Judge Keogh And Catholic Doctrines.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The See Of Killaloe In The Sixteenth Century.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Sacrament Of Penance In The Early Irish Church.

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

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

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

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

St. Finnian too prescribes:

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

And in another case they enact a similar penance:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Fitz-Ralph, Archbishop Of Armagh.

Purgatory Of St. Patrick In Lough Derg.

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

Liturgical Questions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question proposed was:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notices Of Books.

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

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

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

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

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