{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_37044/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_37044","id":"gutenberg_37044","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/37044","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Religious","Category: Journals","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Catholic Church -- Ireland -- Periodicals","Catholic Church -- Periodicals","The Irish Ecclesiastical Record"],"text":"</pre>\n\n\n\nProduced by Bryan Ness, David Garcia and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nTHE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.\n\nJUNE, 1865.\n\n\n\n\nBLESSED THADDEUS, BISHOP OF CORK AND CLOYNE.\n\nA.D. 1492.\n\n\nThe interesting and very learned article which appeared in the last number\nof the _Record_[1] has contributed much to illustrate the life of the\nBlessed Thaddeus, and to make known to the Irish Church a distinguished\nprelate whose virtues and sanctity adorned our island towards the close\nof the fifteenth century, which is precisely one of the darkest eras of\nour history. As, however, some of the writer's conclusions can scarcely\nbe reconciled with the statement which we made in a preceding article on\nthe Bishops of Cork and Cloyne (_Record_, p. 312), viz., that this holy\nBishop's name was '_Thaddeus Machar or Maher_', we take the liberty of\nlaying before the reader the reasons on which our opinion was based,\nand which compel us, however unwilling, to exclude from the princely\nfamily of the M'Carthys the saintly prelate whose relics now enrich the\ncathedral of Ivrea.\n\n1. The town of Ivrea, to use the learned writer's words, is the capital\nof the Piedmontese province of the same name, and we may add that it is\nmost picturesquely situated at the foot of the Alps, and is one of the\nfirst Italian towns which the traveller meets when, having crossed Mount\nSt. Bernard, he wends his way towards Vercelli or Novara. In medieval\ndocuments Ivrea receives the Latin names of _Eporedia_, _Iporegia_, and\n_Hipporegia_, as may be seen in Ughelli's _Italia Sacra_, or in the later\nwork of Cappalletti, '_Le Chiese d'Italia_' (Venice, 1858, vol. xiv.,\npag. 177), and at the time of which we speak, the see was held by Nicholas\nGarigliati, who was appointed its bishop in 1483, and died in 1499.\n\n2. That the Blessed Thaddeus, who by his sanctity and miracles merited\nto be numbered amongst the patrons of Ivrea, was Bishop of Cork\nand Cloyne, is beyond all controversy. To the arguments advanced by\nthe writer in the last _Record_ we may add an extract from the _Todd\nMSS._ given by Brady in his _Records of Cork_ (vol. iii. pag. 44), in\nwhich Bishop Thaddeus, who was appointed to the see of Cork in 1490, is\nsaid to have \"died at the town of _Eporedia_ in Piedmont in 1492\". The\ndate 4th October, is indeed added, but this is probably a mere misprint\nfor the 24th October, the true date of the demise of our holy bishop.\n\n3. Ware informs us that this Thaddeus was _by some called Mechar_\n(pag. 563), and the documents of Ivrea place beyond doubt that such was\nhis true name. Thus the Bishop of Ivrea writes, \"_Thaddaeum Machar_,[2]\nEpiscopum Hib. illum esse innotuit ex chartis quas deferebat\", and the\nold parchment record to which the same bishop refers, apparently quoting\nfrom the inscription on his tomb, describes our Blessed Thaddeus as,\n\n  \"Regia progenies alto de sanguine Machar\".\n\nNow the learned editors of the Martyrology of Donegal inform us that\nthe name _Mechar_ is the same as the _O'Meachair_ which appears so\noften in the ancient monuments of our history (see _Martyr. of Donegal_,\npublished by I. A. S. 1864, pag. 517), and which at the present day has\nassumed the Anglicized forms of _Meagher_ and _Maher_.\n\n4. The ancient Latin verses published in the _Record_,[3] present\ntwo important data for determining the family to which this bishop\nbelonged. One is his native district, which is called _Solum Cariense_:\nthe other is the royal ancestry to which his family had a just and ancient\nclaim: \"_Regia progenies alto de sanguine Machar_\". Now are these data\nverified in the family of the O'Meachair? if not, it must be admitted\nthat it can have no claim to our holy bishop; but if, on the other hand,\nthose data accurately agree with what the ancient monuments of our\nisland attest regarding the sept of the O'Meachairs, we must conclude\nthat no link is wanting in the chain of evidence, and that the Blessed\nThaddeus has justly been referred to that distinguished family.\n\n5. Nothing now remains but to cite some few passages from our early\nwriters which serve to illustrate these points in the history of the\nO'Meachairs.\n\nIn the first place, the topographical poem of O'Huidhrin (who died in\n1420) has one important passage which not only throws some light on\nthe family name, but moreover points to the territory of _Ui-Cairin_\nas the chief abode of the O'Mahers, precisely as the name _Carinum_\nin the Latin poem cited above marks the native district of our holy\nBishop Thaddeus. The translation of this poem of O'Huidhrin was the\nlast work achieved by our illustrious O'Donovan, and was published by\nthe I. A. S. in 1862. At page 133 we find the following verse:--\n\n  \"Mightily have they filled the land\n  The O'Meachairs--the territory of Ui-Cairin\n  A tribe at the foot of Bearnan Eile;\n  It is no shame to celebrate their triumph\".\n\nTo which lines O'Donovan adds the following notes:\n\n    \"_The O'Meachairs._ The name of this family is now Anglicized\n    O'Meagher, but more generally Meagher or Maher, without the\n    prefix O'. Their territory of Ui-Cairin is now called Ikerrin,\n    and is a barony in the present county of Tipperary.\n\n    \"_Bearnan Eile_, i.e. the gapped mountain of Ely, now called in\n    English the Devil's-Bit Mountain\"--(Notes, page lxxxv., n. 71\n    and 72.)\n\n6. In the _Leabhar na-Ceart_, edited by the same distinguished Irish\nantiquary, for the Celtic Society, in 1847, we find some additional\nevidence not only for the connexion of the _O'Meachars_ with the\nterritory of _Ui-Cairin_, but also for the royal descent to which they\nlaid claim. It is thus that _Leabhar-na-Ceart_ commemorates the tributes\nwhich were due to the king of Eile:--\n\n  \"Eight steeds to the king of Eile, of the gold\n  Eight shields, eight swords are due,\n  Eight drinking-horns to be used at the feast,\n  Eight coats of mail in the day of bravery\"--(pag. 79.)\n\nTo which verse O'Donovan adds the following note:--\n\n    \"_Eile._ This was the name of a tribe and an extensive territory,\n    all in the ancient Mumha or Munster. They derived the name\n    from Eile, the seventh in descent from Cian, the son of\n    Oilioll-Ollum ... The ancient _Eile_ comprised the whole of\n    Eile Ui-Chearbhail, which is now included in the King's County\n    ... and also the baronies of _Ikerrin_ and Elyogarty in the\n    county of Tipperary.... Ikerrin and Elyogarty were detached from\n    O'Chearbhail shortly after the English invasion, and added to\n    Ormond, but _the native chieftains O'Meachair_, i.e. _O'Meagher_,\n    and O'Fogartaigh, i.e. O'Fogarty, were left in possession\".\n\n7. We will not fatigue the reader by citing a long series of authorities\nin which similar statements recur. Two will suffice for all, and we\nshall take them from the works of the late lamented professor of our\nCatholic University, Eugene O'Curry. One is a genealogical extract,\nin which Michael O'Clery, the chief of the 'Four Masters', commemorates\nsome of the most illustrious families of the Milesian race. From Heber, he\nsays, the Son of Milesius, were descended thirty of the kings of Ireland,\nand sixty-one saints. Amongst these royal chieftains must be reckoned\n_Teadgh_ (_i.e._ Thaddeus), grandson of Oiliol Ollum, and he adds:\n\n    \"The descendants of this _Teadgh_ branched out and inhabited\n    various parts throughout Ireland, namely, the race of _Cormac\n    Gaileng_, in Luighne Connacht, the two Ui-Eaghra in Connacht,\n    the O'Eaghra of the Ruta, O'Chearbhaill of Eile.--_O'Meachara\n    in Ui-Cairin_, and O'Conor, etc\". (_Curry's Lectures_, etc.,\n    pag. 147).\n\nThe other extract to which we wish to refer is published in the Appendix\nto the 'Battle of Magh Rath', which was translated and edited for the\nCeltic Society by the same great Irish scholar in 1855. The eighth\ngenealogical Table (pag. 175) in this work, extracted \"from O'Clery's\n_Pedigrees_, and Mac Firbis\", tells us that \"_Mechair_, from whom\nO'Meachair or Meagher\", was fourteenth in descent from Oiliol Ollum,\nand the following note of O'Clery is added to his name:--\n\n    \"There is a steed and a suit of clothes from each new chief of\n    them to the Comharba of St. Cronan of Roscrea, together with\n    Innisnambeo; and he (the Comharba) is to go around the chief\n    to proclaim him chief; and the Comharba is entitled to sit at\n    his shoulder, and the chief should stand up at his approach:\n    and this _Meachair was King of Eile_\".\n\nFrom all this we are surely justified in concluding that the historic\ndate of _solum Cariense_ and _regia progenies_ are precisely those which\nwe should expect to find in a commemoration of an illustrious member of\nthe family of the O'Mahers.[4]\n\n8. Our holy bishop, though thus descended from the first monarch of\nour island, wished, when journeying from Rome, to enter as a pilgrim\nthe public hospital of St. Anthony in Ivrea, and there, in the true\nevangelical spirit, rejoiced in being reckoned the poorest of the\npoor. Heaven, however, has decreed that the humble shall be exalted;\nand no sooner had the unknown traveller closed his eyes to this world,\nthan a divine light filled the room in which he lay; several prodigies\nawakened the devotion of the faithful, and proclaimed his sanctity; and\nthe clergy and laity in solemn procession bore his hallowed remains to\nthe cathedral church, and numbered him amongst the patrons of that ancient\nsee. Thus, again, was Dr. Thaddeus true to the traditions of his family;\nfor, besides his royal descent, he could boast of the higher and nobler\nlineage of sanctity. In the Martyrology of Donegal we find the names of\ntwo members of the family whose festivals were celebrated on January\n16th and September 6th. Colgan, too, speaks of a _Saint Mecharius_,\nwhose life he had prepared for publication, and whose feast was marked\nfor the 13th of November (_AA. SS._, pag. 756).\n\nDr. Reeves also informs us that a St. _Machar_, better known by the Irish\nappellation of Mochonna, was sent by St. Columba with twelve companions\nto preach the Gospel to the Picts, and subsequently became the patron\nsaint of Aberdeen (_Adamman's Columba_, pag. 246, 289, 299, etc.). On\na fly-leaf of the original MS. of the Martyrology of Donegal, in the\nhandwriting of O'Clery or Colgan, a Saint _Murro_ is commemorated, with\nthe addition, \"_id est, Machare, seu Meacharius_\", and the interesting\nfact is further commemorated: \"quod feras bestias subjugavit et triduo\ndefunctum ad vitam revocavit\" (_Martyr. Doneg._, I. A. S., xlvi.).\n\nWe do not wish, however, to leave unanswered the difficulty which the\nwords of Ware present against our interpretation of this holy bishop's\nname. He expressly styles this bishop \"_Thady M'Carthy_, by some called\n_Mechar_\". Here then we must remark that Ware does not identify these\nnames; and the name _Mechar_, which, as Ware acknowledges, was by some\nauthorities given to this bishop, is proved by the monuments of Ivrea to\nhave been his _true name_. What then was the origin of Ware's mistake?\nWe learn from the _Monumenta Vaticana_ (pag. 503), that there was about\nthis time a Thaddeus Mac Carryg \"_iniquitatis filius_\", who endeavoured\nto intrude himself into the see of Ross, and who is erroneously ranked by\nWare amongst the bishops of that see (see _Record_, No. iii., December,\n1864). As that name resembles _Mac Carrha_ or _Mac Carthaigh_, the Irish\nforms of _Mac Carthy_, it seems not improbable that Ware, by one of\nhis so-frequent errors, confounded our holy Bishop Thaddeus with that\niniquitous usurper (see _Dublin Review_, April, 1865, p. 384).\n\n10. Perhaps we have here again a clue to the difficulties which compelled\nBishop Thaddeus to abandon his see for a while, and seek a refuge in\nRome. When appointed in 1490, several retainers of the Desmond family\nrefused to admit him to the possession of the temporalities of his see\n(see _Record_, pag. 312). Now it was precisely in 1488 or 1489 that\nThady M'Carthy had been compelled by the repeated censures of Rome to\nsurrender the temporalities of Ross to the canonically appointed Bishop\nOdo; and what more natural than that the same genius of evil should,\non the vacancy of the adjoining diocese in the following year, stir up\nagain the embers of discord, and endeavour through his kinsmen to obtain\npossession of this see at least? And as the Protestant historian reckoned\nthe usurper of the temporalities of Ross amongst the canonical successors\nof St. Fachinan, so, by a somewhat similar mistake, he may have easily\nconfounded the same Thaddeus M'Carryg with the holy bishop who canonically\nruled the united sees of Cloyne and Cork.\n\n11. It now remains to make a few other remarks on the interesting paper\npublished in the last _Record_.\n\nIn the first place, there are some incidental errors which seem to be\ninadvertently introduced. At pag. 379, Richard Wolsey is commemorated\nas successor of Thady, Bishop of Down, who died in 1486, which opinion\nhas long since been set aside by De Burgo and Dr. Reeves (_Eccles.\nAntiquities_, Dublin, 1847, pag. 257). Thady, Bishop of Ross, is also\nsaid to have died soon after his appointment in 1488, and to have had\nfor his successor Bishop Odo in 1489. All this has been sufficiently\nrefuted in a former number of the _Record_ (pag. 106) and in the _Dublin\nReview_ for April, pag. 384.\n\nAt pag. 380-1, our Blessed Thaddeus is identified with a distinguished\nmember of the Augustinian order, named _Thaddeus de Hipporegia_, who is\neulogized as \"a man distinguished for learning, religious observance,\npreaching, holiness of life, and experience, a man of great zeal,\nand a sedulous promoter of the interests of his order\". We should be\nglad, indeed, to be able to number amongst our countrymen this great\nornament of the Augustinian body. Unfortunately, however, the historians\nof that order represent this Thaddeus, not as an _Irishman_, but as\nan _Italian_, whose surname points to the town or province of Ivrea\n(see above No. 1) as the place of his nativity. The article in the\n_Record_ adds: \"True, Elsius gives 1502 for the date of the friar's\ndemise; but Elsius is never to be trusted in dates, and the printer\nmay easily take MCCCCXCII. (the true date) for MCCCCCII\". This is very\nplausible; but unfortunately here again there is no foundation for such\nreasoning, and hence the whole fabric falls to the ground. Elsius does\nnot assign 1502, as the date of the friar's death; he merely writes\n\"_floruit usque ad annum 1502_\" (_Encom. Augustin._, Brussels, 1654,\npag. 645). He, however, refers to Herrera for further information;\nturning to whose work we find thus explained the last formula of Elsius:\n\"Durat ejus memoria usque ad an. 1502 in quo, habita Ferrariae synodo,\nVicarius Congregationis acclamatus est. Nulla ultra illius in actis\nconsistorialibus mentio\", (_Alphab. Augustin._, vol. ii. pag. 450):\nand in a later Spanish compendium of this work, made by Herrera himself,\nit is said that this Thaddeus _probably died in 1503_, no mention being\nmade of him in the acts of the order subsequent to the synod of Ferrara,\nheld in the preceding year. There is also another circumstance equally\nfatal to the above theory. The illustrious Augustinian held many high\noffices in his order, and the historians Elsius and Herrera give the\nminutest details concerning them: \"He was seven times definitor,\n(they write), thirteen times visitator, four times president of\ntheir congregations, nine times vicarius-generalis\", etc, but both are\ncareful to _exclude him_ from the list of bishops of the order. There is,\ntherefore, no one point of contact between the distinguished Augustinian\nfriar Thaddeus, and our holy Bishop of Cloyne.\n\n12. To prove that the _Solum Cariense_ might justly be referred to in the\neulogy or epitaph of a Bishop M'Carthy, it is interpreted as referring\nto _Kerry, the burial place of that family_. However, neither the Irish\nform of the name of that territory, i.e. _Chiarr_ (as we learn from\nthe _Record_, page 380) nor the only Latin name by which we have seen it\ndesignated in mediaeval records, i.e. _Cherrium_, can be said to have much\naffinity with the _Cariense_ of the ancient document of Ivrea. We may also\nadd that, were reference made to the burial place of the princely family\nof the M'Carthys, we should rather expect to find commemorated Muckross\nor Innisfallen, than the generic name of the vast territory of Kerry.\n\n13. As regards the name _Machara_ or _Mechar_, it is said that the Irish\nname MacCarthy, is pronounced _Maccaura_, with the last syllable short,\nas in Ardmagha, and numberless like words. Hence, Wadding, in speaking of\nthe foundation of Muckross Abbey, Killarney, by Domnall M'Carthy, Prince\nof Desmond, quotes to this effect a bull of Paul II. in 1468, in which\nDomnall's name is spelled \"_Machar_\" (p. 379). This example from the bull\nof Pope Paul II. is evidently a mere typographical error. In the edition\nof Wadding's Annals to which the writer refers (Roman edit., tom. xiii.,\np. 558, _seq._), that error stands side by side with _Desimonia_ and\n_Aertferten_, and what is still worse, Wadding in his text, citing this\npassage, is made to say: \"Refert in hoc diplomate pontifex, inchoatum\nfuisse a _Donaldo Mac-Lare_\" (p. 432). The origin of these errors is,\nthat the transcripts of the Pontifical letters were made by strangers\nto our language, and the Roman edition of Wadding did not appear until\nsixty years after his death. In the original edition of the work, however,\nwhich was printed under the revision of Bonaventure Baron and other Irish\nFranciscans, Wadding's text gives us the true Latin form of the name:\n\"Refert in hoc diplomate pontifex inchoatum fuisse a _Donaldo Mac-Care_\"\n(1st edit. Lugduni, 1648, tom. vi. p. 693), and elsewhere speaking of the\nsame convent of Muckross, he says its founder was \"_Magnus Carthagus_\",\nPrince of Desmond. Indeed, the Latin form of the name M'Carthy is not\none about which we should have much dispute; it occurs a thousand times\nin the works of O'Sullivan Beare, Dr. Roothe, and other Irish writers,\nand yet nowhere is it found expressed under that form which the name of\nthe Blessed Thaddeus presents to us.\n\nWhilst, however, we thus dissent from some of the conclusions of the\nlearned writer in the _Record_ for May, we wish to convey to him our\nsincere acknowledgments for having so prominently brought before the\nIrish public the name, too long forgotten, of one of our sainted Bishops,\nunder whose protection we may hope that our holy faith will ever prosper,\nnot only in our own island, but also in that now suffering province\nwhere his relics are enshrined.\n\n\n\n\nTHE HISTORY OF A CONVERSION.\n\n\nThe department of religious literature, which is made up of histories\nof individual conversions to the faith, has received of late years many\nremarkable additions. This class of literature is regulated in its growth\nby very peculiar conditions, and must be judged according to exceptional\nlaws. Its subject--the mysterious workings of grace in the soul--is\nsuch as rather to impose a reverent silence than to invite fulness of\ndescription; and so well do elevated souls appreciate the sacredness\nof such silence, that, except for interests of religion or justice,\nthey are unwilling to bring before men those inner secrets of their\nhearts. But when the interests of religion or justice have convinced them\nthat silence is no longer a duty, the history they consent to unfold can\nrarely be other than attractive and profitable, seeing that it describes\na human soul's toilsome journey from error to truth. The very minuteness\nof personal detail, which in any other composition would be a blot,\nin this becomes a merit and a charm. Among the religious motives that\nnot unfrequently dictate such a history, a spirit of thankfulness for\nthe blessing of faith has its fitting place. The favoured soul looks\nout from the shelter of its Father's house upon the perilous path it\nhas just traversed, and gratefully traces the Providence by which its\nwayward feet were guided where so many strayed to their ruin; just as\nthe rescued mariner hangs up _ex voto_ a sketch of his frail bark in\nthe moment of her peril, when, but for heaven's help, she would have\nfoundered in the raging waves. Fruit of this pious gratitude is the\nnarrative[5] we are now engaged upon; a narrative which will interest\nevery Catholic, not only because it is the history of a remarkable\nconversion, but because of the light it incidentally throws on the\npresent condition and future prospects of German Protestantism. But\nbefore we set ourselves to trace the steps of the process which led\nDr. Laemmer from a many-faced Protestantism to the Catholic Church,\nit will be useful to make a few preliminary remarks.\n\nIn Dr. Laemmer we have a witness who has had rare opportunities\nof becoming acquainted with the very highest and best forms which\nProtestantism has been enabled to assume in the country of its birth. He\nis, above all things, the child of the German Protestant universities. Of\nthe twenty-six universities of which the learned nation is so proud, six\nor eight are Catholic,[6] four are mixed,[7] and the remaining fourteen\nare exclusively Protestant.[8]\n\nNow, Dr. Laemmer was student successively at Koenigsberg, Leipsic,\nand Berlin universities, that is to say, at the very universities which\nat the present time are the chief seats of Protestant thought, both in\nphilosophy and in theology. The leading Protestant schools in Germany\nare at present three in number, called respectively the neo-Lutheran, the\nMediation, and the Tuebingen, or historico-critical school; of these[9]\nthe neo-Lutheran, or Lutheran reaction school, has specially existed\nin Berlin and Leipsic; the so called Mediation theology at Berlin;\nand the Tuebingen school (now almost extinct in its native home, and\nrenewed by Hilgenfeld at Jena) has made its influence felt throughout.\nBesides, at Koenigsberg, he came, as we shall see, under the influence\nof one of the ablest defenders of Hegelianism. We should exceed our\nlimits, were we to enter upon a statement of the principles of these\nschools. Be it enough to say, that the first-named school, by defending\nthe authority and credibility of the Scriptures, aims at re-constructing\nthe historical basis of Christianity, and insists on a return to the\nLutheran Confessions of the sixteenth century. Since the political\ntroubles of 1848, an ultra-conservative party, called the Hyper-Lutheran,\nhas arisen within this school, which goes back beyond the Reformation,\nand insists on the principle of a visible authoritative church, a rigid\nsacramental theory, and the doctrine of consubstantiation. Stahl, and\nLeo of Halle, to whom Dr. Laemmer makes an important allusion, to be\nhereafter quoted, belong to the most advanced of this party. Among the\nrepresentatives of this school with whom Dr. Laemmer was brought into\ndirect contact, were Hengstenberg and Kahnis.[10]\n\nThe Mediation school takes its stand between the Lutheran party on the\none hand, and the school of criticism on the other, and without going\nback to the principle of authority, or forward to that of discovery,\nproposes to unite the use of reason with belief in Scripture, and to\nunderstand what it believes. Of the members of this very numerous school\nDr. Laemmer had intercourse with Twesten and Nitzch. The Tuebingen school\nhad for its leader Christian Baur, and starting from the principle that\nthe only portions of the New Testament undoubtedly genuine are four\nof St. Paul's Epistles, viz.: to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the\ntwo to the Corinthians, it comes to the conclusion that Christianity in\nits present form is the result of the controversy between the Jewish,\nor Petrine, and the Pauline Christianity of the apostolic and following\nages. All the other books of the New Testament it attributes to some\none or other of the contending schools. That this school, extravagant as\nits conclusions may appear to us, is every day gaining ground in France\nwith a very numerous party, we have been lately assured by competent\nauthority.[11] That it has many advocates in England is well known.[12]\nA critic in the _Home and Foreign Review_[13] speaks of \"the importance of\nthose inquiries of Dr. Baur and his followers into primitive Christianity,\nwhich have in some way modified the views of almost every one who has\nbecome acquainted with them.\"\n\nThese are thy gods, O Israel! These are the shapes of Protestantism that\nwander to and fro in the various universities of Germany. Dr. Laemmer,\nspeaking with full knowledge of the subject, sums up in one word the\nresult of all this unhealthy movement, and that word is--_chaos_. And\nwhat heightens the confusion is, that, although the systems which form\nthis chaos are in absolute and perpetual conflict with each other, yet\ndoes each professor claim for himself the exclusive possession of truth,\nas if he and he alone had been gifted with infallibility.\n\nThe special feature of Dr. Laemmer's conversion appears to us to consist\nin this, under the grace of God, that he approached faith through\nits historic side. Sound and conscientious historical research has\nbeen the means of his deliverance from bondage. His mind from boyhood\ninclined towards things grave; the details he communicates concerning\nhis choice of authors reveal that sobriety of judgment which is the\nfirst quality of a student of history. The bent of his mind in this\ndirection was strengthened by study of the fathers, of the history of\nthe Papacy, and of the Catholic theology of the Reformation period.\nWe invite special attention to the happy result of historical studies\nin his case, because we see in it a promise of much future good for\nCatholic truth in Germany. The broad distinction between the German\nmethod of the present century and that of the past, lies in this, that\nthe nineteenth century is the age of historical inquiry, whereas the\nlast century was that of critical thought. Even the Tuebingen school\nis an improvement on the destructiveness of Strauss, for it admits and\ncalls attention to the historical value of at least some portion of the\nScriptures. In the other schools, above described, this tendency is of\ncourse still more marked. The modern spirit tends not so much to examine\nthe ontological value of an opinion, as to investigate how men came to\nhold that opinion. It was this spirit which suggested the questions of\nconcursus, which, as we shall see, changed the current of Dr. Laemmer's\nlife. Now we hold it very probable that as this spirit becomes more\nextended, its fruits will be these: men will become familiar with the\nteachings of Christian antiquity; and although this knowledge may be\nsought not for the sake of the doctrine itself, but as a preliminary\nto other studies, still, such is the divine power of truth, that, once\nrevealed to the soul, it creates therein a wondrous craving after itself,\nwhich will dispose the soul for the grace of faith. There must be at this\nmoment many thoughtful men in Germany, who, in virtue of this spirit,\nare engaged in the examination of the fathers and of the theologians of\nthe Catholic Church, and, who, finding themselves, like Dr. Laemmer,\nbetween the ruins caused by Protestantism and the unbroken strength\nof Catholic teaching, are even now turning their eyes towards Rome,\ntherein to seek her who was their mother of old.\n\nHugh Laemmer was born of a Protestant father and a Catholic mother,\nat Allenstein, in Eastern Prussia, on 25th January, 1835. His mother\nwas a woman of most fervent piety, who, in almost unceasing prayer,\nsought and found consolation under her many severe afflictions. It was\nnot given her to exercise much influence over the mind of her son, who,\nlong before her death, had gone to reside with his father's relatives,\nby whom he was brought up as a Protestant. The lad, nevertheless, had\na tender love for his mother, and from his earliest years was conscious\nof an indescribable leaning towards his Catholic friends in preference\nto his Protestant kindred. This feeling was the natural growth of\nobservations made by the quickwitted boy regarding the piety, firm\nprinciples, and good conduct of the Catholics. At the same time, the\ndevotion of the faithful in their processions and pilgrimages served to\nput him on his guard against the bigoted prejudices which his Lutheran\ncousins ever sought to instil into his mind against their Catholic\nneighbours. When with the other schoolboys he went to church on Sunday,\nthe sermon made no impression on him, and no wonder, for the preacher\ncarried with him into the pulpit the chilling rationalistic principles\nhe had imbibed at the university. Even in those early years the boy's\nheart tended towards the beautiful and spacious Catholic Church of his\nnative town. Once, when his father took him to Heiligenlind (a famous\nresort of pilgrims), and the old sacristan showed him the rare treasures\nof the church, he experienced an emotion so strong that it survived even\nthe rude trials of his after life.\n\nIn 1844 he entered the gymnasium of Koenigsberg. He brought with him\nfrom home a good stock of elementary and grammatical knowledge; and\nsoon discovered that his tastes inclined him to the study of literature\nmore than to that of science. Ellendt, then rector of the gymnasium,\nwas a man who possessed in a remarkable degree the power of making\nhis lectures interesting to his pupils. Explained by such a master,\nHomer and Herodotus became in a short time the favourite authors of\nM. Laemmer, who, on the other hand, had no taste for what he calls \"the\ntedious narratives of the Anabasis, and the pedantic tirades of the\nCyropaedia\". He preferred Caesar and Livy to Cicero, whose philosophy\nespecially he found to be commonplace. Modern French literature had no\nattractions for such a mind as his; the contemporary romance writers\nof that nation excited even his disgust. As Germany is considered by\nmany to be the very home of perfection in classical studies, it will be\ninteresting to hear the opinion Dr. Laemmer's experience has led him to\nform concerning the special dangers which beset middle school education\nat the present day:--\n\n    \"I believe it to be a mistake\", he says, \"to make modern languages,\n    mathematics, and the physical sciences occupy very much of the\n    time appointed for the study of the classics; and as far as middle\n    class instruction is concerned, we have reason to be grateful to\n    the Raumer ministry for the prominence it has given in the new\n    educational plan to the wise principle _non multa, sed multum_.\n    It is highly dangerous to the young to distribute their faculties\n    simultaneously over many heterogeneous branches of knowledge.\n    _Ubique hospes, nusquam domi_: such a system is the sure path to\n    that half-learning, which, without giving a thorough knowledge\n    of anything, encourages young men to talk presumptuously of\n    a host of subjects of which they have but the barest surface\n    knowledge. What happens when the examination papers exact\n    from students a knowledge of science as well as of literature,\n    physics, chemistry, natural history, and the different branches\n    of mathematics? It is a well-known fact that, with the exception\n    of a few intended for certain professions, young men are careful\n    to forget as soon after examination as they can, the information\n    it has cost them so much labour to acquire. Against this it\n    is vain to urge the importance which the natural sciences have\n    now-a-days attained to--an importance so great that no one, save\n    at his peril, can remain a stranger to them; for, on no account\n    should we furnish new weapons to materialism. At most, it is\n    required that students should be supplied with such elementary\n    information as may enable them in the future to keep in sight\n    the true bearings of things, and in creatures recognize Him who\n    is proclaimed in the first article of the Creed. That extravagant\n    cultivation of the natural sciences, so often substituted by our\n    ministers in place of the lessons of Holy Writ, is as perilous as\n    is the undue exaltation of man and of man's pretended victories\n    over nature. The laws of nature have never acknowledged any\n    master save One--our Lord Jesus Christ--and in Him the saints\n    with whom it has pleased Him to share His sovereignty\" (p. 13).\n\nWhether the authorities at the gymnasium shared these views or not, we\nare not in a position to state. One thing, however, is certain,--much\nattention was paid there to the study of the German language and\nliterature; much of our student's time was passed in the excellent library\nof German authors provided for the use of the scholars. What an eventful\nmoment that is in which a youth, in the flush of the early vigour of his\nmind, finds himself for the first time in a library where the treasures\nof human thought are gathered before him clothed in the language he has\nlearned from his mother's lips! Then begins for him that daily contact\nof mind with the mind of others, which will infallibly colour for good\nor evil the history of his future. He who, without an enlightened and\nfriendly guide, adventures inexperienced upon this commerce,\n\n  \"Voyaging through strange seas of thought, alone\",\n\nruns no little risk of being caught unawares by error where his generous\nardour looked only for truth. In the world of books as in the world of\nmen, evil lies very close to good, and wears its garb and mien; and how\nshall the inexperience of youth be able to see through the disguise,\nor how avoid becoming captive to its snares? And from such captivity,\nhow harassing the toil of escape! Of that toil let him make light who\nhas never had experience of the almost ceaseless influence erroneous\nprinciples exercise on the mind with whose growth they have grown.\nFrom reading Newton on the Prophecies in 1816, Dr. Newman, then a boy\nof fifteen, became convinced that the Pope was Antichrist; and his\nimagination was stained by the effects of this doctrine up to the year\n1843.[14] Nor did M. Laemmer come away safe. His random reading brought\nhim both good and evil, so intermingled each with each, that his unripe\njudgment could no more discern between them than the hand can disjoin\nthe sunshine from the shadow that follows after it. After ransacking the\nbulk of German literature, he selected from out the rest certain writers\nto be his prime favourites. The choice he made reveals at once the bent\nof his mind, and the dangers to which that very bent exposed him. The\nschools of German poetry and taste are divided in Vilmar's _History of\nGerman Literature_ into five classes. First, that which preceded Lessing,\nsubdivided into the Saxon school, and the Swiss school of Wieland in\nhis early manner; to which was akin the Goettingen school of Klopstock\nand Voss; second, that of Lessing and the writers influenced by him;\nthird, the Weimar school with its three great names, Herder, Goethe,\nand Schiller; fourth, the later schools, the romantic, represented by\nthe two Schlegels, Novalis, and the patriotic; fifth, the modern school\nof reaction against absolute government, headed by H. Heine. Of these\nschools, only the second and third gave M. Laemmer delight. There was a\nhidden sympathy between the qualities of his own mind and the exquisite\ncritical genius and reasoning power of Lessing, which made him find\nthe writers of the first class insipid and trivial. He came under the\ninfluence of Lessing to a remarkable degree, and if to that influence he\nowes the gain of an important truth, to it must be attributed also his\nacceptance of a most fatal error. That remarkable man, author, or, as it\nnow appears, editor of the _Wolfenbuettel Fragments_, in consequence of\nthat publication, had a warm controversy with the Lutheran pastor Goeze,\nin which he forcibly showed, by historical arguments chiefly, that the\nprinciple of _the Bible and nothing but the Bible_, was illogical and\nfalse. M. Laemmer followed the course of the controversy, and found\nto his dismay that the arguments of Lessing had brought home to him\nthe conviction that Lutheranism rested on a false basis. This was a\ngreat gain; but it was counter-balanced by a great loss. The ardour\nof his youthful admiration blinded him to the dangerous principles of\nindifferentism and doubt contained in his master's works, and particularly\nin his _Education of the World_. The third Fragment sets it forth as\nimpossible, that all men should be brought to believe revelation on\nrational grounds. These principles, destructive of all faith and certainty\nin belief, were adopted by the young student, and warmly defended by him\nin a special dissertation.\n\nTowards the end of his course he devoted himself to the study of Herder;\nand here again vague reading brought to him gain and loss, truth\nand falsehood together. He learned from this writer to believe in the\nmysterious action of Providence in the world; but the view he was led to\nform of the Divine plan was confined, superficial, and vague. He also\ngave much time to the reading of Schiller, in whose works he found an\nassault on the frigid deism then predominant in Germany. But, the deity\nwhich that poet brought so near to men was not the Blessed Trinity, but\nthe gods of Olympus; and whilst his strains rebuked the philosophy which\nnever rose above the laws of gravity, he himself did but serve the cause\nof epicureanism by his praises of the pleasures of the earth.\n\nFrom Goethe M. Laemmer learned to appreciate, in some measure, the\nSacraments of the Church, and to think kindly of the Church itself. But\nwhat solid advantage could he gain from the man who wrote to Lavater\nof the chief gospel miracles that \"he held them for blasphemies against\nthe great God and His revelation in nature\"?\n\nThe reader will have observed that this course of reading made several\nimportant additions to M. Laemmer's religious views. And yet the books\namong which his reading lay were either not at all, or not directly\nreligious. We are now to inquire how far his ideas were modified by any\ndirectly religious training. The answer to this question opens up such\na view of the condition of Protestantism in the country of its birth, as\nwell deserves our careful study. Let M. Laemmer tell us what fruits it\nhas produced at Koenigsberg. First of all, in the various schools where\nhe resided during his stay in that town, there was no common practice of\nreligion: the religious exercises of the gymnasium were limited to the\nsinging of a few stereotyped chants. The religious instruction of the\nstudents was attended to by an aged professor, who was one of the leaders\nof the Freemasons, and whose religion was the religion of pure reason. He\nwas assisted in the religious training of the students by a younger man,\nwhose doctrines were kindred with his own, and whose lectures, though\nerudite, were arid. Fortunately for himself, M. Laemmer had learned\nfrom his mother the habit of night and morning prayer. This habit he\nretained, although for want of fixed principles it became a work of\nmere routine. Such was the state of religion in the gymnasium. In the\ncity itself things were still worse. From the orthodox Lutheranism of\nSuperintendent Sartorius, down to the absolute Rationalism of Rupp,\nevery intermediate stage of error had its exponents and followers in the\ncity of Kant. In the eyes of Sartorius, Catholicism, which he knew only\nfrom Luther's caricatures, stood on the same level with Rationalism; he\nassigned to the Confession of Augsburg almost the same authority which\nCatholics claim for tradition, and together with Baur, Nitsch, and Winer,\nmade an unsuccessful attempt to refute Moehler's _Symbolism_. Rupp, on the\nother hand, denounced all symbols, even that of St. Athanasius, which he\ndeclared to be incompatible with Christian doctrine; his system was based\non Indifferentism of the lowest kind, and conceded to women as well as to\nmen the right of deliberating and of teaching in religious matters. And\nyet, these two men, so diametrically opposed to each other in doctrine,\npreached for a time in the same church and from the same pulpit. And,\nwhilst Sartorius, who revered Luther as a man of God, preached to empty\nbenches, Rupp found assembled around him a crowded audience, composed of\nthe highest as well as the lowest in the land. The different churches\nat Koenigsberg had preachers of every shade of doctrine. During the\ncourse of his studies M. Laemmer made trial of them all, but found not\nsatisfaction in any. At length, in the midst of this Babel, he became\nacquainted with the man who was destined to exercise a most salutary\ninfluence on his life. That man was Lehnerdt, Superintendent-General\nof the province of Saxony. Born in Brandenburg, and educated at Berlin,\nin the school of Schleiermacher and Hegel, he escaped the pernicious\ninfluence of his masters by a profound course of historical studies. On\nthe one hand, he combated the rationalistic exegesis of Paulus, and on\nthe other, devoted himself with all his might to the study of the Fathers.\nHe was a man of great piety; and in preparing M. Laemmer for confirmation,\nspoke with such unction of God and the world, man and sin, Christ and\nsalvation, that his words wrought in the young student's soul a blessed\nreaction. An intimate and affectionate relationship sprang up between the\ntwo, which was interrupted in the middle of 1851 by Lehnerdt's departure\nfor Berlin, where he succeeded Neander as professor of history, but was\nresumed again at a later period in that city.\n\nM. Laemmer passed from the gymnasium to the university of Koenigsberg\nat Easter, 1852. He remained there but one year, during which time he\nacted as secretary to Voigt, whose able _History of Gregory VII._ was the\nbeginning of a new epoch for ecclesiastical history in Germany. One of\nthe professors of philosophy was Rosenkranz, the pupil and biographer\nof Hegel. This able man was an eloquent partisan of Hegelianism, and\nby the poetic colouring he contrived to throw around its doctrines,\nexercised an extraordinary influence over the youth of the university.\nM. Laemmer tells us that during a fever which at this time brought him\nto death's door, one of his keenest regrets was his inability to attend\nRosenkranz's lectures. He made up for his absence from lecture by a\ncareful study of his professor's writings, and completely adopted the\nviews expressed therein. It was long before he was able to shake off\nthe yoke of Hegelianism which he then assumed. In the university,\nBiblical literature was treated altogether from the rationalistic\npoint of view. One of the fruits of this method is the isolated and\nindependent study of various parts of Sacred Scripture. \"It was reserved\nfor Protestantism\", says M. Laemmer, \"to cultivate in minute detail\nwhat is called Biblical Theology, and to write volumes upon the doctrine\nof such and such an apostle in particular.... This anatomical process,\nthis study of atoms, has led many to apply those fine theories to various\nperiods of Church history, and, like certain heretics of the middle ages,\nto speak of the Christianity of St. Peter, and of the Christianity of St.\nPaul, not excluding by any means that of St. John\" (pp. 47, 48).\n\nAt the Easter of 1853 M. Laemmer passed from the university of Koenigsberg\nto that of Leipsic, on a burse founded in the old Catholic times by a\nCatholic priest of his native town. His departure from Koenigsberg marks\nthe close of the first period of his university career, and it will be\ninteresting to stop and take a comprehensive view of the phases of thought\nthrough which he passed during that time. As far as religious opinions\nare concerned, this first stage of his life may be subdivided into two\nperiods: one of demolition, the other of reconstruction. In the former\nhe lost his belief in Lutheranism and its central doctrine of the _Bible\nand nothing but the Bible_; that is to say, he lost hold of the only\ndogmatic principle he held. Being thus deprived of a fixed belief, he was\nmore open to the action of Lessing's principles of universal tolerance,\nwhich amounted to the coldest indifferentism and doubt. These principles\nhe made his own for a season. The spectacle of division and discord which\nwas exhibited daily under his eyes at Koenigsberg, helped to complete\nthe work of destruction. Even his very prayer became a dry form, lacking\nall influence for good. The period of reconstruction commenced with the\nfriendship that bound him to Lehnerdt, by whose influence were sown in\nhis mind the seeds of a reaction, which, by the play of intellectual\nas well as moral causes, was afterwards developed into the fulness of\nCatholic belief. The intellectual cause that led to this happy result was,\nas we said before, the spirit of historical inquiry; the moral cause,\nunder God's grace, was the deep religious sentiment which formed part\nof his original character, and which, once aroused by Lehnerdt's words\nabout justice and the judgment to come, never allowed any antagonism of\nfeeling to stand long in the way of his acceptance of the truth. Not that\nthe action of these causes was at all times unimpeded. The Hegelianism\nwhich he imbibed from Rosenkranz far a long time seriously crippled his\nmind in its exertions after truth.\n\nIn these dispositions M. Laemmer came to the University of Leipsic.\n\nAmong the professors at Leipsic Winer was beyond doubt the most\nremarkable. His labours on the idioms of the New Testament Greek, his\nlexicological and bibliographical works, and even his reply to Moehler's\n_Symbolism_, with all their defects, give proof of solid study. But\nhe permitted himself in his lectures to launch sarcasms against the\nrites of the Catholic Church. Indirectly he was the occasion of much\ngood to M. Laemmer, who read Moehler's and other Catholics' works in\norder to test the statements advanced by Winer. It was Winer too who\nfirst suggested to him the idea of devoting himself to teaching in the\nuniversity. Tischendorf, so famous for his studies on the Bible texts,\nand Wachsmuth, who has rendered immense services to truth by his Roman\nhistory, written in refutation of Niebuhr, were among the professors\nwhose courses he followed at Leipsic. Two resolutions taken at this period\nby M. Laemmer reveal the gradual change which was taking place in his\nconvictions, owing to the action of the causes mentioned above. First,\nhe determined to assist no longer at the lectures of Theile, on account\nof his grossly rationalistic treatment of the doctrine of the Word in\nthe Epistles of St. John. Theile died shortly after. \"He was a man of\nrectitude\", says M. Laemmer, \"and conscientious: I cannot think of him\nwithout a feeling of deep sorrow. You might read on his brow the painful\nand fruitless efforts he had made to attain to the fulness of truth\nand to that peace which the world cannot give\" (p. 65). Daily more and\nmore disgusted with rationalism, and wearied with ineffectual efforts to\nreconcile the contradictions which everywhere appeared in theology, he now\nbegan to entertain serious thoughts of confining himself exclusively to\nphilosophical studies. But these thoughts were put to flight on occasion\nof his first sermon, which he preached in a suburban village where\none of his friends was pastor. The subject of the sermon was charity,\nas described by St. Paul; and its treatment had the effect of reviving\nin the preacher's heart his old love for religious questions. He was\nnow approaching the crisis of his life. While he was bewildered by the\nendless variations of Protestantism, and endeavouring to form out of\nthem a religious system such as would satisfy his reason and conscience,\nthe first rays of the grace of faith began to dawn more nearly upon his\nsoul. In what manner this came to pass we shall allow himself to tell:\n\n    \"I said before that during my stay at Leipsic, the study of a\n    question proposed for concursus exercised a powerful influence on\n    my religious views, and that to it is to be attributed my first\n    step towards Catholicism. The subject chosen for the concursus\n    of 1854, by the Leipsic Faculty of Theology, was the exposition\n    of the doctrine of Clement of Alexandria on the Word. This theme\n    made upon me a most vivid impression. At once, and with great joy,\n    I resolved to become a candidate. I will now state the motives\n    of this resolve. The conflicting theological systems which I had\n    observed, both in books and in oral instructions, occasioned me\n    extreme torture. I was too independent to follow the example of\n    so many others by attaching myself blindly to a party; I wished\n    to examine for myself the successive phases undergone by the\n    Protestant principle, and with full knowledge of the subject to\n    make my own selection. All those systems, whether confessional or\n    non-confessional, could not satisfy me long; on the other hand,\n    the distraction caused by philological and philosophical studies\n    could not give peace to my heart, which only in God could find an\n    end to its unrest. _Inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat\n    in te._ I felt I must escape from the chaos of modern theology,\n    and I most eagerly availed myself of this opportunity to draw\n    from the spring of Christian antiquity. I procured a copy of\n    Klotz's portable edition, and set myself to the study of my author.\n    Pen in hand, I began my task by reading him through and through\n    before I took any account of what others had written about him.\n\n    \"A new world opened on my sight as I read the earliest master of\n    the Alexandrian Catechetical School--the teacher of Origen. What\n    treasures lie hid in these three works, the _Exhortatio ad\n    Graecos_, the _Paedagogus_, and the _Stromata_! _The Exhortatio\n    ad Graecos_ is a masterpiece of Christian controversy against\n    Paganism, considered in its popular mythology, its poetry,\n    and its philosophy. The _Paedagogus_, written for catechumens,\n    sets before them a magnificent portrait of the true and only\n    Master--the eternal Word of the Father--who has created man to His\n    own image; who alone can provide a fitting remedy for fallen and\n    guilty humanity; who, though man had become of the earth, earthly,\n    yet enables him to attain to his heavenly destiny; who, in fine,\n    confides him to the maternal yet virginal love of the Church.\n    Then came the eight books of the _Stromata_, an unpretending\n    mosaic, in which the loftiest problems of philosophy and theology\n    are treated with great learning and rare penetration. These\n    three works were, without doubt, connected together in the\n    author's mind. The idea of the Word is the central point of\n    Clement's entire demonstration; and in that idea we must seek\n    the essential unity of his system. It is the Word which tenderly\n    invites man; which instructs him; which guides him to his end\n    by leading him to see the things of God in their profundity;\n    and thus the idea of the Word embraces in one same circle all\n    philosophy, dogmatic as well as moral\" (pp. 85, 88).\n\nThe monograph on Clement of Alexandria was prefaced by prolegomena,\ncontaining a sketch of Clement's life, an analysis of his doctrine,\nand an inquiry into the historical sources of his doctrine on the Word.\nFor this the author had to examine the relation in which Clement stood in\nphilosophy and theology towards classical antiquity, Alexandrine Judaeism,\nthe Apostolic Fathers, and the first Christian apologists. The subject\nproper of the essay was divided into two parts: the first treated of the\nrelations of the Word with God; the second considered the Word as the\nRevealer. The work was well received by the faculty of theology, and its\nauthor was declared the successful candidate, 31st of October, 1854. By\nthe advice of Winer and others, and by the kindness of Tischendorf,\nit was published in March, 1855. Wachsmuth, dean of the faculty of\nphilosophy, advised M. Laemmer to stand his examination for the doctorship\nin philosophy, and backed his advice by the offer of a burse to enable\nhim to meet the expenses. The young student obtained this degree after\nhaving presented a dissertation on the religious philosophy of Clement\nof Alexandria, and having passed a successful examination.\n\nWe have seen that M. Laemmer qualifies this episode in his studies as\nthe first step he made towards Catholicity. It may be asked, what was\nthe special fruit derived by him from these patristic studies? The\nanswer is, that it enabled him to shake off the influence of the\nTuebingen theories, which had hitherto held sway over his mind. The\nwhole work of that school simply amounts to an attempt to submit to the\nall-powerful action of critical caprice the canon of Scripture and the\nmost remarkable works of Christian antiquity, and to affirm all their\nown theories as indisputable facts, while they treat as fables the most\nauthentic facts of history. Now, the more clearly it is proved that the\nhistorical origin of Christianity is able to resist the crucial tests to\nwhich it has been submitted, the more shadowy and insubsistent do these\ncapricious theories become. Hence, the study undertaken by M. Laemmer\ndid in reality, by occupying him with the objective side of patristic\nteaching, most powerfully contribute to destroy in his mind the authority\nof Baur, Hilgenfeld, and the others of the Tuebingen school.\n\nSoon after the publication of his work, M. Laemmer was invited to the\nUniversity of Berlin by his kind friend Lehnerdt, who had never lost\nsight of his promising pupil, and now wished him to prepare himself for a\nprofessor's chair by a solid course of theologico-historical studies.\nOn arriving at Berlin the youthful doctor of philosophy was appointed\nto hold for two years the Evangelical Centenary Burse, founded by the\ncity of Berlin in commemoration of the three hundredth anniversary of\nthe Reformation. After his conversion many persons demanded that he\nshould make restitution to the burse fund, which, according to them,\nhe had employed against the intentions of the founders.\n\n    \"But (asks Mr. Laemmer), for what reasons was I chosen in\n    preference to the other candidates? I contented myself with\n    presenting my memoir on the Alexandrine Clement's doctrine on\n    the Word; the examiners of the Leipsic faculty of philosophy\n    testified that I had successfully passed the examination:\n    the faculty of theology of the same city said, amongst other\n    flattering things, that I had applied myself to the studies of\n    theology with equal ardour and success. As to the two memoirs\n    presented for the concursus of 1853 and 1854, it was said that in\n    them I had given proof of solid classical studies, of a remarkable\n    knowledge of theology, of sound judgment, and penetrating mind,\n    and that my work on the Word showed great aptitude for historical\n    investigations. These were beyond doubt the reasons why the\n    committee preferred me to the other candidates; and the sole\n    condition imposed upon me--namely, that of becoming a licentiate,\n    I complied with within the appointed time. Why then all this\n    outcry? Why these demands for restitution, with which even a\n    Hengstenberg has been associated? Herein consists the head and\n    front of my offending, that the use of private judgment, or, to\n    speak accurately, the secret inspirations of God's grace, led me\n    to see the truth and to betake myself to the bosom of the true\n    Church. If, instead, I had become an unbeliever, the slightest\n    murmur of complaint would not have been heard; but when there\n    is question of Catholicism, pietism the most honeyed often makes\n    common cause with the grossest infidelity: the great point then\n    is to form a compact body against the mighty foe\" (p. 105, 106).\n\nWe cannot linger over the account given by M. Laemmer of the different\ntendencies he found in the theological faculty of Berlin, nor on the\npresent state or future prospects of the Union.[15] But the name of\nHengstenberg[16] is so well known to most Catholics that the description\ngiven of him by one who has known him so well, is sure to excite interest.\n\n    \"The reputation which Hengstenberg had acquired by his numerous\n    works brought him frequently before my mind. The impression he\n    made on me when I saw him at Berlin, did not modify the notion I\n    had long formed of him. It is well known that he passed through\n    many phases of doctrine before he reached the point at which, for\n    some years, he has remained stationary. He left the University\n    full of the pietism of the day, and was immediately appointed\n    professor at Berlin, where, as professor and author, he bent all\n    his energies against the rationalistic criticism, the application\n    of which to the Holy Scriptures had produced such disastrous\n    consequences. It must be admitted that, in this respect,\n    he has brought back to better ways a certain number of his\n    contemporaries; that he has arrested the progress of extravagant\n    criticism; that in his works on the Pentateuch, the Psalms,\n    and the Messianic Prophecies, he has won for sound views the\n    consideration long refused them. But it was impossible that his\n    ablest scholars should not see the weak side of his hermeneutical\n    and theological principles; hence, many of them have abandoned\n    his method for one altogether different. His _Commentary on\n    the Apocalypse_ is assuredly his most characteristic work. To\n    comprehend his stand-point in this work, we must remember that he\n    composed it in 1848 and 1849. In it he frequently and unreservedly\n    favours the chiliastic tendencies of Irving.... He has endeavoured\n    to remove some of the Protestant prejudices against the Catholic\n    Church, such as Luther's blasphemy of the Roman Antichrist. He\n    admits (as Luther did, when under the influence of the Christian\n    idea) that Catholicism is in possession of the word of God, the\n    true sacraments, and the power of the keys. He is clearer and\n    more straightforward than his predecessor Bengel in the _Gnomon\n    Novi Testamenti_. But he halts in his march, laying himself open\n    to the charge of Catholic tendencies, and could but be silent\n    when reproached by Schenkel, who told him that Romanism was more\n    honourable than the vacillating and intermediate position he had\n    assumed. He resembles Stehl, Kliefoth, and others, who would\n    wish to place in the same setting the jewels of Catholicism\n    and those of Wittemberg; who rank together the theory _nothing\n    but the Bible_, and the principle of authority; who are but half\n    acquainted with Luther, and almost ignorant of Rome; who, in spite\n    of their pretended adhesion to principle, would be disposed to\n    all kinds of compromises; who lack the courage and the humility\n    requisite to comprehend that the fragments of truth possessed\n    by Luther have been borrowed from the immense and indivisible\n    treasure of the Church. The Church has nothing to hope from\n    men of this class; they lack a thorough and absolute thirst for\n    truth; they are self-complacent; they imagine themselves to have\n    received from heaven an extraordinary mission like the prophets;\n    they assume the right to dictate to the infallible authority of\n    the Church; to satisfy them, we must become syncretists, and ask\n    them in what is it their pleasure that the Catholic Church should\n    modify in its doctrines, its ceremonies, and its discipline; men\n    of fine phrases, and not of action; more of show than of reality\"\n    (p. 117).\n\nDuring his residence at Berlin, M. Laemmer entered upon a careful\npreparation for the degree of doctor of divinity. He devoted himself\nmore and more to the study of the Fathers; the works of St. Hilary of\nPoitiers on the Trinity left him an humble and firm believer in that\naugust mystery. In 1856 his mind received a fresh and more decided\nimpulse in the direction of the Church. In that year the Berlin faculty\nof theology gave as the subject of the concursus, _Give an exposition\n(from the documents) of the Roman Catholic doctrine, contained in the\nmemorial presented to Charles V. at the Diet of Augsburg, in as far as\nit appears to throw light on the true Evangelical doctrine set forth in\nthe Augsburg Confession._ This subject was chosen for the concursus by\nLehnerdt, who felt that Catholic theology, from the beginning of the\nReformation to the Council of Trent, was almost entirely unknown.\nM. Laemmer having resolved to become one of the competitors, at once set\nabout the necessary study. He first examined the Protestant confessional\nbooks, in order to fix the points at issue between them and their\nadversaries. If he were to trust these authorities, nothing could be\nclearer than the stupid ignorance of the Catholics, and the wisdom of the\nProtestants. But the declamation with which this was urged appeared to\nhim to be the language of passion. He determined to learn from their own\nwritings the character of the Catholic theologians so soundly abused by\ntheir opponents. He first examined the _Official refutation of the Augsburg\nConfession_, the joint work of the flower of the Catholic theologians,\nEck, Faber, Wimpina, etc.; next he came to the various works published by\nthem, before and after 1530, against the various successive developements\nof Protestantism; then came the German theology of Berthold Chiemsie; the\nConfession of Cardinal Hosius; Erasmus; Tetzel; Henry VIII.; Fisher, Bishop\nof Rochester; Ambrosius Catharinus; the Sorbonne; Sadoletus; Contarini; the\nminutes of the conferences held at that epoch in Germany and Switzerland;\nthe Pontifical instructions in Rainaldi and Leplat, and last, the acts of\nthe Imperial Diet, as far as they touched on religious and ecclesiastical\nquestions. In all, he had to study seventy Catholic works of the period.\n\n    \"God knows\", he tells us, \"how I was moved as I read them,\n    and how violent were the struggles in which I was engaged. I\n    endeavoured to resist the force of the arguments before me, but\n    I could not. I would not permit myself to call in question that\n    great axiom of Protestants, that the Reformation was right and\n    necessary. The humility required to correspond with the motions\n    of grace was wanting to me; scientific pride still insisted on its\n    pretended rights. I had only arrived so far as to understand that\n    the opinions pronounced by the reformers on their adversaries\n    were frequently partial, erroneous, and malevolent; that the\n    intellectual power of these latter was not so contemptible as\n    it had been represented; and finally, that their principles had\n    been frequently travestied at the pleasure of the fathers of\n    Protestantism\" (p. 139).\n\nHaving completed his study of these sources, he arranged his materials\nin the following order: The first chapter treated of the Church, the\nPrimacy, the Scripture, Tradition, the Councils; the second, of the\nstate of innocence, of the fall, of original sin and its consequences;\nthe third, of free-will and grace; the fourth, of justification, of\nthe fulfilment of the law, and of the evangelical counsels; then came\nthe sacraments _in genere et in specie_; finally, the saints and the\nworship due to them. The title of his manuscript was _De Theologia\nRomano-Catholica quae Reformatorum aetate viguit, ante-Tridentina_.\nThe work was successful, and received high praise from the faculty of\ntheology. It was said, however, that the author was too impartial--_nimis\njustus_--towards Catholicism. This qualification was added at the request\nof Hengstenberg, who did not like too well the favourable notice given of\nCatholic writers. And yet notwithstanding all this, Dr. Laemmer was still\nfar from being a Catholic. He himself tells us that at most he had arrived\nat the position held by Leo. On the 3rd of August, 1856, he received the\nprize, and had the satisfaction of learning at the same time that his\nmemoir was accepted as the dissertation required for the license. In\na few days he passed the _rigorosum_, and in the same month made his\npublic disputation, taking for the theme of his introductory discourse\nSt. Bernard's work, _De consideratione_. He received his license,\nand immediately left Berlin for the country to recruit his shattered\nhealth. In the country he preached frequently, wrote an analysis of\nG. Voigt's _Pius II. and his age_, and a dissertation on the doctrine\nof justification, held by the Catholic theologian, Contarini, in which\nhe now admits he was mistaken as to his estimate of the sentiments of\nthat divine. Returning to Berlin with renewed health, he was appointed\nto give religious instruction, and to teach Hebrew in the Frederic\nGymnasium. It must have been a difficult task for one perplexed in mind\nas M. Laemmer was, to undertake the religious instruction of a body\nof young men at the very doors of the University of Berlin. Among his\nyouthful hearers he found open infidelity, rationalism, the doctrines of\nSchleiermacher, Pietism, confessionalism, in one word, each class was\na miniature copy of the Protestant world around. But he did not swerve\nfrom the path of duty. He boldly set before them, as the central truth\nof religion, the Man-God dying on the cross for the world. In vain did\nhis hearers bring forward the pretended results of modern criticism,\nand natural explanations of supernatural facts; M. Laemmer insisted\nwith energy upon the credibility and the inspiration of S. Scriptures,\nand on the miracles and prophecies narrated in them. He also made it his\nduty to lead his charge to love and practise prayer. In spite of their\nresistance he obliged even the higher classes to recite the Decalogue and\nthe Apostles' Creed; and he was consoled by seeing his firmness rewarded\nby the happiest results. At Easter, 1857, he passed his examination\nfor the doctor's degree, having chosen for the subject of his theme\nPope Nicholas I. and the Court of Byzantium. Again he was successful:\nLehnerdt, to whom he had dedicated his thesis, observed to him with\ngreat gentleness that he was not far from Hurter's idea of the Papacy.\nAnd in truth this last labour had brought him much nearer to the Church\nby reason of the brilliant light it cast on the character and office of\nthe Papacy in Christianity. In 1857 he found time to publish a new edition\nof St. Anselm's _Cur Deus homo_, and to write a paper on the conversion\nof Herman of Kappenburg. In June 1858 he revised for the press his\ntreatise on the ante-Tridentine theology. In preparing the revision he\nmade a study of modern Catholic works on history, dogma, moral and canon\nlaw. He became familiar with the Roman Breviary, to which his attention\nhad been called by the attempt made by a Protestant minister to form a\nLutheran Breviary. He also read and admired Cardinal Wiseman's _Fabiola_.\n\n    \"I now understood the _Memorare_ and the _Sub tuum_; I began\n    to recite the _Ave Maria_, to salute together with the angel\n    the Mother of my God, to seek her compassion, that she might\n    obtain for me grace to be completely enlightened, and to enter\n    into the Saviour's one fold. The sting of doubt tormented me\n    unceasingly; on my knees, before my crucifix in my lonely chamber,\n    I experienced the most painful struggles. As I had ever preserved\n    such fragments of Christian truth as the Reformers had spared,\n    and as for many long years I had occupied myself with the solution\n    of the leading questions in philosophy and theology, it appeared\n    to me very hard to submit my reason to the yoke of faith. But\n    prayer removed all these obstacles, and when soon after I came\n    to knock at the door of the Church, I found it easy to assent\n    to all the truths that were proposed to my belief\" (p. 163).\n\nWith many other Protestants, he assisted at the exercises of a mission\ngiven at Berlin by the Jesuit Fathers, and reaped therefrom much\nbenefit. In July, 1858, he received permission from the minister of\nworship to explore the libraries of Germany and northern Italy, to\ncollect such manuscripts of Eusebius as might be found, with a view\nto a new revision of the text of that historian. He visited Leipsic,\nDresden, Vienna, Venice, Padua, Milan, and Munich. At Dresden, Wolfgang de\nGoethe took him to be a Catholic priest. At Venice he met with F. Ignazio\nMozzoni, of the order of St. John of God, author of a remarkable history\nof the Church, and was edified by the piety and the literary activity of\nthe Mechitarists. The intercourse he had with Catholic ecclesiastics, and\nthe sight of Catholic ceremonies and rites, were of signal service to him\nby removing unfavourable impressions. Among other details he tells us:\n\n    \"I shall never forget a certain Irish Dominican, the very type of\n    a perfect religious, who aroused in me profound emotions by the\n    account he gave me of the sad condition of his fellow-countrymen,\n    crushed by English rule\" (p. 191).\n\nHis scientific mission was finished at Munich, whither he returned from\nhis long journey still a Protestant. But the end was at hand, and we must\nallow him to describe it in his own words:\n\n    \"After leaving Munich, I continued for some weeks to suffer\n    great anguish of mind. At length the decisive hour came, and\n    the sun of grace had completed the work of my enlightenment. I\n    decided to become a Catholic on the 14th of October, 1858, the\n    feast of St. Theresa, whose powerful intercession strengthened\n    my weakness. I communicated my resolutions to the minister\n    of worship and to the faculty of theology of Berlin, and I\n    requested my bishop--the Bishop of Ermland--to receive me into\n    the bosom of the Roman Catholic Church, in which, after long\n    and painful struggles, I had at length recognized the depositary\n    of the truth, and the legitimate spouse of the Son of God: thus\n    would my heart be at peace. 'Glory and praise', said my letter,\n    'to our Lord Jesus Christ, who has enabled me to surmount all\n    obstacles, who has graciously heard my prayers, who has had pity\n    on me, who has broken my chains, who has scattered the darkness\n    that hung over me, who has shown me the path to the fold. Since\n    conscientious investigations have proved to me that the so-called\n    Reformation of the sixteenth century has but disfigured the type\n    of the true Church of Jesus Christ, and that its principles,\n    far from being salutary, are essentially destructive and the\n    necessary cause of the effects which history has registered\n    during three centuries--that the Protestant confessions and their\n    apologists, instead of attacking the Church's genuine teaching,\n    do but distort it to insure an easy victory; since I am convinced\n    that the Reformers had neither the duty nor the right to attempt\n    a reform apart from and against the head of the Church and the\n    episcopate; that the religious divisions of our age are caused\n    by the refusal to submit to the Church and return to the centre\n    whence we departed in the sixteenth century; since the historical\n    development of the Church has been proved to me unbroken down to\n    the present day; since I have learned to justify and love her\n    doctrine, her morality, and her worship; from the day on which\n    the grace of God has permitted me to be convinced of these truths,\n    my return to the Catholic Church has become a matter of necessity,\n    and it is only by a public confession of my faith that I can hope\n    to regain tranquillity of conscience, that peace of the heart\n    which the world cannot give, nor yet, in spite of all its fraud\n    and anger, can ever take away'\".\n\nIt is needless to add that the Bishop of Ermland acceded to this\ntouching request. On St. Catherine's Day, during the jubilee of 1858,\nDr. Laemmer made his profession of Catholic faith, and received the\nsacraments of baptism and the Eucharist. Towards the end of the same year\nhe was admitted to the diocesan seminary of Ermland, where he received\nconfirmation, tonsure, and holy orders. Soon after his ordination he\nwas sent to Rome. Several valuable works on subjects of ecclesiastical\nhistory have since appeared from him, and much is still expected at his\nhands.[17] In the bosom of the Catholic Church, his doubts dispelled,\nhis heart at peace, well indeed may he love to repeat with joy and\ngratitude--_Misericordias Domini in aeternum cantabo!_--(Ps. xxxii., 21).\n\n\n\n\nTWO ILLUSTRIOUS GRAVES.\n\n\nWe are happy to be the first to announce to the Irish public the discovery\nof the exact spot wherein the remains of our great Irish chieftain,\nHugh O'Neill, repose, side by side with those of Archbishop Matthews.\n\nThis privilege we owe to the great kindness of Rev. Dr. Moran, the\ndistinguished Vice-Rector of the Irish College of St. Agatha, Rome,\nwho has permitted us to anticipate the publication of the second part\nof the first volume of his _History of the Catholic Archbishops of\nDublin since the Reformation_, in which the event is described. Of the\nvolume itself we shall soon have occasion to speak at some length. For\nthe present it is enough to say, that like each of Dr. Moran's other\nworks, it has the great merit of being a work for the times. His _Life\nof Archbishop Plunkett_, and his _History of the Irish Persecutions_,\nwere valuable, no doubt, for the light they cast on an important epoch,\nand for the proof they afforded of our forefathers' constancy in the\nfaith. Far more valuable, however, than these are Dr. Moran's _Essays on\nthe Origin, Doctrines, and Antiquities of the Irish Church_, in which,\nwith an extraordinary lucidity of reasoning and a singular amount of\nerudition, he answers all the arguments and refutes all the theories\nof modern Protestant writers and lecturers, who have undertaken the\nhopeless task of proving that the religion of the early church of our\nfathers was identical with that which had its origin in the corruption\nand cruelty of Henry VIII. and his daughter Elizabeth, and which, as\nfar as it has extended, was introduced into Ireland by fire and sword\nand the most cruel penal laws. Any one who reads Dr. Moran's essays\nwill admit that not only Whiteside and Napier, who have ventured to\nlecture on the ancient doctrines of the Irish Church, with which they\nwere altogether unacquainted, but also some learned antiquarians who\nhave treated of the same subject, were quite astray in their views,\nand had no solid arguments on which to ground their opinions.\n\nOur first extract is taken from the life of the venerable Archbishop,\nDr. Matthews, who governed the see of Dublin in a most critical and\ndisastrous period, from the 2nd May, 1611, to the 1st of September, 1623,\nwhen he died an exile in Rome. This extract is found at page 262, and\ngives an account of the persecutions to which Catholics were subjected\nin the reign of James I., who was supposed to be less hostile than his\npredecessor Elizabeth:\n\n    \"The greater part of the treatise of Dr. Roothe, entitled Analecta,\n    is taken up with details of the sufferings of our Church at this\n    sad period. The chief facts, however, which he commemorates are:\n    (1) that the fines levied in the county Cavan, in 1615, for the\n    mere crime of not assisting at Protestant service, amounted to\n    more than eight thousand pounds; (2) that when some of the poor\n    Catholics of the county Meath, who were unwilling to pay this tax,\n    fled from the cruel collectors of it into the caverns and mountain\n    recesses, furious bloodhounds were often let loose in pursuit of\n    them, followed by the sheriff and his posse of soldiers, equally\n    furious and unrelenting; (3) that the Protestant authorities had\n    constant recourse to ecclesiastical censures, in consequence of\n    which, great numbers of Catholic merchants and artificers were\n    thrown into prison, and reduced to extreme poverty and distress;\n    (4) that those who happened to die whilst under the ban of these\n    Protestant censures, were denied Christian burial, and thrown\n    into graves dug in the highways, where, to increase the ignominy,\n    stakes were driven through their bodies.[18]\n\n    \"More interesting to the reader than all these narratives, will\n    probably be the sketch of the sufferings of Ireland from the pen\n    of the archbishop himself,--a sketch drawn up with special care\n    by Dr. Matthews, in 1623, and presented by him to the Sacred\n    Congregation of Propaganda.[19] He thus writes:--\n\n        \"'Although from the very commencement of the schism we have\n        been constantly in the battle-field, and, with the exception of\n        the momentary repose enjoyed during the reign of Catholic Mary,\n        have been unceasingly exposed to the attacks of our persecutors,\n        yet so severe are their late assaults, that, in comparison,\n        all their preceding efforts sink into insignificance. Of this\n        persecution I myself have been a witness and a sharer, and I\n        shall briefly commemorate a few of its chief heads.\n\n        \"'Some years ago the heretics strained every nerve to introduce\n        into Ireland those laws which the English parliament enacted\n        against the Catholics of England, and to resuscitate the penal\n        code which had been surreptitiously passed at the beginning\n        of Elizabeth's reign. A parliament was summoned to attain\n        these ends. The government again sought by every art and\n        violence to secure the election of English or Scotch heretical\n        soldiers. Lest our Catholics might prevail by their numbers, new\n        English and Scotch colonies were planted, and endowed with the\n        privilege of representation. Moreover, a number of titles were\n        conferred on various heretics, whilst the remonstrances of the\n        Catholics were unheeded. Nevertheless, no counsel can prevail\n        against the Lord. All the heretical efforts were fruitless;\n        and so strenuously did the Catholics defend their sacred cause,\n        that their adversaries did not dare even to propose the penal\n        statutes. The heretics had then recourse to royal prerogative,\n        that thus, without any form of law or justice, they might riot\n        against the Catholics; and so violent is the storm of persecution\n        which they have thus excited, that it almost baffles description.\n\n        \"'1. All Catholics are removed from the administration of\n        affairs, and even the smallest offices are given to heretics\n        and schismatics, who may with impunity persecute the Catholics\n        according to their fancies.\n\n        \"'2. No Catholic can hold property throughout the entire kingdom;\n        everything is seized on by heretical colonists, and the ejected\n        Catholic proprietors cannot even live as servants on those lands\n        of which they are the masters by hereditary right. For the\n        heretics have learned by experience that there is no people in\n        the world so attached to the faith of their fathers as are the\n        Irish, in defence of which they often had recourse to arms, and\n        risked their fortunes and lives. Seeing, therefore, that penal\n        laws could not suffice to destroy their devotion to the Catholic\n        religion, they had recourse to new arts, and by a disastrous\n        counsel commenced to fill the country with English and Scotch\n        colonies; whilst at the present time, in consequence of the\n        treaties entered into with the continental states, the Irish can\n        hope for no assistance from other powers. Thus, then, the natives,\n        though unaccused of any crime, are, without colour of justice,\n        without any feeling of humanity, without any fear of Him who will\n        punish the oppressors, expelled from the homes of their fathers\n        and from their hereditary estates. Sometimes they are driven\n        to other parts of the kingdom, where small portions of land\n        are assigned to them for their maintenance; sometimes they are\n        compelled to fly from the island, and seek support by entering\n        the armies of the Continent. Heretics being thus introduced into\n        the Catholic lands, a great part of the kingdom is polluted with\n        their sacrilegious impieties; and unless God may avert the dire\n        calamity, the ancient faith will be banished from the whole\n        island. As this evil is propagated by brute force, and as our\n        people have neither skill nor power to cope with our enemies,\n        we must wholly rely for its remedy on the mercy of God.\n\n        \"'3. Ministers and preachers were sought out everywhere in\n        Scotland and England, and sent hither to pervert our Catholics.\n\n        \"'4. All benefices and other ecclesiastical property were, from\n        the beginning, seized on by the heretics. In each diocese there\n        is a pseudo-bishop, and in each parish a pseudo-minister.\n\n        \"'5. The Catholics are compelled to repair, for heretical worship,\n        the churches and chapels which these iconoclasts themselves\n        had destroyed.\n\n        \"'6. The pseudo-clergy not only seize on all the revenues, but\n        exact payment for the sacraments of baptism and marriage, even\n        when they are administered by the Catholic priests; the sum thus\n        exacted sometimes amounts to four guineas or more, according to\n        the will of the Protestant ministers, who make no account of the\n        poverty and misery of the people. In addition to these exactions,\n        a salary was lately assigned to a certain heretic, to be levied\n        on the births, marriages, and deaths of the Catholics.\n\n        \"'7. Four times in the year questors are appointed to explore\n        the Catholics throughout the whole kingdom, and impose fines\n        on all who absent themselves from the heretical sermons and\n        communion. As this fine is not defined by law, the judges and\n        questors display great earnestness and avarice in exacting it,\n        through hatred of our holy religion.\n\n        \"'8. On each Sunday, each Catholic father of a family is obliged\n        to pay a pecuniary fine for himself and for each Catholic member\n        of his family. This fine is exacted without mercy even from the\n        poorest labourers.\n\n        \"'9. The pseudo-bishops have introduced a new system\n        of excommunicating, forsooth, the Catholics; from which\n        excommunication the Catholic cannot be freed, except by\n        recognizing the spiritual authority of these bishops, and thus\n        sacrificing their own faith. Those thus excommunicated are liable\n        to arrest; and should they die, are interred in unconsecrated\n        ground.\n\n        \"'10. Those who assist at Mass, incur a penalty of one hundred\n        marks.\n\n        \"'11. All our gentry and nobility are obliged to send their heirs\n        to be educated and perverted in England.\n\n        \"'12. None of the nobility are now allowed to succeed to their\n        paternal inheritance, without first taking the oath of royal\n        supremacy: otherwise they and their posterity are deprived of\n        their revenues, and thus the dreadful alternative is presented\n        to them of perversion or poverty.\n\n        \"'13. It is interdicted to the Catholics to teach school either\n        in public or in private; on the other hand, heretical masters\n        are hired in every diocese, and paid from the revenue of some\n        benefices, to pervert our youth and imbue them with heresy. In\n        fact, the heretics have obstructed every avenue by which our youth\n        could receive instruction in this kingdom; and by their severe\n        penalties and rigorous searches, they seek to render it impossible\n        for any Catholic teacher to remain in the country. Moreover,\n        having created a university in the city of Dublin, the seat of\n        the viceroy and the capital of the whole kingdom, they employ\n        every artifice to attract our children to its schools. Indeed,\n        they could not possibly devise any scheme more iniquitous than\n        that of thus corrupting our youth.\n\n        \"'14. The Catholic cities are deprived of their ancient liberties,\n        privileges, and rights, and are reduced to the rank of towns,\n        unless they elect heretics as their mayors and aldermen, or,\n        at least, select such persons as the heretics approve of, as\n        lately happened to the city of Waterford, which holds the second\n        place in the kingdom for its strength and opulence'\".\n\nThe second extract is the last appendix to the volume. It gives us the\nepitaphs of Hugh O'Neill and Dr. Matthews, which are now published for\nthe first time.\n\n\n    _Epitaph of the Most Rev. Eugene Matthews, Archbishop of Dublin._\n\n    \"This volume was already in type, when we were fortunate enough\n    to meet with the original epitaph which marked the last resting\n    place of the illustrious Archbishop Matthews.\n\n    \"Near the summit of the Janiculum, in the city of Rome, stands\n    the well known church of San Pietro-in-Montorio. It contains many\n    treasures of art, and its paintings retail the names of Raffaelle,\n    Michael Angelo, Pinturicchio, Vasari, and other great masters.\n    More dear to the Christian pilgrim is the adjoining shrine,\n    which guards the clay in which was set the cross of the Prince\n    of the Apostles.\n\n    \"It was in this church that the last princes of Tyrone and\n    Tyrconnel were interred. In the second row of tombs with which\n    the pavement of the church is lined, the Irish traveller will\n    find without difficulty the epitaph of Hugh baron of Dungannon,\n    who died in September, 1609, and of the two O'Donnells, who died\n    in the autumn of 1608.[20] It is known that Hugh O'Neil, earl of\n    Tyrone, was also interred here; but hitherto his tomb has been\n    sought for in vain. The archives of the adjoining monastery,\n    however, have at length come to our aid. The last great Irish\n    chieftain expired in the Palazzo Salviati, on the 20th of July,\n    1616, and the register of San Pietro-in-Montorio marks the 24th of\n    July, 1616, as the day on which his remains were, with princely\n    pomp, laid within its vaults. This same register further tells\n    us that his epitaph, now wholly obliterated, held _the first place\n    in the third row_ of tombs which mark the pavement of the church,\n    and that it consisted of the simple record:\n\n        D. O. M.\n        HIC QUIESCUNT OSSA\n        HUGONIS PRINCIPIS O'NEILL.\n\n    \"It was alongside the tomb of Hugh O'Neil that Eugene Matthews,\n    archbishop of Dublin, reposed in death. His epitaph, says the\n    register of the church, holds _the second place in the third\n    row of tombs_. The slab which corresponds with this indication\n    now only retains some faint traces of letters here and there,\n    it being impossible to decipher even one word of its original\n    inscription. Here again the church register comes to our aid; it\n    tells us that the following was the inscription on Dr. Matthews'\n    tomb:\n\n        D. O. M.\n        EUGENIO MATTHEI, ARCHIEPISCOPO DUBLINENSI,\n        DOCTRINAE CLARITATE NATALIUM SPLENDORE,\n        FIDE IN DEUM PIETATE IN PATRIAM SINGULARI\n        QUI POSTQUAM SOLLICITI PASTORIS,\n        DIUTURNO AC DIFFICILI TEMPORE IN HIBERNIA,\n        NUMEROS OMNES ADIMPLESSET,\n        SUB GREGORIO XV., ROMAM VENIT,\n        UBI AB OPTIMO PONTIFICE BENIGNE HABITUS,\n        DUM PATRIAE SUAE NEGOTIA PROMOVERET,\n        EXTREMUM DIEM CLAUSIT KAL. SEPT. 1623.\n\n    \"Thus, as Dr. Matthews was closely allied by blood with the\n    families of Tyrone and Tyrconnel; as he in youth shared with them\n    the perils of the Catholic camp; as, when bishop of Clogher, he\n    enjoyed with them the hospitality of the great pontiff, Paul V.,\n    in the Salviati Palace, Rome; so was he destined to be united\n    with them in death, and to repose with them beneath the shadow\n    of St. Peter's dome, amidst the sanctuaries and shrines of the\n    Eternal City. We cannot better conclude than with the words of\n    the Four Masters, when registering the death of Hugh O'Neil:\n    'Although he died far distant from Armagh, the burial place of\n    his ancestors, it was a manifestation that God was pleased with\n    his life; for the place in which God granted him to be buried\n    was Rome, the capital of the Christians'\".\n\n\n\n\nLITURGICAL QUESTIONS.\n\n\nIn the last number of the _Record_ we laid down some rules for the\nconvenience and guidance of the clergy in determining what mass is to\nbe said on the occasion of marriage. We did not, however, point out\nthe cases in which the nuptial benediction cannot be given, and when\nthe mass pro sponso et sponsa cannot be said. The Roman Ritual has the\nfollowing words:--\"Caveat etiam parochus ne quando conjuges in primis\nnuptiis benedictionem acceperint, eos in secundis benedicat, sive mulier\nsive etiam vir ad secundas transeat. Sed ubi ea viget consuetudo ut\nsi mulier nemini unquam nupserit, etiamsi vir aliam uxorem habuerit,\nnuptiae benedicantur, ea servanda est. Sed viduae nuptias non benedicat,\netiamsi ejus vir nunquam uxorem duxerit\". It is clear from these words\nthat the nuptial benediction is not to be given, nor is the mass pro\nsponso et sponsa, to be said, in case a widow is to be married.\n\nThis will appear still more evident from two decrees of the Sacred\nCongregation of Rites bearing on this subject:--\n\nNo. 4150.--Quaer. 4\u00ba \"Si mulier esset vidua debetne omitti missa pro\nsponso et sponsa et omittendae sunt benedictiones infra eam descriptae\npost orationem Dominicam et Ite missa est?\"\n\nAd. 4.--\"Si mulier est vidua non solum debet omitti benedictio nuptiarum,\nsed etiam, missa propria pro sponso et sponsa. Die 3 Martii, 1761\".\n\nAnd again on the 31st of August, 1839, the following questions were\nanswered:--\n\n1. Quando nuptiae celebrantur tempore Adventus vel Quadragesimae debetne\nfieri commemoratio missae pro sponso et sponsa per Collectam Secretam,\net Post communionem?\n\n2. Licetne recitare supra sponsos preces seu orationes in missali positas\npost orationem Dominicam et Ite missa est?\n\n3. Quando praedictae orationes non sunt recitatae in missa nuptiarum,\ndebentne recitari extra missam elapso tempore prohibito?\n\nQuae singula dubia sedulo de more perpendentes Eminentissimi et\nReverendissimi patres sacris tuendis Ritibus praepositi in ordinario\nCoetu ad Quirinale subsignata die coadunati, auditaque fideli relatione\nab infrascripto secretario facta respondendum censuerunt: serventur\nRubricae Missalis ac generalia memorata Decreta quibus edicitur ut\nquoniam temporibus ab Ecclesia vetitis, locum haberi nequit solemnis\nbenedictio nuptiarum, ita pariter inhibetur commemoratio pro sponso\net sponsa in Missa occurrente neque orationes resumendae extra missam\ntempore prohibito jam elapso.\n\nAtque ita rescripserunt, declararunt ac servandum omnino mandarunt.\nDie 31 Augusti, 1839.\n\nWe shall now proceed to answer other questions which were some time since\nsent to us by a much respected and zealous clergyman in connexion with\nthe administration of marriage.\n\n1. In what part of the church are the spouses to take their places? are\nthey to stand or kneel during the ceremony?\n\n2. Is the surname to be repeated in the ceremony?\n\n3. Is the ring to be put from finger to finger or on the ring finger at\nonce, as laid down in Roman Ritual?\n\n4. How much of the Ritus Pontificalis of marriage ought a priest to\nadopt? for instance can he use a cope?\n\n5. Is a lighted candle, and how many, to be used at the marriage ceremony,\nor in blessing holy water, etc.?\n\nIn answer to the first question, we beg to say that the Roman Ritual\nsimply says: \"Matrimonium in Ecclesia maxima celebrari decet\". It was\nquite unnecessary to say more, inasmuch as the Ritual lays down that the\nspouses are to assist at mass and to approach Holy Communion. When these\nparticulars are observed, the spouses should, of course, occupy a place\nnear the altar, and even in case there should be no mass, it appears to\nus quite proper that they should contract marriage at the altar, while\nwe cannot point out the precise place, as the Rubrics of the Ritual do\nnot enter into further details. With regard to the kneeling, the Ritual\nsays nothing: we think, however, that the practice of allowing them to\nstand while expressing their mutual consent, and kneeling down at the\nwords _Ego conjungo vos_, etc., may safely be followed. This practice\nis indicated in some Rituals: \"Ac primo sponsum interreget stantem ad\ndextram mulieris\", and in the Roman Pontifical, \"Muliere ad sinistram\nviri stante\". The Roman Ritual does not mention these details.\n\nIt is not at all necessary to repeat the surname in the ceremony.\nBaruffaldi, in his \"Commentaria ad Rituale Romanum\", has the following\nwords: \"Post nomen non utique est necessarium addere cognomen gentilitium\nquia per verba illa _hic praesentem_ satis indicatur quinam sit illa\nde quo agitur. Nihilominus ad abundantiam nonnulli solent addere\nquoque cognomen prosapiae et nomina parentum illorum qui contrahunt ad\nevitandum omnem errorem circa personam\". Baruffaldi, _de Matrimonio_,\ntit. xlii. The Roman Ritual certainly appears to state that the ring\nis to be placed on the ring finger at once, and so does the Pontifical;\nhowever, it is to be remembered that other Rituals do not contradict this,\nbut they would appear rather to explain the manner of observing what is\nprescribed in the Roman Ritual by moving it from finger to finger, and\nreciting the words at the same time as pointed out in the Ritual. Our\nrespected correspondent, when proposing these questions for the very\nlaudable purpose of securing uniformity of practice in so important\na matter, must recollect the words of the Roman Ritual: \"Caeterum si\nquae provinciae aliis, ultra praedictas, laudabilibus consuetudinibus\net caeremoniis in celebrando matrimonii sacramento utantur, eas\nsancta Tridentina synodus optat retineri\". On which words Baruffaldi,\ncommenting, says: \"Cum Ecclesia Catholica delere introductas et per\nlonga saecula approbatas caeremonias, impossibile iudicaverit, illas\nquodammodo retineri laudavit, optavitque dummodo sint vere laudabiles\net merae consuetudines, non autem ritus sacramentales sacramentum\ndeformantes\". Hence, we should not be surprised if in different countries\nand even in different districts a diversity of practice exist in regard\nto details, \"quae substantiam sacramenti non laedunt nec pietatem\noffendunt\". At the same time, however, it is but right that we should\nobserve the rubrics of the Ritual, as, the more accurate we are in\ndoing so, the greater will be the uniformity of practice, which is\nmost desirable.\n\nThe principles which we have laid down will enable us to answer question\n4. We should not consider the pastor deserving of censure for using a\ncope on a very solemn occasion, though undoubtedly there is no mention\nmade of it in the Ritual, whereas it is prescribed in the Pontifical for\na Bishop; and, as a direct answer, we should be disposed to state that\na priest may adopt as much of the Ritus Pontificalis as is consistent\nwith the due observance of the Ritual. The priest ought to be guided by\nthe Ritual, while he leaves to the bishop the observance of the Ritus\nPontificalis as laid down in the Roman Pontifical.\n\nWe now proceed to answer the fifth and last question. The Rubrics require\nlighted candles in the blessing of the ashes, palms, and candles; but in\nthe blessings referred to in the proposed question, the use of candles\nis not prescribed, though we think it would be very becoming to have\nlighted candles at a marriage even when there is no mass.\n\nNothing, however, is better calculated to edify and to impress the\nfaithful with a sense of the dignity and character of the great sacrament,\nas it is called by St. Paul, in Christ and in the Church, than the holy\nsacrifice of the Mass; and hence the Holy Catholic Church, anxious to\ninvest it with all possible solemnity, exhorts the married couple to\nprepare for its reception by confession and communion, and has appointed\na special mass for the purpose; and accordingly we find that here in\nIreland, even in the times of persecution, the nuptial benediction\nand mass were prescribed by Dr. Matthews, Archbishop of Dublin, and\nhis suffragans, in a provincial synod at Kilkenny, in the year 1614.\n\"Si quando contigerit, parochum aliquos matrimonialiter conjungere, non\nhabita tunc opportunitate impertiendi illis nuptialem benedictionem,\nquae infra missarum solemnia dari solet, moneat verbis gravibus\ncontrahentes, ne ante hujusmodi a se ipso, et non alio sacerdote,\nacceptam benedictionem, in eadem domo cohabitent, et multo minus,\nmatrimonium consummare praesumant. Similiter sponsos de futuro moneat,\nut a nimia familiarite caveant, et ne se ullatenus carnaliter cognoscant,\ndonec matrimonium de praesenti contraxerint, et benedictionem nuptialem\n(prout dictum est) obtinuerint\"--(_Vide_ Dr. Moran's _History of the\nArchbishops of Dublin_, vol. i. p. 453, which contains all the statutes\nof that synod). With the same view we thought it well to publish some of\nthe decrees having reference to the nuptial mass, by which it is easily\nseen how the dignity of this sacrament has been upheld by the Church,\nwhile the system introduced by governments in other countries would\nhave the effect of degrading it to the level of a mere civil contract,\nand depriving it of the blessing and sanction of heaven. If we shall\nhave succeeded in an humble way in showing the dignity of the marriage\ncontract by the wise rules and discipline established by the Catholic\nChurch, we will have performed a work agreeable, we are sure, to the\nreaders of the _Record_, and attained at least one of the objects aimed\nat by its conductors.\n\n\n\n\nCORRESPONDENCE.\n\n[The Editors are not responsible for the statements made by\ncorrespondents.]\n\n\n_To the Editors of the Record._\n\n    REVEREND GENTLEMEN,\n\n    Since you have been kind enough to set aside a portion of the\n    _Record_ for the insertion of correspondence upon theological and\n    liturgical subjects, I trust that you will allow me to offer a few\n    remarks upon a letter which has appeared in the number[21] for the\n    present month, regarding the method of applying for dispensations\n    _in gradu inaequali consanguinitatis_. Your correspondent justly\n    considers that the question is of great importance, and hence\n    it may be well to call attention to some inaccuracies which,\n    if uncorrected, would neutralize the good effects of his \"hint\n    to fellow-labourers in the vineyard\".\n\n    1. The question of which Gury treats at page 594, is the necessity\n    of mentioning the gradus _propior_, and not the gradus _remotior_,\n    as stated in your correspondent's letter.\n\n    2. According to the opinion now almost universally received,\n    this necessity does not exist--so far as the _validity_ of the\n    dispensation is concerned--except when the gradus propior is the\n    gradus _primus_, which should be always mentioned, whether it\n    concurs with the second, third, or fourth; and your correspondent\n    is quite correct in stating that a misapprehension of the\n    meaning of a constitution of Benedict XIV. has led St. Liguori\n    to adopt an opinion completely at variance with this. But it\n    is manifest that the Saint's mistake has not been \"inserted in\n    the very latest editions of the works on moral theology most in\n    use at present--such as those of Gury and Scavini\"; for, while\n    St. Liguori _extends_ the necessity to all those cases in which\n    the first _or second_ degree concurs with another more remote\n    (_Theol. Mor._, lib., n. 1136), Gury falls into the opposite\n    extreme by maintaining that in consanguinitate inaequali, even\n    the _first_ degree need not be mentioned, except when it concurs\n    with the _second_ (Gury, _Theol. Moralis_, 13th ed., p. 594,\n    n. 867, _not_ 876.)\n\n    3. Scavini certainly copied in the earliest editions of his work\n    the opinion of St. Liguori; but the mistake has been long since\n    corrected. In the Paris Edition of 1855, he says: \"Declaravit\n    Benedictus XIV., Brevi _Etsi_, conjugium ... illicitum esse\n    sed non invalidum modo propinquitas non sit _primi_ gradus\n    consanguinitatis vel affinitatis, scilicet mixti cum caeteris\n    _usque ad quartum_ gradum\"--t. 4, p. 503. I have examined several\n    editions which were published since the one from which I have\n    quoted, and in all these the same view is laid down.\n\n    4. Your correspondent states that the opinion of Gury was\n    adopted by Scavini. I think this statement is hardly correct.\n    Most certainly it is not correct with reference to any of the\n    editions of Scavini's works which are commonly used in Ireland.\n\n    5. In a late edition of Gury's work, which, I suppose, has not\n    yet fallen under the notice of your correspondent, the error in\n    n. 867 is corrected by the following note: \"Invalidatur in genere,\n    dispensatio _si reticetur primus gradus_ ... pro foro interno,\n    expressio propioris gradus non requiritur nisi sit primus\".\n    _Editio tertia Germanica_ n. 867, p. 465.\n\n    6. Cardinal Gousset undoubtedly followed the view of St. Liguori;\n    but the reference to his work should be t. 2, n. 865, _not_\n    n. 1136.\n\n    7. In conclusion, I may remark that the theory suggested by your\n    correspondent as a possible explanation of St. Liguori's mistake,\n    does not appear to be admissible. The constitution _Etsi Matr._\n    had reference indeed to a case in which two impediments existed;\n    and the Pope declared that the marriage was invalid, because no\n    mention had been made of the _double_ impediment in the petition\n    for the dispensation. He explained, however, at some length\n    that the invalidity was caused by this defect alone, and that\n    no difficulty would have arisen in case there had been but\n    one impediment--relationship in the third and fourth degrees,\n    although the dispensation had been granted for the fourth without\n    any mention of the third.\n\n    Amongst other reasons for this decision, he speaks of the\n    common consent of theologians, who agree that in the case of\n    a relationship in the _third_ and _fourth_ degrees, it is not\n    necessary to mention the _gradus propinquior_ when seeking the\n    dispensation.\n\n    There can be no doubt that it was this passage which induced\n    St. Liguori to conclude that if the gradus propinquior were the\n    _first_ or _second_, it should be expressed in the petition.\n\n    He could hardly have committed such a mistake as to suppose that\n    _duplex_ impedimentum, meant an impediment of consanguinity in\n    the _second degree_. It is evident that he did not fall into this\n    error, for immediately afterwards, when discussing the question\n    regarding a _duplex impedimentum_ (n. 1138), he adopts the opinion\n    of Benedict XIV. on this subject, quoting the same constitution,\n    _Etsi_, in support of his view.\n\n    I remain, Reverend Gentlemen, respectfully yours,\n\n                                                           DUBLINENSIS.\n\n    May 7th, 1865.\n\n\n\n\nDOCUMENTS.\n\n\nDECREE OF THE SACRED CONGREGATION OF PROPAGANDA.\n\n\nI.\n\nDECRETUM.\n\n_S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide habitae die 12 Aprilis, 1802._\n\nQuum nomine Archiepiscoporum, Episcoporum, et Vicariorum Apostolicorum\nM. Britanniae S. Congregationi de Propaganda Fide proposita fuerint tria\nquaesita, nempe:\n\nI. An Episcopi, Archiepiscopi, et Vicarii Apostolici M. Britanniae,\nqui facultatem habent a S. Sede Apostolica dispensandi cum Catholicis\nin nonnullis impedimentis matrimonialibus, iis facultatibus valide et\nlicite uti possint in matrimoniis mixtis, nempe dispensandi cum parte\nCatholica, quae parti acatholicae nubere velit.\n\nII. An Episcopi Hiberniae, qui ex jurejurando in consecratione praestito\ndebent SS. Apostolorum limina singulis decenniis visitare, et status\npropriae Dioecesis relationem presentare, initium decennii sumere debeant\na die propriae consecrationis, an primum decennium numerare a data[22]\nconstitutionis s. Memoriae Sixti V. quae incipit, \"_Romanus Pontifex_\"\net sic deinceps.\n\nIII. An dispensatio a SS. liminum visitatione, a Summo Pontifice Pio\nVI., die 7 Maji 1798 Episcopis et Archiepiscopis Hiberniae impertita\ncum clausula \"_quamdiu praesentes rerum circumstantiae perduraverint_\",\nad praesens cessaverit.\n\nEminentissimi Patres, referente R. D. P. Dominico Coppola, Archiepiscopo\nMyrensi secretario respondendum esse censuerunt.\n\nAd I. Negative; et supplicandum esse Sanctissimo pro sanatione in radice\nomnium matrimoniorum, quae cum hujusmodi dispensationibus ad haec usque\ntempora contracta sunt: Iisque dandam esse instructionem anni 1774 ad\nEpiscopum Culmensem transmissam.\n\nAd II. Incipiendum esse primum decennium a die constitutionis summi\nPontificis Sixti V. quae incipit \"_Romanus Pontifex_\". Si vero Episcopi\ncirca ultimum decennii annum consecrati visitationem explere ac relationem\nstatus suae Dioecesis transmittere nequeant, ab Apostolica S. Sede\nprorogationem expostulent.\n\nAd III. Praedictam dispensationem cessasse. Datum Romae ex AEdibus dictae\nS. Congregationis die 20 Octobris 1802.\n\n                                      S. CARDINALIS BORGIA, Praefectus.\n\n                       DOMINICUS, Archiepiscopus Myrensis, Secretarius.\n\nLOCO [+] SIGILLI.\n\n(_Copia vera, Richardus Armacanus_).\n\n\nII.\n\nTWO DECREES OF THE PROPAGANDA, CONFERRING THE PARISH OF COOLOCK AND THE\nPREBEND OF WICKLOW ON THE LATE MOST REV. DR. MURRAY, ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN.\n\nWe publish those decrees to preserve them from the fate of many other\nimportant documents. Being connected with the history of one of the most\nillustrious prelates of the diocese of Dublin, they possess a peculiar\nvalue and interest. The benefices referred to had devolved to the Holy\nSee, because Dr. Ryan, the previous incumbent, had been promoted to the\nepiscopal rank.\n\n\nDECRETUM\n\n_Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide._\n\nQuum per promotionem R. D. Patritii Ryan ad officium Coadjutoris in\nEcclesia Fernensi in Hibernia apud Sedem Apostolicam vacaverit Parochialis\nEcclesia de Coolock, Dioecesis Dublinensis cum adnexis, quam dictus\nPatritius in titulum obtinebat, Sacra Congregatio ex potestate sibi facta\na Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio Divina Providentia P.P. VII. Lutetiae\nParisiorum, Parochialem Ecclesiam praefatam cum ei adnexis benigne\ncontulit Reverendo Domino Danieli Murray, Presbytero probitate doctrina,\nac zelo a R. P. D. Archiepiscopo Dublinensi commendato.\n\nDatum Romae ex AEdibus dictae Sacrae Congregationis die 26 Januarii 1805.\n\n                                            A. CARD. DUGNANI Pro-Praef.\n\nDominicus Archiepiscopus MYREN. Secretarius.\n\n\nDECRETUM\n\n_Sacrae Congregationis de Propaganda Fide._\n\n_Die 11 Martii 1805._\n\nQuum per promotionem R. D. Patritii Ryan ad officium Coadjutoris Ecclesiae\nFernensis in Hibernia vacaverit et adhuc vacet Canonicatus, sive Praebenda\nde Wicklow, quam dictus Patritius obtinebat in Majori Ecclesia Dublinensi,\nSacra Congregatio, utendo facultatibus sibi tributis a Sanctissimo Domino\nNostro Pio, Divina Providentia P.P. VII. durante ejus absentia ab Urbe,\ndictum Canonicatum, sive Praebendam de Wicklow cum omnibus juribus,\net pertinentiis suis benigne contulit R. D. Danieli Murray Presbytere\nSaeculari viro doctrina, ac Religionis zelo, caeterisque virtutibus a\nR. P. D. Archiepiscopo Dublinensi specialiter commendato.\n\n                                            A. CARD. DUGNANI Pro-Praef.\n\nDominicus Archiepiscopus MYREN. Secretarius.\n\n\nIII.\n\nLETTER OF THE IRISH BISHOPS TO THE PROPAGANDA, 1801.\n\n_Dublino 19 Novembre 1801._\n\nI Metropolitani e Vescovi d'Irlanda sotto descritti amministratori del\nCollegio di S. Patrizio adunati qui, letto il grazioso biglietto di\nMonsignore Secretario di Propaganda indirizzato al Padre M. Concanen\nsotto il di 7[23] Agosto prossimo passato, lo pregano d' umiliare loro\nprofondissimo divoto rispetto e venerazione alla Santita di Nostro\nSignore, a cui professano la piu viva riconoscenza per la paterna sua\nsollicitudine ed attenzione ai loro interessi e doveri.\n\nQuanto al consaputo piano ideato dal Governo Brittanico in supposto\nvantaggio della Ecclesiastica Gerarchia in Irlanda, Monsignore Segretario\ne gia informato dei loro Sentimenti dal dettagliato riscontro che\nne diede L'Arcivescovo di Dublino all' Emo Signor Cardinale Borgia,\nPro-Prefetto allora della S. Congregazione: Dichiarano ora che non\nadotteranno verun piano che non sia conforme alle massime inalterabili\ndella nostra santa Religione ed ai diritti della S. Sede Apostolica,\ntenendo per nullo ed invalido qualunque piano Ecclesiastico che non sia\ndalla medesima autorizzato e confermato. Desiderano ardentemente che il\nplausibile sistema da loro finora osservato sia seguitato, ed asterranno\nscrupolosamente d' aver in mira qualunque loro proprio temporale vantaggio\ntrattando col Governo Brittannico, a cui professano la piu disinteressata\nubbedienza e gratitudine.\n\nPresentemente non si parla dell' ideato progetto, ne si parlera prima\ndella publicazione del nuovo Concordato tra la S. Sede ed il Governo\nFrancese, a norma del quale in alcuni supposti articoli si regolera\ncome se dice, anche questo Governo.\n\nIntanto bramano vivissimamente i Metropolitani e Vescovi d'Irlanda dalla\npaterna sollicitudine e saviezza del Santo Padre quei maggiori lumi\nche stimera, opportuni per schiarire questo scabroso affare e regolare\nla loro condotta nel maneggiarlo nelle critiche circostanze in cui si\nritrovano per l' infelicita dei tempi presenti.\n\nL' Arcivescovo di Dublino lo Scrivente nell' eseguire i voleri dei\nMetropolitani e Vescovi sotto descritti communicando questi loro\nsentimenti, si rassegna colla piu verace e distinta Stima, etc.\n\n                                              I VESCOVO ACCENNATI Sono.\n\n  RICARDO, Arc. Armacano.\n  TOMMAS, Arc. Casseliense.\n  PATRIZIO GIUSEPPE, Vescovo Midense.\n  EDMONDO, Vescovo Elfinense.\n  F. GIO. TOM., Arcivo. Dubliniense.\n  ODOARDO, Archivescovo Tuamense.\n  GIACOMO, Vescovo Fernense.\n  GIOVANNI, Vescovo Ardaghadense.\n\nA. Monsignore Segretario di Propaganda.\n\n\nIV.\n\nADDRESS OF THE IRISH BISHOPS TO POPE PIUS VII. IN 1814, WITH THE\nPONTIFF'S REPLY.\n\nIn order to preserve the following valuable documents, we insert them\nin our pages. The first is an address of all the Irish bishops to Pius\nVII. on his return from captivity in 1814; the second is the Pope's reply.\n\nI.\n\nSpes denique revixit Christianis, et reparata est incolumitas Ecclesiae\nCatholicae, Salvo TE, qui CHRISTUM non magis auctoritate quam patientia\nrepraesentas, atque divinitus ex iis erepto miseriis, quibus et vestrae\nSedis Majestas et tuarum virtutum afflicta indignissime tenebatur, Sancte\net Gloriosissime Pontifex Domine PIE SEPTIME Vir Dei. Quod ut evenisse\nsingulis nationibus gratum est, quaecunque ad evertendam dominationem\ntaedio servitutis exarserant; ut bonis jucundum omnibus; Catholicis\nvero exoptatum atque ingentis desiderii ac voti fuit: ita nobis,\nBeatissime PATER, qui primi omnium, vastata Re Publica Christianorum,\nita doluimus, ut vel Populi illius Romani tui fletibus non minor de TE\nresponderet gemitus noster; quique praenuntiavimus haud diuturnam futuram\nistam tantam crudelitatem; qui demum solemni obtestatione interdiximus,\nne quis, TE oppresso, praerogativam Sacrosanctae Potestatis interciperet,\nnon solum communis attulit fructum laetitiae, sed et victoriae jam nostrae\nlaudem aliquam conjunctam atque cohaerentem admirabilibus triumphis\nTUIS. Itaque quorum fides tibi, B. P. in luctuosissimo rerum tempore\ninvicta constitit, jam licebit caritatem et gaudia nostra ambitiosius\nin publica felicitate profiteri. DEXTERA tua DOMINE magnificata est\nin virtute: DEXTERA tua DOMINE percussit inimicum. Et in multitudine\ngloriae tuae deposuisti adversarios tuos: Flavit Spiritus Tuus et operuit\neos mare.\n\nProximum est post tuam venerationem, B. P. ut amplissimum Senatus\nTui Ordinem faustis acclamationibus prosequamur. Sed vero an ulla\noratio nostra, aut ulla omnino laus par sit tam divinae constantiae\ndeclarandae? Qui cum a Tuo sinu avulsi in alios alii carceres et diversae\nexsilia includerentur, adeo non potentiae, non injuriis, non contumeliis\nsubmiserunt animum, ut praeclara jam apud omnes nominetur magnitudo\nanimi illorum, fides, gravitas, pietas, innocentia. Immensa nempe laus,\nquam de ruina honorum suorum tanquam ex incendio ereptam, firmam sibi\ncomparaverunt ad memoriam saeculorum omnium.\n\nNunc liceat apud TE, B. P. gratulari venerabilibus collegis nostris\nEpiscopis Italicis, qui et confessionis titulo, et fidei erga TUAM\nSANCTITATEM splendidissimo crimine aerumnas, squalorem, minas cum vi et\nexsilio perpessi jam recreantur. Nec praetereundus Clerus ille vester\nUrbicus et Romanus fortis et sanctus, quos aut in insulam deportatos aut\nin Rhaetiam abstractos tyranni impotens furor persecutus est. Fruentur\nhi reduces tua BEATISSIME PATER, reducis eximia elementia. Fama\ncerte illustri suo ipsi merito perfruentur. Scilicet multiplici\nexperimento compertum est virtutem CHRISTI non posse obsolescere in\nEcclesia Catholica: eundemque in TE tuisque vigere spiritum etiam nunc\ncontemptorem mortis, qui et olim in sanctis Martyribus triumphaverit:\nubi spiritus CHRISTI sit, ibi et libertatem esse consciam immortalitatis.\n\nAttollat jam ipsa Urbs, Sanctorum hospita, religionis arx, depressum a\ngladiatorio servitio caput, seseque impune meminerit illam esse, quo\nara foederis Christiani perpetua constituta sit: ubi Apostoli aeternum\nsedeant jura dicturi populis. Exsultent Martyrum cineres, et Apostolorum\nmonumenta laetentur; vestraque, socii conditores non interiturae sub\nCHRISTO civitatis, PETRE ac PAULE, ad istam laetitiam ossa commoveantur,\nrestituto PIO SEPTIMO vestris et suis sedibus.\n\nGratuletur etiam sibi felix BRITANNIA, quamvis a Fide nostra dissentiens,\ntropaeis onusta et rea voti tamen, quippe cui id firmum immotumque\nomni tempore insederit, ut obstaret grassanti impotentiae, debellaret\ntyrannos, pacem repraesentaret orbi terrarum. Enimvero haec princeps\ndesperanti jam de vita saeculo et imperatrix signum extulit libertatis\natque concordiae. Haec eadem Duces maximos aerarii infiniti prodiga\net sanguinis suorum, exercitusque invictos, quaquaversum misit; etiam\nlegiones fortissimas Catholicorum nostrorum: quorum in Aegypto, Italia,\nLusitania, Hispania, Galliaque ipsa facta commemorabuntur. Huic igitur\nimperio tantam haberi oportet a Catholicis gratiam quanta ab hominibus\nipsis debeatur liberatoribus humani generis; eamque TE, B. P. gratiam\npro omnibus unum optime et nobilissime relaturum confidimus.\n\nPostremum sancta genua cupidissime osculati, tuamque pro nobis et pro\ngregibus nostris Apostolicam Benedictionem flagitantes optamus, ut IS,\nTE Petri successorem, qui mirabiliter eripuit de manu Herodis, DEUS\nat DOMINUS noster JESUS CHRISTUS, diu prosperet, ac firmet solium tuum\nin pace.\n\nEx Regio Catholicorum Collegio Manutiano,\n  Ad diem v Kal. Jun. MDCCCXIV.\n\n                                            SUBSCRIPTIONES EPISCOPORUM.\n\n\nII.\n\nPIVS P.P. VII.\n\nVenerabiles Fratres Salutem, et Apostolicam Benedictionem. Quantopere\nLitteris vestris V. Kal. Junias ad Nos datis delectati simus, satis\nexplicare, Venerabiles Fratres, non possumus, eximiis adeo amoris erga\nNos, et apostolicam sedem sensibus refertae sunt. Persuasos itaque\nVos esse volumus officium, quo pro felici calamitatum nostrarum exitu\nnuper perfuncti estis, omni ex parte gratissimum Nobis accidisse. Sed\net Venerabiles Fratres S. R. E. Cardinales, Italiae Episcopi, Clerusque\nUrbis universus ingentes perpetuo gratias vobis habituri sunt, quod\nipsorum omnium fortitudinem, constantiam, fidem omni laudum genere\nprosecuti sitis. Etsi vero illius, quae Nos et totam Ecclesiam dirissime\naffligebat calamitatis cessatio dexterae Excelsi adscribenda omnino sit:\ninter naturales tamen tam subitae, tamque admirandae rerum conversionis\ncausas, principem facile locum BRITANNIA obtinet, quae thesauris,\nexercitibus, classibus suis, junctisque foederatorum Principum armis\nimpia Tyranni Europam latissime vastantis consilia dispersit, viresque\ncontrivit. Utinam DEUS OPTIMUS MAXIMUS ea nationi tam praeclare de orbe\nuniverso meritae beneficia retribuat, quibus veram, solidam, absolutamque\nnumeris omnibus felicitatem consequatur. Quamvis autem Catholici vestrae\ncurae commissi suis erga Potestatem, cui subjacent, officiis plane\nrespondeant, nec bene, ut dicitur, currenti stimulos addere necesse sit:\nVos tamen, Venerabiles Fratres, hortari eos, ut facitis, indesinenter\npergetis, ne quid unquam committant, de quo merito reprehendi ab eadem\nPotestate possint. Cum omnes pastoralis officii partes tanto cum zelo,\net animarum profectu impleatis, huic etiam Vos accurate satisfacturos non\ndubitamus. Paternae interim, praecipuaeque nostrae ergo vos charitatis\npignus, Apostolicam Benedictionem Vobis, gregibusque vestris peramanter\nimpertimur, Datum Romae apud S. Mariam Majorem sub Annulo Piscatoris\ndie XXVII. Julii, MDCCCXIV. Pontificatus Nostri Anno Decimo Quinto.\n\n                                                       Dominicus Testa.\n\nVenerabilibus Fratribus Archiepiscopis et Episcopis Hiberniae.\n\n\n\n\nNOTICES OF BOOKS.\n\n\nI.\n\n    _The Culdees of the British Isles, as they appear in History,\n    with an Appendix of Evidences._ By William Reeves, D.D. Gill,\n    Dublin, 1864, pp. v.--163.\n\nIn treating of the life of St. Columba, some years ago, Dr. Reeves\nexpressed his hope that he should have an early opportunity of\ndealing with the Culdee question in a special dissertation. Much to\nthe satisfaction of all lovers of Irish sacred antiquities, among whom\nDr. Reeves' reputation is deservedly great, this hope was realised towards\nthe close of 1860, when the author read before the Royal Irish Academy\ntwo papers on the Culdees. These papers form the matter of the work\nunder notice; and we propose to give an account of it to our readers as\nmuch as possible in the author's own words.\n\nBefore entering upon his subject, Dr. Reeves sets forth the object\nhe has in view, and the method by aid of which he proposes to attain\nit. Persuaded that indulgence in speculation has brought great detriment\nto the cause of Irish history and antiquities, he puts forward in these\npages \"not so much his own views on the subject, as a comprehensive\nstatement of trustworthy materials upon which to form a sound and\nphilosophical opinion\". With this object in view, but one method was\nopen to him, namely, to collect and arrange all the scattered evidence\nupon the subject which his thorough and varied acquaintance with Irish,\nScotch, and English materials of history, both published and unpublished,\nenabled him to accumulate. This he has done with fulness and precision,\nand having completed his task, he leaves it to the impartial reader\nto combine the details placed before him, and draw his conclusions\nfor himself. Of this impartiality the author believes that he sets an\nexample in his own proper person; whatever his private sentiments may\nbe on the points at issue, he professes to hold them back. Not that he\nis cold or indifferent to his subject, for he declares that there is\n\"one weakness, if it be a weakness, to which he must plead guilty,\nand that is, earnestness in the cause of Ireland's ancient dignity\".\nBy that earnestness we are all gainers, and the labours it has dictated\nto the author will always hold a high place in Irish literature.\n\nThe work consists of four parts, with a valuable appendix. The first part\ncontains preliminary observations, and is divided into two sections--one\non the origin of the name Cele-de, or Culdee, the other being devoted\nto an analysis of that name. Part II. is entitled \"_The Cele-de in\nIreland_\", and consists of ten sections, respectively treating of\nstrangers in Ireland called Cele-de, of the Cele-de of Tallaght,\nof Armagh, of Clonmacnoise, of Clondalkin, of Monaincha, of Devenish,\nof Clones, of Pubble, and of Scattery Island. Part III. is headed\n\"_The Cele-de or Kelidei of Scotland_\", and has fourteen sections,\nthe first being occupied with general remarks, the others with the\nKelidei of St. Andrew's, of Dunkeld, of Brechin, of Rosemarkie, of\nDunblane, of Dornoch, of Lismore, of Hy, of Lochleven, of Abernethy,\nof Monymusk, of Muthill, and of Monifreth. Part IV., on the _Colidei\nof England and Wales_, has two sections--one on the Colidei of York,\nthe other on the Colidei of Bardsey. The appendix consists of evidences\nfrom authorities referred to in the essay, and constitutes a valuable\ncollection of documents, the importance of some of which extends far\nbeyond the question which they are here intended to illustrate.\n\nIn laying before our readers the substance of the contents of Part I., we\nshall take the liberty of inverting the author's order of arrangement,\nand commence by the analysis of the word. The name Cele-de is\ncomposed of the two words _cele_ and _de_. The word _cele_ is\nof frequent occurrence in the early Irish manuscripts, and is the\nusual gloss on the words _socius_, _maritus_, where they occur in the\nWurtzburg copy of St. Paul's Epistles and the St. Gall Priscian. From\nthis it passes into the pronominal sense of _alius_, _alter_, and the\nadverbial of _seorsum_. More rarely it has the sense of _servus_,\nand in O'Davoren's Glossary is explained by _gilla_ = \"a servant\";\nand with this interpretation it is found in modern Irish and Gaelic\ndictionaries. The other component, _de_, is the genitive of _Dia_,\n\"God\", and is found as a kind of religious intensitive in combination\nwith certain monastic terms, as anchorita Dei, monialis Dei.\n\nThus Cele-de may mean \"spouse of God\", or \"friend of God\", or \"servant\nof God\". Dr. Reeves prefers the last-mentioned interpretation, for the\nfollowing reasons. The devotion and self-denial peculiar to the monastic\nlife procured for those who followed it the special designation of _servi\nDei_, which in time acquired a technical application, so that _servus\nDei_ and _monachus_ became convertible terms, _ancilla Dei_ signified a\nnun, and _servire Deo_ a monastic life. In this sense, as Dr. Reeves shows\nby numerous quotations, it runs through the works of the Latin fathers,\nthe acts of councils, and the biographies of saints. The writings of\nSt. Gregory the Great (called in Ireland Bel-oir, the golden-mouthed)\nrecommended this meaning especially to Ireland, where that father was in\nthe highest repute. \"Familiarised, therefore, to the expression _servus\nDei_, it is only reasonable to suppose that the Irish would adopt it in\ntheir discourse, and find a conventional equivalent for it in the language\nof their country. To this origin we may safely refer the creation of\nthe Celtic compound _cele-De_, which in its employment possessed all\nthe latitude of its model, and in the lapse of ages underwent all the\nmodifications or limitations of meaning which the changes of time and\ncircumstances or local usage produced in the class to whom the epithet\nwas applied\" (pag. 2). Of this there are many examples: thus--1, the Four\nMasters, in the Irish Annals of 1595, apply the term to the Dominican\nFriars of Sligo; 2, the Book of Fenagh uses it of St. John the Evangelist;\n3, in the Book of Leinster and the Book of Lismore, St. Moling, Abbot\nand Bishop of Ferns (ob. 697), classes himself among the cele-n-De,\nand implies that his associates were the miserable, that is, the sick\nand lepers; 4, In Scotland, whither the term entered with the Scotic\nimmigrants, we find in the middle of the thirteenth century certain\necclesiastics entitled _Keledei sive Canonici_. Hence Dr. Reeves is\nof opinion that the term Cele-de was not a distinctive name borne\nuniformly by any one order, but a term of most various application--now\nborne by hermits, now by conventuals; now regulars, now seculars; now\nthose bound by poverty, now those free to hold property. Even when they\nbecame relaxed and corrupt, they retained their ancient name. Speaking\nof the Kelidei of St. Andrew's in Scotland, Dr. Reeves believes that the\nestate of matrimony was no disqualification for the office of a Kelideus;\nwhile Van Hecke, the Bollandist (_Acta SS._ Octobr., tom. viii. p. 166,\nb), from the same passage of the _Historia_ draws the very opposite\nconclusion. When at last Cele-de does become a distinctive term,\nit is only so as contrasting the old-fashioned Scotic monks with the\nchildren of mediaeval institutions.\n\nThe name Cele-de is taken by Toland, O'Reilly, and O'Curry, to\nmean \"spouse of God\", and to contain an allusion to the celibacy,\nthe seclusion, and the devotion of the ancient monks of Ireland. But\nDr. Reeves thinks that there is an incongruity in the expression\n\"spouse of God\", and the nature of the compound does not require such\nan interpretation. No doubt _sponsa Dei_ does occur in ecclesiastical\nlanguage for _monialis_, but he has not been able to discover an instance\nwhere _sponsus Dei_ has been used as an equivalent for _monachus_.\n\nThe York Chartulary, Giraldus Cambrensis, and the Armagh records, make\nCele-de = _colideus_ and _coelicula_, as if _cele_ was equivalent to\nthe Latin _colo_. Thus Cele-de, would be the same as the Latin word\n_Deicola_. The English name _Culdee_ grew out of the form _Culdeus_,\nfirst introduced by Hector Boece, and sanctioned by the practice of\nGeorge Buchanan.\n\nOne of the earliest examples on record of the use of the term\nCele-de occurs in the _Life of St. Findan_, published by Goldastus\n(_Rer. Alamannicar. Scriptores_, vol. i. p. 318). This saint flourished\nin the year 800, and his life was compiled not long after.\n\nIn the first section of Part II. it is shown that the _Cele-de_ were\nnot supposed by the Irish to be peculiar to this country. In section the\nsecond the community at Tallaght is noticed as presenting to us, if we\nmay credit certain Irish records, the term Cele-de in a definite sense,\nand in local connexion with a religious institution. In the rule composed\nby Maelruain the members of that community are styled _Cele-n-De_,\neither in the sense of an order strictly so-called, or more likely in\nthe sense of \"ascetics\", or \"clerics of stricter observance\". As to the\nrule of St. Carthach of Lismore (printed from O'Curry's MSS., pag. 112,\n172, _Irish Ecclesiastical Record_, vol. i. part 1), Dr. Reeves observes\nthat \"if it be a genuine composition, or even a modernized copy, it will\nfollow that the Cele-de were a separate class previously to the year\n636, when St. Carthach died, and that they were distinct from the order\ncalled monks\"--(pag. 8). Now of the whole family of monastic rules to\nwhich St. Carthach's belongs, O'Curry writes that \"of the authenticity of\nthese pieces there can be no reasonable doubt; the language, the style,\nand the matter are quite in accordance with the times of the authors\".[24]\n\nIn Armagh, the Colidei were officiating attendants at the altar and choir,\nbefore 1126, when the introduction of the canons regular diminished\ntheir influence and importance. They were, however, continued in\ntheir endowments and religious functions, but in a less prominent\nposition. Their head became precentor, and the brethren performed the\nduties of vicars in the choir. At Clonmacnoise they were connected with\nan hospital; at Clondalkin, Monahincha, Devenish, Clones, Pubble, and\nScattery, they had establishments more or less important.\n\nFrom Ireland the Colidei passed into Scotland, the primitive history of\nthe Church of which is essentially Irish in its character. The Keledei\nof Scotland appear for the first time in the history of St. Kentigern,\nor Munghu, as compiled by Jocelin at the close of the twelfth century\nfrom much earlier authorities. They were understood by the Scotch,\nin the twelfth century, to have been \"a religious order of clerks,\nwho lived in societies, under a superior, within a common enclosure,\nbut in detached cells, associated in a sort of collegiate rather than\ncoenobitical brotherhood--solitaries in their domestic habits, though\nunited in the common observances, both religious and secular, of a strict\nsodality. Such was the nucleus of the great city of Glasgow\". Pinkerton\nsays of them: \"The Culdees were surely only Irish clergy. In the\ngradual corruption of the monastic order they married, and left their\nCuldeeships to their children\". But he is mistaken in deriving their\norigin from St. Columba; no doubt they were found in lapse of time in\nchurches which that saint or his disciples founded, but in Dr. Reeves'\nopinion their name was in no way distinctive. Irish annals have only\none mention of Celi-de as existing in Hy, and that example is of so\nlate a period as 1164. F. Van Hecke, the Bollandist, says: \"Ceterum et\nnos quoque ejus sumus opinionis ut nullam inter Columbranos monachos\net Culdees cognatsinem intercessiore credemus\"--(_Act. SS._, Octob.,\ntom. viii. p. 166 a).\n\nIt would far exceed our limits to follow Dr. Reeves in treating of the\nScotch Kelidean houses.\n\nIn York, at the dissolution of monasteries, there existed an hospital\ncalled St. Leonard's, the chartulary of which tells us that in 836\nKing Athelstan found in St. Peter's Church, York, men of holy life,\ncalled _Kolidei_, who maintained out of scanty resources a number of poor\nmen. The king, in return for their prayers, and to enable them to do good,\ngranted to them a thrave of corn from every plough-land in the diocese\nof York, a donation which existed until a late period under the name\nof Peter-corn. The community founded an hospital which was afterwards\ncalled St. Leonard's. \"The presence of this community in York is a\ncurious vestige of Irish influence, discernible amidst long continued\nSaxon usage, which, as we learn from Bede, was, in ecclesiastical polity,\nantagonistic to the Scotic system\".\n\nIn Wales, the Isle of Bardsey, off Carnarvon, alone offers an example\nof Celi-de. Giraldus Cambrensis describes them in his _Itinerarium\nCambriae_, 2, 6, p. 865.\n\nThe practical value of Dr. Reeves' work is much increased by an excellent\nindex.\n\n\nII.\n\n    _Joseph Carriere, late Superior-General of the Sulpicians, and\n    Vicar-General of Paris; St. Sulpice and the Church of France\n    in his time._ By T. J. O'Mahony, D.D., D.C.L. Dublin: Mullany,\n    1865, pp. 193.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES.\n\n\n[Footnote 1: No. viii., May, pag. 375.]\n\n[Footnote 2: In the article we refer to the learned author (pag. 379)\nwrites that the name _Mechar_ and _Machar_ are \"clearly one and the same\nname\". Their identity is indeed quite manifest in the extracts from our\nIrish writers, to which we will just now have occasion to refer.]\n\n[Footnote 3: Page 376.]\n\n[Footnote 4: For further accounts of the O'Meachairs see the first volume\nof _Cambrensis Eversus_, by the late lamented Dr. Kelly, pag. 269. See\nalso the Four Masters passim, where they are called the dynasts of\nUi Cairin.]\n\n[Footnote 5: _Misericordias Domini_: Histoire de ma conversion au\nCatholicisme. Par le Doct. Hug. Laemmer, Pretre du diocese d'Ermland,\nTraduit de l'allemand, pp. 206. Casterman, Tournai, 1863.]\n\n[Footnote 6: 1, Prague; 2, Vienna; 3, Friburg; 4, Munich; 5, Olmutz; 6,\nGraetz; 7, Wuerzburg; 8, Munster.]\n\n[Footnote 7: 1, Tuebingen; 2, Innspruck; 3, Breslau; 4, Bonn. These are\ncalled _paritarian_ universities: with the exception of the Faculty of\nTheology, all the other faculties are Protestant. There are two Faculties\nof Theology, one Catholic and the other Protestant.]\n\n[Footnote 8: 1, Heidelberg; 2, Leipsic; 3, Rostock; 4, Greifswald; 5,\nMarburg; 6, Koenigsburg; 7, Jena; 8, Kiel; 9, Halle; 10, Goettingen;\n11, Erlangen; 12, Stutgardt; 13, Giesen; and 14, Berlin.]\n\n[Footnote 9: See Farrar's _Critical History of Free Thought_, pag. 390.]\n\n[Footnote 10: The _Kirchen-Zeitung_ and the _Kreuz-Zeitung_ are the organs\nof this body.]\n\n[Footnote 11: Father F. Mertian, of the Society of Jesus; _Etudes_, etc.,\n_par les Peres de la Compagne de Jesus_. No. 32, May, pag. 59.]\n\n[Footnote 12: _The Tuebingen School and its antecedents; a Review of\nthe History and Present Condition of Modern Theology_. By R. W. Mackay,\nM.A. London: Williams and Norgate.]\n\n[Footnote 13: No. 5, July, 1863, p. 235.]\n\n[Footnote 14: _Apologia_, page 63.]\n\n[Footnote 15: On the condition of the Protestant church in Germany,\nsee Doellinger's \"_The Church and the Churches_\", page 267, M'Cabe's\nTranslation, 1842.]\n\n[Footnote 16: Father Perrone makes frequent reference to Hengstenberg's\nBiblical labours, especially in tract. _de Incarnatione_, part I.]\n\n[Footnote 17: The following are some of the works published by Dr. Laemmer\nsince his conversion:\n\n1. [Greek: Eusebiou tou Pamphilou Ekklesiastikes Historias Bibloi\nDeka.] Eusebi Pamphili Historiae Ecclesiasticae libri decem. Graecum\ntextum collatis qui in Germaniae et Italiae bibliothecis asservantur\nCodicibus et adhibitis praestantissimis editionibus recensuit atque\nemendavit, latinam Henrici Valesii versionem passim correctam subjunxit,\napparatum criticum apposuit, fontes annotavit, prolegomena et indices\nadjecit D. Hugo Laemmer, Presbyter Varmiensis. Fasc. I. Cum tabulis duabus\nSpecimina Codicum septem continentibus. Scaphusiae sumtibus librariae\nHurterianae. MDCCCLIX.\n\n2. De codicibus Recensionibusque Historiae Ecclesiasticae Eusebii\nCaesariensis scripsit D. Hugo Laemmer, 1860.\n\n3. Anecdota Baroniana, ex codd. MSS. collegit, selectaque specimina\nedidit D. Hugo Laemmer. Rome, 1860.\n\n4. Monumenta Vaticana, historiam ecclesiasticam saeculi XVI. illustrantia.\nEx tabulariis S. Sedis Apostolicae secretis excerpsit, digessit,\nrecensuit, prolegomenisque et indicibus instruxit Hugo Laemmer. Una cum\nfragmentis Neapolitanis ac Florentinis, 8vo.]\n\n[Footnote 18: Analect. praef.; also part i. p. 39, et seqq. See also\nCurry's Historical Memoirs, p. 39, seqq. Some late Protestant writers have\nnot hesitated to assert that the bloodhounds were unknown to the executors\nof English law. However, the testimony of Dr. Roothe, an eye-witness, who\noften shared the perils of his flock, is unimpeachable; and, moreover,\nin the present instance, we have his testimony confirmed by the charter\nof James I., published in Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy, authorizing\nHenry Tuttesham, in 1614, \"to keep four men and twelve couple of hounds\nin every county of Ireland, for seven years\". Although the permission\nwas granted, in order to destroy the wolves which infested the country,\nwe know from several authorities how such permissions were perverted,\nby the ingenuity of the persecutors, to compass the destruction of the\nCatholics. See Proceedings of Royal Irish Academy, vol. ii., p. 77.]\n\n[Footnote 19: This sketch is sec. 8 of the Relatio entitled \"Brevis\ninformatio ad Illmos. D.D. Cardd. S. Congreg. Prop. Fidei, de statu\nReligionis in Regno Hiberniae, et praesente ejus necessitate, exhibita\ndie 4 Febr. 1623\". Ex Archiv. S. Congregat.]\n\n[Footnote 20: These tombs were repaired about twenty years ago by the\nlate Dominick O'Reilly Esq., of Kildangan, county Kildare, a sincere\nlover of his country and its antiquities.]\n\n[Footnote 21: See _Record_, vol. i. part ii. pages 389, 390.]\n\n[Footnote 22: The date of the publication of the constitution \"_Romanus\nPontifex_\" is 20th December, 1585.]\n\n[Footnote 23: For letter see _Irish Ecclesiastical Record_, vol. i,\npart ii. page 54.]\n\n[Footnote 24: Lect. xviii., pag. 373-4, vol. i.]\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\n\nTranscriber's Notes:\n\nIn the \"Documents\" section, the symbol for a \"Maltese Cross\" has been\nrepresented using [+].\n\nMinor obvious typographic errors have been corrected.\n\nInconsistencies in the usage of capitalization, accents and ligatures\nare preserved as printed.\n\nThis issue as printed ends with a summary for the book by T. J. O'Mahony,\nwithout an accompanying review.\n\n\n\n\n\n\n<pre id=\"pg-footer\">","title":"The Irish Ecclesiastical Record, Volume 1, June 1865","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":21738}