny, was nominated to this see by Queen
Mary. The following is the letter of the queen to the lord-deputy,
dated October the 14th, an. 1ᵒ (_i. e._ an. 1553):

     “Whereas we perceive the bishoprick of Ossory to be void, we
     have thought good, for the learning and integrity of life
     which we understand to be in John Thonery, bachelor of
     divinity, to nominate and appoint him to the same
     bishoprick: these shall be therefore to will and command you
     to make letters-patent under our great seal to the said
     John, of the bishoprick, and to give further order for his
     consecration and installation, according to the order of our
     said realm”.

The congé d’elire to the dean and chapter of the cathedral of St.
Canice was issued on December 26th, and the mandate for his
consecration was given on 31st December, the same year, (Morrin, i.
306). This prelate is described as a benefactor to his see, and he is
especially commended for taking care “to have the antient charters of
his church, which otherwise would have perished, transcribed and
sealed with his seal” (Ware, pag. 418). Though summoned to Parliament
as bishop of Ossory in the first year of Elizabeth, and receiving
commissions from the crown even in Elizabeth’s reign (Morrin, i. 370,
412), the government found him inflexible in maintaining the Catholic
faith, and consequently declared that his election from the beginning
was void, and that his acts as bishop could not be valid, since the
heretical Bishop Bale was still living.[15] In this, however, the
government fathers of the Establishment only gave another proof of
their inconsistency, for a few years before, they declared that the
fact of the flight of Dr. Dowdall rendered vacant the see of Armagh,
and they actually proceeded to the consecration of Goodacre for that
see, though Dowdall was still living. There is one great advantage,
however, which we derive from the hostile course pursued by the agents
of Elizabeth in regard to Dr. Thonery; it supplies us with the
clearest proof we could desire of his unflinching devotedness to the
Church of his fathers; and when we find Sir W. Cecil, on the 4th July,
1565, conveying instructions to the lord deputy, that, “Her majesty
understanding that the archbishoprick of Cashel and the bishoprick of
Ossory have been long void, whereby hath grown lack to the
ecclesiastical government there”, would wish to have the sees united,
and one bishop appointed “who might serve as counsellor there”
(Shirley, _Orig. Lett._, 207), we are more than justified in
concluding that our Catholic bishop was faithful to his trust, and
successfully guarded the flock entrusted to his care against all the
inroads of heresy. He passed to the crown of his zeal and labours
about the year 1567.

The next bishop was _Thomas Strange_ (or _Strong_), appointed in
consistory of 28th March, 1582. The following is the consistorial
entry:

                                           “Die 28 Martii, 1582.

     “Sua Sanctitas referente Card. Senonensi providit ecclesiae
     Ossorien. in Prov. Dubliniensi, a pluribus annis vacanti per
     obitum Joannis O’Thonery, in dicta dioecesi defuncti, per
     Thomam Strong, Presbyterum Waterfordiensem, Doctorem
     Theologiae, in curia praesentem”.

In the Vatican list of the Irish clergy in 1579, Dr. Strong is twice
commemorated, first, under the heading of those who were pursuing
their studies on the Continent we find him described as “Thomas
Strongius, Parisiis, annorum 32”; and again, under the heading: “Qui
sunt in Hibernia fideles operarii vel certe facile eo transmitti
possunt”, we find him thus mentioned in the fourth place: “D. Thomas
Strong, Waterfordiensis: hic tenet utramque linguam Anglicanam et
Hibernicam sed melius Anglicam” (_Ex Archiv. Vatic._) Immediately
after his consecration he set out for the theatre of his missionary
labours; but it was only “in ruffling apparel with gilt rapier and
dagger”,[16] that a bishop could then visit his flock, and so vigilant
were the agents of Elizabeth in his pursuit, that he was soon
compelled to seek refuge in Spain. It is thus the bishop of Killaloe
writes on 29th October, 1584:

     “Thomas Ossoriensis episcopus mansit in Hibernia aliquot
     mensibus in habitu saeculari, tandem contulit se ex Hibernia
     ad Hispaniam”.

We cannot say with certainty whether Dr. Strange was able at any time
subsequently to return to his see. Whilst in Spain he devoted himself
to the sacred ministry as assistant of the bishop of Compostella, and
he died there (according to the new computation) on 20th January,
1602. The contemporary, Malachy Hartry, in his _Triumphalia Sanctae
Crucis_, thus briefly sketches his career:

     “Dum in hac sua patria degisset, Catholicae fidei causâ et
     ecclesiae permulta et gravissima a persecutoribus sustulit
     et in Hispaniam ire cogitur; Compostellae in Gallicia, demum
     anno Domini 1601. Januarii die 20ᵒ obiit atque in claustro
     Cathedralis Ecclesiae D. Jacobo consecratae, sub marmoreo
     lapide, uti vidi cum Strangorum stemmate inciso, terrae
     traditur”.




PETER FRANCIS XAVIER DE RAM.


The great question of the present day is the question of education.
The Catholic Church, as the infallible teacher of men, claims for
herself the right to control human thought, and exercises that right
by sitting in judgment on each newfangled system as it appears. This
claim is peremptorily rejected by the civil power, which, on its part,
wishes to make of education a department of government. The science of
the age sides on the whole with the civil power as against the Church.
Towards the ecclesiastical authorities it assumes at times an air of
pity, as towards men whose otherwise estimable qualities are warped by
a religious bigotry which is eminently unscientific; at times it
exhibits irritation and distrust; at times again it is in open and
undisguised antagonism. In the face of a jealous government, to urge,
and to urge successfully, the inalienable rights of the Church,
requires no ordinary tact; in the face of the contempt, or distrust,
or antagonism of the intellect of a country, to take every
understanding captive unto Christ, demands no ordinary courage and
ability. And yet this is what is meant by founding a Catholic
University; and this has been achieved in the nineteenth century in
Belgium, under God, through the instrumentality of one priest,
Monsignor Peter Francis Xavier De Ram, the late Rector of the Catholic
University of Louvain. A life such as his is a model which all may
study with great profit. It is only with his spirit and through his
principles that we may hope to obtain for Ireland what he obtained for
Belgium――the full liberty of Catholic education.

De Ram’s great work, but not his only work, was the foundation of the
Catholic University of Louvain. At the time when he was called by the
bishops of Belgium to form and direct the new institution, he was
diligently engaged in promoting the spread of good books, in
illustrating the antiquities of his country, and especially in
publishing the lives of the saints and other distinguished men who
have shed glory on his native land. Almost in his infancy he imbibed a
special predilection for the study of the lives of the saints from a
holy aunt, a religious of the Premonstratensian Order, who lived in
his father’s house, having been driven from her convent at the time of
the first French Revolution. Even before he had completed his clerical
studies, this taste made him publish, as author or editor, several
works bearing on the lives of the saints, and before he was
twenty-five years of age he undertook a new edition in the Flemish
language of the great works on this subject by Alban Butler and
Godescard. This taste he preserved through life, and to it when fully
developed we are indebted for his other great works, the _Collections
of Belgian Synods_, the _Synodicum Belgicum_, the _Synodicum
Antverpiense_, and _Ecclesiastical History of Belgium_, _Belgica
Sacra_, of which he published the plan in 1830, for which since then
he has been collecting most abundant materials, but which, alas! he
has not lived to finish.

Later on, we find him labouring strenuously and successfully to obtain
for the Jesuit Fathers a state subsidy to enable them to continue the
stupendous undertaking of the old Bollandists, the _Acta Sanctorum_.
Thanks in great measure to this help, the noble work is now making
progress to the great glory of God, to the advantage of religion, and
the honour of Belgium. And among the first eulogists of the departed
prelate, we have the great Jesuit Father de Buck, the head of the
present Bollandists in Brussels, to whose notice on Mgr. de Ram we are
indebted for much that appears in this sketch.

In fine, this same taste for historical research, especially in the
history of his native land, made him take a most distinguished place
in the Royal Academy of Belgium, of which he was for thirty-one years
one of the chief members, and especially in the Royal Commission of
History, founded precisely for the promotion of the study of the
national annals. Indefatigable in his labours, never-failing in his
attendance at the meetings of the Commission, bringing to them the
rich treasures of his learning, joined to the affability and
conciliatory tone which always characterised him, we are told by one
who knew him there, that never during that long period was there
between him and his associates in that great work the least shadow of
a difference. True to the end to his work for religion and his
country, one of his last public acts, two days before his death, was
to assist at a meeting of the Academy; and he leaves unfinished three
works undertaken in the same holy cause: the Chartulary of the Abbey
of Cambron, the preparation of materials for a general and diplomatic
history of the University of Louvain, and the collection and
arrangement of the short Flemish chronicles scattered in manuscript
through the Belgian libraries, with a view to their forming a
compendium to the great chronicle of De Dynter.

But it is not with De Ram’s historical labours, great as they were,
that we are chiefly interested. His great work for us has been the
Catholic University of Louvain. That university was proposed by his
Holiness Pope Pius IX. as the model which our bishops were to have in
view in founding the Catholic University of Ireland. Over it De Ram
presided for more than thirty years, in fact since its foundation; the
difficulties, seemingly insuperable, with which he had to contend,
were almost identical with those that press our Irish institution; the
means for overcoming these difficulties in the two countries were very
similar, and we may hope that the Catholic University of Belgium is
but the harbinger of the success of the Catholic University of
Ireland.

The University of Louvain was called into existence to meet a
condition of things, the parallel of which existed in Ireland in 1850,
and to cope with dangers similar to those which, at that period,
impended over the Catholics of this empire. In its working it has
wedded together interests which the sophistry of the day makes it
fashionable to represent as antagonistic. It is eminently national,
eminently scientific, eminently Catholic. It cultivates literature
with a zeal which does not interfere with its devotion to theology and
other sacred studies, and pursues even the highest investigations of
science in such a way as to prove that nowhere can freedom of
scientific research find a more congenial home than in a Catholic
university. These sentiments were eloquently expressed by one of the
students of the university. M. Van Tomme, as he stood by the bier of
Mgr. De Ram, spoke as follows, in the name of his fellow students who
stood around him:

     “The great work founded by the Belgian episcopacy has grown
     under the shadow of our political and religious
     independence, and, as our rector himself expressed it, ‘The
     university is not only a Catholic institution, but also a
     national institution’. Guided by this noble motto, he
     directed for thirty-one years the Catholic University,
     strengthening each day in our hearts the love of religion
     and of liberty, that two-fold foundation on which rests the
     glory of our past history, and which guarantees the future
     of our country. The care of our souls, the cultivation of
     our minds, these were the objects most dear to his heart as
     a priest; his love for us made him find in us his reward,
     his joy, his blessing. How can I express his fatherly
     tenderness, his boundless devotedness to our interests, his
     delicate management of our national spirit of independence?
     These were the principles with which he ruled over this
     laborious and difficult work…. You know the blessed fruits
     produced in the education of our country by these gifts of
     mind and heart. Educational liberty, rescued bleeding from
     stranger hands, first took refuge in the bosom of our
     University, where Mgr. De Ram stretched out his arms to
     welcome it, and from that day forward watched over it with
     zealous care. Our University, the heiress of a glorious
     name, the offspring of liberty and of faith, under Mgr. De
     Ram’s presidency, has nobly bound up together the past and
     the present. Those great works urged on with such ardour,
     the serried phalanx of youths who have gone forth from this
     Institution, the eminent men whom this University has given
     to our country and to the Church, all proclaim, that his
     devoted labours have not been vain, and point out to us
     unmistakeably the greatness of the loss sustained on this
     day by Catholic youth”.

But we are anticipating the course of events, and we must take up from
the commencement the history of this great man’s connection with
Louvain. We must even go back a little; for, as Father de Buck
remarks, it is only thus we can correct some erroneous ideas, which
have been freely circulated, and form some notion of the enormous
difficulties which surrounded the foundation of the Catholic
University of Belgium. Some of these erroneous ideas were thus
expressed by Sir Robert Kane, President of the Queen’s College, Cork,
in his inaugural address at the opening of that establishment, on the
7th November, 1849:――

     “After the revolution, which rendered Belgium an independent
     kingdom, the question of university education occupied the
     attention of its government as one of the greatest moment.
     The heads of the Belgian Church were fully consulted, and
     they surely deserved to be, from their right to coöperate in
     every measure of public welfare. The result has been the
     institution of three great colleges: one at Louvain, formed
     in the buildings of the old university, and hence popularly
     called by the name of the ‘University of Louvain’; the
     second college situated at Liege; and the third in Ghent.
     Students follow their studies in any of these colleges, but
     they do not there get their degrees. What course did the
     Belgian authorities take, when, after the Revolution, they
     had in their own hands the power of giving to all those
     colleges a code of securities for faith and morals which
     might have served us here as a model? They demanded to have
     Louvain absolutely and exclusively under their own control,
     and consented to leave the colleges of Liege and Ghent in
     the hands of government absolutely, without any provision
     for moral discipline or religious instruction. What is the
     practical result? The College of Louvain contains only the
     university faculties, conducted on medieval models, and
     educating after the forms of old established universities.
     The Colleges of Ghent and Liege contain the practical
     branches, to which the majority of the young men attach
     themselves. The schools of mines and engineering are at
     Liege. The schools of mechanics and of practical chemistry
     are at Ghent. There are great schools of medicine at both
     colleges. Hence the practical education is conducted at
     those colleges where there is no religion and no discipline.
     In Belgium there are three colleges, one with
     ultra-ecclesiastical discipline, attended generally by
     Catholic foreigners, whom the traditional fame of the
     medieval university brings to Louvain. The other two are
     colleges without religion, to which the majority of Belgian
     students are drawn for practical education” (_Inaugural
     Address_, pages 23, 24).

In the course of the notice we shall see how many misstatements or
mistakes are contained in these few sentences. In this place suffice
it to say, that in the year 1864 alone, 325 students of the Catholic
University of Louvain took secular Degrees, viz., 117 in Law, 125 in
Medicine, 42 in Philosophy and Letters, and 41 in science; and since
1836, the large number of 6,881 took Degrees in those Faculties, viz.,
2,028 in Law, the same number in Medicine, 1,838 in Philosophy and
Letters, and 987 in Science. We have taken these figures from the
official publication, _l’Annuaire_, or University Calendar, for 1865,
and from it we also learn, that of 768 students, the total number in
the university in the Session 1863-64, only 121 were Students of
Theology. There were in the Faculty of Law 204, in that of Medicine
230, in that of Philosophy and Letters 102, and in that of Science
111.

The true history of the circumstances, which preceded and accompanied
the foundation of the Catholic University of Louvain, may be briefly
told, as follows:――

By the treaty of Vienna in 1815, the Catholic and Protestant
Netherlands, Belgium and Holland, were united under one king, William
I. of the House of Orange. Immediately on his accession this monarch
proposed for the acceptance of his whole kingdom a constitution which
had been originally intended for Protestant Holland only. This
constitution was condemned as anti-Catholic by the ordinaries of all
the dioceses of Belgium. It was also rejected by the nobles or other
chief men of the state. But it is worthy of remark, that,
notwithstanding its condemnation by the bishops, only 126 voters out
of 1325 alleged the attacks on the Church as the motive of their
rejection of the constitution; and although 766 opposed it, 527 were
found to support this most obnoxious portion of it. From this fact we
see the great strength of uncatholic opinion in Belgium fifty years
ago, since in so large a number of the chief men of the nation, so few
were found to follow the teachings of their bishops.

The ten years which followed were spent by the king, William I., in
endeavouring to undermine and still more weaken the Catholic and
national feeling in Belgium――to mould that country and Holland into
one nationality, which would be animated by one spirit, and that
spirit Dutch, and consequently Protestant. For this purpose Dutch was
made the official language for all administrative purposes and in all
the courts of law and other legal transactions. The immediate result
of this measure was to throw the education of the greater part of the
Belgian youth into the hands of Dutchmen, and Dutchmen were also
placed in every post of honour and emolument throughout the kingdom.

At length, on the 14th of June, 1825, two royal decrees were
published, by which it was sought to transfer to the hands of the
Protestant Government of Holland the education of the whole of the
youth of all classes in Catholic Belgium. The chief provisions of the
first of these decrees were as follow:

     “Whereas many schools and institutions for the teaching of
     the Latin and Greek languages; and for the training of youth
     for the ecclesiastical state, as well as for other
     professions, have been established without our consent; and
     whereas Article 226 of the Fundamental Law[17] has given us
     the charge of public instruction … desiring at the same time
     to facilitate and favour every arrangement by which young
     men may be fitted to become well educated ecclesiastics for
     the Roman Catholic Church,… we have decreed and do hereby
     decree….

     “Art. 2. No Latin school, college, or athenaeum, shall be
     established without the express authorisation of the
     Department of the Interior.

     “Art. 3. No one shall teach the Latin and Greek languages
     _to the children of more than one family at once_, either in
     primary schools or in private houses, without having first
     obtained in one of the universities of the kingdom the
     degree of _candidat_ or of _Docteur en Lettres_.

     “Art. 4. All colleges, athenaeums, or Latin schools, are
     placed under the control of the Department of the Interior.

     “All colleges, athenaeums, or Latin schools, named in Art.
     1, which at the date of this decree have not been approved
     as such by former decrees, _shall be closed at the end of
     the month of September_, 1825, unless sanctioned before that
     time”.

By the second royal decree a “Philosophical College” was established
in Louvain for aspirants to the priesthood.

     “Whereas some of the heads of the clergy have represented to
     us that the preparatory education given to young men
     intended for the ecclesiastical state is insufficient, and
     whereas we are desirous of providing means to form able
     ecclesiastics for the Roman Catholic Church.

     “Art. 1. An establishment for the preparatory education of
     young Roman Catholics aspiring to the ecclesiastical state,
     shall be provisorily erected at one of the universities in
     the northern provinces of the kingdom. This establishment,
     under the title of ‘Philosophical College’, shall be
     installed in a suitable building…. The students shall be
     received therein, with permission to wear the ecclesiastical
     habit.

     “Art. 14, After the space of two years, to be counted from
     the opening of the ‘Philosophical College’, no philosophical
     lectures shall be given in the episcopal seminaries…. After
     the same time no student shall be admitted into the
     seminaries who shall not have duly completed his course of
     studies in the ‘Philosophical College’. Each student of the
     same college must spend therein two years at least”.

Thus did the Protestant King of the Netherlands think he had secured
the undisputed control of the education, ecclesiastical and lay, of
his Belgian subjects; but a very short time sufficed to convince him
of his mistake. In vain was the short delay of two years allowed by
these decrees of June 14th, refused by a subsequent enactment of the
11th July, which strictly forbade any student to be received from that
day forward into any episcopal seminary in Belgium, unless he had
completed his preparatory studies in the Philosophical College. In
vain, by another decree of the 14th of August following, the youth of
Belgium were forbidden to seek abroad the free Catholic education
denied to them at home, and unless educated in one of the state
institutions, declared incapable of holding any public office in the
gift of the government, or exercising any ecclesiastical function
within the kingdom. In vain, by a decree of the 20th November, were
the superiors of the diocesan seminaries ordered to dismiss forthwith
all youths received since the previous 11th of July; and the young men
themselves also commanded to withdraw. On the other hand, in vain was
all the influence of the government used to induce the bishops to
approve, or at least tolerate, the new system. In vain was it sought
to convince the Common Father of the Faithful that the Philosophical
College was unexceptionable, by sending to His Holiness’ own seminary
in Rome some youths of exemplary life, who might, by their good
conduct, belie the condemnation pronounced against the institution
where they had made their early studies. The episcopacy of Belgium
continued firm in its opposition, and the Sovereign Pontiff, Pope Leo
XII., directed his internuncio at the Hague to explain that it was
impossible for the head of the Catholic Church to assent to measures
destructive to the liberties of Catholics, or even to abstain from
condemning them and protesting against them. The Belgian youths would
not go to the Philosophical College; the few who went would not be
admitted to Holy Orders by the bishops; and four years passed slowly
along in passive opposition to the inroads of the government on
Catholic education.

At last, on the 20th of June, 1829, the Dutch Government had to
acknowledge itself vanquished. A decree was published abrogating so
much of the legislation of 1825 as rendered attendance at the
Philosophical College obligatory.

But along with this concession, and perhaps as it were to neutralize
it, came new attacks in other ways on the liberties of Catholic
Belgium. The royal message to the States-General at the beginning of
1830, recommended measures tending to a further _unification_ of
Belgium with Holland. Event followed event, and before the end of
August a revolution broke out, and five of the best men in Belgium
were installed at Brussels as a provisional government, under the
presidency of the Baron de Gerlache, now head of the Society of St.
Vincent de Paul, and president also of the recent Catholic congresses
at Mechlin.

When the revolution broke out in 1830, the wisest members of the
clergy said, as Father de Buck tells us, “_Fieri non debuit, sed
factum valet_”, and the whole of the priesthood made common cause with
the people. But, although the great masses of the country people
remained faithful to Catholic principles, and although the nobility
was returning to the practices of religion; although the persecution
of the clergy by the Dutch Government had aroused the spirit of the
nation, and several even of the infidel party began to lay aside their
prejudices, and to express sympathy for the faithful priesthood of
their common country, still the religious position of Belgium at that
moment was most unsatisfactory.

Mgr. Van Bommel, Bishop of Liege, tells us, that “in 1838 there were
in Belgium about 100,000 pseudo-liberals, deadly enemies of the
Catholic Church, and most powerful”. “And it is not hard”, continues
the learned prelate, “to explain the fact. For more than forty years
all who are destined to occupy positions of importance were, in
general, brought up without religious principles. Under the late
government the religious element had no part in university teaching; a
part of this teaching had even been entrusted to men known to profess
anti-religious principles. The wicked passions of men, dangerous
occasions, bad example, an immoral theatre, and above all,
a literature steeped in wickedness or hostile to Catholic
principles;――in fine, the repeated declarations of men who, for party
purposes, told the rising generation that to it alone should
henceforth belong the rights of government――all resulted in raising
this young generation to such a pitch of pride, independence, and
licentiousness, that the sweet yoke of faith and the practices of
religion became insupportable. Thus was there formed, outside of the
masses, who remained faithful, a multitude of men of position and of
influence, who know the religion of their fathers only from the bad
books where it is attacked, from the stage where it is insulted, from
the assemblies where its sacred ministers are ridiculed, from the
newspapers where it is calumniated”.

Such was the religious position of Belgium when the Belgian episcopacy
determined to found the Catholic University of Louvain. Public
functionaries, barristers, physicians, merchants, manufacturers,
nearly all the men of influence in the country, were infected with
that false liberalism which, as Mgr. de Ram himself declared in
November, 1830, made many who cried out most loudly for liberty,
intend to use it only for self-aggrandisement and at the expense of
Catholicity.

The prospect was uninviting; but the bishops were not to be daunted,
although in February, 1834, on their publishing their decree
establishing the university, there were disturbances in Brussels and
in nearly all the episcopal cities. In December, 1833, they had
obtained from Pope Gregory XVI. the sanction of their project and an
apostolic brief for erecting the new university; and in June, 1834,
they published in another meeting the general statutes for its
government. On the same occasion the assembled prelates decided that
the youthful M. de Ram――he had not yet completed his thirtieth year,
and was then a canon of the Metropolitan Church of Mechlin, and
professor of canon law and church history in the seminary of that
diocese――should occupy a distinguished place in the new institution.
He was formally appointed, within the next few months, head of the
Catholic University of Belgium, with the title which in past ages
appertained to that office――_Rector Magnificus_, and in that capacity
assisted at the solemn inauguration of the university in the Cathedral
of Mechlin, on the 4th of November of the same year, 1834.

No sooner was he appointed to his high office than he set about
finding professors for the faculties of theology, of science, and of
philosophy and letters, which alone were to be opened the first year
in the temporary home of the university in Mechlin. All the priests he
selected were Belgians. Of the lay professors one was a Belgian, the
rest were Dutch, French, Germans, and Danes. The following year the
university was transferred to Louvain, and we have the formal act of
agreement entered into in October, 1835, between Monsignor de Ram and
the burgomaster of the city of Louvain, and afterwards solemnly
approved by the bishops and municipality, by which on the one hand the
bishops undertake to establish a full university course, and on the
other hand the town council “undertakes to give gratuitously to the
University the free use of the buildings _des Halles_ (the great
university lecture halls and other public buildings) _du Collège du
Pape, du Collège des Vétérans, du Collège du Roi, du Collège des
Prémontres, du Collège de Saint Esprit, et du Theâtre Anatomique_”.
Mgr. de Ram had now to organise the faculties of law and of medicine,
and here his difficulties increased. Where was he to find professors
in whom faith and true Catholic principles were united with that
profound and varied learning which would fit them to occupy chairs in
the new university? When we consider the deplorable state of Catholic
education among the cultivated classes in Belgium at the time we speak
of, these difficulties can be better imagined than expressed; and from
these difficulties we may form a judgment of the great prudence and
consummate wisdom through which Monsignor de Ram raised the
institution to that proud eminence which is now enjoyed by her
professors among the learned bodies of Europe. In all her faculties
there are among the professors not only men of extraordinary learning,
who unite clearness and method with depth and extent of knowledge, but
also models of every Christian virtue; so that with good reason does
F. de Buck conclude this portion of his notice of the illustrious
prelate by exclaiming: “Yes, the professorial staff brought together
by Mgr. de Ram, and which can henceforth be easily recruited from
amongst the students of the university itself, is the chief glory, the
undying crown of his rectorship”. But to understand the relations of
Mgr. de Ram with the professorial staff of the university, we should
read the funeral discourses which he pronounced at the obsequies of
those who preceded him in death. They are published in the University
Calendars from 1838 to this time, and clearly prove the esteem and
affection he bore to all who were united with him in the great work of
his life, the care with which he selected them, the zeal with which he
promoted the honour and happiness of each, and the sincere joy with
which he was filled when well-merited success crowned their literary
or scientific labours.

His devotedness to the students of the University was not less than
his affectionate esteem for the professors. By every means in his
power he sought to promote their spiritual, their intellectual, and
even their temporal interests. And this anxiety for the welfare of the
youth entrusted to him was not confined to the time they spent in the
university; it followed them into after life. “His fatherly
solicitude”, says M. Prosper Staes, of the Brussels bar, formerly a
student of the university, “his fatherly solicitude was not limited to
the youths who gathered round him each year for the purposes of study.
It followed the students in their several careers through life. His
old students always found in their rector one to encourage them, to
counsel them, to gather them about him, as a father gathers his
children, to rejoice in their success――in a word, to make them his joy
and his delight”.

His feelings towards the students, and theirs to him, as well as the
sentiments with which he unceasingly sought to fill their minds, can
well be gathered from the touching words pronounced over his lifeless
remains by one of the law students of the university, M. Van Tomme:

     “To-day on this solemn occasion, the remembrance of the
     twenty-fifth anniversary of our university, fills us with
     sentiments of deep emotion. Surrounded by the multitude of
     your students whom you loved so much, happy in being one
     heart and one soul with them, you then said: Ever remember
     our watch-word: God and our country; this word epitomizes
     our duties and our principles. Yes; we have taken to
     ourselves this word as our inheritance. It will be our
     comfort in this moment of sorrow, as in those days of joy it
     excited our enthusiasm. Wherever our students are called by
     duty, this noble thought will always be their motto, as it
     is to-day their hope.

     “GOD, the knowledge of whom you have imparted to us so well,
     to whom your life of merit, hidden to men’s eyes, is
     manifest for your recompense.

     “And OUR COUNTRY, which in the persons of these numbers of
     youths whom you have educated for her, and filled with your
     spirit, will ever bear upon her the impress of the works you
     have achieved, and veneration for your memory”.

We are told, that in his government of the students, he knew how to
follow the _via media_ between severity and too great indulgence. He
was sometimes blamed for excess in the latter direction; but those who
make this accusation seem to forget that he had to do with the
direction, not of an ecclesiastical seminary, nor even of a school or
college, but of an university, where young men were to be prepared,
not for the service of the sanctuary, but for the busy scenes of life,
and where opening manhood, freed from the restraints of boyhood, was
to be gently led rather than forced, to love the beautiful paths of
wisdom on account of their beauty, and to walk steadily in them,
because of the goal to which they lead. If he did not hinder
everything that is evil, he is not to be blamed; for no legislator can
ever aim at this; and we are told by the Incarnate Wisdom Himself,
that the cockle must at times be permitted to grow with the wheat,
lest in plucking it up, the good grain should be injured. But that his
work produced blessed fruits, and that those fruits are likely to
remain, is evident to every one who compares the state of religious
education among Belgian Catholics when it was founded, with its state
at present. He did everything in his power to preserve and strengthen
the spirit and practice of religion among the students. He established
a regular course of religious instruction, at which all the students
of philosophy are obliged to assist, and to which the other students
are invited; twice each year he brought the most distinguished
preachers to Louvain to deliver religious conferences, which might
serve as a preparation for the Paschal communion; he assisted in
establishing in the University branches, or conferences of the Society
of St. Vincent de Paul, and to the utmost of his power encouraged the
Sodality or Congregation of the Blessed Virgin, which was founded by
the Jesuit Fathers in the chapel of their residence, and numbers over
two hundred members, all lay students of the Catholic University.

What have been the results? At the beginning of this article we saw
the deplorable state of educated Catholics in Belgium in 1830, with
respect to Catholic feelings and principles. At that time the number
of Catholic barristers and physicians who practised their religion was
extremely small. Now, in Brussels, Liege, and Ghent, the greater part
of the young bar, if not of the whole bar practising in the chief
courts of law, which are situated in these three cities, are
thoroughly devoted to the Catholic Church. Without doubt, several of
these young lawyers did not study in Louvain; they owe the
preservation of their faith to the good education received in the
bosom of their families, in the Jesuit Colleges, and in other Catholic
institutions; but a large number has studied in the Catholic
University, and all of them must be greatly confirmed in their
religious feelings and principles, and must derive new strength and
courage to declare them openly, from the public spirit redolent of
Catholicity which proceeds from Louvain. We are told that one of the
most interesting features of the great Catholic Congress of Malines in
1863, was the presence of eight hundred students of the University of
Louvain, youths as distinguished for learning as for the truly
Catholic spirit by which they were animated on that most interesting
occasion. We are also told, that in all the great cities, and some of
the smaller towns of Belgium, literary societies are springing up,
which publicly proclaim the Catholic principles on which they are
founded; and that the class in Belgium most devoted to the interests
of religion, is precisely the educated Catholic youth of the country.
What wonder, then, that the immense influence for good exercised by
the University of Louvain, under the presidency of its distinguished
rector, should be acknowledged in Belgium by enemies as well as
friends, and that on more occasions than one the Holy See itself
should have exhorted the bishops of other countries, as well as of
Ireland, to imitate their brethren of Belgium by founding a Catholic
University like that of Louvain!

While labouring to make the youth of the University good Christians,
Mgr. de Ram laboured also with indefatigable zeal to make them learned
men and good citizens. FAITH, LEARNING, LIBERTY, were the words which
he loved to unite in his discourses. Every one knows the results of
his inculcating those principles without ceasing on the young Belgians
entrusted to him by his Catholic country, which had just recovered its
liberty from Protestant Holland; and the numerous and high
distinctions won by the students of Louvain, in the public
examinations to which the whole youth of Belgium is admissible, attest
the excellence of the literary and scientific teaching of the
University, while the elevated positions now occupied by many of its
ancient alumni prove beyond gainsaying, that its educational fruits
remain, and will be an abundant source of intellectual, social, and
political blessings to Belgium.

Such is the institution which has just lost its first rector, we may
say its founder. Such the work which Mgr. de Ram directed with
consummate wisdom for thirty-one years. Such the Catholic University
of which Belgium, nay Christendom, may well be proud. It is a great
lesson to us all to see that even in these days of mere material
progress, without faith, without Christian love――when men would fain
persuade us that learning, to be a blessing, need not be referred to
God or religion――when the apostle’s words: “_Scientia inflat, charitas
vero aedificat_”, are held to be not over true. An University founded
and governed by a Catholic episcopacy, by the aid of their Catholic
people only, established on purely Catholic principles, without any of
those helps which men of the world value most, already in its infancy
rivals the great seats of learning of the middle ages. And all this is
due in a great measure to one man, who at thirty years of age was
called by the Belgian Episcopacy to rule over it, and who, with
untiring energy, consummate wisdom, and gentle perseverance, moulded
every part into perfect symmetry, so that schismatical Russia came to
study the model, and the Holy See could say to Ireland, as well as to
any other country wishing for a Catholic University: “_Inspice, et fac
secundum exemplar_”. With no more fitting words can we conclude this
brief notice, than with those spoken by the Vice-Rector of the
University at his funeral: “The Catholic University of Louvain was
indebted to God and to the bishops of Belgium for her Rector: to her
Rector she owes everything else”.[18]




LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.


A reverend correspondent has taken occasion from our remarks in the
last number of the _Record_, to ask a question about the custom
prevalent in Ireland of reciting the _De profundis_ after mass. We
will quote his own words: “In reading the liturgical questions in your
last number of the _Record_, it occurred to me to inquire on what
authority is founded the practice of reciting the _De profundis_ after
mass, whether it can be omitted _ad libitum, secluso scandalo_, and
whether it should be said at the altar, or when the priest descends,
or when going into the sacristy”. The practice of reciting the _De
Profundis_ after each low mass, we believe, exists in all Ireland,
without any exception of diocese or district, and has existed for a
long period. It is the opinion of many well versed in Irish
ecclesiastical matters, that it was introduced and authorised by the
Holy See as a substitute for the numerous masses and suffrages for
which innumerable endowments were founded by the piety of the faithful
in former times, and which were taken away from the Catholic Church at
the time of the Reformation. It is more than probable that a rescript
from the Holy See authorised this practice, in order that the pious
intentions of the founders of such endowments might not altogether be
frustrated by the rapacity of the reformers. It is difficult to
understand how, under other circumstances, the practice could have
become so universal in Ireland. Indeed we have heard it remarked, that
possibly a rescript of an old date bearing on this subject might be
found; and if any of our readers could aid us in getting authentic
documents on the matter, we need scarcely say how anxious we would be
to insert them or any information connected with this subject in the
_Record_. While writing these lines we have been informed that in the
Irish College, Paris, there is a rescript authorising the recital of
the _De profundis_ after the community mass in the college.

Apart, however, from this consideration we may reply that the recital
of the _De profundis_ cannot be omitted _ad libitum_. Whatever may
have been its origin, it has become a usage with the force of law,
against which no individual is at liberty to act. Even if the Holy See
did not authorise the practice in the commencement, it must
necessarily have been introduced by the bishops of the day, and its
continuance for so long a period throughout the entire Irish Church
without any reclamation from ecclesiastical authority, would be quite
sufficient to show that all should conform to such a practice, which
in itself is so holy and useful, and calculated to confer such
advantages on the suffering souls in Purgatory.

We are therefore clearly of opinion that no priest can on principle
omit the _De profundis_, and we would take the liberty of reminding
him of the munificent endowments established in former ages of the
Irish Church for the exclusive object of having Requiem Masses said,
and securing the suffrages of the faithful in aid of the suffering
souls in Purgatory. We would refer our readers, for information on
this point, to Dr. Lanigan’s _Ecclesiastical History of Ireland_, vol.
iii. chap. 21.

With regard to the proper time for saying the _De profundis_, we think
that the practice of saying it at the foot of the altar is the most
correct. We know this to be the course adopted by many priests, who
descend from the altar, make a genuflexion or a reverence to the
altar, and then standing recite the _De profundis_. By this plan it is
made manifest that the _De profundis_ is a thing quite distinct from
the Mass, and not appertaining to it. However, it is right to say that
nothing decisive can be laid down as to the place and time of reciting
it. There is a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites given by
Merati in his _Series Decretorum_, p. 436, which is as follows:

     “Quando adest legatum quod sacerdos antequam discedat ab
     altari, recitet aliquod Evangelium, Psalmum, seu orationem
     post terminatam missam, debet oneri sibi injuncto
     satisfacere post finem missae exutis vestibus sacerdotalibus
     et cum sola cotta in altari vel in sacristia et sic legatum
     adimplere S. R. C., 31 Augusti, 1669, in Conversanen”.

These words would appear to imply that in our case the sacred
vestments should be taken off. However, on referring to the decree
itself in Gardellini, we find its terms are not so comprehensive as
the interpretation of Merati would make them. The following are the
words:

     “2339. Conversan. Capitulum Collegiatae Rosigliani Dioecesis
     Conversanensis exposuit in S. R. C. Nicolaum _Franciscium in
     ejus sub quo decessit testamento_, reliquisse ejus bona
     dicto capitulo cum onere celebrandi Missam quotidianam et
     singulis diebus veneris de Passione et cum onere, terminata
     missa post Evangelium in principio erat verbum, etc.,
     recitandi ipsam Passionem secundum Johannem. Et proinde cum
     dicta dispositio sit contra Ritus Ecclesiasticos supplicavit
     pro declaratione. An dicta passio recitanda sit post dictum
     Evangelium alibi per celebrantem?

     “Et S. eadem C. censuit: Recitandam esse post finem missae
     exutis vestibus sacerdotalibus et cum sola cotta in altari
     vel in sacristia. Hac die 31 Augusti, 1669”.

The words of this decree do not refer to a psalm or prayer, but simply
to the passion of St. John, and hence, as far as our question is
concerned, no conclusion can be clearly established except by analogy,
and by whatever weight may attach to the authority of Merati, who
manifestly thus extends the meaning of the decree. After writing these
lines, we have learned from a distinguished ecclesiastic, that there
exists a Rescript of the Holy See about the recital of the _De
profundis_ in Ireland after Mass. He has kindly promised to procure it
for a future number of the _Record_, when we shall gladly insert it.

The same reverend correspondent calls our attention to another matter
which indeed is of very great importance, and on which we shall make a
few remarks. Our correspondent says, that the altar bread used in this
country is of a very inferior kind, and not elegant, and that it
leaves on the corporal many fragments. If this be the case in some
parts of the country, it is unnecessary to say that it is a matter of
such importance that immediate attention should be called to it by the
parish priests or the superiors of the different churches. As far as
we are aware, we have no grounds for complaint on this head, as
generally speaking the breads are made in this city with care and
neatness and very few fragments fall from them. It is quite possible,
however, that in some districts sufficient care may not be bestowed on
this matter, and the breads may not be made with that care which the
majesty of the great Sacrifice demands. We have heard from persons
competent to give an opinion on the subject, that in some districts
abuses have crept in; for instance, when the superior of a church,
personally responsible for the due observance of the rubrics
concerning the Holy Sacrifice, leaves to a servant the making and
cutting of the breads for the use of the altar. In such cases there is
great danger that through carelessness or negligence they will not be
properly made. The cutters or the machines for making them in the
course of time will become impaired and quite unfit for their purpose,
and a mere servant may not try to remedy the evil. For this reason, we
would strongly recommend all concerned to engage some community of
nuns or others well versed in such matters, and who at the same time
fully understand the importance of what they are engaged in, to make
the altar breads. We have ourselves examined the altar breads made by
various communities, and seldom had we any reason to find fault,
except in some instances when the large altar breads appeared to us to
be too thick.

This suggestion, we think, will meet our reverend correspondent’s
question as to the improvements that may be made in connection with
this matter.

He then proceeds: “It may be observed here that the cutters too are of
no regular size. They are generally over small. I have seen breads no
larger than a sixpence intended for communicating the faithful. In the
distribution of such very small particles there is evidently danger of
irreverence”. No one can question the truth of what our correspondent
states; but we must say that we have generally found the breads
sufficiently large when made by the convents or others duly charged
with so important a matter, and we may also remark that the cutters
will not be made too small if there be no demand for them on the part
of the clergy. The small breads ought to be considerably larger than a
shilling and very little under a two-shilling piece.

We are much obliged to our reverend correspondent for calling our
attention to this matter, and we hope the observations which we have
taken the liberty of making, will have the effect of correcting any
abuses that may exist, and inducing all persons concerned to provide
themselves with cutters of a proper size, or what would be still
better, to secure the services of a religious community, or of others
duly authorized to prepare the breads for the use of the altar.

We shall close these observations by giving some extracts on the
present subject, from a very useful book published at Louvain, by Rev.
P. J. F. De Herdt, entitled _Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis_, which is very
highly esteemed.

     I. Qualis debet esse Hostia, ut valide et licite sit
     consecrabilis?

     R. Ut valide consecretur, debet esse confecta ex tritico cum
     aqua, saltem in majori quantitate, et esse non corrupta: ut
     licite consecretur, debet esse 1° sine admixtione aliorum
     granorum et liquorum praetor triticum et aquarm naturalem;
     2° panis azymus; 3° recenter confecta (_Vide p. 2. n. 30.
     ad. III._); 4° rotunda, integra et non fracta; 5° candida et
     non maculata; 6° tenuis; 7° ordinariae magnitudinis; 8° cum
     imagine Crucifixi, quam ei impressam esse convenit: in eo
     tamen servandam esse consuetudinem respondit. S. R. C. 26.
     _Ap. 1834. n. 4574. Vid. Quarti quaest. proaem. s. 5. puncto
     4. dub. 3._ Hinc hi duo versus.

     Candida, triticea, ac tenuis, non magna, rotunda.

     Expers fermenti, non falsa, sit hostia Christi.

     II. Quoad confectionem Hostiarum notanda sunt sequentia:
     “Conveniret a Sacerdotibus, Clericis aut Religiosis hostias
     in Missa usurpandas confici, ut omni errori, praesertim
     admixtionis liquoris vel grani alterius obviaretur, et cum
     majori nitore et reverentia tractarentur: passim enim
     venales satis incurie tractantur et sordide, quod est
     indecens in materia tanti tamque puri Sacrificii…. Ut autem
     hostiae purissime sine ulla admixtione, nec non honestissime
     fiant; haec erunt singulariter observanda: imprimis
     triticum, si fieri potest, magno studio granatim eligatur;
     electum in sacculo mundo et de bono panno ad hoc opus tantum
     facto ponatur, atque a famulo boni studii ad molendinum
     deferatur. Quo delato, famulus aliud frumentum in ipso
     molendino moli prius faciat, ut illud, unde hostiae fieri
     debent, sine aliqua sorde moli postea valeat. Reportata
     farina, Clerici antequam incipiant, manus lavent, ipsamque
     cribrent. Deinde unus super tabulam mundissimam ipsam
     farinam aqua conspergat, et manibus fortiter compingat,
     atque maceret. Postea in ferrum, in quo coquuntur, ponat et
     coquat, advertens ut imago sacra Crucifixi, et non alia tam
     majoribus, quam minoribus sit impressa. Nec non ut nitide et
     studiose fiant, eas forcipibus ad id tantum paratis, vel
     alio simili instrumento tondeat”. _Vinitor p. 3. tit. 3.
     annot. 11._




DOCUMENTS.


I.

DUBIA CIRCA MISSARUM ITERATIONEM, APPLICATIONEM MISSAE PRO POPULO, ET
RECEPTIONEM ELEEMOSYNAE.

_Ex S. Congregatione Concilii Tridentini Interpretum._

VISITATIONIS SS. LIMINUM.[19]

_Compendium Facti._――Episcopus A in relatione status suae Dioecesis ad
S. Sedem transmissa, haec exposuit: “Ducentae circiter Paroeciae, in
hac Dioecesi extant, quae aliam filialem sibi adnexam habent, in qua
Parochus diebus dominicis et festis per annum, secundam Missam
celebrat: et circa hanc consuetudinem, diversa dubia, suboriuntur
super quibus declarationem necessariam a S. Congregatione humiliter
expostulo. Et primum animadvertere debeo, quod fidelium numerus iuxta
has ecclesias commorantium, valde varius est: in aliquibus sunt
quinque vel decem, in aliis ducenti, imo et sexcenti. Distantia a
matrice, modo ad milliarium non attingit, modo sunt duo, tria, aut
quatuor milliaria. Valde difficile foret etiam post exquisitam
investigationem definire utrum hae ecclesiae nunc filiales, fuerint
aliquando ecclesiae matrices, seu verae paroeciae”. Quatuor proinde
dubia proponebat S. Concilii Congregationi, quae antequam solverentur,
rogatus est Episcopus, ut magis praecise referret de omnimoda
deficientia Sacerdotum, ac mediorum quibus per alium celebrari posset
in filialibus ecclesiis; et utrum ecclesiae modo filiales nuncupatae,
dotem aliquam seu congruam, distinctam a matrice haberent, perquisitis
actis Curiae, ac SS. Visitationum. At, quae relata sunt, sufficientia
non erant ad integram quaestionem singillatim definiendam, quae
ingentem paroeciarum numerum complectebatur. Relatum enim est de magna
et generica presbiterorum deficientia, eorumque redituum paupertate,
qui dum prius ex decimis alebantur; deinde, his subtractis, assignata
est pro quolibet parocho, certa pensio, independenter omnino a
populorum numero, vel parochiarum quas quilibet regit. Concinnata
itaque hac ratione fuerunt proposita ab Episcopo dubia.

I. “Utrum haec consuetudo secundam Missam celebrandi, toleranda sit in
omnibus praedictis ecclesiis adnexis, ubi hic mos ita invaluit, ut
populus etiam ius ad illam exigendam existimet se habere”.

II. “Utrum Parochus necessario debeat illam secundam Missam applicare
pro Populo sicuti primam, vel liberam retineat illius applicationem
cum stipendio”.

III. “Utrum licentiam dare queat Episcopus ad illam secundam Missam
celebrandam in casibus similibus, et in locis ubi talis consuetudo
usque adhuc non invaluit”.

IV. “Utrum praesertim praedictam licentiam concedere possit tempore
collectionis messium, cum plurimi operarii in uno praedio seu villa
concurrant, qui certe missam non audirent, nisi Parochus secundam in
eo loco diceret, ex eo quod alius Sacerdos ad illam dicendam haberi
non possit”.


DISCEPTATIO SYNOPTICA.

_Quoad missae iterationem._――Ex officio, haec praecipua capita iuris
proponebantur S. Congregationi. Praemissa nempe notione historica
disciplinae quae successive hanc missarum iterationem moderata est,
allegabatur caput 3 _de celebrat. missar._ in quo ita sanxit
Innocentius III. “Excepto die Nativitatis Dominicae nisi causa
necessitatis suadeat, sufficit Sacerdoti semel in die unam Missam
solummodo celebrare”. Ubi verbum sufficit, non convenientiam aliquam
commendat, sed veram praeceptum continet, ceu etiam docuit Benedict.
XIV. in _Const. Declarasti nobis_. Quaenam porro debeat esse
necessitas ab Innocentio indicata, licet disputaverint de ea Doctores,
hodie, praesertim post hanc Benedicti XIV. Constitutionem, illa est
(subiungebatur) qua reperitur presbiter qui duas habeat paroecias, et
in alterutram nequeat Populus convenire, nec alius habeatur presbiter
praeter Parochum, qui missam possit celebrare. Et similis reputatur
etiam casus quo Parochus etsi non praesit duabus paroeciis, tamen vel
duos regat inter se dissitos populos, quorum unus ob magnam locorum
distantiam, assistere non possit Parocho celebranti, vel etiam si una
sit Ecclesia, quae universum Populum simul capere non possit. Extra
huiusmodi necessitatis casus, neque consuetudo, etsi vetustissima
suffragari potest Missarum iterationi, ut S. C. C. in _Dertusen 20
Augusti 1768_, et alibi censuit. Adnotabatur vero _in facto_ quod
licet haberetur generica presbiterorum deficientia, tamen ex ea argui
non poterat vera necessitas in qualibet paroecia.

Caeterum observabatur, distantiam Ecclesiarum quae filiales
nuncupabantur, a Parochiali Ecclesia, ab uno circiter lapide, usque ad
tria et quatuor passuum millia protendi: et fideles in multis
Ecclesiis usque ad biscentum et sexcentum ascendere, quamvis in
nonnullis, non nisi quinque vel decem tantum, reperiantur. Ob quas
peculiares circumstantias, exponebatur responsio S. C. in casu non
absimili, proposito per _Summaria precum die 12 Ianuarii 1847 in
Lingonen_. In eo enim pariter agebatur I. de consuetudine qua nonnulli
animarum Pastores, Missam iterabant eodem die; et aderat II. quaedam
Communitas, uno circiter lapide, a Parochiali Ecclesia separata,
constans viginti circiter personis. Et S. C. respondit: “Scribatur
Episcopo ut concedat bis Missam celebrandi licentiam, quatenus eae
circumstantiae, et praecisae necessitatis casus concurrant, quos
Benedict. XIV. in sua Const. _Declarasti nobis_ requirit; in casu vero
quem idem orator proponit, (seu in secundo casu) licentiam esse
concedendam”.

_Quando applicanda non est secunda missa pro populo._――Quod attinet
vero ad applicationem secundae Missae pro populo, afferebatur
Resolutio S. C. C. in _Lucen. applicationis Missarum 12 Martii 1774_
in qua proposito dubio: “An Parochi duabus Ecclesiis parochialibus
praepositi, teneantur Dominicis, aliisque Festis diebus, Missam in
unaquaque Ecclesia sive per se sive per alios applicare pro populo in
casu” responsum prodiit: _Affirmative, exceptis tantum parochiis
unitis, unione plenaria et extinctiva, et scribatur Episcopo iuxta
instructionem._ Instructio vero continebat: S. Congregationem _nunquam
dubitasse, quod Parochi teneantur applicationi supradictae Missae pro
populo singulis diebus Dominicis, et Festis in unaquaque ex Ecclesiis
Parochialibus quae vel aeque principaliter, vel subiective coniunctae
sunt, atque incorporatae; cum applicatio unius tantummodo Missae pro
populo, locum habeat in iis parochialibus quae invicem adeo unitae et
coniunctae atque incorporatae sunt, ut ex duabus una prorsus cum
extinctione tituli alterius evaserit_.

In praesenti autem facto quamvis ex deductis non poterat certo
determinari natura unionis, animadvertebatur tamen, non deesse indicia
quae videbantur excludere plenariam et extinctivam unionem.

Caeterum, subinagebatur, si Parochi iterare Missam deberent, non
ratione duplicis Paroeciae, sed solummodo ratione necessitatis,
quamvis secundam Missam ad libitum applicare possent, nullam tamen pro
hac celebratione recipere possunt eleemosynam; quod dici etiam debet
de quolibet Sacerdote qui nullam habeat animarum curam, ceu omissis
ceteris, definitum fuit in _Cameracen. Missae pro Populo 25 Septemb.
1858_, cuius resoluta dubia videbis inferius.

_Resolutio Dubiorum._――Sacra Congregatio Concilii die 22 Februarii
1862 respondere censuit: ad I. et III. _affirmative iudicio Episcopi,
nulla habita ratione consuetudinis, et quatenus in unoquoque casu
concurrant circumstantiae necessitatis ad formam Constitutionis
Benedectinae et Declarationis sacrae Congregationis diei 14 Octobris
1843 relatae in Cameracen. Missae pro Populo 25 Septembris 1858._

Ad II. _dentur resolutiones in Cameracen. diei 25 Sept. 1858_.

Ad IV. _provisum in praecedentibus_.

Haec porro est indicata declaratio, ipsis verbis quibus in citata
_Cameracen._ reperitur. “De adiunctis Amplitudinis tuae precibus cum
ad SSmum. Dominum Nostrum relatum fuerit placuit cidem Sanctitati
Suae, eadem et tibi dare responsa quae ad alios quoque Antistites, per
hanc Sacram Congregationem Concilii transmissa sunt. Ordinariorum
scilicet esse de re cognoscere et perpendere, num revera necessitas
urgeat ut Sacerdos duas Missas celebrare cogatur, nec aliter utendum
concessa hac iteratione, quam iuxta conditiones ab ipsis apponendas,
habita locorum, populorum, et paucitatis Sacerdotum, ac proinde verae
necessitatis ratione de qua legatur Benedicti XIV. Constitutio
_Declarasti_ … _ad Episcopum Oscensem anni 1746_, et in eius apere _De
sacrificio Missae lib. 3 cap. 5, et 6_. Ipsorum vero conscientia
oneratur stricte, nec permissio concedatur generaliter, quasi
privilegium alicui Sacerdoti; sed ob peculiares casus, et necessitatis
causa, ab ipso examinata, qui praeterea moneat Parochos quibus
facultatem iterum, eadem die, secundam Missam celebrandi concesserit,
ne eleemosynam vel stipendium a quovis et sub quocumque pretextu, pro
ea percipiant, iuxta decreta alias edita a S. Congregatione, sed eam
pro populo sibi commisso gratis applicent”.

Resolutiones vero quae in _Cameracen._ reperiuntur quibus S. C. C.
censuit ad secundum propositum superius dubium respondere, sunt
sequentes. Cum in _Cameracen._ quaereretur. I. “An Parochus qui duas
Parochias regit et ideo bis in die celebrat, utrique Parochiae suam
missam applicare teneatur non obstante redituum exiguitate”.

II. “An Parochus, qui in una eademque Parochia, bis eadem die
celebrat, utramque Missam populo sibi commisso, gratis applicare
omnino teneatur”.

III. “An Vicarii aut alii Sacerdotes curam animarum non habentes, si
quando, bis in die celebrant ut fit quandoque, seu ut numero
sufficienti, Missae in Ecclesia Parochiali celebrentur, seu ut
Hospitalia, Carceres, sanctimonialium Conventus, Missa non careant,
secundum et ipsi Missam pro populo gratis applicare teneantur”.

“Et quatenus affirmative ad I. II. et III.”.

IV. “An et quomodo concedendum sit Parochis, qui diebus dominicis
aliisque festis bis celebrant, ut unius Missae liberam habeant
applicationem, et stipendium pro ea recipere valeant in casu”.

V. “An et quomodo concedendum sit Sacerdotibus curam animarum non
habentibus, quoad utramque Missam in casu”.

Sacra Congregatio Concilii die praedicta respondit: Ad I.
_Affirmative._ Ad II. _Negative firma prohibitione recipiendi
eleemosynam pro secunda Missa._ Ad III. _Negative quatenus curam
animarum non habeant, firma semper prohibitione recipiendi eleemosynam
pro secunda Missa._ Ad IV. _Negative, et Episcopus provideat ad formam
Constitutionis Benedicti XIV._ “Cum semper oblatas §. 8”. Ad V.
_provisum in tertio_.

EX QUIBUS OMNIBUS BREVITER COLLIGES:

I. Extra verae necessitatis casus, Missam iterare non licere.[20]

II. Huius necessitatis existentiam agnoscendam esse ab Episcopo
singulis in casibus, prae oculis habito criterio seu norma, quam
tradit Benedictus XIV. in Constit. _Declarasti_, et in eius opere de
Sacrificio Missae _lib. 3. cc. 5 et 6_.[21]

III. Qua necessitate cognita Episcopum permittere debere hanc Missae
iterationem, non quidem generaliter et ad instar privilegii, sed
secundum cognitam necessitatem, appositis etiam conditionibus
opportunis, a Sacerdotibus omnino servandis.

IV. Neque allegari posse consuetudinem, quamvis immemorialem, veluti
titulum ad Missam legitime iterandam quae consuetudo ex se sola,
dicenda est potius corruptela.

V. Colliges insuper, nunquam recipi posse eleemosynam pro secunda
Missa celebranda, quicumque sit qui eam celebret, neque ad hanc
eleemosynam recipiendam, allegari posse titulum egestatis, seu
defectus redituum.[22]

VI. Imo Parochum teneri secundam _Pro populo_, sicut primam, gratis,
diebus festis applicare, in parochiis unitis, excepto casu in quo
Parochiarum unio talis sit, ex qua unica prorsus parochia exurgat.


II.

LETTER FROM PROF. UBAGHS TO THE CARDINAL ARCHBISHOP OF MALINES.


  ÉMINENCE RÉVÉRENDISSIME,

Je viens avant tout confirmer par écrit la déclaration, que j’ai eu
l’honneur de vous faire oralement, de ma soumission entière et absolue
aux décrets de la S. Congrégation de. l’Index[23] de 1843 et 1844 et à
celui de Leurs Eminences les Cardinaux de l’Index et du Saint-Office,
réunis le 21 septembre 1864, avec la promesse formelle de me conformer
exactement à ces trois décrets.

Ensuite, sans vouloir restreindre ou affaiblir en rien cette
soumission complète, j’ai l’honneur de trasmettre à Votre Eminence les
explications que j’ai demandé de pouvoir Lui présenter, afin de
justifier ma bonne foi et de montrer que, si pendant vingt ans je n’ai
pas satisfait aux décrets de la S. Congregation de l’Index, ce n’est
point par manque de respect et de soumission aux jugements des
Congrégations romaines, mais uniquement parce que, jusqu’au moment où
le décret du 21 Septembre 1864 m’a été notifié, je croyais
très-sincèrement m’y être conformé.

Je déclare tout d’abord et d’une manière bien nette qu’en cela je me
suis trompé; les deux Congrégations réunies ayant décidé que je
n’avais pas satisfait, il ne saurait plus y avoir de doute à cet
égard; aussi n’y en a-t-il aucun dans ma propre pensée ni dans ma
conviction intime. Mes explications ont donc pour but unique de
montrer que pendant vingt ans j’ai été dans une erreur absolument
involontaire, et que jamais je n’ai éprouvé la moindre hésitation dans
mes sentiments de respectueuse et entière soumission aux ordres, aux
conseils et aux désirs du Saint-Siége, soumission que je considére
comme le premier devoir de tout catholique.

Pour qu’on puisse juger de ma bonne foi, Votre Eminence me permettra
de rappeler quelques faits et de citer quelques documents.

Au mois de Septembre 1843, mon ami, M. le comte Van der Vrecken, qui
pendant l’été avait fait un voyage à Rome, m’apprit, dans une
conversation particulière, que mes ouvrages étaient déférés à la S.
Congrégation de l’Index. Craignant que mes principes n’eussent été mal
exposés, je fis des démarches pour obtenir que les chefs d’accusation
me fussent communiqués et qu’ainsi je pusse fournir des explications.
Deux mois plus tard, je reçus de la part du secrétaire d’Etat, S. Em.
le cardinal Lambruschini, par l’intermédiaire de Son Excellence le
Nonce apostolique et Votre Eminence Révérendissime, les cinq
propositions contenues dans le décret du 23 juin 1843.

La pièce qui me fut communiquée ne renfermait point les mots:
“Observationes S. Indicis Congregationis diei 23 junii 1843. Rev. D.
Ubaghs in sua Theodicea, et interdum etiam in Logica, subsequentes
propositiones docet, quas S. Congregatio Indici praeposita emendandas
esse judicat”. Elle ne contenait pas non plus les mots suivants: “Hae
sunt praecipuae sententiae quae in praedicto libro corrigendae
videntur. Monet igitur S. Congregatio Rev. Auctorem, ut nova aliqua
editione librum suum emendandum curet, atque interim in scholasticis
suis lectionibus ab iis sententiis dicendis abstinere velit”. La pièce
qui me fut remise porte simplement: “Docet auctor in Theodicea et
interdum etiam in Logica seqq. propositiones”, avec les cinq
propositions.

En recevant cette communication, j’ai compris que je devais fournir
des explications et des éclaircissements au sujet de ces cinq
propositions. Je croyais que la S. Congrégation de l’Index, ayant
égard à ma position de professeur à l’Université catholique de
Louvain, avait daigné m’appliquer le § 10 de la constitution de Benoit
XIV, _Sollicita ac provida_, et n’avait pas voulu porter de jugement
définitif avant de m’avoir entendu. C’est dans cette persuasion que je
m’empressai de rédiger un _Mémoire explicatif et justificatif_, que
votre Eminence a bien voulu transmettre à Rome. Un tel _mémoire_, en
présence d’un jugement que j’aurais considéré comme définitif, aurait
été de ma part un manque de respect. Ce n’est pas ainsi que la S.
Congrégation l’a apprécié. Elle a daigné accueillir mes explications
avec bienveillance comme en témoigne une lettre de Monseigneur Pecci,
Nonce apostolique à Bruxelles: cette lettre accompagnait la
communication du décret de 1844, et celle me fut transmise par Votre
Eminence. En voici la teneur:

                     “Bruxelles, Nonciature Apostolique, Nᵒ 227.

       “ÉMINENCE RÉVÉRENDISSIME,

     “J’ai reçu de Rome la réponse qu’on attendait avec
     impatience en égard de l’ouvrage du professeur
     Ubaghs.――Quoique les explications que celui-ci avait remises
     aient été hautement appréciées, on a cru néanmoins qu’il
     serait prudent et nécessaire d’introduire dans la nouvelle
     réimpression les corrections qui sont marquées dans la
     feuille qui m’a été envoyée par le Secrétaire d’Etat, et que
     j’ai l’honneur de remettre ci-jointe à Son Eminence Votre
     Révérendissime, afin qu’elle daigne de la faire parvenir au
     susdit Professeur avec injonction de vouloir bien dans sa
     nouvelle publication se conformer aux désirs qui par la S.
     Congrégation ont été manifestés, de manière qu’elle soit
     réglée par les principes de sa religion et de sa probité,
     surtout quand il doit parler de ce qui est trés-essentiel,
     c’est-à-dire de l’existence de Dieu.

     “En portant à la connaissance de S. E. Votre Rᵐᵉ le résultat
     de cette affaire, je suis chargé de la part de S. Eminence
     le Secrétaire d’Etat de déclarer que ç’a été précisément en
     egard de l’empressement et des recommandations
     trés-respectables de V. Eminence qu’on a tâché que le
     jugement attendu fut au plutôt prononcé pour en donner
     ensuite sans retardement la communication nécessaire.

     “En m’acquittant ainsi des ordres qui m’ont été donnes, j’ai
     l’honneur, etc., etc.

       “Bruxelles, 23 septembre 1844.
       “(Signe) ✠ J. Archevêque de Damiette, Nonce Apostolique.

Dès que j’eus reçu le décret de 1844, que cette lettre accompagnait,
je me hâtai de préparer une nouvelle édition de la Logique et de la
Théodicée, en y introduisant les corrections que j’estimais
nécessaires pour répondere aux désirs de la S. Congrégation de
l’Index.

Ces corrections n’ont pas été suffisantes. C’est un point qui est
aujourd’hui définitivement jugé. Mais jusqu’au moment où j’ai eu
connaissance du decret du 21 septembre 1864, j’ai cru tres-sincérement
qu’elles l’étaient. Je prie Votre Eminence de me permettre d’entrer
ici dans quelques details.

Les faits que j’ai rappelés établissent comment j’ai été amenè à
considerér le décret de 1844 commé étant le seul décret définitif
rendu à mon égard. Quant à ce decret, il renferme, entre autres, les
expressions suivantes: “Pauca quaedam loca in opere quod a cl. viro G.
C. Ubaghs anno 1844 Lovanii editum est et inscribitur _Theodiceae seu
Theologiae naturalis elementa_ adnotanda esse videntur, ut doctissimus
auctor, additis quibusdam illustrationibus, obortas circa eiusdem
operis intelligentiam difficultates e medio tollere possit……――“In his
omnibus mens doctissimi auctoris paulo clarius explicanda videtur, ne
quis inde occasionem sumat vim elevandi argumentorum quae Dei
existentiam demonstrant……――Plura alia eiusdem generis ibi obvia sunt
quae contra mentem auctoris forte in alienos sensus torqueri
possent”.――Ces termes me firent supposer que la S. Congrégation
n’avait pas voulu me signaler des erreurs de doctrine à corriger, ni
des principes faux à abandonner, mais qu’elle me demandait seulement
des éclaircissements et des explications propres à faire mieux
comprendre ma pensée. C’est là ce qui explique le langage que j’ai
tenu dans la préface de ma Logique en 1844 et dans une lettre récente
à Son Eminence le Cardinal Altieri, Préf. de la S. Congrégation de
l’Index.

En 1845 je remis à Monseigneur Pecci, Nonce Apostolique, deux
exemplaires de la nouvelle édition de la Logique et de la Théodicée,
en priant Son Excellence de vouloir bien les faire parvenir à Rome,
afin que la S. Congrégation pût juger si les additions et les
changements introduits répondaient entièrement aux voeux exprimés par
elle. A plusieurs reprises je reçus des assurances qui me persuadérent
que j’avais fait ce qui m’était demandé. Les documents dont je veux
parler n’ayant pas été approuvés par la S. Congrégation ni surtout par
le Souverain-Pontife, ils n’ont de valeur que pour justifier ma bonne
foi; aussi c’est à ce titre seul que je les invoque. Parmi ces
documents qu’il me soit permis de transcrire ici la lettre que
m’addressa, en 1846, le T. R. P. Degola, secrétaire de la Congrégation
de l’Index. La voici:

       REVERENDE DOMINE,

     Quamquam scio id Tibi ab aliis iam nuntiatum, quod ego his
     litteris dicturus sum, attamen ut postulationi tuae, nec non
     Em. Card. praefecti mandato morem geram, libenter significo,
     declarationes illas atque varietates, quas monente S.
     Congregatione in novissima tuorum operum _Logicae_ ac
     _Theodiceae_ editione fideliter abundanterque effecisti,
     voto ac sententiae eiusdem S. Congregationis prorsus
     respondisse. Quam ob rem docilitati tuae, prout par est,
     gratulor, et ut de sacris humanisque doctrinis, pro tuo
     excellenti ingenio et religioni, bene mereri pergas,
     plurimum opto. Vale.

     Romae kal. Septembris 1846.

                                    Humill. devotis. servus
                                FR. TH. ANTONINUS DEGOLA, O. P.
                                        S. C. I. Secret.

Finalement, je le déclare de nouveau, j’aurai le plus grand soin de me
conformer scrupuleusement aux décrets émanes du Saint-Siége, et je
m’empresserai de corriger, le plus tôt possible, mes ouvrages selon
les prescriptions de ces décrets.

J’ai la confiance, Eminence Révérendissime, que les explications dans
les quelles je viens d’entrer suffiront pour montrer que je n’ai
jamais varié dans mes sentiments de soumission absolue aux décrets du
Siége apostolique, l’oracle de la vérité.

Comme Votre Eminence a été chargée de me communiquer les susdits
décrets, je serais heureux qu’Elle daignât aussi me servir
d’intermédiaire pour faire parvenir aux pieds du Vicaire de
Jésus-Christ l’expression de ma soumission la plus respectueuse et la
plus complète.

Véuillez agréer, Monseigneur, l’hommage des sentiments de profond
respect avec lesquels j’ai l’honneur d’être.

  Louvain, le 14 November, 1864.

                                   De Votre Eminence
                      le très-humble et très-obéissant serviteur,
                                 (Signé) G. C. UBAGHS.




NOTICES OF BOOKS.


I.

  _Acta ex iis decerpta quae apud Sanctam Sedem geruntur, in
    compendium opportune redacta et illustrata._ Romae: Typis
    Polyglottae officinae S. C. De Propaganda Fide, Eq. Petro
    Marietti, ejusdem S. C. Socio administro edente, 1865. 8vo.
    pagg. 26.

A brilliant writer has left a well-known sketch of the life and bustle
of the Appian Way in the days when pagan Rome was ruler of the world.
That great highway――leading from the capital to the Eastern
provinces――was ever thronged by a ceaseless crowd of men, engaged in
the varied business, and swayed by the various interests, that centre
in the seat of a mighty government. Through the chair of St. Peter,
Christian Rome has been made the seat of an empire surpassing that of
pagan Rome, by as much as the power of religion surpasses that of the
sword. Each line of the network of railways and telegraphs with which
modern progress has girded the globe, is in itself a new Appian Way,
by which some distant country communicate, on its spiritual concerns
with Rome; and there is this difference between the pagan and the
Christian governors, that, whereas the acts of the former were of but
passing interest, those of the latter are laws forever; and while the
former concerned only individual powers or states, the latter become
directing principles for the entire Christian world. The acts of the
several congregations which assist the Holy Father in the
ecclesiastical government of the world, are of great importance to the
Church, and a knowledge of these acts must be of the utmost value to
those who govern dioceses or parishes. Hence, all will hail with
pleasure the appearance of the first number of the monthly periodical
we have now before us. The title declares that it is not intended to
publish in it a full report of all the ecclesiastical business
transacted at Rome. A very large share of that business, of its very
nature, demands secrecy from its close connection with matters of
conscience; many other cases are of no interest except to the parties
immediately concerned; but, after these exceptions, there still
remains an ample supply of decisions which throw light upon the
practice of the Church in many things, and show how the laws of the
Church are applied to novel cases that occur as time goes on and
events progress. The _Irish Ecclesiastical Record_ has aimed at
keeping its readers acquainted with new decisions of this kind. The
work before us proposes to effect this for all, and to effect it fully
and completely. It will do even more than this. Besides a brief, yet
clear statement of the facts of each case, it will furnish the heads
of the arguments adduced _pro and contra_ before the Congregation,
either _ex officio_ by the secretary of the Congregation, or by the
advocates engaged upon the case; and finally, it will give the
authentic decision of the Congregation. Besides, it will draw
attention to such theoretical or practical principles as may be of use
in dealing with similar cases whenever they may occur, and in
explanation of difficult points will add such remarks as may be
necessary. Such documents as have been directly published by the Holy
See will be given in full whenever they regard Canon Law; in those not
directly published by the Holy See, the names of persons and places
will be thoroughly suppressed or altered, and the substance of the
fact only will be given in the way in which moral cases are usually
proposed.

The contents of the first number are as follows. After the preface
there is a full discussion of the important practical question
touching _missarum iterationem_, _applicationem missae pro populo_,
_et receptionem eleemosynae_. This discussion, with the decision of
the Congregation, etc., we have given above.

Next follows: _Circa nullitatem matrimonii ratione, raptus_.

Next follows: _Juris funerandi et restitutionis emolumentorum seu
causa orta, occasione publici coemeterii noviter erecti_.

Next comes an appendix, _quod jus funerandi_ (_pag. 24_).

We shall have frequent occasion for the future to recur to this
valuable collection.


II.

  _Grammar of Gregorian and Modern Music._ Originally compiled by the
    Very Rev. L. F. Renehan, D.D., late President of Saint Patrick’s
    College, Maynooth. New and enlarged edition, containing numerous
    exercises, the Gregorian Chants for High Mass and the Divine
    Office; Litanies of the Blessed Virgin, instructions regarding the
    use of the organ, etc. By the Rev. Richard Hackett, Professor,
    Saint Patrick’s College, Maynooth. Dublin: James Duffy. 1865,
    xxiv.――297. 12mo.

This useful book is divided into five parts. The first part (p. 1-68)
is a reprint of the _Choir Manual_ published by the late Dr. Renehan
for the use of the students of Saint Patrick’s College, Maynooth, and
republished with additions in 1858 by the accomplished editor, or
rather author, of the work under notice. This part contains a complete
explanation of the theory and notation of Gregorian music, with some
elementary instructions in modern Italian music. The remaining four
parts and appendix (p. 69-297) we owe to the Rev. R. Hackett himself.
The purpose of his labour has been to supply ecclesiastical students
in this country with a complete manual of the principal chants which
are sung at High Mass, Solemn Vespers, Benediction, Mass and Office
for the Dead, etc. With this view he has collected into the second
part an abundant supply of exercises on the intervals ordinarily in
use in Gregorian music, together with a selection of easy chants in
which these intervals occur. Part the third contains the principal
chants of the office for the dead, of the Mass for the dead, and
instructions on the method of chanting prayers. It is greatly to be
regretted that there should exist a difference between the Roman
method of chanting prayers and that in use in some dioceses in
Ireland. We hope that, as far as Ireland is concerned, by help of the
judicious selection of Roman chants given in this work, we may soon be
able to say with Guidetti (quoted by our author at page 134), though
in another sense, _semper et ubique sic cantatur_. The present want of
uniformity, appears still more unseemly when we learn (p. 158) that
the epistle and gospel of the Mass for the dead are often chanted
according to the Roman method in many dioceses in which the Irish
intonation is used on other occasions. Part the fourth contains chants
for High Mass. Part the fifth sets forth the chants for vespers,
chants for Holy Week, including those used at the blessing of the oils
on Holy Thursday, and miscellaneous chants. A great deal of most
useful information is condensed in the five short appendixes which
complete the work, respectively headed: directions for the choir and
organist at High Mass――use of the organ at solemn vespers――playing of
the organ at Mass and the Divine Office, when prohibited――directions
for chanting the Divine Office――Office for the Dead――Gregorian and
modern music――character of sacred music――instrumental accompaniments
and symphonies――vernacular chants. In drawing up these instructions,
the author has had recourse to the safest guides. His counsels are in
exact accordance with the _Caeremoniale Episcoporum_, the Constitution
_Annus qui nunc_ of Benedict XIV., the decrees of the Sacred
Congregation of Rites, and the teaching of approved writers. The
_Grammar_ has one other merit to which we wish to draw attention.
Scattered here and there throughout the work, wherever the subject
requires or permits, we find passages from the Milanese Councils of
St. Charles Borromeo, or from the works of Cardinal Wiseman, or from
other sources, which serve to inspire youthful ecclesiastics with a
true estimate of the majesty of the Liturgy, and to draw their
attention to those treasures of tender grace which it contains. It is
pious and wise thus to remind ecclesiastics that it is the _Vox
Sponsae_ which speaks from their lips in the Divine Office.


     Footnotes:

     [1] See _Ex._, iii. 22:――“But every woman shall borrow of
     her neighbour, and of _her that sojourneth in her house_,
     vessels of silver, and vessels of gold, and raiment; and you
     shall put them upon your sons and upon your daughters, and
     you shall spoil Egypt”.

     [2] It is unnecessary to make any distinction between wives
     and concubines, because this distinction cannot in any way
     affect the present argument.

     [3] The Hebrew text in v. 18 seems not quite clear. The
     interpretation we have given is supported by the Septuagint
     and the English Protestant version. According to the
     Vulgate, Caleb had but two wives, Azuba and Ephrath.

     [4] Aristotle, for example, says that “twins are common in
     Egypt; even three or four at a birth, not rare” (_Hist.
     Anim._, vii. 4). And Pliny tells us, that “for a woman to
     have _more than three children at a birth_ is accounted a
     portent _except in Egypt_” (_Hist. Nat._, vii. 4).

     [5] This is the true reading according to the Hebrew, the
     Septuagint, and the authorized version. The Vulgate has,
     “Filius Phallu Eliab”. A similar example however, occurs, I.
     Paral., ii. 8. “And the sons of Ethan, Azariah”. Here the
     Vulgate agrees with the other versions.

     [6] _An Essay on the Principle of Population._ London, 1826.
     Vol. i., p. 517.

     [7] _Id. Ib._ “Throughout all the northern provinces the
     population was found to double itself in twenty-five years.
     The original number of persons which had settled in the four
     provinces of New England in 1643, was 21,200. Afterwards it
     was calculated that more left them than went to them. In the
     year 1760 they were increased to half a million. They had,
     therefore, all along doubled their number in twenty-five
     years. In New Jersey the period of doubling appeared to be
     twenty-two years, and in Rhode Island still less. In the
     back settlements, where the inhabitants applied themselves
     solely to agriculture, and luxury was not known, they were
     supposed to double their number in fifteen years”. He adds
     in a note: “Speaking of Rhode Island, Dr. Styles says that
     though the period of doubling for the whole colony is
     twenty-five years, yet that it is different in different
     parts, and within land is twenty and fifteen years”. p. 518.

     [8] See “Tracts” of I. A. S., vol. ii, an. 1843, pag. 119.

     [9] Or _Pierevill_, from the place of his birth in Suffolk.

     [10] The Bull appointing him to Ossory is dated “Sexto
     Kalend. Octobris, 1400”, and the See is described as vacant
     _per obitum Johannis Epi. extra curiam defuncti_.

     [11] Bremond, in _Bullario Ord. Praed._ iii. 64, mentions a
     “_Richardus Wichelei, Winchelsey_, vel _Wicherlsi_”, who was
     appointed to our see _anno circiter 1480_. The _Belgium
     Dominicanum_ fixes the precise date of his appointment as
     1479, and we see no reason for excluding him from the list
     of the successors of St. Canice. He must, however, have
     resigned the same year, though, perhaps, the title may have
     been continued through courtesy, even in 1481, as mentioned
     by De Burgo, pag. 476. Some, however, have supposed that
     this bishop’s see was _Ossonensis_, to which we find
     Dominican bishops more than once appointed in the
     _Bullarium_ above referred to.

     [12] “Vocacyon” in _Harl. Miscell._, vi. p. 412, seqq.

     [13] Mant, _Hist._, i. 219.

     [14] We learn these facts from Bale himself, in the preface
     to his _Centur. Script. Britt._ Also from Harris’s _Ware_,
     pag. 416.

     [15] Cox, i. 300.

     [16] See Prendergast’s _Cromwell’s Settlement of Ireland_,
     pag. 156 (London, 1865).

     [17] The Constitution of 1815 above mentioned.

     [18] Mgr. de Ram died in Louvain on the evening of Sunday,
     May 14th. The funeral obsequies were celebrated on Thursday
     the 18th, and he was interred on Friday the 19th, at Nylen,
     near Lieure, where he had his country residence. On the 28th
     of June there was a second solemn funeral service, at which
     the Cardinal Archbishop of Malines presided, and the Bishop
     of Ghent, and the whole professorial body of the University
     attended. On the 7th of July the Catholic University of
     Ireland assisted at a solemn Requiem in the University
     Church, Stephen’s Green, Dublin. The Archbishop of Dublin
     presided at the Mass, which was celebrated by the Bishop of
     Limerick; and a funeral discourse in honour of the deceased
     prelate was read by the Rector, Very Rev. Mgr. Woodlock, at
     a meeting of the University, on Sunday, July 9th.

     Among the tokens of sympathy which it received on this sad
     occasion, the University of Louvain mentions the address of
     “condolence with her elder sister from the Catholic
     University of Dublin”, as well as the condescension of our
     Holy Father, in graciously sending by telegraph his
     apostolic benediction to the bereaved University.

     [19] Hic est titulus quo indicari solent causao seu dubia
     quae S. Congregationi Concilii solvenda, ab Episcopis
     proponuntur quando exhibent relationem status suae Dioecesis
     S. Sedi.

     [20] Excipe festum Nativitatis diem, vel ubi privilegium
     concessum est, Missam iterandi, die commem. omnium defunct.

     [21] Vid. append. I.

     [22] Errant itaque auctores illi etiam recentiores, qui
     docent extra Italiam posse recipi eleemosynam pro secunda
     Missa, quando reditus tenues sunt qui assignantur pro
     implemento proprii officii; vel ex vi consuetudinis. Errant
     pariter cum docent extra Italiam, Parochos non teneri missas
     applicare pro Populo, vigentibus illis rationibus, ac cum
     dissimulant Const. Benedicti XIV. _Cum semper oblatas_,
     utpote ad Italiae Episcopos directam; non distinguentes
     Constitutiones quae ad aliquam determinatam provinciam ideo
     diriguntur, ut in ea peculiare ius statuant; ab iis quae,
     quamvis ad unam provinciam oeconomice dirigantur, tamen
     _commune ius_ declarant. Et reapse S. C. Concilii, in
     dirimendis dubiis, circa missam _pro Populo_, extra Italiam
     exortis, secundum hanc Constitutionem, constanter iudicavit:
     nec non S. C. de Propaganda Fide, in varias orbis partes,
     pro opportunitate, veluti legem servandam hanc constitutionem
     transmisit. Caeterum quilibet in hac repraetextus sublatus
     est per Constit. regnantis Pontificis quem Deus incolumem
     diu servet, quae incipit _Amantissimi Redemptoris_.

     Aliter est iudicandum, cum agitur de locis Missionum, in
     quibus _paroeciae, canonice erectae non sunt_. De qua re
     exponemus suo loco, doctrinam a S. Congregatione de
     Propaganda Fide, accurate definitam.

     [23] See _I. E. Record_, p. 344.


END OF VOL. I.




Transcriber’s Note:

This book was written in a period when many words had not become
standardized in their spelling. Words may have multiple spelling
variations or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been
left unchanged unless indicated below.

Words and phrases in italics are surrounded by underscores, _like
this_. Footnotes were renumbered sequentially and were moved to the
end of the book. Obvious printing errors, such as backwards, upside
down, or partially printed letters, were corrected. Final stops
missing at the end of sentences and abbreviations were added.
Diacriticals omitted or backwards in French words were corrected.

Tables were reformatted to display in handheld devices.

The following spelling corrections were made:

  incorparated: … incorporated with the Hebrew …
  that: … than those of the present …
  Petateuch: … Pentateuch itself …
  FROF: … PROF. UBAGHS …
  Wultam: … Wultham, and make him successor …
  Congrégration: … Congrégation l’a apprécié …