Irish Ecclesiastical Record

                                 Volume 1

                                 May 1865





CONTENTS


The See Of Derry.
Dr. Colenso And The Old Testament. No. II.
Blessed Thaddeus M’Carthy.
Liturgical Questions.
Correspondence.
Documents.
Notices Of Books.
Footnotes






THE SEE OF DERRY.


The territory of Cineal-Eoghain, from a very early period, formed a
distinct diocese, which took its name from the church of Arderath, now
Ardstraw, situated on the River Derg, and founded by St. Eugene, first
bishop of this see. In the synod of Rathbreasail, an. 1110, it is called
“Dioecesis Ardsrathensis” though probably in that very year the city of
Derry was chosen for the episcopal residence. “Sedes Episcopalis”, writes
Dr. O’Cherballen, bishop of the see in 1247, “a tempore limitationis
Episcopatuum Hyberniae in villa Darensi utpote uberiori et magis idoneo
loco qui in sua Dioecesi habeatur, extitit constituta”. For some years
this arrangement continued undisturbed, till the appointment of Dr.
O’Coffy, who about the year 1150 transferred his see to Rathlure, a church
dedicated to St. Luroch; and subsequently, for one hundred years, we find
the see designated “Dioecesis Rathlurensis”, or “de Rathlurig”, under
which name it appears in the lists of Centius Camerarius.

Dr. Muredach O’Coffy was a canon regular of the order of St. Augustine,
and “was held in great repute for his learning, humility, and charity to
the poor”—(Ware). The old Irish annalists style him “the sun of science;
the precious stone and resplendent gem of knowledge; the bright star and
rich treasury of learning; and as in charity, so too was he powerful in
pilgrimage and prayer”. He assisted at the Synod of Kells, which was
convened by Cardinal Paparo in 1152, and in the catalogue of its bishops
he is styled from the territory occupied by his see, _the Bishop of
Cineal-Eoghain_. His death is marked in our annals on the 10th of
February, 1173/4.

Amlaf O’Coffy succeeded the same year, and is also eulogized by our
annalists as “a shining light, illuminating both clergy and people”. He
was translated to Armagh in 1184, but died the following year. Our ancient
records add that “his remains were brought with great solemnity to Derry
and interred at the feet of his predecessor”.

Florence O’Cherballen next governed the see, from 1185 to 1230; whilst the
episcopate of his successor, Friar German O’Cherballen, embraced well nigh
half a century, extending from 1230 to his death in 1279. It was during
the administration of this last-named bishop that the episcopal see was
once more definitively fixed in Derry. The Holy See, by letter of 31st
May, 1247, commissioned the Bishop of Raphoe, the Abbot of the monastery
of SS. Peter and Paul in Armagh, and the Prior of Louth, to investigate
the reasons set forth by Dr. Germanus for abandoning the church of
Rathlure. The following extract from the Papal letter preserves to us the
chief motive thus alleged by Bishop Germanus:


    “Cum villa Rathlurensis pene sit inaccessibilis propter montana,
    nemora et paludes, quibus est undique circumcincta, aliasque
    propter sterilitatem ipsius et necessariorum defectum nequeat ibi
    dictus Episcopus vel aliquis de suis canonicis residere, nec
    clerus ejusdem dioecesis illuc convenire ad synodum et ad alia
    quae saepius expedirent praefatus episcopus nobis humiliter
    supplicavit ut utilitatibus Rathlurensis Ecclesiae, ac cleri
    ejusdem misericorditer providentes sedem ipsam reduci ad locum
    pristinum Darensem villam videlicet de benignitate Sedis
    Apostolicae faceremus”—(_Mon. Vatic._ pag. 48).


It was also added by Dr. O’Cherballen, that his predecessor, O’Coffy, had
himself been born in Rathlure, and that it was through love for his native
district he had, by his own authority, transferred the episcopal seat from
Derry to Rathlure (illectus natalis soli dulcedine transtulit motu
propriae voluntatis).

The appointed deputies approved of the resolution taken by Bishop
Germanus, and a few years later (1254), in reply to the Chapter of Derry,
the same Pope Innocent IV. thus confirmed this translation of the see:


    “Cum, sicuti ex tenore vestrae petitionis accepimus, sedes
    Anichlucensis(1) Ecclesiae de speciali mandato nostro et assensu
    etiam venerabilis fratris nostri Archiepiscopi Armachani loci
    metropolitani ad Darensem Ecclesiam sit translata, nos vestris
    supplicationibus inclinati translationem hujusmodi, sicut provide
    facta est, et in alicujus praejudicium non redundat, ratam et
    firmam habentes, eam auctoritate Apostolica confirmamus. Datum
    Neapoli, secundo Nonas Novembris, Pontificatus nostri anno
    duodecimo”—(_Ibid._, 64).


By a previous letter he had, as early as the first of July in the fourth
year of his pontificate, in anticipation of this translation of the see,
granted to the chapter of the diocese of Derry the same privileges,
indulgences, and other special favours which it had hitherto enjoyed in
Rathlure (_Ib._, pag. 48).

The successor of Bishop Germanus was Florence O’Cherballen, who held the
see from 1279 to 1293. Five other bishops then came in rapid succession.
Henry of Ardagh, from 1294 to 1297; Geoffry Melaghlin, from 1297 to 1315;
Hugh or Odo O’Neal, from 1316 to 1319; Michael Melaghlin, from 1319 to
about 1330; and Maurice, from about 1330 to 1347.

On the death of the last-named bishop, a Dominican, by name Symon, was
appointed by Pope Clement VI. to rule the See of Derry. He had indeed
already been nominated by brief, dated the 5th of the Ides of May, 1347,
to the diocese of Clonmacnoise, but the aged and infirm bishop of that
see, who was reported to have passed to a better life, was not yet
deceased, and hence, on the vacancy of Derry, Bishop Symon was, by brief
of 18th December, 1347, appointed successor of St. Eugene. From the first
brief, which nominated him to Clonmacnoise, we learn that Friar Symon was
Prior of the Dominican fathers of Roscommon, and was remarkable for his
zeal, his literary proficiency, and his manifold virtues. The brief of his
appointment to Derry adds the following particulars:


    “Dudum ad audientiam apostolatus nostri relatione minus vera
    perlata, quod Ecclesia Cluanensis per obitum Venerabilis fratris
    nostri Henrici Episcopi Cluanensis qui in partibus illis
    decessisse dicebatur, vacabat: Nos credentes relationem hujusmodi
    veram esse, de te ordinis fratrum Praedicatorum professore eidem
    Ecclesiae duximus providendum, praeficiendo te illi in Episcopum
    et pastorem: et subsequenter per Ven. fratrem nostrum Talayrandum
    Episcopum Albanensem tibi apud sedem Apostolicam fecimus munus
    consecrationis impendi. Cum autem sicut postea vera relatio ad nos
    perduxit praefatus Henricus tempore provisionis hujus modi ageret,
    sicut agere dignoscitur, in humanis, tu nullius Ecclesiae
    Episcopus remansisti. Postmodum vero Ecclesia Darensi, per obitum
    bonae memoriae Mauricii Episcopi Darensis qui extra Romanam curiam
    diem clausit extremum, pastoris solatio destitute, Nos ...
    cupientes talem eidem Darensi Ecclesiae praeesse personam quae
    sciret, vellet et posset eam in suis manutenere juribus ac etiam
    adaugere, ipsamque praeservare a noxiis et adversis, post
    deliberationem quam super his cum fratribus nostris habuimus
    diligentem, demum ad te consideratis grandium virtutum meritis,
    quibus personam tuam Dominus insignivit, convertimus oculos nostræ
    mentis, etc. Datum Avinione XV. Kalend. Januarii Pontif. Nostri
    anno octavo”—(_Mon. Vatic._, pag. 292).


Bishop Symon seems to have held the see till the close of this century,
and the next bishop that we find was John, Abbot of Moycoscain, or _de
claro fonte_, who was appointed to Derry by brief of Pope Boniface IX. on
19th August, 1401. Of his immediate successors we know little more than
the mere names. William Quaplod, a Carmelite and a distinguished patron of
literary men, died in 1421. Donald for ten years then ruled the diocese,
and resigned in 1431; his successor, John, died in 1456. A Cistercian
monk, named Bartholomew O’Flanagan, next sat in the see for five years;
and Nicholas Weston, a canon of Armagh, who was consecrated its bishop in
1466, held it till his death in 1484.

Donald O’Fallon, an Observantine Franciscan, was advanced to this see by
Pope Innocent VIII. on the 17th of May, 1485: “he was reckoned a man of
great reputation in his time for learning, and a constant course of
preaching through all Ireland, which he continued for full thirty
years”—(_Ware_). He died in the year 1500.

James Mac Mahon is the first bishop whose name appears in the sixteenth
century. He was Commendatory Prior of the Abbey of SS. Peter and Paul, at
Knock, in the county Louth, and died in December, 1517.

William Hogeson, which is probably a corruption of the Irish name
_O’Gashin_, was appointed his successor by Pope Leo X. on 8th of August,
1520. He belonged to the order of St. Dominic, and seems to have
administered the see till 1529.

Roderick or Rory O’Donnell, Dean of Raphoe, was chosen by Pope Clement
VII., on 19th September, 1529, to occupy the see of Derry. This bishop was
very much opposed to the religious innovations which Henry VIII.
endeavoured to introduce into the Irish Church. In the _State Papers_
(vol. i. pag. 598) there is a letter dated 14th March, 1539, and addressed
by Lord Cromwell to the English king, in which the following eulogy is
passed on Dr. O’Donnell: “Also there be letters long from an arrant
traitor, Rorick, Bishop of Derry, in your grace’s land of Ireland, his
hand and great seal at it, to the Bishop of Rome, declaring the calamities
of the Papists in Ireland”. It was in the preceding year that Bishop
Roderick had mortally offended the agents of King Henry by his efforts to
preserve from their grasp the youthful Gerald, who, though yet in his
boyhood, was chief of the Geraldines, and destined, it was hoped, to
become one day the rallying point of a confederacy of the Irish
chieftains. In the month of May Gerald and his faithful escort passed
without molestation from the south to the north of Ireland, being
hospitably received in Thomond, Galway, and Sligo; and they were safely
entrenched within the barriers of Tyrconnell before the government spies
had even caught the intelligence of this journey. On the 28th of June the
Earl of Ormonde wrote a long letter to the council of Ireland, giving
information of the movements of young Gerald. From this letter we learn
that it was an Irish rhymist that acted as his spy amongst the Northern
chieftains, and that, according to the latest intelligence received from
him, “twenty-four horsemen, well apparrelled”, had been appointed to wait
upon the young Geraldine. The King of Scotland, too, solicited the Irish
princes to commit Gerald to his care. However, in another letter, of 20th
July, the same earl writes that this scheme was not pleasing to O’Neil and
O’Donnell, but “the Bishop O’Donnell (of Derry), James Delahoyde, Master
Levrous, and Robert Walshe, are gone as messengers to Scotland, to pray
aid from the Scottish king; and before their going, all the gentlemen of
Ulster, for the most part, promised to retain as many Scots as they should
bring with them, at their own expense and charges during the time of their
service in Ireland”—(_St. Pap._, iii. 52). Another information further
states that as a Christmas present in December, 1538, Art Oge O’Toole had
sent to Gerald “a saffron shirt trimmed with silk, and a mantle of English
cloth fringed with silk, together with a sum of money”—(_Ibid._, pag.
139). And a few months later Cowley writes from Dublin to the English
court, that “there never was seen in Ireland so great a host of Irishmen
and Scots, both of the out isles and of the mainland of Scotland; whilst
at the same time the pretended Earl of Desmond has all the strength of the
west”—(_Ibid._, pag. 145). It is not necessary to pursue the subsequent
events of this confederacy, as we have no express documents to attest the
share taken in it by the Bishop of Derry. One further fact alone connected
with our great prelate has been recorded by our annalists, and it, too,
regards the closing scene of his eventful life, viz., that before his
death he wished to become a member of the Franciscan order, and dying on
the 8th of October, 1550, “he was buried in the monastery of Donegal in
the habit of St. Francis”—(_Four Mast._, v. 1517).

Eugene Magennis, the next bishop, governed the see from 1551 to 1568. It
was during his episcopate that the venerable church and monastery of St.
Colomba, together with the town of Derry, were reduced to a heap of ruins.
The fact is thus narrated by Cox: “Colonel Saintlow succeeded Randolph in
the command of the garrison, and lived as quietly as could be desired; for
the rebels were so daunted by the former defeat that they did not dare to
make any new attempt; but unluckily, on the 24th day of April (1566), the
ammunition took fire, and blew up both the town and the fort of Derry,
whereby twenty men were killed, and all the victuals and provisions were
destroyed, and no possibility left of getting more, so that the soldiers
were necessitated to embark for Dublin”—(_Hist._, part i. pag. 322). This
disaster was regarded at the time as a divine chastisement for the
profanation of St. Columba’s church and cell, the latter being used by the
heretical soldiery as a repository of ammunition, whilst the former was
defiled by their profane worship—(_O’Sulliv._, pag. 96).

The next bishop was Raymond O’Gallagher, who, when receiving the
administration of the see of Killala, in 1545, is described in the
Consistorial Acts as “clericus dioecesis Rapotensis in vigesimotertio anno
constitutus”. It was also commanded that after four years, _i.e._ when he
would have attained his twenty-seventh year, he should be consecrated
Bishop of Killala. In 1569, he was translated from that see to Derry,
which he ruled during the many perils and persecutions of Elizabeth’s
reign, till, as Mooney writes, “omnium Episcoporurm Europae ordinatione
antiquissimus”, he died, full of years, on the 15th of March in 1601. In a
government memorial of 28th July, 1592, Dr. O’Gallagher is thus noticed:
“First in Ulster is one Redmondus O’Gallagher, Bishop of Derry.... The
said Bishop O’Gallagher hath been with divers governors of that land upon
protection, and yet he is supposed to enjoy the bishoprick and all the
aforesaid authorities these xxvi years and more, whereby it is to be
understood that he is not there as a man without authority and secretly
kept”—(_Kilken. Proceedings_, May, 1856, pag. 80). The xxvi of this
passage has led many into error as to the date of Dr. O’Gallagher’s
appointment to Derry, which, reckoning back from 1592, should be placed in
1567. However, that numeral probably is a misprint for xxiii, such
mistakes being very frequent in the mediaeval manuscripts, as well as in
more modern publications. The following extract from the papers of
Cardinal Morone in the Vatican archives, will serve to show that in 1569
the see was vacant by the death of Bishop Eugenius:—


    “Litterae Reverendissimi Armachani ad Patrem Polancum: Quod Daniel
    ab ipso nominatus fiat Episcopus Darensis: contentio de Episcopatu
    Clogherensi inter duos, videtur ponendus tertius: Rapotensis et
    Darensis non iverunt ad concilium Provinciale propter bella:
    Archiepiscopus Armacanus haberet suam Ecclesiam si vellet
    consentire Reginae: posset mitti subsidium pro Armachano ad
    Praesidentem Collegii Lovaniensis: Archiepiscopus Armachanus male
    tractatur in carceribus”.


This minute of Cardinal Morone bears no date, but is registered with a
series of papers of 1568 and 1569. The Father Polanco to whom the
Primate’s letter was addressed, was the Procurator-General of the Society
of Jesus, and was the same who was deputed to be bearer of the blessing of
the Holy Father to the dying founder of that great order. To the preceding
_minute_ are added the following remarks, which seem to have been
presented to the Cardinal by Father Polanco:—


    “Archiepiscopus Armachanus scribit expedire ut tertius nominetur
    Episcopus pro Clogherensi Dioecesi, non tamen favet Domino Milero.
    Causa posset committi in partibus D. Episcopo Accadensi et
    aliquibus aliis comprovincialibus Episcopis.

    “Episcopatus Darensis in dicta Provincia Armachana vacat nunc per
    obitum Eugenii ultimi Episcopi. Duo Hiberni dictae Dioecesis pro
    eo obtinendo venerunt ad curiam: viz. Cornelius O’Chervallan cum
    quibusdam litteris Patris David Wolff et cum aliis Rectoris
    Lovanii. Item Magonius (Mac Mahon) Abbas commendatus litteris
    Episcoporum Rapotensis et Kilmorensis cum approbatione capituli
    Darensis”.


Dr. O’Gallagher, however, was the person chosen by the Holy See, and was
proclaimed in consistory before the close of 1569. A few years later we
find faculties communicated to him by Rome for his own diocese, and for
the whole province of Armagh, “quamdiu venerabilis frater Richardus
Archiepiscopus Armachanus impeditus a Dioecesi et Provincia Armachana
abfuerit”—(13 April, 1575, _Ex. Secret. Brev._). About 1594 other special
faculties were again communicated to him through Cardinal Allan—(ap.
_King, Hist._, pag. 1213); and we soon after meet with him in the camp of
O’Donnell, when that chieftain was gathering his forces to cut short the
military career of General Norris: “There were there”, writes O’Sullivan,
“some ecclesiastics, and especially Raymond O’Gallagher, Bishop of Derry,
and Vice-Primate of Ireland, who absolved from the excommunication which
they had incurred, those troops that passed from the Elizabethan ranks to
the Catholic army”—(_Hist. Cath._, p. 181). It was in 1596 that Norris set
out with about 10,000 men to invade North Connaught and Tyrconnell. That
general was flushed with his victories in France and Belgium, nevertheless
he was obliged to ignominiously retreat from the Ulster frontiers, being
unable even to bring to battle the chosen army of 5,000 men which was led
by the brave O’Donnel.

On the 22nd of July, 1597, an Irishman named Bernard O’Donnell was
arrested at Lisle, and brought before the royal court, accused of carrying
on treasonable intercourse with the Spanish government, and of being
bearer of despatches from the Irish bishops and chieftains to the
authorities in Spain and Rome. From one of the questions proposed to him
at his cross-examination, we glean some further particulars connected with
our Bishop of Derry:—


    “Respondes tibi nulla fuisse negotia ab Hibernis commissa: et
    tamen reperimus prae manibus tuis litteras cujusdam Gabrielis
    Vasci (Vasquez), Theologi Societatis Jesu ex Hispania decimo die
    mensis Junii superioris (1596) scriptis Romam ad Franciscum
    Rodrigum (Rodriquez) Societatis Jesu, quibus te illi unice
    commendat scribitque te eo profecturum fuisse negotiorum
    publicorum causa. Simul etiam invenimus exemplum manu tua scriptum
    epistolae cujusdam a Remundo Derensi Episcopo ad summum
    Pontificem, ex qua apparet, te, post tuum ex Hispania ad Hibernos
    reditum, nobiles Hibernos firmasse et illis animum addidisse ad
    arma suscipienda contra Reginam Angliae: idemque rogat summum
    Pontificem, ut tibi fidem adhibeat in multis quae illi dicenda
    tibi commisit. Invenimus etiam prae manibus tuis exemplum
    litterarum manu tua exaratum quibus O’Nellus ille summum
    Pontificem rogat ut tibi fidem adhibeat non modo in his quae illi
    dicturus eras de beneficiorum Ecclesiasticorum dispensatione apud
    Hibernos, sed etiam de omnibus rebus publicis Hibernorum? _Resp._
    Agnosco equidem illa omnia exemplaria litterarum fuisse mea manu
    scripta: sed ad cumulandam commendationem meam”.


Fortunately, appended to this examination, the letter itself of the Bishop
of Derry has been preserved to us. We present it in full to the reader, as
it is the only letter of this great bishop that the calamitous era of
persecution has permitted to reach us:—


    “Copie de lettre escrite au Pape par Remond Derensis Episcopus.

    “Tuam Sanctitatem latere non arbitramur quam alacri et excelso
    animo nostrae nobilitatis praecipui, Sancti haud dubie Spiritus
    instinctu, tyrannicae Anglorum pravitati ausi sunt resistere:
    omnem ipsorum virulentiam et Satanici furoris artificia, aperto
    marte viriliter irritando. Tametsi quis facile enumeret quae
    quotidie volvantur et emergant quibus ut animum adderet, ipsosque
    in hoc pulcherimo instituto spe subsidii confirmaret,
    stabiliretque, cum lator praesentium N. (_sic._) ex Hispania
    novissime venisset, cuncta ita uti sunt Catholicae majestati
    fideliter relaturus, volumus atque monemus ut Tua quoque Sanctitas
    fidem incunctanter eidem adhibeat; ac luctuosae tuae Hiberniae et
    innumeris cladibus ab haereticis jamdiu afflictae, squalidam ac
    funestam faciem benigno vultu aspiciat et egregiam hanc occasionem
    divinitus, ut credimus, oblatam opportune arripiat, memor quam
    eadem esse soleat occipiti calvo: suisque fidelissimis non modo ab
    ineunte Christianismo clientibus, sed ab aliquot annorum centuriis
    regio jure subditis, quam maturee poterit clementer prospiciat, ac
    expectationis nostrae ac Tabellarii, cui pleraque Tuae Sanctitati
    nuncianda relinquimus, desiderio satisfaciat: cujus etiam nos,
    generis, industriae, nobilitatis, ac sinceri et vehementis in
    religionem et patriam affectus, rationem habentes, Tuam oramus
    Sanctitatem ut eundem benigno favore prosequatur, ipsique de
    dignitate _N._ providere non cunctetur nostrum in hac re judicium
    auctoritate sua comprobando”—(_St. Pap._, Public Rec. Off.
    London).


With this evidence before him, the reader may fully appreciate the
favourite modern theory of the defenders of the Protestant Establishment,
that, forsooth, the Irish bishops during Elizabeth’s reign abandoned the
faith of their fathers, and became liege servants of the church by law
established! Dr. Cotton when speaking of our see makes a somewhat more
reserved, but equally erroneous statement: “Redmond O’Gallagher”, he says,
“was bishop at this time, but whether recognised as such by Queen
Elizabeth and the Protestant Church _does not appear_”—(_Fasti_, iii.
315). Why, it does appear as plainly as the noon-day sun that he was the
determined enemy of the Protestant queen and her establishment: throughout
his whole episcopate he was a devoted pastor of the Catholic Church, and
thus his fidelity and devotion to the cause of God merited for him in
death the martyr’s crown. First on the list of those who suffered for the
faith during the reign of Elizabeth is reckoned by Dr. Mathews, Archbishop
of Dublin, in 1623, “Redmondus Galluthurius Darensis Episcopus et
Martyr”—(_Relat. ad. S. C. de Prop. Fid._) Mooney, writing in 1617, also
styles him a martyr: “Episcopus Redmondus Gallaher martyr obiit anno
1601”; and O’Sullivan Beare, about the same time, adds some of the
circumstances of his death: “Raymundus O’Gallacher”, he writes, “Derii vel
Luci Episcopus, ab Anglis bipennibus confessus, et capite truncatus annum
circiter octogesimum agens”—(_Hist. Cath._, pag. 77). The Four Masters (ad
an. 1601) also mention his being put to death by the English; and Rothe
reckons him amongst those who suffered for the faith. Tradition still
points out the spot on which the venerable bishop was slain, almost midway
on the high road between O’Kane’s Castle and Dungiven. (See Dr. Kelly’s
_Essays_, with the additions of Dr. M’Carthy: Dublin, 1864, pag. 425).

It now only remains to notice some few popular errors connected with this
see.

1. On account of the old Latin form of the name of this see, _i.e._
_Darensis_, it has frequently been confounded with the Diocese of Kildare.
Thus, not to mention more recent examples, Ware severely criticises Bale
of Ossory for falling into this mistake—(_Bishops_, pag. 190). The chief
criterion for distinguishing between the two sees, is the mention which is
generally made of the metropolitan to whom the brief is addressed, or of
the ecclesiastical province to which the diocese belongs.

2. Dr. King notices as an improbability that O’Gallagher could have been
bishop for fifty-two years, and, nevertheless, be only (as Dr. King
imagines) seventy years of age at his death. However, true dates are sure
always to mutually correspond. Referring to the Consistorial Acts, cited
above, it appears that in 1545 Dr. O’Gallagher was in his twenty-third
year, and that a dispensation was then granted to him to be consecrated
bishop in his twenty-seventh year: hence, at his death in 1601, Dr.
O’Gallagher may very well have attained the fifty-second year of his
Episcopate, whilst he will be found, not indeed in his seventieth year,
but, as O’Sullivan writes, “circa octogesimum annum agens”.

3. The succession of bishops in the See of Derry affords a practical
refutation of the novel theory so fashionable now-a-days amongst the
clergy of the Establishment, that forsooth the native clergy without
hesitation embraced the tenets of Henry VIII. and Elizabeth, and that the
Catholic Church was only upheld in our island “by begging friars and
foreign priests”. We pray the reader whenever he hears such a statement
made, to call to mind the See of Derry. Was Roderick, “the arrant
traitor”, in the days of King Henry, a _foreign priest_ and a stranger to
our island? Was Raymond O’Gallagher a foreigner during Elizabeth’s reign?
Oh! ask the faithful of Innishowen, amongst whom he first exercised his
sacred ministry—ask the camps of Maguire, O’Donnell, and O’Neill! Ask,
too, the very enemies of our holy faith, the first founders of the
Protestant Establishment: their deeds will tell you that he was the true
pastor of the fold, and hence they set a price upon his head, and at
length conferred on him the martyr’s crown.

There was, however, one foreign prelate who received an appointment in
Derry at this period, and he was precisely _the first_ and _only_
Protestant nominee to this see during Elizabeth’s reign. “To the two
northern sees of Raphoe and Derry”, writes Dr. Mant, “Elizabeth made no
collation, unless in the year 1595, when her reign was drawing towards its
close”—(_Hist._, i. 284). George Montgomery, a Scotchman, was the
individual thus chosen to be the first representative of the
_Establishment_ in our northern sees. His patent for the sees of Clogher,
Derry, and Raphoe, was dated the 13th of June, 1595, where already for
many years a canonically appointed bishop ruled the fold of Christ. The
good sense, however, of the Knoxian reformer judged it more prudent not to
risk himself and family amidst the O’Kanes whilst arms were in the hands
of the Irish chieftains: he hence consigned to oblivion his royal patent,
and allowed the Irish pastors to feed in peace their spiritual fold. Even
when, in 1605, he sought for a new appointment to these sees at the hands
of King James, as we learn from Mant, Ware, and other Protestant
authorities, he took care to make no allusion to the writ which he had
formerly received in the thirty-seventh year of Elizabeth.





DR. COLENSO AND THE OLD TESTAMENT. NO. II.


The Colenso controversy has entered on a new phase. It appears we must no
longer speak of Dr. Colenso as the Protestant Bishop of Natal. He enjoyed
this title indeed for a time, in virtue of letters patent issued by the
supreme head of the Established Church. But the judicial committee of her
Majesty’s privy council has sat in judgment on her Majesty’s letters
patent, and has just pronounced that they are invalid and without effect
in law; that her Majesty had assumed a prerogative which did not belong to
her, and had been guilty in fact, though inadvertently, of an illegal
aggression upon the rights of her colonists.

The history of this remarkable decision may be told in a few words. Dr
Colenso was appointed to the See of Natal in the year 1853. In the same
year, Dr. Gray, as Bishop of Cape Town, was invested by royal letters
patent with metropolitan jurisdiction over Dr. Colenso and the diocese of
Natal. Ten years passed away, and each in his own sphere exercised the
authority which he was supposed to have received from the crown. At length
Dr. Colenso’s book appears, and a charge of heresy is preferred against
him. The charge is entertained by the supposed metropolitan, who sets up a
court, proceeds to try the cause, and finally, in December, 1863, delivers
his sentence. By this sentence Dr. Colenso is deprived of his see, and
forbidden to exercise his sacred functions within the ecclesiastical
province of Cape Town. The deposed bishop refuses to acknowledge the
jurisdiction of the court, and appeals to the privy council. The
controversy was thus reduced to a simple question of law,—was Dr. Gray
legally possessed of those metropolitan rights to which he laid claim? To
this question the judicial committee of the privy council has given a
clear and decisive answer. When a colony is once endowed with legislative
institutions of its own, the crown no longer possesses any authority to
create sees or to confer ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Now in the two
colonies of Cape Town and Natal an independent legislature had been
established in the year 1850; and therefore the letters patent of 1853
were null and void in law. Hence it follows that, according to English
law, Dr. Gray was never in point of fact the Metropolitan of Cape Town;
but neither was Dr. Colenso the Bishop of Natal.

Thus has Dr. Colenso pulled down the whole edifice of the English colonial
episcopate. Like Sampson of old, he has been, indeed, avenged upon his
enemies, but he has been himself crushed beneath the ruins he has made.
Yet, though his jurisdiction as a bishop may be taken away, his moral
power and his influence are increased. He now appears not only as an
eminent leader of the free-thinking and infidel school of theology, but as
a martyr who has suffered in the cause; and this new character gives him
an additional claim to the sympathy and veneration of his followers. When
the youthful plant is checked in its upward growth by the skilful knife of
the gardener, it puts forth new branches on every side, and flourishes
with increased luxuriance. And so, according to every human probability,
the check which Dr. Colenso has received will but promote the rapid
expansion of his views, and their dissemination throughout the Protestant
Church. It is therefore all the more important for those who defend the
cause of truth to refute his charges against the Bible, and to lay bare
the sophistry of his arguments. Let us take the following example:—


    “ ‘_And Jehovah spake unto Moses, saying, ... Gather thou the
    congregation together unto the door of the tabernacle of the
    congregation. And Moses did as Jehovah commanded him. And the
    assembly was gathered unto the door of the tabernacle of the
    congregation_’—(_Lev._, viii. 1-4).

    “First, it appears to be certain that by the expressions used so
    often, here and elsewhere, ‘the assembly’, ‘the whole assembly’,
    ‘all the congregation’, is meant the whole body of the people—at
    all events, the _adult males in the prime of life_ among them—and
    not merely the _elders_ or _heads of the people_, as some have
    supposed, in order to escape from such difficulties as that which
    we are now about to consider. At any rate, I cannot, with due
    regard to the truth, allow myself to believe, or attempt to
    persuade others to believe, that such expressions as the above can
    possibly be meant to be understood of the elders only....

    “This vast body of people, then, received on this occasion, and on
    other similar occasions, as we are told, an express command from
    Jehovah himself, to assemble ‘at the door of the tabernacle of the
    congregation’. We need not press the word ‘all’ so as to include
    every individual man of this number. Still the expression ‘all the
    congregation’, the ‘whole assembly’, must be surely understood to
    imply the _main body_ of those who were able to attend, especially
    when summoned thus solemnly by the direct voice of Jehovah
    himself. The _mass_ of these 603,550 men _ought_, we must believe,
    to have obeyed such a command, and hastened to present themselves
    at the ‘door of the tabernacle of the congregation’....

    “Now the whole width of the _tabernacle_ was 10 cubits, or 18
    feet, ... and its length was 30 cubits, or 54 feet, as may be
    gathered from _Exodus_, xxvi. Allowing two feet in width for each
    full-grown man, nine men could just have stood in front of it.
    Supposing, then, that ‘all the congregation’ of adult males in the
    prime of life had given due heed to the divine summons, and had
    hastened to take their stand, side by side, as closely as
    possible, in front, not merely of the _door_, but of the whole
    _end_ of the tabernacle in which the door was, they would have
    reached, allowing 18 inches between each rank of nine men, for a
    distance of more than 100,000 feet, in fact nearly _twenty
    miles_”—(Part i. pp. 31,33).


Dr. Colenso revels in figures. When he sets about a problem he delights to
look at it from every point of view, and to work out his sum in a variety
of ways. By a very simple process of multiplication and addition he has
here proved that the Scripture narrative is quite ridiculous and absurd.
Yet he is not content. He must lead his readers to the same conclusion by
another process:—


    “As the text says distinctly ‘at the door of the tabernacle’, they
    must have come _within the court_. And this, indeed, was necessary
    for the purpose for which they were summoned on this occasion,
    namely, to witness the ceremony of the consecration of Aaron and
    his sons to the priestly office. This was to be performed inside
    the tabernacle itself, and could only, therefore, be seen by those
    standing at the door....

    “But how many would the _whole court_ have contained? Its area (60
    yards by 30 yards) was 1,800 square yards, and the area of the
    tabernacle itself (18 yards by 6 yards) was 108 square yards.
    Hence the area of the court outside the tabernacle was 1,692
    square yards. But the whole congregation would have made a body of
    people nearly twenty miles—or, more accurately, 33,530 yards—long,
    and 18 feet or 6 yards wide; that is to say, packed closely
    together, they would have covered an area of 201,180 square yards.
    In fact the court, when thronged, could only have held five
    thousand people; whereas the able-bodied men alone exceeded six
    hundred thousand.... It is inconceivable how, under such
    circumstances, ‘all the assembly’, the ‘whole congregation’, could
    have been summoned to attend ‘at the door of the tabernacle’, by
    the express command of Almighty God”—(pp. 33, 34).


Before we proceed to examine this singular objection, put forward in so
plausible and popular a form, it may be useful to describe, in a few
words, the general appearance of the tabernacle, and of the court which
surrounded it. Our readers will thus be placed in a position to form a
clear and distinct idea of the difficulty which Dr. Colenso has raised.
And we are satisfied that the more thoroughly it is understood, the more
complete and satisfactory will the explanation be found.

The court of the tabernacle was an oblong rectangle, one hundred cubits(2)
in length, from east to west, and fifty cubits in breadth, from north to
south. This space was enclosed by hangings of fine twisted linen,
supported by sixty pillars, to which they were attached by hooks and
fillets of silver. The entrance to the court was at the eastern end; it
was twenty cubits in width; and across the opening was suspended a
curtain, embroidered with fancy needlework, and rich with gorgeous
colours.

Within the court, and towards the western end, was erected the tabernacle.
It was simply a large tent, constructed with elaborate care, and formed of
costly materials. Like the court in which it was placed, it was an oblong
rectangle, being thirty cubits in length and ten cubits in breadth. The
walls were of setim or acacia wood; the roof of fine linen, covered with
curtains of goats’ hair and skins. The eastern end was open, but was
furnished with a rich hanging to serve as a door. Internally the
tabernacle was divided by a veil into two apartments;—the _Holy Place_,
twenty cubits in length, which contained the golden candlestick, the table
of show-bread, and the altar of incense; and the _Holy of Holies_, ten
cubits in length, in which was placed the ark of the covenant. The _Holy
Place_ was appropriated to the priests, who entered it twice a day,
morning and evening. The _Holy of Holies_ was forbidden to all but the
high priest alone, and even he could enter only once a year, on the great
day of atonement.

The argument of Dr. Colenso is now easily understood. According to the
Scripture narrative, the whole multitude of the Israelites, or at least
six hundred thousand men, were summoned to attend, and actually did
attend, “at the door of the tabernacle”. It follows that they must have
stood in a line eighteen feet broad and twenty miles long, which is
perfectly absurd. Besides, they could not have witnessed the ceremony to
which they were summoned unless they came within the court. But this is an
absolute impossibility, as the court would only hold five thousand men,
even if they were closely packed together.

Here is, indeed, a very serious charge against the credibility of the
Pentateuch. But it seems to us a charge which, from its very nature, must
refute itself. Dr. Colenso will not deny that the Book of _Leviticus_ was
written while the tabernacle was still in existence; and that its author,
whoever he may have been, had the tabernacle and its appurtenances
constantly before his eyes. If he was not a truthful historian, but an
impostor, he was certainly a most skilful impostor. He must have known
well, all his readers must have known well—quite as well as Dr.
Colenso—that the tabernacle could not hold more than five thousand people.
Now it is perfectly incredible that any man of common sense, not to say a
most clever and successful impostor, under these circumstances, would have
ventured boldly to state that six hundred thousand persons were gathered
within its precincts.

Let us, however, examine the argument in detail. The foundation on which
it rests is clearly enough stated by Dr. Colenso. “It appears to be
certain that by the expressions, used so often here and elsewhere, ‘the
assembly’, ‘the whole assembly’, ‘all the congregation’, is meant the
whole body of the people—at all events, the _adult males in the prime of
life_ among them—and not merely the _elders_ or _heads of the people_”,
etc. We deny this assertion. The Hebrew word עדה (heda), which is here
translated the _assembly_, the _congregation_, comes from the root יעד
(yahad), _to appoint_, and means literally an _assembly meeting by
appointment_. It is quite true, as Dr. Colenso contends, that the word is
sometimes employed to designate the entire body of the people. But it is
also true, though he ignores the fact, that it is sometimes applied to a
_select few_, invested with a certain authority and jurisdiction. We shall
be content with submitting to our readers one remarkable example.

In the thirty-fifth chapter of _Numbers_ we read of the cities of refuge.
They were to be six in number—three upon each side of the Jordan; and were
intended to afford shelter to those who had unintentionally shed innocent
blood. “And they shall be for you cities for refuge from the avenger; that
the manslayer die not until he stand before the _assembly_ (עדה) for
_judgment_” (_Numbers_, xxxv. 12).(3) It is then laid down that if the
murder have been deliberate, it shall be punished with death (16-21). But
if the fatal blow have been struck _without enmity_ or _premeditation_, or
_by chance_ (22, 23), “then the _assembly_ (עדה) shall _judge_ between the
slayer and the revenger of blood.... And the _assembly_ (עדה) shall
deliver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and the
_assembly_ (עדה) shall restore him to the city of his refuge” (24, 25). It
is quite impossible to suppose that the judicial tribunal here spoken of
could be the entire body of the people, or even the 600,000 male adults.
The question to be tried was one of the highest moment, involving the life
or death of a fellow-citizen. It was also one of extreme delicacy, having
to deal, not with the mere external act, but with the motives and feelings
of the heart. To the _assembly_ (עדה) it belonged to pronounce, not merely
whether one man had killed another, but whether in his heart he had
_committed the crime_ of murder. For this purpose witnesses should be
examined, evidence should be carefully sifted, and, perhaps, even the
domestic secrets of the accused and of his victim should be laid bare. Was
this a task that could be entrusted to a mixed multitude of 600,000 men?

Accordingly we find that Rosenmuller, in his commentary on this passage
(_Num._, xxxv. 24), explains the word, _the assembly of judges_—“cætus
judicum urbis in cujus agro contigerit homicidium”. If we apply this
interpretation to the passage in _Leviticus_, every shadow of
improbability and inconsistency will at once disappear from the narrative.
Now, we ask Dr. Colenso, when a word in Scriptural usage has two different
meanings, which must we choose when we come to examine a text in which
that word is found? Are we to select the meaning which is in every way
suitable to the context and circumstances; or must we rather adopt an
interpretation which will make the sense absurd and impossible? Dr.
Colenso has preferred the latter course. It appears to us that the former
is alone consistent with the instinct of common sense and the principles
of genuine criticism.

We think our readers will admit that we have fairly established our point,
and proved that Dr. Colenso’s argument is utterly destitute of foundation.
For the ordinary purposes of controversy it would be unnecessary to go
further. But we frankly confess we aim at something more. We are not
content with answering the argument of Dr. Colenso; we wish to shake his
authority as a trustworthy critic. All that he has written against the
Pentateuch is made up of these two elements—first, the _meaning_ which he
attaches to the narrative, and, secondly, the _process of reasoning_ by
which he labours to show that this meaning is inconsistent or impossible.
Now it is plain, from the argument we are considering, that Dr. Colenso is
liable to the grossest errors, not only when he undertakes to interpret
the sacred text, but also when he proceeds to reason on his own
interpretation. If this assertion be established, his authority can have
but little weight.

Let us suppose then, for a moment, that by the _assembly_ is meant, in a
general way, the entire people of Israel; does it follow, as Dr. Colenso
maintains, that, according to the narrative, 600,000 men must have
“hastened to present themselves at the ‘door of the tabernacle?’ ” We
believe it does not. Nay, more, we believe that the absurdity of Dr.
Colenso’s opinion is clearly proved by some of the texts which he has
himself adduced. For instance:—“Bring forth the blasphemer out of the camp
... and let _all the assembly_ (עדה) stone him” (_Lev._, xxiv. 14). And
again, in the case of the Sabbath-breaker:—“The man shall be surely put to
death; _all the assembly_ (עדה) shall stone him with stones without the
camp. And _all the assembly_ (עדה) brought him without the camp, and
stoned him with stones, and he died” (_Num._, xv. 35, 36). No one will
maintain that the writer here means to say that 600,000 men were engaged
in carrying the condemned man, or that 600,000 men threw stones at him. If
Dr. Colenso had paused for a moment to reflect on these texts as he copied
them from the Bible, we are convinced he would have suppressed his foolish
argument. Exactly as it is said that _all the assembly_ was gathered into
the door of the tabernacle, so too is it said that _all the assembly_
stoned the blasphemer and the Sabbath-breaker. In the latter case, it is
clear that the number of those who were actually engaged in carrying out
the sentence of God was comparatively small, but the act is fairly
ascribed to the whole community, because _all_ were _summoned_ to take
part in it, and those who complied with the summons _represented_ those
who did not. Surely there is no reason why we may not apply the same
interpretation to the former passage.

Nor is this mode of speaking peculiar to Sacred Scripture. Every year the
members of the House of Commons are summoned to appear at the bar of the
House of Lords; every year we are told that they obey that summons. Who is
there that questions the truth of this statement? It represents a fact
with which we are all familiar. Yet Dr. Colenso with his rule and measure
will demonstrate that the fact is impossible and the statement false,
because the place in which the Commons are said to assemble cannot
possibly hold one-tenth of their number.

So much for Dr. Colenso as an interpreter of the Bible. He is satisfied
that if we accept the narrative we must believe that six hundred thousand
men were gathered unto the door of the tabernacle. We have seen that he is
mistaken; but let us now concede this fact, and let us see how he proceeds
to reason upon it. Since the tabernacle was only eighteen feet wide, this
immense multitude must have stood in a line eighteen feet in breadth and
twenty miles in length. This is certainly a most extraordinary conclusion.
No multitude ever yet stood in such a line; no multitude _could_ stand in
such a line unless they had been specially trained during many years for
that purpose. There is no conceivable reason why the Jews on this occasion
should have stood in such a line. And yet Dr. Colenso will have it that
they _must_ have stood in this way, if it be true that they were gathered
unto the door of the tabernacle.

We are tempted to offer an illustration of the very peculiar manner in
which Dr. Colenso here pursues his critical examination of the Bible. Many
of our readers will remember the 15th of August, 1843. In the phraseology
of Scripture it might be said that upon that day 100,000 Irishmen were
_gathered to O’Connell_ on the Hill of Tara.(4) To the ordinary reader
such a statement would present no insuperable difficulty. It would convey,
indeed, a pretty correct idea of what we all know actually to have taken
place. But when submitted to the Colenso process, this simple narrative
will be found to undergo a very startling transformation. O’Connell did
not occupy a space more than two feet broad. Therefore there was just room
for one full-grown man to stand in front of him. The second must have
stood behind the first; the third behind the second; and so the whole
multitude must have extended in a single unbroken line over many miles of
country. A little boy at school could tell us that, when we say the
multitude was gathered unto O’Connell, we do not mean that the multitude
occupied a space which was only as broad as O’Connell. Yet Dr. Colenso
maintains that this is the only meaning which the phrase admits. Such
principles would make strange havoc with history.

Again, Dr. Colenso contends that all who were _gathered unto the door of
the tabernacle_ “must have come _within the court_”. “This, indeed”, he
says, “was necessary for the purpose for which they were summoned on this
occasion, namely, to witness the ceremony of the consecration of Aaron and
his sons to the priestly office”. Now it is nowhere stated that this was,
in point of fact, the purpose for which the people were gathered together.
Certainly, if it were _impossible_ they could witness the ceremony, as Dr.
Colenso assures us, we are bound to infer that it was _not_ for this
purpose they were assembled. Nor is it difficult to find another, and
quite a sufficient reason, for gathering the people together on this
solemn occasion. It may have been the design of God that, by their
_presence_ in and around the court of the tabernacle, they should make a
public profession of their faith, and formally acknowledge the priesthood
of Aaron. Thus, in the illustration already introduced, it was impossible
for 100,000 people to hear O’Connell speak; but their presence was itself
a public declaration that they adhered to his principles and accepted him
for their leader.

Was it, however, really impossible that those without the court should
witness the leading features of the ceremony? Certainly not. We must bear
in mind that the court was not enclosed by stone walls, but by hangings of
fine linen. Nothing, therefore, could have been more simple than to loop
up these curtains to the pillars by which they were supported, and thus to
afford a full view of the tabernacle to those who stood without. Dr.
Colenso will probably say that in the scripture narrative there is no
mention of any such arrangement. Neither, we reply, is it said that those
without the court were intended to witness the ceremony. But if we suppose
that this was intended, we must also suppose that the means were adopted
which would make it _possible_.

There is yet another error of Dr. Colenso which we cannot pass by in
silence. It is true, the blunder to which we refer has little to do with
his argument. But it has much to do with the question whether he is a
competent authority on the sacred text, even when he speaks with special
emphasis and with unhesitating confidence. “Supposing that ‘all the
congregation’ of adult males ... had hastened to take their stand ... in
front, not merely of the _door_, but of the whole _end_ of the tabernacle
in which the door was”, etc. It is clear that the writer of this passage
was under the impression (which, indeed, he conveys not only by his words,
but still more by his italics—for they _are_ his) that _the whole end_ of
the tabernacle was wider than the _door_. Now if he had taken the pains to
read even an English translation of the sacred book which he so rashly
presumed to condemn, he never could have fallen into so great a mistake.
He would have seen that the _whole eastern end_ of the tabernacle was left
open, and that the open space was covered only by a curtain which extended
across from side to side. Consequently, if mention were really made of a
door, it must have been this curtain itself that was called by that name.

But if Dr. Colenso had gone a little further, and had consulted any Hebrew
lexicon, he would have discovered that the sacred writer does not speak of
a _door_, but rather of a _doorway_. The tabernacle had in fact no _door_
properly so called. The word פתח (_pethach_), which is used by the sacred
writers when speaking of the tabernacle, signifies, as Gesenius explains
it, _an opening_, _an entrance_. It means, therefore, the whole end of the
tabernacle, which was left _open_ to the court when the curtain was drawn.
In Hebrew the idea of _a door_ is expressed by דלת (_deleth_). When
treating of this word, Gesenius, having first explained its meaning,
pointedly remarks: “It differs from פתח, which denotes the doorway which
the door closes”. It is quite certain, therefore, that the _door_ and the
_whole end of the tabernacle_, which Dr. Colenso so emphatically
contrasts, were in reality one and the same thing.

It is time, however, that we pass to another of Dr. Colenso’s arguments:—


    “ ‘_And the skin of the bullock, and all his flesh, with his head,
    and with his legs, and his inwards, and his dung, even the whole
    bullock, shall he (the Priest) carry forth without the camp, unto
    a clean place, where the ashes are poured out, and burn him on the
    wood with fire. Where the ashes are poured out there shall he be
    burned_’—(_Lev._, iv. 11, 12).

    “We have seen that the whole population of Israel at the exodus
    may be reckoned at two millions. Now we cannot well allow for a
    _living_ man, with room for his cooking, sleeping, and other
    necessaries and conveniences of life, less than three times the
    space required for a _dead_ one in his grave.... Let us allow,
    however, for each person on the average three times 6 feet by 2
    feet, the size of a coffin for a full-grown man,—that is, let us
    allow for each person 36 square feet or 4 square yards. Then it
    follows that ... the camp must have covered, the people being
    crowded as thickly as possible, an area of 8,000,000 square yards,
    or more than 1652 acres of ground.

    “Upon this very moderate estimate, then (which in truth is far
    within the mark), we must imagine a vast encampment of this
    extent, swarming with people, more than _a mile and a half across_
    in each direction, with the tabernacle in the centre.... Thus the
    refuse of these sacrifices would have had to be carried by the
    priest himself (Aaron, Eleazar, or Ithamar,—there were no others)
    a distance of three-quarters of a mile....

    “But how huge does this difficulty become, if, instead of taking
    the excessively cramped area of 1652 acres, less than _three
    square miles_, for such a camp as this, we take the more
    reasonable allowance of Scott, who says, ‘this encampment is
    computed to have formed a moveable city of _twelve miles square_,
    that is, about the size of London itself,’—as it well might be,
    considering that the population was as large as that of London,
    and that in the Hebrew tents there were no first, second, third,
    and fourth stories, no crowded garrets and underground cellars. In
    that case the offal of these sacrifices would have had to be
    carried by Aaron himself, or one of his sons, a distance of six
    miles.... In fact, we have to imagine the priest having himself to
    carry, on his back, on foot, from St. Paul’s to the outskirts of
    the metropolis, the ‘skin, and flesh, and head, and legs, and
    inwards, and dung, even the whole bullock’.... This supposition
    involves, of course, an absurdity. But it is our duty to look
    plain facts in the face”—(Part i. pp. 38-40).


We agree with Dr. Colenso that this is a “huge difficulty”, and that the
duties of the priest, as described by him, involve a manifest absurdity.
But we contend that the duties of the priest, as described by him, are not
to be found in the Pentateuch; that _all the circumstances_ which
constitute the difficulty and the absurdity are simply _additions of his
own_. This is indeed a serious charge against a writer who represents
himself to the public as an earnest and conscientious searcher after
truth. But we hope to satisfy our readers that it is a plain and obvious
fact; and it is our duty, as Dr. Colenso truly tells us, “to look plain
facts in the face”.

It is evident that the whole weight of the objection consists in this:
that, according to the sacred narrative, the priest is commanded, first,
to carry the bullock _himself_; secondly, to carry it _on his back_;
thirdly, in doing so, to _go on foot_. Now there is not the faintest
insinuation in any text Dr. Colenso has produced, nor, we may add, in any
text the Pentateuch contains, that the priest should _go on foot_, or that
he should carry the bullock _on his back_. These two ideas are to be found
only in the fanciful and rather irreverent gloss of Dr. Colenso.

Neither is it commanded in the sacred text that the priest should
_himself_ carry the bullock out of the camp. Even in the English
translation there is nothing to imply that he might not, for this duty,
employ the service of his attendant Levites. It is said, indeed, “he shall
carry forth the bullock without the camp”. But by the common use of
language we may impute to a person, as his own, the act which he does by
the agency of another. Thus a minister of state is said to write a letter,
when the letter is written at his direction by his secretary. In the
Fourth Book of _Kings_ it is recorded of Nabuchodonosor that “_he carried
away all Jerusalem_, and all the princes, and all the valiant men of the
army, to the number of ten thousand, into captivity:... and the judges of
the land he carried into captivity from Jerusalem into Babylon. And all
the strong men, seven thousand, and the artificers and the smiths a
thousand”, etc.—(IV. _Kings_, xxiv. 14-16). No one dreams of any
difficulty in a sentence like this. Yet, if we admit the Colenso system of
interpretation, the difficulty is insuperable, because the _meaning of the
sentence_ is, that Nabuchodonosor _himself_ carried that immense multitude
_on his back_ from Jerusalem to Babylon.

If we now turn to the Hebrew text we shall find that it is still less
favourable to Dr. Colenso and his “huge difficulty”. The word והוציא
(vehotzi), which is there used, literally means _and he shall cause [it]
to go forth_, that is to say, _he shall have it removed_. This will be at
once admitted by every biblical scholar, and can be made intelligible
without much difficulty to the general reader. In the Hebrew language
there are several forms of the same verb, sometimes called conjugations,
each of which has a meaning peculiar to itself. The primitive form is
_kal_; and the _hiphil_ form “denotes the _causing_ or _permitting_ of the
action, signified by the primitive _kal_”.(5) For example: קדש (kadash) in
_kal_ signifies _to be holy_; in _hiphil_, _to cause to be holy_, _to
sanctify_; נטה (natah) in _kal_ means _to bow_; in _hiphil_, _to cause to
bow_, _to bend_. Now, in the passage quoted by Dr. Colenso the word והוציא
is the _hiphil_ form of יצא (yatza), _to go forth_; it therefore means
literally _to cause to go forth_.(6) We need scarcely remark that the
priest would comply with this injunction whether he himself in person
removed the bullock, or whether he employed the Levites to do it; whether
he carried it on his back, according to the ridiculous paraphrase of Dr.
Colenso, or removed it in wagons provided for the purpose.

And now that our paper approaches to a close, it may be asked what is the
result of our labours, and what has been gained to the cause of truth by
all the minute and tedious details through which we have conducted our
readers? It seems to us that we have directly answered two of Dr.
Colenso’s arguments, and that we have moreover established indirectly a
strong presumption against all the rest. Let us put a case to our readers.
A jeweller exhibits for sale a string of pearls. He demands a very high
price, but he pledges his word of honour that the pearls are of the rarest
quality and of the highest excellence. A casual passer-by is attracted by
the glittering gems. He enters the shop; he listens with eager credulity
to the earnest protestations of the merchant; but he hesitates when the
price is named. At this critical moment a friend arrives, who is happily
somewhat versed in jewellery. He selects one or two pearls from the
string, and after a brief inspection clearly shows, not merely that the
price is far beyond their value, but that they are not pearls at all. What
would be thought of the merchant who had offered them for sale? Who would
frequent his shop? Who would believe the other pearls to be genuine on the
strength of his protestations? It may be indeed that he is not a swindler;
but if he is an honest man, he is certainly a very indifferent judge of
his business.

Now what this jeweller is in a matter of commerce, such, as it seems to
us, has Dr. Colenso been proved to be in a matter of infinitely greater
moment. He comes before the world with the prestige of a great name and of
a high position. He earnestly announces that he has made a great
discovery, and that he is forced by his conscience to speak out his mind.
He offers to the public an attractive array of brilliant and plausible
arguments; and in return he asks us to surrender the inestimable treasure
of Christian faith. At first we are bewildered and perplexed by the
novelty and variety of his arguments; but after a little we summon up
courage; we select two or three from the number, and these we submit to a
minute and careful analysis. We find that they are miserably defective and
utterly inconclusive. Facts are misrepresented, the meaning of language is
perverted, the principles of sound reasoning are disregarded. May we not
then fairly infer that Dr. Colenso’s earnest protestations of sincerity
and good intention afford a very insufficient guarantee for the accuracy
of his statements and the stability of his arguments? We do not say that
he is dishonest; but we do say that he has proved himself a very
incompetent authority.





BLESSED THADDEUS M’CARTHY.


[In an article of the _Record_ for April (page 312), we briefly referred
to a Bishop of Cloyne and Cork who is venerated as blessed, in Ivrea, a
town of Piedmont. In conformity with the few fragments preserved in the
archives of Ivrea and elsewhere regarding him, we adopted the opinion that
his name, according to modern orthography, should be rendered Thaddeus
Maher. Since the publication of the article just mentioned, a paper
containing much valuable matter has been communicated to us through the
great kindness of the Very Rev. Dr. M’Carthy, the learned Professor of
Scripture in Maynooth College, who had prepared it long before the article
in the _Record_ was published, and before he could have had any knowledge
of our views on this subject. We are anxious to publish every document
that we can find on this interesting question, in the hope that by
discussing it, light may be thrown on the history of a holy Irish bishop,
who is honoured beyond the Alps, but so little known at home, that there
is great difficulty in determining his real name. In one of our next
numbers we shall return to this subject.]

On June 23rd, 1847, the Most Rev. Dr. Murray, Archbishop of Dublin,
received at Maynooth a letter covering a bill of exchange for £40 (1,000
francs), sent for the relief of the famine-stricken poor of Ireland, by
order of the good Bishop of Ivrea. The town of Ivrea (anciently
_Eporedia_) is the capital of the Piedmontese province of the same name,
which extends from the Po to the Alps. The province contains a population
of over one hundred thousand, of whom about eight thousand reside in the
town, where is also the bishop’s see.

The letter to Dr. Murray enclosed a separate paper, of which the following
is a copy:—


    “De Beato Thaddeo Episcopo Hiberniae.

    “Anno Domini millesimo quadringentesimo nonagesimo secundo, die
    vigesima quarta Octobris, Eporediae (antiquae urbis Transalpinae
    in Pedemontio) postremum obiit diem in hospitio peregrinorum sub
    titulo Sancti Antonii, quidam viator incognitus; atque eodem
    instante lux mira prope lectum in quo jacebat effulsit, et
    Episcopo Eporediensi apparuit homo venerandus, Pontificalibus
    indumentis vestitus. THADDEUM MACHAR Hiberniae Episcopum illum
    esse innotuit ex chartis quas deferebat, et in Cathedrali ejus
    corpus solemni pompa depositum est sub altari, et in tumulo Sancti
    Eusebii Episcopi Eporediensis, atque post paucos dies coepit multa
    miracula facere.

    “Acta et documenta ex quibus ejus patria et character episcopalis
    tunc innotuerunt, necnon ad patratorum miraculorum seu prodigiorum
    memoriam exarata, interierunt occasione incendii quo seculo xvii.
    Archivium Episcopale vastatum est. In quadam charta pergamena
    caracteribus Gothicis scripta, quae in Archivio Ecclesiae
    Cathedralis servatur haec leguntur:

    “Marmoreis tumulis hoc templo Virginis almae
    Corpora Sanctorum plura sepulta jacent
    Martinus hic    .    .    .    .    .
    .    .    .    .    .    .    .    .
    Inde Thaddeus adest, quem misit Hibernia praesul
    Sospite quo venit saepe petita salus,
    Regia progenies alto de sanguine Machar,
    Quem nostri in Genua nunc Latiique vocant.
    Ingemuit moriens, quem Hiberno sidere cretum
    Non Cariense tenet, non Clovinense solum.
    Sic visum superis; urbs Eporedia corpus
    Templo majore marmoreo claudat opus.
    Hic jacet Eusebii testudinis ipse sacello,
    Pauperiem Christi divitis inde tulit.
    Hunc clarum reddunt miracula sancta: beatus
    Exstat: et in toto dicitur orbe pius.
    Huc quicunque venis, divum venerare Thaddeum
    Votaque fac precibus: dicque viator, Ave.
    Mille quadringentos annos tunc orbis agebat
    Atque Nonagenos: postmodum junge duos.

    “Verbis illis _solum Cariense_ vel _Cloviense_ et _Clovinense_
    designari a poeta civitates Hiberniae in quibus Thaddeus aut natus
    aut Episcopus fuerit, putandum est, forsan Clareh, Carrick.

    “Quamobrem exquiritur utrum in Hibernia habeatur notitia hujus
    Episcopi THADDEI MACHAR—loci ubi natus fuerit,—ejus familiae, quae
    regia seu princeps supponitur in poesi,—civitatis seu ecclesiae in
    qua fuerit Episcopus. Desiderantur quoque notitiae si quae
    reperiri poterunt et documenta quibus illius vita et gesta
    illustrari possint; insuper utrum labente saeculo xv. aliqua
    persecutio in Hibernia adversus Episcopos facta sit, quemadmodum
    argumentari licet ex quibusdam Epistolis Innocentii VIII. circa
    immunitatem ecclesiasticam”.—(_End of paper_).


As our space precludes a literal translation of this paper, a summary may
be acceptable to the reader.

On the 24th of October, 1492, died at Ivrea, in St. Antony’s Hospice for
Pilgrims, Blessed Thaddeus, an Irish bishop, whose body was deposited
under the high altar of the cathedral, in a shrine over the relics of the
holy patron, St. Eusebius. At the time of death a brilliant light was seen
round his bed, and at the same moment to the Bishop of Ivrea there
appeared a man of venerable mien, clothed in pontifical robes. Several
other miracles were also wrought through his intercession. The papers
found with him showed he was an Irish bishop, and these, as well as other
documents proving his great sanctity, religiously kept in the episcopal
archives, were destroyed by fire in the seventeenth century. In an old
parchment, written in Gothic letters, still preserved in the archives of
the cathedral church, are these lines:


    ’Neath marble tombs, in this the virgin’s shrine
    The bones of many a saint in peace recline;
    Here martyred     .     .     .     .     .
    Thaddeus there. From Erin’s shore he came,
    A bishop, of M’Carthy’s royal name.
    At whose behest were wondrous cures oft made.
    Still Latium, Genoa, invoke his aid.
    Dying, he mourned that not on Irish soil,
    Where sped his youth, should close his earthly toil:
    Nor Cloyne, nor Kerry, but Ivrea owns
    (For God so willed) the saintly bishop’s bones.
    ’T is meet that they in marble shrine encased
    Should be within the great cathedral placed.
    Like Christ, whose tomb was for another made,
    He in Eusebius’ cenotaph is laid.
    Soon sacred prodigies his power attest,
    And all the Earth proclaims him pious, blest.
    O ye who hither come, our saint assail
    With prayers and votive gifts; nor, traveller, fail
    To greet with reverence the holy dead.
    Since Christ was born a thousand years had fled,
    Four hundred then and ninety-two beside
    Had passed away, when St. Thaddeus died.


When Dr. Murray received the Bishop of Ivrea’s letter, he placed it in the
hands of the late venerated President of Maynooth College, from whose MSS.
it is now copied, together with the very literal translation of the verses
made by one of the junior students at the time. Dr. Renehan undertook to
collect all the notices of Blessed Thaddeus in our Irish annals, and to
give the best answers he could to the bishop’s questions. He even visited
Ivrea in the summer of 1850, in the hope of finding traditional records of
the life of Blessed Thaddeus, but to no purpose. He found the task more
difficult than might be expected. All the knowledge regarding the saint’s
family, see, etc., that can be gathered from Irish or British sources is
found in these few lines from Ware on the Bishops of Cloyne:

“THADY M’CARTHY (_succ._ 1490).—Upon the resignation of William, Thady
M’Carthy, by some called Mechar, succeeded the same year by a provision
from Pope Innocent VIII., as may be seen from the _Collectanea_ of Francis
Harold”—Ware’s _Bishops_ (Harris), p. 563.

The Blessed Thaddeus’s name is unhonoured then, in his own country; his
biography, if ever written, is at least not recorded by the Irish
historians. Even the scanty information which the industrious Ware
supplies, was gleaned not from our annals, but from Harold’s
_Collectanea_, probably notes and extracts taken from documents in the
continental libraries. Dr. Renehan had, therefore, little to add on our
saint’s life. He was, however, fully satisfied that Blessed Thaddeus of
Ivrea was no other than the Bishop of Cork and Cloyne, mentioned by Ware.
His arguments may be seen in a rough outline of his answer to the Bishop
of Ivrea’s letter, among the O’Renehan MSS. in Maynooth, almost the only
authority we had time to consult for this notice. Sometimes the very words
of the letter are given in inverted commas:—

I. The Pilgrim of Ivrea was an Irish bishop who died in the year 1492.
“The most diligent search through our Irish annals will not discover
another bishop to whom even so much of the poet’s description will apply
but Thaddeus M’Carthy, Bishop of Cloyne. About that date there were indeed
in Ireland five bishops named Thaddeus: 1. Thady, Bishop of Kilmore, since
before 1460; but his successor Furseus died in 1464, and Thomas, the third
from him, died before 1492. 2. Thady M’Cragh, of Killaloe, succeeded in
1430, full sixty years before our saint’s death at Ivrea. His third
successor died in 1460. 3. Thady, Bishop of Down, was consecrated in Rome,
1469, died in 1486, and his successor, R. Wolsey, was named before 1492.
4. Thady of Ross died soon after his appointment in 1488, succeeded by Odo
in 1489. 5. Thady of Dromore, appointed only in 1511, and the see was held
by George Brown in 1492. The date (1492) is alone enough to prove that B.
Thaddeus of Ivrea was not any of the preceding bishops, and there was no
other of the name for full sixty years after or before, but the Bishop of
Cork and Cloyne, the date of whose death fits exactly all the requirements
of the case. Ware quotes from Harold that he was appointed by Innocent
VIII. (_sed._ 1484-1492,) that he succeeded W. Roch, resigned 1490, and
further, that Gerald, who succeeded, resigned in 1499, after obtaining a
pardon from Henry VII. in 1496”—(_Lib. Mun._, i. p. 102)

II. Another line of the old fragment seems to name the see of the B.
Thaddeus, whom the poet describes as lamenting his death abroad, far from
the “solum Chariense”, or “Clovinense”, which we interpret far “from
_Kerry_”, the burial place of his family, and “from _Cloyne_”, his
episcopal see. “Cloyne” is variously Latinized, even by Irish writers,
“Cloynensis”, “Clonensis”, “Cluanensis”—and often “Clovens” or “Clovinen”,
in Rymer’s _Foedera_.(7) What more natural than that a poet would describe
the pilgrim as longing to be buried either in his cathedral church of
_Cloyne_ or with his fathers in _Kerry_?

III. The passage which seems to us most decisive, is that which points to
the _royal extraction_ and _name_ of this holy bishop: “_Regia progenies,
alto de sanguine Machar_”. Observe how in the notice from _Harold_ Bishop
M’Carthy was called also “Mechar”. Clearly both were one and the same
name. Thus [Gaelic: Mac Careaw], Anglicised M’Carthy, is pronounced
Maccaura, with the last syllable short, as in Ard-Magha (Armagh), and
numberless like words. Hence Wadding,(8) in speaking of the foundation of
Muckross Abbey, Killarney, by Domnal M’Carthy, Prince of Desmond, quotes
to this effect a Bull of Paul II., in 1468, in which Domnall’s name is
spelled “_Machar_”, a form identical with that in the contemporary
fragment. In truth, there is no Irish family name like “Machar” at all but
“Meagher”, which is invariably spelled with “O”, especially in the
Latinized form; and the “O’Meaghers” had no claim to _royal_ blood.

IV. The Blessed Thaddeus was “regia progenies”. Now there was no _royal_
family name in Ireland like that in the inscription except the truly
_royal_ name, made more royal still by the saintly Bishop of Cloyne.
Without insisting with Keating that the ancestry of the M’Carthy family
could be traced through twenty-eight monarchs who governed the island
before the Christian era, we may assert with the Abbe MacGeoghan, in a
note (tom. iii. p. 680), strangely omitted by his translator, “that if
regard be had to primogeniture and seniority of descent, the M’Carthy
family is the _first_ in Ireland”.

Long before the founders of the oldest royal families in Europe—before
Rodolph acquired the empire of Germany, or a Bourbon ascended the throne
of France—the saintly Cormac M’Carthy, the disciple, the friend, and
patron of St. Malachy, ruled over Munster, and the title of _king_ was at
least continued in name in his posterity down to the reign of Elizabeth.
“Few pedigrees, if any”, says Sir B. Burke, “in the British empire can be
traced to a more remote or exalted source than that of the Celtic house of
M’Carthy.... They command a prominent, perhaps the _most prominent_ place
in European genealogy”. Plain then is it that in no other house could the
“regia progenies” be verified more fully than in the M’Carthy family.(9)

V. The date of death, the wished-for burial place, his native soil
(Kerry), or his diocese (Cloyne)—the name and royal extraction, all point
to the Bishop of Cloyne as the saint whose relics are still worshipped at
Ivrea. If we add that “Chiar” is the usual Irish form of Kerry; that
Domnall’s (the founder of Irrelagh) father’s name was THADDEUS, not
improbably our Saint’s uncle, the evidence seems to be overwhelming.

VI. We have said there is no account in Irish writers of even the Bishop
of Cloyne, except the few lines in Ware. The continental annalists of the
religious orders do, however, speak of one celebrated Thaddeus, without
mentioning his surname or country. Elsius (quoting _De Herera_ and
_Crusen_, whose works are not within our reach) notices Thaddeus _de
Hipporegio_ sive _Iporegia_, “as a man distinguished for learning,
religious observance, preaching, holiness of life, and experience, a man
of great zeal, and a sedulous promoter of the interests of his order”. He
was prior, he adds, of several convents, seven times definitor, thirteen
times visitator, four times president of synods, nine times vicar-general,
and his government was ever distinguished for the greatest love of order
and edifying example. See Els., _Encom._, August., p. 645.

After quoting these words in substance from the Augustinian chronicler,
Dr. Renehan adds: “After the most diligent inquiry I could make at Ivrea,
wherever I could hope for any little information, particularly at the
episcopal palace (where I was received with marked respect, as a priest
from the country that sent out the B. Thaddeus), and of the Bishop’s
secretary, the vicar-general, and many others, whose kind attention I can
never forget, I could find no vestige of any other Thaddeus, called after
the city (_Eporedia_), but our own blessed Irish bishop; and I was
assured, over and over again, that he was the only Thaddeus known in its
annals, or who ever had any connection with the town, by birth, residence,
death—or any way known to the present generation”. It is not then
unreasonable to suppose that the Thaddeus so celebrated in the Augustinian
Order was no other than our Bishop. True, Elsius gives 1502 for the date
of the friar’s demise; but Elsius is never to be trusted in dates, and the
printer may easily take MCCCCXCII. (the true date), for MCCCCCII. Indeed,
1492 is not so different from 1502 that an error may not have crept in.

Dr. Renehan’s theory, then, with regard to B. Thaddeus, fully detailed in
the letter to the Bishop of Ivrea, was this:—

Thaddeus M’Carthy was born in Kerry, where the M’Carthy More branch of the
family resided, and where, in the monastery of Irialac (now Muckross), or
in Ennisfallen (see _Archdall_), the princes of the house were always
buried. The young Thaddeus went abroad at an early age, and embraced the
monastic life. His virtues and piety soon attracted the notice of his
religious brethren, as manifest from their chronicles. They became in time
known to the ruling Pontiff, Innocent VIII., who raised him to the
episcopal dignity. The B. Thaddeus repaired to Rome in the first place, to
receive consecration and jurisdiction from the successor of St. Peter,
imitating in this the example of our great patron saint. He stopped at
Ivrea, probably on his way home, fell sick there, and died, God witnessing
to His servant by signs and wonders. The silence of our annalists is thus
accounted for to a great extent by the long residence of B. Thaddeus
abroad. This theory is remarkably borne out by the independent notice in
last _Record_. Having little to help us to arrive at any correct notion of
the saintly bishop’s life beyond the epitaph and the slender tradition at
Ivrea, we entirely subscribe to this view. Other sources of information
may be opened, now that we have ventured to bring, for the first time, the
name of B. Thaddeus before the Irish Catholic people; and for this
service, little as it is, and entirely unworthy of our saintly bishop, we
still expect his blessing in full measure.





LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.


We have received from various quarters several questions connected with
the ceremony of marriage. We propose in this number of the _Record_ to
answer some of them.

We shall treat in the first place of the Mass. The questions forwarded to
us may be reduced to the two following:

1. When and on what days can the Missa pro sponso et sponsa be said, and
on what days is it forbidden by the Rubrics?

2. In either Mass are any commemorations to be made, and when and how are
they to be made?

In reply to these questions, we beg to bring under the notice of our
readers the following decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

4266. In celebratione Nuptiarum quae fit extra diem Dominicum vel alium
diem festum de praecepto seu in quo occurrat duplex primae vel secundae
classis etiamsi fiat officium et Missa de Festo duplici per annum sive
majori sive minori dicendam esse Missam pro sponso et sponsa in fine
Missalis post alias Missas votivas specialiter assignatam: in diebus vero
Dominicis aliisque diebus festis de praecepto ac duplicibus primae et
secundae classis dicendam esse Missam de Festo cum commemoratione Missae
pro sponso et sponsa. Atque ita decrevit et servari mandavit. Die 20
Decembris 1783. Factaque deinde per me Secretarium de praedictis
Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio PP. VI. relatione Sanctitas sua praefatum
Sac. Cong. generale Decretum confirmavit, et ubique exequutioni dandum
esse praecepit. Die 7 Januarii 1784

4394. Verumtamen cum interea nonnulla excitata fuerint dubia circa
rubricam in haccelebranda Missa servandam, et Parochorum sensus sit varius
quippe quia aliqui eidem Missae Hymnum Angelicum adjiciendum censent cum
vers. Ite, Missa est in fine, alii vero etiam Symbolum Nicenum legendum
putant, ea freti ratione quod haec Missa ceu solemnis et pro re gravi
haberi debeat: ideo ad amputandas controversias et dubitationes utque ab
omnibus unus idemque conveniens ritus servetur: sacra Rituum Congregatio,
me subscripto secretario referente, re mature discussa, declaravit atque
decrevit quod firma remanente dispositione praefati Decreti quoad
designationem dierum in quibus Missa votiva pro sponso et sponsa celebrari
potest, eamdem esse votivam privatam, proindeque semper legendam sine
Hymno Angelico et symbolo Nicaeno cum tribus orationibus, prima videlicet
ejusdem Missae votivae propria ut habetur in fine Missalis secunda et
tertia diei currentis ut in Rubric. Tit. vii. num. 3, de
Commemorationibus, Benedicamus Domino in fine, et ultimo Evangelio S.
Johannis. Et ita decrevit die 28 Februarii 1818.

4437. Cum per Decretum Generale S. hujus Congregationis die 20 Decembris
1783 dies designentur, quibus Missa pro sponso et sponsa etiam diebus
excludentibus duplicia per annum, ideoque etiam infra octavam Epiphaniae,
in vigilia Pentecostes, et infra octavam privilegiatam sanctissimi
Corporis Christi: alii vero putant his etiam diebus eamdem Missam vetitam;
idcirco idem Parochus petiit declarari.

5. An hujusmodi Missa dici possit diebus duplicia excludentibus ut supra
notatis?

6. An Commemoratio Missae pro sponso et sponsa dicenda prout ex dicto
decreto in Missis de duplici primae vel secundae classis dici debeat sub
unica conclusione cum oratione Festi vel sub altera conclusione?

7. An talis Commemoratio pariter dici debeat vel sub altera conclusione
prout solet de aliis commemorationibus occurrentibus in diebus Dominicis
et Festis de praecepto?

8. Quo loco, quando aliae occurrunt commemorationes ut in proximo quaesito
commemoratio Missae pro sponso et sponsa dicenda sit sub secunda
conclusione, an scilicet ultimo loco?

Et S. Rituum Congregatio exquisita sententia alterius ex Apostolicarum
Caeremoniarum Magistris scripto exarata, typisque evulgata ad relationem
Eminentissimi et Reverendissimi D. Card. Cavalchini Ponentis, respondendum
censuit ut infra, videlicet.

Ad 5. Negative quoad octavam Epiphaniae, vigiliam Pentecostes, et octavam
privilegiatam Sanctissimi Corporis Christi, quatenus privilegium concessum
sit ad instar octavae Epiphaniae.

Ad. 6. Negative ad primam partem, affirmative ad secundam.

Ad. 7. Ut in antecedenti.

Ad. 8. Faciendam primo loco post alias de praecepto.

Atque ita respondit die 20 Aprilis 1822.

From these decrees the following conclusions may clearly be established:

1. On all Sundays and holidays of obligation, and feasts of first and
second class, the Mass of the day is to be said with the commemoration of
the Mass pro sponso et sponsa. This appears clear from the decree 4266
quoted above.

2. This commemoration is to be made sub altera conclusione, and not sub
unica conclusione cum oratione Festi.

3. If there are other commemorations to be made in the Mass of the day,
they are to be said before the commemoration of the Mass pro sponso et
sponsa. This appears from the answer given by the Sacred Congregation of
Rites to the question 8 in the Decree No. 4437, and Gardellini, in a note
on this same question, says: “Imo si occurrant plures commemorationes ut
accidit potissimum dum celebranda est Missa de Dominica, illa Nuptiarum
primum dumtaxat locum obtinere poterit post alias a rubrica praeceptas et
sic reliquas praestare, siquae sint a superiore imperatae”.

4. The decree 4394 makes it clear that on all the ordinary doubles
throughout the year, the Missa pro sponso et sponsa may be celebrated; and
it declares, moreover, that it is a votive private Mass, and, as such, to
be said sine Gloria et Credo, with the second and third prayers of the day
occurring, and to conclude with the Benedicamus Domino and the Gospel of
St. John. This decree, clear as it may appear, gave rise to another
question about privileged octaves which exclude doubles, which was
afterwards proposed to the Sacred Congregation of Rites, and to which an
answer was given on the 20th April, 1822, in the Decree 4437, already
quoted, question 5.

Gardellini, in a valuable note, explains the matter fully, and we quote
his words on the subject:—

“Hisce decretis compositae quaestiones omnes videbantur: secus tamen
accidit, nam nova excitata sunt dubia. Quippe nonnulli sunt, qui opinantur
Missam hanc dici posse etiam diebus qui excludunt duplicia per annum,
praesertim vero infra octavam Epiphaniae, in vigilia Pentecostes et infra
octavam privilegiatam sanctissimi Corporis Christi. In hac autem opinione
versantur quia in primo illo Decreto dies isti expressim et nominatim non
excipiuntur. Ast hi errant quam maxime. Non enim declaratione indigebat
id, quod sub generali prohibitione, utpote a Rubricis jam vetitum
continebatur. Jubet Decretum, ne Missa nuptiarum celebretur in duplicibus
primae vel secundae classis sed vult ut in hujusmodi occursu solam
obtineant commemorationem: ergo includit in regula etiam dies, in quibus
per easdem Rubricas fieri nequit Festum duplex secundae classis vel
occurrens vel translatum si in octava Epiphaniae duplicia isthaec non
admittuntur, potiori jure nec Missa votiva privata non obstante Indultu
admitti poterit, utpote quae in occursu hujusmodi duplicium celebranda non
est”.

We must refer our readers to this very instructive note of Gardellini,
which we regret we cannot insert here in full, owing to its great length.
Indeed it is not necessary to do so, inasmuch as the answer given to the
question 5 in the Decree 4437, already quoted, puts an end to further
discussion, and settles the question definitively.

There are other questions connected with the ceremony of marriage, but we
must reserve them for another occasion.





CORRESPONDENCE.




I. The See Of Down And Connor.


_To the Editors of the Irish Ecclesiastical Record_.

GENTLEMEN,

In the March number of your valuable periodical there was a most
interesting paper on the See of Down and Connor. I apprehend, however, it
contained a few slight mistakes, which I would have pointed out, but hoped
that some person more intimately conversant with the subject would have
done so in your April number. Such not having been the case, I shall
endeavour to do so. However, before entering on these matters, I beg to
say, in illustration of your learned contributor’s notes, that the
“_Ecclesia de Rathlunga_”, of which Bishop Liddell had been rector, is now
called Raloo, and lies between Larne and Carrickfergus, in the county of
Antrim (see Reeves, p. 52); that _Lesmoghan_, of which Bishop Killen had
been pastor, still bears the same name, forming a sub-denomination of the
parish of Ballykinler, county Down (Ib., p. 28); that _Arwhyn_, of which
John of _Baliconingham_ (now Coniamstown, near Downpatrick) was rector, is
now the mensal parish of Ardquin, in the barony of Ardes, county Down
(Ib., p. 20); and that _Camelyn_, of which Bishop Dongan was pastor, is
now called Crumlin, being united to the parish of Glenavy, near Lough
Neagh, county Antrim (_Ib._, p. 4). Returning from this digression, it is
quite plain from the Bull dated June, 1461, given by De Burgo (_Hib.
Dom._, p. 474), and cited by your contributor, p. 267, appointing Richard
Wolsey to the See of Down, that Wolsey was not the immediate successor of
Bishop John, who died in 1450. It expressly states, as mentioned in the
article, that the See was _vacant_ by the death of THOMAS, last bishop of
the canonically united dioceses of Down and Connor, repeating the same
name in the body of the Bull. How this is to be reconciled with the
statement that Wolsey was John’s successor, I cannot say; but it follows,
on the principle laid down by your contributor in ignoring John Logan,
placed by Ware between William, bishop from 1365 to 1368, and Richard Calf
II., 1369, that we must have a Bishop Thomas between John and Richard
Wolsey. Dr. Reeves (_Eccl. Ant. Down_, etc., p. 257), on the authority of
this very Bull, has accordingly done so, marking him as succeeding in
1450, and the see vacant in 1451. He conjectures him to have been _Thomas
Pollard_, who in 1450 was appointed custose of the temporalities. Dr.
Cotton (vol. iii. p. 201) adopts this view without hesitation, and it
would appear by a complaint of the beforementioned Bishop John, shortly
after the union of Down and Connor in 1441, that even then Pollard claimed
to have an apostolical provision for the See of Down (Primate Mey’s
_Registry_, cited by Reeves, p. 37; see also Harris’s _Ware_, p. 203,
where it is likewise mentioned that Pollard contested the See of Down with
John of Connor, both carrying themselves as bishops thereof, Harris adding
that it was thought Pollard was supported by the primate, and that it was
only in 1449 Pollard lost his cause, just two years before Wolsey’s
appointment). It may be asked, had he a reversionary provision before the
union was canonically effected? If not, is _Thomas_ a misprint for _John_
in the Bull? as we are aware that there are many typographical errors in
the _Hib. Dom._—for instance, as to _John_ O’Molony, Bishop of Killaloe,
who died circ. 1650, is in several places called _Thomas_.

The next bishop respecting whom I wish to make some observations is Eugene
or Owen Magenis, appointed in 1541, and though I am not disposed to deal
uncharitably with him, I have no doubt he was a “temporiser”, though he
may have been secretly “orthodox”. Dr. M’Carthy (Dr. Kelly’s _Essays_, p.
427), and Brennan, and Walsh, in their ecclesiastical histories of Ireland
are compelled to come to the same conclusion; and upon the whole of his
career I candidly confess I don’t know what other result they could arrive
at. I ground nothing on his being present, if he were present, at Queen
Elizabeth’s first parliament in 1560, which passed the Act of Uniformity,
and required the oath of supremacy to be taken by all ecclesiastics; for
even if he had been present, there is no documentary evidence extant
showing how those in attendance voted, and those acquainted with Irish
history know on the authority of Archdeacon Lynch that these acts were
hurriedly and surreptitiously passed on a day when they were not expected
to be brought forward, and in a thin packed house. But it appears, so far
as his public acts are reported, that he submitted in matters of
ecclesiastical discipline to all the rapid changes and schisms which the
fertile imaginations of the pseudo-reformers introduced during the Tudor
reigns. He surrendered his bulls to Henry VIII., obtained from Paul,
“Bishop of Rome”, not “His Holiness”; took out pardon for accepting them,
with a new grant of the see, with the archdeaconry and confirmation of the
parishes of Aghaderg and Anaghlone, parishes to which _he had been_
promoted by the Primate in 1526 and 1528. It is an oversight to suppose
that about 1541 and 1543 the northern chieftains who submitted to Henry
VIII. were exempted from all pressure in matter of religion. Cox (_Aug.
Hib._, vol. i. p. 272) writes that the king about that time caused all the
Irish who submitted to him to renounce the “Pope’s usurpations, and to own
the king’s supremacy by indenture”, among others, stating that O’Neill did
so, January, 1542, all the indentures being registered in the Red Book of
the Exchequer. The articles of Con O’Neill’s submission are printed in
vol. iii. part iii. p. 353, of the _State Papers of Henry VIII_.; and by
the second article, he expressly renounces obedience to the Roman Pontiff
and his usurped authority, and acknowledges the king to be the supreme
head of the Church in England and Ireland, immediately under Christ. Manus
O’Donnell, 3rd June the preceding year, in his letter styles the king on
Earth immediately under Christ supreme head of the Church of
England—(_Ib._, p. 217). M’Donell, captain of the galloglasses, goes
further, and promises to annihilate and relinquish the usurped authority
of the Bishop of Rome; and his adherents and abettors will expel, extirp,
and diminish, etc.—(_Ib._, p. 383). Redmond MacMahon, captain of the
Farney, 30th December, 1543, also renounces the usurped authority of the
Roman Pontiff—(Shirley’s _Farney_, p. 40). Even in the reign of Queen
Mary, we find Owen Macgenis, of Iveagh, chief of his sept and captain of
his country, binding himself not to admit any provisions from Rome, but
oppose them all he could—(Cox, i. p. 299). No doubt these indentures were
extorted by necessity from these chiefs, who scoffed at the idea that
Henry had any religion or was the head of any church, and kept the
articles just as long as they could not help it. Dr. M’Carthy, I presume
on the ground of Bishop Magenis suing out pardon in Queen Mary’s reign,
considers he afterwards “repented”, being made a privy councillor and
governor of his country; but then we have two similar acts of repentance
in Elizabeth’s reign, for he took out the royal pardon, 1st May and 25th
October in her first year, thus atoning for his folly in her
predecessor’s. If he lived till 1564, as Dr. Moran (_Archbishops of
Dublin_) supposes—though I consider he was dead in 1563, from the queen’s
letter, dated 6th January, 1564, naming James M’Caghwell to the see, then
“destitute of an incumbent”, and also from the fact of Shane O’Neill
applying for the see for his brother, 1563-4—then, knowing that the
greater parts of the counties of Down and Antrim were, in the early years
of Elizabeth’s reign, completely under subjection to the English, and
coupling this with the solicitation of the royal pardons, the least that
can be said is, that Bishop Magenis acquiesced in or tacitly submitted to
the ecclesiastical changes enacted in the parliament of 1560, not
forgetting that about the same time Andrew Brereton, governor of Lecale
(called Britton by Anthony Bruodin, in Dr. Moran’s _Archbishops of
Dublin_, p. 142), mercilessly strangled John O’Lochran and two other
Franciscan friars, in Downpatrick. But I have reserved for the last the
conduct of Bishop Magenis in the reign of Edward VI. On the 2nd of
February, 1552-3, he assisted George Brown of Dublin in _consecrating_
Hugh Goodacre to be Archbishop of Armagh, and _John Bale_ to be Bishop of
Ossory, according to a new-fangled form annexed to the second Book of
Common Prayer of Edward VI., which was not even authorised by act of
parliament, nor by any order of the king (Mant, vol. i. p. 219)—as an
Erastian church would require—which was opposed by the Catholic clergy at
the time, and afterwards, in the reign of Queen Mary, condemned by all the
Catholic bishops of England as invalid, defective in matter, form, and
intention. And who was this John Bale whom Bishop Magenis assisted in
_consecrating_ by this vitiated rite? He, according to Pits, as quoted by
Harris (Ware’s _Bishops_, p. 417), was “an English Heretick, an apostate
Carmelite, and a married priest. This poor wretch, except his calumnies
against men and his blasphemies against God and his saints, hath nothing
in him worthy to be taken notice of”. Condemned by his brother
Protestants, Vossius, Wharton, etc., for his acrimony and falsehood, it is
little wonder the Catholics, on the death of Edward VI., chased him from
Kilkenny. Had his “King Johan: a play, in two parts”, published by the
Camden Society in 1838, been known in his lifetime, in which drama he
apotheosises that merciless tyrant, alike despicable, cruel, and infamous,
the murderer of his own nephew, as a great reformer, “the model of every
virtue, human and divine”, it would have completed his infamy and
disgrace. No earthly fears should have prevailed on an orthodox bishop to
pretend to consecrate a man whose life was such a disgrace to religion. I
do not lay much stress on the formal words of the Bull appointing Myler
Magrath to these sees, 12th October, 1565, vacant _per obitum Eugenii
Magnissae_: it simply shows he was not deposed, and it may have been with
him as with his successor, that hopes were entertained for some years that
he would abandon his state conformity, which I trust was the case. The
astute and wily ministers of Elizabeth at this early date did not compel
apostacy, nor seek for purity of morals; though apostates themselves, all
they required was outward conformity, that the elect should take
investiture from the crown. They bided their time.

It is questionable but that Sir James Ware knew Bishop Dougan had been
Bishop of Soder and Man, for in one of his MSS. in Trinity College
Library, cited by Reeves, p. 177, he writes of John Duncan, Archdeacon of
Down, in 1373, “Factus Episcopus Sodorensis sive Insular. Manniar, 1374”;
the different spelling of the name, and the great age Dr. Dougan must have
attained before his elevation to Down in 1394 (living till 1412), may have
induced him to doubt the identity.

I am delighted to learn that we are to have these valuable papers with
others on the succession of the Irish sees, published in a separate
volume; and were I permitted to offer a suggestion, I would recommend that
the succession should be brought down to the period of the Confederation
of Kilkenny, when all the sees, with the exception of Derry and Dromore,
were, I think, full. Enriched with a few biographical notes, such a work
would be a valuable accession to Irish ecclesiastical history, and would,
besides, utterly shatter the vain and fanciful theories of Mant, Palmer,
etc., as to apostolical succession through the puritanical Adam Loftus,
the apostate rector of Outwell, in Norfolk, to which he had been appointed
in 1556—(Cotton’s _Fasti_, v. p. 197).

I omitted to ask if it can be explained why Myler Magrath, in his letter
of 24th June, 1592, given _in extenso_ by Father Meehan in Duffy’s _Hib.
Magazine_, March, 1864, calls, “Darby Creagh”, Bishop of Cloyne, his
cousin. Dermot or Darby Creagh, or Gragh, or MacGragh, or M’Grath—for by
these various names he is called, is stated in the paper on Cork and
Cloyne in your last number to be a native of Munster; whereas Myler
Magrath was eldest son of Donogh, otherwise Gillagmagna Magrath, of Termon
Magrath, county of Fermanagh, of which the family had been erenachs. He
married Anne O’Meara, by whom he had five sons—Terence, alias Tirlagh,
Redmond, Barnaby, _alias_ Brien, Mark, and James, besides two daughters,
Cecily or Sheelagh, married to Philip O’Dwyer, and Eliza or Ellis, married
to Sir John Bowen. How came the relationship? I don’t understand why Myler
is named as the foster-brother of the great Shane O’Neill. The latter was
fostered by the O’Donnellys of Tyrone, and hence frequently styled Shane
Donnellagh. Terence Donnelly, alias Daniel, Dean of Armagh, was his
foster-brother.

J. W. H.

April 8, 1865.




II.


_To the Editors of the Record_.

GENTLEMEN,

The following remarks on a subject of great importance to the priests of
the mission may not be uninteresting to the readers of the _Record_. My
attention was directed to the matter on reading the erudite work of Dr.
Feye, of Louvain, on Matrimony.

The opinions of St. Liguori are looked upon as possessing high authority,
and, as every one knows, very justly so. Hence it is that he is copied
even in the casual mistakes he made; and all the casuistical works
recently published have inserted in their pages those mistakes. Take, for
example, the works on moral theology most in circulation at present, such
as the works of Gousset, Gury, Scavini, and it will be found that in the
very latest editions of these works those errors are left untouched.

At page 591, n. 876, of Gury, 13a ed., it is remarked regarding the
_gradus inaequalis consanguinitatis, vel affinitatis_, that for the
validity of the dispensation it is not required to mention in the petition
the _gradus remotior_ “nisi sint conjuncti secundo gradu attingente
primum”. In the “Casus Conscientiae” he makes the very same observation.
If the reader refer to Scavini he will find the same opinion adopted. It
will appear from the remarks of Card. Gousset, t. 2, n. 1136, that he
adheres to the opinion of St. Liguori.

At page 118, l. 6, t. 6, n. 1136, St. Liguori treats of the question, and
cites the Breve of Benedict XIV., “Etsi Matr.”, of 27th September, 1755,
upon which he remarks, “_Matrimonium esse quidem illicitum sed non
invalidum modo propinquitas non sit 1__mi__ aut 2__di__ gradus
consanguinitatis_”.

Now it is certain that Benedict XIV. held no such opinion, for in sec. 6
he expressly states, after St. Pius V., that the omission of the first
grade _alone_, in the petition for dispensation, _invalidates_ the
dispensation. Again, Benedict XIV. in that Breve is speaking _de duplici_
gradu consanguinitatis, not _de secundo gradu_, and states that a
dispensation would be null, in the petition for which only one vinculum
was expressed, whereas there existed two—duplex vinculum.

I believe St. Liguori was led into the mistake either by confounding the
word _duplex_ with _secundum_, or by the remarks made by Benedict _de
tertio_ gradu propinquiore, etc., of which there was question.

Gury’s opinion also is wrong; for it is certain, from the decree of St.
Pius V., as cited and confirmed by Benedict XIV., that the suppression of
the mention of the first grade in the petition for dispensation in _gradu
inaequali consang. off._, will equally annul the dispensation, whether the
first grade concur with the second, third, or fourth.

In order then that St. Liguori’s opinion be correct, it is necessary to
erase the words “aut secundi” from the sentence.

Expecting you will give insertion to the foregoing observations, which are
made through a desire to serve the _Record_, and give a hint to
fellow-labourers in the vineyard,

I remain, Gentlemen, respectfully yours,

W. Rice, C.C., Coachford.





DOCUMENTS.




I. Letter Of The Cardinal Prefect Of Propaganda To Dr. Troy, 1782.


    Illustrissimo e Reverendissimo Monsignore Come Fratello.

    Essendosi prese in matura considerazione le risoluzioni emanate
    dall’Assemblea de’ Vescovi Suffraganei di cod. Provincia Armacana
    radunata in Drogheda il di 8. e 9. Agosto dell’anno scorso; questa
    S. Cong. di Propaganda dopo un lungo esame hà finalmente
    coll’oracolo di Nostro Sig. PP. Pio VI. pronunziato il suo
    guidizio sù le medesime e ne communica specialmente a V S. come
    amministratore di cod. Metropolitana le sue determinazoni, perchè
    le faccia ben tosto partecipi ai Prelati sudetti. Si è in primo
    luogo pertanto riconosciuto, che a quest’assemblea non può darsi
    il nome di Sinodo Provinciale, essendo essa mancante di tutte
    quelle solennità, e forme che ai sinodi convengono, e specialmente
    dell’intervento del Capitolo della Chiesa Metropolitana, che dee
    sempre ai sinodi invitarsi, quando un immemorabile consuetudine
    non abbia a questo privilegio del Capitolo derogato. Mà quantunque
    non si possa dare a quest’adunanza de’ Vescovi il carattere, e il
    vigore di sinodo provinciale, contuttociò la pubblicazione delle
    risoluzioni prese nella med. non potea farci senza il consenso, e
    approvazione della Sede Apostolica, poichè per i Decreti eziandio
    de’ sinodi provinciali legittimamente convocati, e canonicamente
    tenuti, si chiede sempre, e si preserva l’approvazione della S.
    Sede prima di esiggerne l’esservanza. L’esempio solo di S. Carlo
    Borromeo in tutti i sei Sinodi Provinciali di Milano può dar norma
    ai Vescovi come debbano regolarsi sù questo punto.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

    E incominciando dalla terza risoluzione emanata dai Vescovi
    sudetti questa è sembrata assai ambigua, ed oscura. La dispensa
    de’ proclami per celebrare un matrimonio secreto può concedersi
    cosi dall’Ordinario dell’uomo, che della donna, e si concede di
    fatti da quello, nella di cui Diocesi si contrae il matrimonio,
    siasi Ordinario dell’uno, o dell’altro de contraenti. Se dunque si
    è preteso di limitare questa facoltà al solo Ordinario dell’uomo,
    privandone l’Ordinario della donna, questa risoluzione non dee
    osservarsi, poichè è contraria ad ogni ragione canonica, e
    all’osservanza. Se poi si è voluto soitanto intendere, che dopo
    essersi ottenuto questa dispensa dall’Ordinario dell’uomo, non
    faccia d’uopo di riportarla ancora da quello della donna allora la
    risoluzione potrà eseguirsi, e non merita riprensione.

    La quarta però non ammette interpretazione, e debbe essere per
    ogni conto proscritta. Si è risoluto, che ogni dispensa dai gradi
    proibiti di parentela sia concessa dall’Ordinario di ciascuna
    parte contraente. Dovevano pur i Vescovi riflettere, che essendo
    la parentela un vincolo, che lega due persone, e impedisce, che
    trà loro si possa contrarre il matrimonio; subito che una di esse
    èsciolta da questo vincolo, ne viene in conseguenza, che ne sia
    prosciolta anche l’altra, non potendo restarne avvinta una, e
    libera l’altra. Se dunque per autorità legittima, o della Sede
    Apostolica, o di uno degli Ordinarj è tolto il vincolo di
    parentela trà un uomo, e una Donna, non vi è più bisogno di altra
    dispensa, ne fà, mestieri ricorrere all’altro Ordinario per
    ottenerla. . . . . . . Prego il Signore che La conservi e
    feliciti.

    Roma 30 Marzo 1782.

    D. V. S.

    Come Fratello,
    L. CARD. ANTONELLI, Prefetto,
    Stefano Borgia, _Segretario_.

    Mons. Troy, Vescovo Ossoriense.

    Amministretore di Armach.

    [TRANSLATION.]

    Having taken into its careful consideration the resolutions
    adopted at a meeting of the Suffragan Bishops of the Province of
    Armagh, held last year at Drogheda, on the 8th and 9th of August,
    this S. Congregation of Propaganda, by authority of our Lord Pope
    Pius VI., after a protracted examination, has finally given
    judgment thereupon. This judgment it now signifies to your
    lordship, as Administrator of that Metropolitan See, in order that
    you may speedily communicate to the above-mentioned Prelates the
    decision which it has been led to take. First of all, however, it
    has been established that the meeting cannot be called a
    provincial synod, seeing that it wanted all the formalities
    prescribed for the holding of synods, and especially the presence
    of the Metropolitan Chapter, which, when immemorial usage to the
    contrary has not interfered with its right, ought always to be
    invited to synods. But although this meeting of bishops may not
    claim the character or the authority of a provincial synod,
    nevertheless its resolutions could not be published without the
    consent and approbation of the Apostolic See, since the decrees
    even of provincial synods, lawfully convened and celebrated in
    canonical form, require at all times the approbation of the Holy
    See before their observance can be made obligatory. The example of
    St. Charles Borromeo in the Six Provincial Synods of Milan, is of
    itself a sufficient guide for Bishops in this matter.

                  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

    In the first place, then, the third resolution passed by the
    above-mentioned Bishops appears very ambiguous and obscure. In
    case of a private marriage, both the Ordinary of the man and the
    Ordinary of the woman have power to dispense with the publication
    of the banns, and as a matter of fact this dispensation is granted
    by the Bishop in whose diocese the marriage is celebrated, whether
    he be the Ordinary of the one or of the other of the contracting
    parties. If, then, the sense of the resolution be to limit this
    power to the Ordinary of the man, to the exclusion of the Ordinary
    of the woman, the resolution ought not to be carried out, as being
    contrary to the canons and to custom. But if, on the other hand,
    the meaning be, that when once the dispensation has been obtained
    from the Ordinary of the man, there is no need to obtain it also
    from the Ordinary of the woman, the resolution thus interpreted
    may be put into practice, and is not deserving of censure.

    The fourth resolution, however, cannot be softened by any
    interpretation. That resolution prescribed that every dispensation
    in prohibited degrees of relationship should be granted by the
    Ordinary of each of the contracting parties. And yet the Bishops
    ought to have reflected that relationship being a bond which
    affects two persons, and prevents them from contracting matrimony
    one with the other, the moment one of these persons becomes free
    from this bond, the other, by a necessary consequence, is also set
    at liberty, it being impossible that one can be free whilst the
    other remains bound. Whenever, therefore, the bond of relationship
    between a man and a woman has been removed by lawful authority,
    either of the Holy See or of one of the Ordinaries, no second
    dispensation is required, nor is it necessary to have recourse to
    the other Ordinary to obtain such dispensation....




II. Decrees Granting An Indulgence To A Prayer To Be Said Before Hearing
Confessions, And To A Prayer For A Happy Death.


    _Oratio recitanda ante sacramentales confessiones excipiendas._

    Da mihi Domine, sedium tuarum assistricem Sapientiam, ut sciam
    judicare populum tuum in justitia, et pauperes tuos in judicio.
    Fac me ita tractare Claves Regni Coelorum, ut nulli aperiam cui
    claudendum sit, nulli claudam cui aperiendum sit. Sit intentio mea
    pura, zelus meus sincerus, charitas mea patiens, labor meus
    fructuosus. Sit in me lenitas non remissa, asperitas non severa,
    pauperem ne despiciam, diviti ne aduler. Fac me ad alliciendos
    peccatores suavem, ad interrogandos prudentem, ad instruendos
    peritum. Tribue, quaeso, ad retrahendos a malo solertiam, ad
    confirmandos in bone sedulitatem, ad promovendos ad meliora
    industriam: in responsis maturitatem, in consiliis rectitudinem,
    in obscuris lumen, in implexis sagacitatem, in arduis victoriam,
    inutilibus colloquiis no detinear, pravis ne contaminer, alios
    salvem, meipsum non perdam. Amen.

    _Urbis et Orbis. Decretum._

    Ex Audientia Sanctissimi. Die 27 martii 1854.—Ad preces humillimas
    Reverendissimi Patris Jacobi Pignone del Carretto Clericorum
    Regularium Theatinorum Praepositi Generalis, Sanctissimus Dominus
    Noster Pius PP. IX. benigne inclinatus omnibus et singulis
    Confessariis in Universo Orbe Catholico existentibus
    supraenunciatam Orationem, antequam ad Sacramentales excipiendas
    Confessiones assideant, corde saltem contrito, et devote
    recitantibus centum dierum Indulgentiam semel tantum in die
    acquirendam, clementer est elargitus. Praesenti perpetuis futuris
    temporibus valituro absque ulla Brevis expeditione.

    Datum Romae ex Secretaria S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum. F.
    Card. ASQUINIUS praefectus—Loco ϯ Sigilli.—A. Colombo secretarius.

    _Oratio Caroli Episcopi Cracoviensis pro impetranda bona morte_.

    O Maria sine labe concepta, ora pro nobis, qui confugimus ad Te, o
    refugium peccatorum, mater agonizantium, noli nos derelinquere in
    hora exitus nostri, sed impetra nobis dolorem perfectum, sinceram
    contritionem, remissionem peccatorum nostrorum, Sanctissimi
    Viatici dignam receptionem, extremae unctionis Sacramenti
    corroborationem, quatenus securi presentari valeamus ante thronum
    justi sed et misericordis Judicis, Dei, et Redemptoris nostri.
    Amen.

    _Ex audientia Sanctissimi die 11 martii 1856_.

    Sanctissimus Dominus Noster Pius PP. IX. omnibus et singulis
    utriusque sexus Christi fidelibus, qui corde saltem contriti, ac
    devote supradictas pias preces, jam adprobatas, ab bonam mortem
    impetrandam recitaverint, centum dierum Indulgentiam semel in die
    lucrifaciendam, clementer est elargitus. Praesentibus, perpetuis
    futuris temporibus valituris.

    Datum Romae ex Secretaria Brevium.—L. ϯ S. Pro D. Cardinali
    MACCHI.—Jo. B. Brancaloni Castellani _Sub._




III. Decree Concerning The Prayer _Sacrosanctae Et Individuae Trinitati,
Etc._


Urbis et Orbis. Decretum. Cum Sacrae huic Congregationi Indulgentiis
Sacrisque Reliquiis praepositae in una Melden. inter alia exhibitum
fuisset dubium enodandum “An ad lucrandam Indulgentiam vel fructum
orationis _Sacrosanctae et individuae_ etc. necessario flexis genibus haec
oratio sit dicenda, vel an saltem in casu legitimi impedimenti ambulando,
sedendo recitari valeat?” Eminentissimi Patres in generalibus Comitiis die
5 Martii superioris anni apud Vaticanas Aedes habitis respondendum esse
duxerunt. “Affirmative ad primam partem, negative ad secundam”. Facta
itaque Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio PP. IX. relatione per me
infrascriptum S. Congregationis Secretarium die 12 ejusdem mensis,
Sanctitas Sua votum Eminentissimorum Patrum approbavit. In audientia vero
Sanctissimi die 12 Iulii ejusdem anni ab Eminentissimo Cardinali praefatae
S. Congregationis Praefecto habita, eadem Sanctitas Sua ex speciali gratia
clementer indulsit, ut Oratio _Sacrosanctae_ etc. pro lucranda Indulgentia
a Sa. Mem. Leone PP. X. adnexa, seu fructu dictae orationis, etiam non
flexis genibus recitari possit ab iis, qui legitime impediti fuerint
infirmitatis tantum causa. Praesenti valituro absque ulla Brevis
expeditione, non obstantibus in contrarium facientibus quibuscumque.

Datum Romae ex Secretaria ejusdem S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum die 7
januarii 1856.—Loco ϯ Signi.—F. Cardinalis ASQUINIUS, Praef.—A. Colombo
Secretarius.




IV. Plenary Indulgences And The Infirm.


“_Decretum Urbis et Orbis. Ex Audientia Sanctissimi die 18 Septembris,
1862._—Est hoc in more positum quod ab animarum Pastoribus Sanctissimum
Eucharistiae Sacramentum in aliquibus tantum infra annum praecipuis
festivitatibus ad fideles habitualiter infirmos, chronicos, ob physicum
permanens aliquod impedimentum e domo egredi impotentes solemniter
deferatur, proindeque hujusmodi fideles tot Plenariis Indulgentiis
privantur, quas consequerentur si conditionibus injunctis adimpletis ad
Sacram Eucharisticam Mensam frequentius possent accedere. Itaque
quamplures animarum Curatores, aliique permulti Ecclesiastici Viri
humillimas preces porrexerunt Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio PP. IX. ut de
Apostolica benignitate super hoc providere dignaretur, factaque per me
infrascriptum Secretariae S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum Substitutum
Eidem Sanctissimo de his omnibus fideli relatione in Audientia habita die
18 Septembris 1862, Sanctitas Sua spirituali gregis sibi crediti utilitati
prospiciens clementer indulsit, ut praefati Christi fideles, exceptis
tamen illis qui in Communitate morantur, acquirere possent omnes et
singulas Indulgentias plenarias jam concessas vel in posterum concedendas,
quasque alias acquirere possent in locis in quibus vivunt, si in eo
physico statu non essent, pro quarum acquisitione praescripta sit Sacra
Communio et visitatio alicujus Ecclesiae vel publici Oratorii in locis
iisdem, dummodo vere poenitentes, confessi, ac caeteris omnibus absolutis
conditionibus, si quae injunctae fuerint, loco S. Communionis et
Visitationis alia pia opera a respectivo Confessario injungenda fideliter
adimpleant. Praesenti in perpetuum valituro absque ulla Brevis
expeditione. Non obstantibus in contrarium facientibus quibuscumque.

“Datum Romae ex Secretaria S. Congregationis Indulgentiarum et SS.
Reliquiarum, Loco ϯ Signi _F. Card. Asquinius_ _Praefectus. A. Archip.
Prinzivalli Substitutus._”





NOTICES OF BOOKS.




I.


    _Appendix ad Rituale Romanum_ sive Collectio Benedictionum et
    Instructionum a Rituali Romano exsulantium, Sanctae Sedis
    auctoritate approbatarum seu permissarum, in usum et commoditatum
    Missionariorum Apostolicorum digesta. Romæ, Typis S. Con. de
    Propagande Fide, 1864.


This book has been compiled by authority, to serve as an appendix to the
Roman Ritual, and is intended for the convenience of priests on the
mission. In Ireland especially, where the Catholic instincts of the people
have ever maintained pious confraternities in the honour which is their
due, the clergy must have felt the want of a manual containing the
_formulæ_ to be used in enrolling the faithful in the various religious
societies approved by the Holy See. These forms are not to be found in the
Roman Ritual, nor in the books easily accessible to the great body of
priests. Besides, since every creature of God may be blessed by prayer,
the Catholic Church, whilst she refuses to be reconciled with whatever is
defective in modern progress, hastens, on the other hand, to sanctify by
her blessing whatever this progress contains of good. Hence, new forms of
prayer are rendered necessary from time to time, such as the form for
blessing railways, and the Benedictio ad. OMNIA, to be used in blessing
all objects for which a special benediction is not contained in the Roman
Ritual. These forms are to be found in this appendix. The instructions
which the Holy See issues from time to time on various subjects for the
guidance of missionary priests, also find their place in this collection.
Among them is the Instructio, issued by the Sacred Congregation of Rites,
for those who have permission to say two Masses on the same day in
different churches, and which is inserted in the Ordo for use of the Irish
clergy. To this is added, in the book under notice, the ritus servandus a
_Sacerdote cum utramque Missam in eadem Ecclesia offere debet_. It runs as
follows:—


    “Hoc itaque in casu Sacerdos post haustum in prima Missa
    diligenter Sanguinem Domini, omissa consueta purificatione, patena
    calicem et palla patenam tegens ac super corporale relinquens
    dicet junctis manibus: _Quod ore sumpsimus Domine_, etc. Deinde
    digitos, quibus SS. Sacramentum tetigit, in aliquo vase mundo ad
    hoc in Altare praeparato abluet, interim dicens _Corpus tuum
    Domine_, etc., abstersisque purificatorio digitis calicem velo
    coöperiet, velatumque ponet super corporale extensum. Absoluta
    Missa si nulle in Ecclesia sit sacristia calicem eodem modo super
    Altare relinquet; secus vero in Sacristiam deferet, ibique super
    Corporale vel pallam in aliquo loco decenti et clauso collocabit
    usque ad secundam Missam, in qua, cum eodem calice uti debeat,
    ilium rursus secum deferet ad Altare, ac super corporale extensum
    reponet. Cum autem in secunda Missa Sacerdos ad Offertorium
    devenerit, ablato velo de Calice hunc parumper versus cornu
    Epistolae collocabit sed non extra corporale, factaque hostiae
    oblatione cavebit ne purificatorio extergat calicem, sed eum intra
    corporale relinquens leviter elevabit, vinumque et aquam eidem
    caute imponet, ne guttae aliquae ad labia ipsius Calicis
    resiliant, quem deinde nullatenus ab intus abstersum more solito
    offeret.”


The contents may be reduced to three heads. The first regards the
sacraments, and embraces a short form for blessing the baptismal font; the
rite of confirmation when administered by a simple priest by delegation
from the Apostolic See; instruction for priests who duplicate; manner of
carrying the Eucharist in secret to the sick among unbelievers; decree of
the Sacred Congregation of Rites concerning the oil for the lamp of the
Blessed Sacrament. The second contains various forms of blessing,
twenty-two in number, and including those for erecting the Via Crucis, and
for enrolling in the scapulars of the different orders. The third part
contains the ceremonies appointed by Benedict XIII. to be performed in the
smaller parish churches on the great festivals of the Christian year.




II.


    _Popular Objections against the Encyclical._ By. Mgr. de Segur.
    Authorized Translation. Dublin: John F. Fowler, 3 Crow Street.


We are delighted to welcome this little work, both for the sake of its own
proper merits, and because it is the first instalment of the authorized
translation of the admirable works of Mgr. de Segur. The Encyclical and
Syllabus still continue to be the great event of the day. Indeed, as yet,
we see only the beginnings of the influence it is surely destined to
exercise on men’s minds; and for the due development of that influence,
works like this of the French prelate are very necessary. The docile
Catholic, for whom St. Peter lives and speaks in Pius IX., will find set
forth herein the majesty and beauty of the doctrine he had before received
in simple faith. The Catholic whose mind has been coloured for good and
evil by modern ideas, and who has felt alarm at the apparent contradiction
between the teaching of the Pope and certain social doctrines he has long
held to be as sacred as first principles, will find in these pages
wherewith to calm his apprehensions and steady his judgment He will see
that what the Church condemns is already condemned by reason and history;
and that, far from placing under the ban any of the elements of true
progress, the Holy See censures the very errors which make all true
progress impossible. The priest who has charge of the wise and the unwise
together, will be glad to have, in these few pages, what may enable him to
provide for the wants of both. We quote a few passages:—


    The Pope Condemns Liberty Of Conscience.

    You mean to say “the liberty of having no conscience”, or, what is
    much the same thing, “the liberty of corrupting or poisoning one’s
    conscience!” You are right; the Pope is the mortal enemy of a
    liberty so shocking. What good father would leave his son the
    liberty of poisoning himself?

    It was Protestantism which invented, and it is the Revolution
    which has perfected, what unbelievers call liberty of conscience.
    It has become an essential part of _progress_, of that
    anti-Catholic _progress_ of which we were speaking just now, and
    which has insinuated itself into all modern constitutions....

    The liberty of following one’s conscience, even when it is
    misguided, is not the liberty of conscience condemned by the
    Encyclical Letter. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and all men, of
    whatever denomination or sect they may be, are obliged to follow
    the dictates of their conscience; as long as they are misled
    _fairly_, it is but a misfortune; what the Church demands is that
    all men may escape this misfortune, and have full liberty of
    embracing truth, when once they have discovered it. The Pope
    condemns liberty of _conscience_, and not liberty of
    _consciences_. The one is very different from the other.

    In Condemning Liberty Of Worship, The Pope Wishes To Oblige
    Governments To Persecute Unbelievers, Protestants, Jews.

    The Pope desires nothing of all that, and those who say so, do not
    believe a word of what they advance. Pius IX. says simply to
    _Catholic_ governments (and it is to them that he addresses
    himself): “There is but one true religion, because there is but
    one God, one Christ, one faith, one baptism, and this only true
    religion is that of the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church of Rome.
    If, in consequence of unfortunate circumstances, a Catholic
    government is obliged to put the Church on the same footing with
    false religions, such as Protestants, Jews, Mahometans, etc., it
    should bitterly regret such an unhappy state of things, and never
    consider it as permanent or lasting. Such conduct would be putting
    truth on a line with error, and despising faith.

    “It is the duty of a really Catholic government to facilitate, _as
    much as possible_, to bishops and priests, the free exercise of
    their holy ministry, in order that they may, by the zeal and
    persuasion of their charity, work more efficaciously for the
    conversion of heretics and other dissenters. It must hinder, _as
    much as circumstances and the laws of prudence will permit_, the
    extension of heresy; finally, it must endeavour, for its own
    interest, as well as for that of the Church, to procure the
    inestimable advantages of religious unity and peace to its
    subjects”.


These are the matters that Pius IX. speaks of. He simply engages Catholic
sovereigns to do for their subjects what every good father would do for
his children and his servants; he does all in his power to render the
knowledge and practice of religion easy for them; he removes as much as he
can all that is capable of weakening their faith or of corrupting their
morals; he tolerates the evil that he cannot prevent, but he never lets an
opportunity pass without blaming this evil, and repressing that which he
cannot extirpate entirely.

The Church employs gentleness and mildness in order to gain souls to God.
Who would have ever thought of using violent measures to impose faith on
men? Although the Catholic Church pities those who are misguided, and does
all in her power to enlighten them, she respects their faith, when she
knows them to be upright and honest. Intolerant and absolute in matter of
doctrine, she is full of tender solicitude for her children.




III.


    _St. Patrick’s Cathedral: How it was Restored._ By a Catholic
    Clergyman. Dublin: Duffy, 1865


Even in the days of St. Augustine, Catholic eyes had to behold scenes
somewhat similar to the one in view of which this pamphlet has been
written. Within churches once Catholic, Donatist bishops at that time held
high festival, in the midst of solemn pomp, with mystic rite and sacred
song. From episcopal chairs erected in opposition to those of the prelates
in communion with the Roman Pontiff, “_that is to say_”, explains St.
Cyprian, “_with the Catholic Church_”, intruded bishops counterfeited the
preaching of the lawful pastors, and with many a text from Holy Writ, and
with a plentiful use of holiest names, made a brave show of belonging to
those whom the Holy Ghost has placed to rule the Church of God. But the
make-believe was not successful. One glance at the religious system of
these men and at the Catholic Church was enough to reveal the hollowness
of their pretensions, notwithstanding the ecclesiastical air they so
studiously cultivated. Hence St. Augustine thus writes about Emeritus, a
Donatist bishop (for whom, perhaps, some worthy layman, not averse from
proselytizing poor Catholics in the wild Numidian country about
Cethaquenfusca, had restored one of the old cathedrals), “Outside the pale
of the Church (Emeritus) may have everything except salvation. Honour he
may have, a sacrament he may have, he may sing _alleluia_, he may answer
_amen_, he may have the Gospel, he may both hold and preach faith in the
name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost; but nowhere save
in the Catholic Church shall he be able to find salvation”—(_Epist._
clii.). And yet, at least in the beginning, the Donatists were but
schismatics; their heresy was of somewhat later growth. How much stronger,
then, becomes St. Augustine’s argument when applied to the Established
Church of our times, in which heresy and free-thinking have ravaged
whatever schism had spared! The pamphlet under notice in reality does but
reëcho the holy Doctor’s remarks. An outline of St. Patrick’s life and
faith, drawn from unimpeachable authorities, sets before us most clearly
that the ancient Catholic Church of Ireland differed far more from the
Church now usurping St. Patrick’s Cathedral, than the ancient Catholic
Church of Africa from the Donatist body. The personal history of our great
apostle, his early training, his call to preach, his ecclesiastical
studies, his mission from Rome, his doctrine about the Holy See, his
essentially Catholic teaching, are all plainly and forcibly Set forth, and
contrasted with the peculiarities of modern Protestantism. No candid mind
can for a moment hesitate to conclude with the writer, that the
restoration ceremony was “a ghastly spectacle of _unreality_. It was a
joyous revel over a _lifeless_ form: the body was there, but not _the
soul_. The beauty of early years, which is oftentimes observed to resume
its place, in death, upon the face from which it had been long driven by
weeks, or months, or, perhaps, years of pain, the beauty of graceful
outline, and delicate feature, and placid, gentle expression—all that had
come back; and the church seemed as if but yesterday finished. But the
spirit of St. Patrick was not there; the creed which he taught was not
there; the _true faith_, which is the soul, the animating spirit of
religion, was far away”.




IV.


    _Vie et Institut de Saint Alphonse Marie de Liguori, Evêque de
    Sainte Agathe des Goths, et Fondateur de la Congregation du
    Tres-Saint Redempteur._ Par son Eminence le Cardinal Clement
    Villecourt, 4 vols. Tournai: Casterman, 1864.


Of this excellent work we have only space to say at present that it is
worthy of its eminent author, and not unworthy of the great saint whose
life and virtues it sets forth. We hope to return to the subject at a
future time.






FOOTNOTES


    1 The reader must not be surprised at the name thus given to the See
      of Derry. Camden cites, from an ancient Roman Provinciale, the name
      _Rathlucensis_ given to this see (Publications of I. A. S., 1843,
      pag. 61), and O’Sullivan Beare more than once designates the town of
      Derry by the Latin name _Lucas_, and styles its bishop “Dirii vel
      Luci Episcopus”—(_Hist. Cath._, pag. 77, et passim).

    2 The cubit was originally the length of the human arm from the elbow
      to the end of the middle finger. It is variously estimated at from
      16 to 22 inches. Our readers may form an idea of the tabernacle and
      the court, sufficiently accurate for all practical purposes, by
      allowing one yard English for every two cubits. See Smith’s
      _Dictionary of the Bible_, or his _Dictionary of Greek and Roman
      Antiquities_.

    3 Our readers must not be surprised if in this and in other instances
      we depart a little from the reading of the Vulgate version, and
      adhere to the literal translation of the Hebrew text. In controversy
      it is often desirable to accommodate ourselves to the views and even
      to the prejudices of our adversaries; and since the authority of the
      Hebrew text is admitted by all classes of Christians, we appeal to
      it as a common ground of argument. Besides, when the point in
      dispute depends on the meaning of a Hebrew phrase, it will be always
      useful to have the _exact words_ of the Hebrew text before our eyes.

    4 This mode of expression is perfectly conformable to scriptural
      usage; for we read (_Numbers_, x. 3) that _all the assembly_ (עדה)
      were directed to assemble themselves _to Moses_: and again, (III.
      _Kings_, viii. 2) it is said that “all the men of Israel assembled
      themselves _unto King Solomon_”.

    5 Nordheim’s _Hebrew Grammar_, § 148; see also Gesenius, § 53,
      “_Significations of Hiphil_. It is properly _causative of kal_.”

    6 Accordingly, this is the first meaning given for the word by
      Gesenius in his Lexicon. In this sense, too, it is frequently
      employed in the Mosaic narrative. Here are two examples, taken
      almost at random, in which we find the same word in the same
      conjugation, mood, and tense: When Joseph, in prison, asked the
      chief butler of Pharaoh to intercede for him with his royal master,
      he added: “And thou shalt _bring me_ (והוצאתני—vehotzethani) out of
      this prison”—(_Gen._ xl. 14). Will Dr. Colenso say that Joseph
      intended the chief butler should _carry him_ out of prison _on his
      back_? Again, when the Jews murmured against Moses and Aaron in the
      desert, they cry out, “Ye have _brought us forth_ (הוצאתם—hotzethem)
      into this wilderness to kill the whole multitude with hunger”—(_Ex._
      xvi. 3; also xiv. 11). They surely did not mean to say that Moses
      and Aaron had _carried_ the whole multitude out of Egypt _on their
      backs_.

    7 “Clove”=Cloyne, Rymer’s _Foedera_. Tom. v. par. iv. p. 105; Lib.
      Mun. Tom. i. par. iv. p. 102.

    8 “Maccarthy=Carthy=Macare=Machar”. Wadd. Annal. Min. ad _an._ 1340,
      n. 25, _ed._ Roman. Tom. viii. p. 241; _ibid._ Tom. xiii. p. 432, et
      pp. 558-9.

    9 “Kings of the M’Carthy race”, Annals of Innisfallen, ad _an._ 1106,
      p. 106, _an._ 1108, 1110, 1176; Annals of Boyle, _an._ 1138, 1185;
      Annals of Ulster, _an._ 1022-3, 1124; Gir. Cambr., lib. i. cap.
      iii.; S. Bernard, in Vit. Malac., cap. iv. “Their burial place”,
      Archdall Monast. Hib., pp. 302, 303.