Skip to main content

Full text of "The Irish ecclesiastical record"

See other formats





St. John's Seminary 
Plymouth, Michigan. 


" Ut Christian* ita tt Romant tttis.'' "As you are children of Christ, so b you children of Rome, 1 ' 
Ex Dictts 5. Patncti, !n Libro Artnacana, foL 9, 

The Irish 
Ecclesiastical Record 

a JtattjjltJ Journal, imfcer Episcopal Sanction. 
WttB-nM gear i JANUARY 1006 f fourt& * m ' e ** 

No. 457. J jAWUAKX;igQ>, [ Vol. XIX. 

The Church in 1905. 

jm L Rev. James MacCaffrey, S.T.L., Maynooth College. 

' Religion as a Credible Doctrine.' 

Rev r /. O'Neill, Ph.D., Carlow College. 

The Catholic Church and Human Liberty. V. 

Rev, Daniel Coghlan, D.D., Maynooth College. * 

The Vatican Edition of Plain Chant. 

J|| Rev. H. Beiverunge, Maynooth College. 

General Notes. 

I The Philosophy of Immanence. Augustine Birrell on Universities. The ' Minerva ' 

for 1905-1906. Statistics of the World. 

The Editor. 

M Notes and Queries. 

THEOLOGY. Rev. /. M. Harly, Maynooth Collegs. 

Who is the ' Proprius Parochus ' of ' Vagi ' ? Transference of Masses to the Bishop. 

LITURGY. Rev, Patrick Morrisroe, Maynoolh College. 

>J| Exequial Mass. Preface of Mass during the Quaranf Ore. Lights in Church during 

Benediction. Meaning of ' Rubeus ' as Liturgical Colour. The Confraternity of 

Christian Doctrine, 


His Holiness Pope Pius X and the Poles. His Holiness Pope Pius X and the 
Marooites. The Confraternity of Mount Carmel. 

Notices of Books. 

The Sacrifice of the Mass. Recollections of William O'Brien, M.P. The Life of 
Count Arthur Moore. 

BROWNE & NOLAN, Limited 

Center Dei. 

fimimmatut. Publishers and Printers, 24 & 25 


M ' *'$&*&.. NASSAU STREET, DUBLIN. * 


SUBSCRIPTION ; Twelve Shi.itnss frr Annum, Post Free, payablt in aavanff. 




M Speciality. 




Ho. 1. telegmphi* Addreu " COS A3, DUBLII." 




Treatment and Cure of Alcoholic Diseases. 

Duration of Treatment, 3 weeks only. No restraint of any kind. Patients treated at 
their homes in Dublin if desired. All communications held strictly private. Names of 
Patients never mentioned or referred to, 

Office : 33 DAWSON STREET. Manager : WM. Y. O'BRIEN. 


Altar Wax Gurite. SbriiK Candle?, 


CrOWD Soap. A Pure old-fashioned Soap la Bars, 
Soap. A Pore Free-lathering Soap in Tablets. 

GilESOH, O'DEA & CO . GESERAL mm mm 


Iron and Brass Bedsteads and Woven Wire Mattresses a Speciality. 

Mangles, Wringers, and Laundry Appliances. Kitchen Utensils and Brushes of every description. 

Institutions supplied on Special Terms. 
Kitchen Range, Stove, and Crate Warehouse, 

21 & 22, Christchurch Place, and 2,Werburgh St., 

^^^ DUBUMm 



J&tmtijlfj 3ournal, unfcer Episcopal Sanction 


jfourti) Series 



APR 1 1 1957 

Nihil Obstat. 





Are\\ep. Dubhn., Hibrnw Primiu. 




A Scholastic Discussion. By Rev. Edward Nagle, S.'T.L. - 138 

Bloocjjof St. Januarius A The. By Rev. Richard Fleming, c.c. 13* 

~~""Tn!irdtaaYXogue~at 1 Bobbio. By the Editor - - 446 

^Catechism. By Very Rev. Patrick Boyle, c.vr. - 206 

*- Catechism in Higher Schools. By Very Rev. Patrick Boyle, C.M. - 504 

Catholic Church and Human Liberty, The. By Rev. Daniel 

Coghlan, D.D. - 31 

Compulsory Education. By Rev. P. J. Dowling, C.M. - 316 


The Maintenance of Invalid Priests - 374 

Documents : 

Absolution ' in articulo mortis ' - 550 

Appointment of Confessors of Nnns - 183 

Bequests for Masses - - 273 
Biblical Criticism, Letter of His Holiness Pope Pius X to the 

Bishop of La Rochelle on - \/~ - 544 

Bishop's Control over the ringing of Bells - - 547 
Daily Communion, Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the 

Council regarding - - - - - -376 

Days on which Exequial Offices are Prohibited - - 545 
Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Council on Students 

in Seminaries - ..... 548 
Decree granting Indulgences for Daily Communion without the 

onus of Weekly Confession - - 469 
Encyclical of His Holiness Pope Pius X te the French Bishops, 

Clergy, and People - 551 

Exequial Offices Prohibited, days on which they are - - 545 

Gregorian Chant, approved Edition of the - 546 

His Holiness Pius X and the Poles 89 

His Holiness Pius X and the Maronites - 90 

Indulgences for Saturday Devotion to Immaculate Virgin - 179 

Indulgences for the Franciscan Rosary - - 376 
Letter of His Holiness Pope Pius X to the Bishop of La 

Rochelle on Biblical Criticism - 544 

Liturgical Questions, Some Solution of - ^ 467 

Mount Carmel, Confraternity of - 91 

Musical Instruments at Sacred Functions - 178 

Pope Pius X and the Catholic Institute of Paris - - 463 

DOCUMENTS amtinwd 

Pope Pius X and the German Catholics 184 

Privilege of Secular Priests in Third Order of St. Francis 182 

Privilege of Way of the Cross in. newly -erected Churches 180 

Questions on Indulgences - 468 

Removal of a Parish Priest - - - 181 

Ringing of Bells, Bishop's Ccntrol over the 547 

Sacred Vestments and Pall of Chalice at Requiem Mass 466 

Translation of Requiem Mass 465 
Students in Seminaries, Decree of the Sacred Congregation of 

the Council on - - 548 

Vicar Capitular and Diocesan Throne and Crozier 465 

Decision of the Court of Appeal and some Questions about the Mass, 

The. By Rev. Daniel Coghlan, D.D. 247 

Devotion to the Sacred Heart. By Rev. D. Dineen, D.D. 231 

Evolution ; Darwin and the Abb6 Loisy. By Rev. Daniel Coghlan, 

D.D. 481 

Father Denifle, O.P. By Rev. Michael O'Kane, O.P. 97 

Father Quigley, The Trial and Execution of. By R. J. Kelly, B.L. - 528 

General "Wotes: 

Augustine Birrell on Universities - 67 

Cardinal Perrand .... 254 

Decision of the Holy See on Daily Communion ' 365 

Diplomatic Relations of England with the Vatican 167 

Immanence, The Philosophy of 64 

Intemperance, St. Bernard on - 364 
***> Monsignor Capel .... -.169 

Social Action of the Italian Clergy . . * 257 

St. Bernard on Intemperance .... 364 

Statistics of Marriage - . 166 

Statistics of the World ...... 71 

The Clergy in Parliament - - - - 166 

The Dublin Review ....... 165 

The Irish Theological Quarterly - - - 170 

The Minerva for 1905-1906 ..... 69 

The Key to the World's Progress .... 363 

The Origin of Life ....... 362 

Kyriale'and its Critics, The Vatican Edition of the. By Rev. 

T. A. Burge, O.S.B. ...... 334 

Kyriale;' The Vatican, a Rejoinder. By Rev. H. Bewerunge - 421 

Lord Randolph Churchill. By Very Rev. T. P. Gilmartin, D.D. - 153 

Hotes and (Rueries; 

LITURGY (By Rev. P. Morrisroe) : 

Baptism, Questions about ..... 2 66 

Betudictio Mensae . . . . . - 176 

Blessed Eucharist, Questions about 2 <56 

Blessing of Children, The ..... 27 , 



Ceremonies to be observed in Preaching - - 455 

Christian Doctrine, The Confraternity of 84 

Decree concerning Confraternity of Mount Carmel - 174 

De Missa in Aliena Ecclesia 539 

Exequial Mass - 80 

Lights in Church during Benediction - 83 

Mass to be said in certain Church - 174 

Meaning of ' Rubeus ' as Liturgical Colour - 83 

Midnight Mass, Privileges of - 537 

Oil in Sanctuary Lamps - 458 

Orationes in Missis de Rtquie - 370 

Prayers at Mass sub unica Conclusione ... 461 

Preface of Mass during the Quarant Ore ... 82 

Questions about Baptism, Blessed Eucharist, Scapulars, etc. - 266 

Whether a Painting of the Crucifixion may serve as Altar Cross 460 

THEOLOGY (By Rev. J. M. Harty) : 

Advent Fast - .... 262 

Age at which Obligation of Fasting ceases - - 368 

Case of Restitution - .... 454 

Delegated Jurisdiction to hear Confessions outside the Territory 

of the Delegating Authority - ... 266 

Fast and the Use of Porridge ...... 262 

Frequent Communion - - - ... 45 

"""""index, Rules of the .... 3 g6 

Milk, Use of on Fast Days ..... 263 

Restitution, Case of ..... 454 

Rules of the Index 366 
Transference of Masses to the Bishop - -77 

Vagi. Proprius Parochus of 75 

Weekly Confession aad Indulgences 454 

notices of 

Addresses to Cardinal Newman, 284; A History of Modern 
England, 188 ; Alphonsus Liguori, St., Life of, 280; A Lad of 
the O'Friels, 567 ; Arthur Moore, Life of Count, 95 ; Antipris- 
cilleana, 471 ; Aspects of Anglicanism, 382 ; Aubrey Beardsley, 
Last Letters of, 4o ; Catholic Ideals in Social Life, 476 ; 
Catholic Truth Society Publications, 192 ; Classical Greek, 
Short Grammar of, 187 ; Clerical Managers and the Board 
of National Education, 571 ^jfeDenifle._Father, Life of, 288 ; 
Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus7""~285 ; Directoire 
Canonique a 1' Usage des Congregationes a voeux Simples, 191 ; 
Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum, 478; Gilbert, Sir 
John T., Life of, 190 ; Granville, Lord, Life of, 186; Illustrated 
Story of Five Years' Tour in America, 564 ; Irish Catholics and 
Trinity College, 561; Irish Education: As it is and as it 
should be, 568 ; Is Ireland a Dying Nation ? 566 ; Kyriale seu 
Ordjnarium Missae, 189 ; La Cite de la Paix, 574 ; Le Maitre 


NOTICES OF BOOKS continued. 

e* 1'EIdve, Fra Angelico et Benozzo Gozzoli, 383JpL'Histoire 
du Concordat de 1801, 190^ Meditations on Christian Doctrine, 
568; My Queen and My Mother, 472 ; Out of Due Time, 471 ; 
Paris Manuscript of St. Patrick's Latin Writings, 288 ; 
Recollections of William O'Brien, M.P.,93 ; ScAtAn TIA b'pjxeAti, 
381; SeAnm6ij\i ttluije TluA'6A p o. 1m1eAbAj\ A Ti-Aon, 564; 
Sketches in History, Chiefly Ecclesiastical, 473 ; St. Columba's, 
570 ; Summa Theologia ad modum Commentarii in Aquinatis 
Summae, 286; The Consecration of a Bishop, 570; The Life 
of Lord Granville, 186 ; The Sacrifice of the Mass, 92 ; Tha 
Science of the Spiritual Life, 576; The Spirit of Sacrifice, 
285 ; The Suffering Man God, 480; The Tradition of Scripture, 
573 ; The Truth of Christianity, 283 ; The Yoke of Christ, 570. 
Philosophy and Religion, Thoughts on. By Rev. P. Coffey, D.PH. 193, 385 
Plain Chant, The Vatican Edition of. By Rev. H. Bewerunge 44 

Religion as a Credible Doctrine. By Rev. ]. O'Neill, PH.D. - 21, 113, 

43i 5i6 

Sacred Heart, Devotion to the. By Rev. D. Dineen, D.D. - 231 
The Church and the Schools in Countries of different Religious 

Denominations. By Rev. Daniel Coghlan, D.D. 346 

The Church in 1905. By Rev. James MacCaffrey, S.T.L. i 

ugh.! Transference, A Study in. By Rev. Patrick Sheridan - 497 

rial and Execution of Father Quigley, The. By R. J. Kelly, B.L. - 528 

Unbelief, The Foundation of. By Rev. James MacCaffrey, S.T.L. - 289 


THE year 1905 is past and gone. In many respects it 
will be an eventful one in history. Political events 
of capital importance for Europe, and for the world, 
have succeeded one another with alarming rapidity. 
The fall of Port Arthur, the defeat at Mukden, the capture 
or annihilation of the Russian fleet, shattered the political 
power of the Muscovite Empire for generations, while they 
brought to a crisis at home the long-increasing demand 
for representative government. By the peace of Portsmouth 
and the offensive and defensive alliance with England, 
Japan, which till recent days was a negligible factor in 
political concerts, is advanced to the rank of a first-rate 
power, and the prospect of the awakening and resurrection 
of the Eastern races has reached a new stage on the road 
of probability. Nor has Western Europe been unaffected 
by these events. France, obliged by the Russian defeats 
to seek some new safeguard against the Teutonic invasions, 
has reversed her traditional policy of opposition to England ; 
while as a counter-move in the game of politics the Kaiser 
turns his sympathetic gaze towards his suffering brother 
of Russia. The Dual Empires, too, have had unpleasant 
experiences. Norway and Sweden mutually agreed to part 
company ; Austria and Hungary would have been better 
had they followed the example thus set, and, who knows, 
but before another year has passed for us, a still more 
interesting separation may not have been decreed ? 



In Catholic circles, too, the year just passed has not 
been an altogether uneventful one. The life of the Church, 
like that of the individual, is to be a life of warfare. 
She has had her crosses and defeats, but she has also had 
her consolations. Under the present illustrious Pontiff, 
whose motto is, the renewal of all things in Christ, she has 
freed herself more and more from the nets of diplomatic 
entanglements, to the strengthening of her own innate 
powers of defence. We are not of those who think that in 
the days of the Middle Ages the Church reached her prime, 
and that the remainder of her course must be marked by 
signs of senility and decay. New developments in social 
and educational circles, though at first apparently anta- 
gonistic, but open new spheres for her activity and new 
fields for her conquest, and it only requires a man and a 
policy to ensure success. Never before did the Church 
stand in a higher or better position. Old abuses, which for 
centuries crippled her power, have been eradicated ; the doles 
of State assistance with their consequences of slavery and 
silence have disappeared, or are rapidly disappearing, and in 
the present conditions of the world may they never return ; 
the union of the different parts with one another and with 
Rome is closer and more sympathetic than it had ever 
been ; new activities have been developed, new weapons of 
defence have been pressed into the service, new policies 
more in conformity with modern developments have 
been initiated, and with courage, patience, and withal 
prudence, the ultimate triumph is, we are convinced, 

Pius X has himself set the example of activity. With 
the keen eye of a general marshalling his forces for the 
fray he has seen the weak spots, and he has had the courage 
to point them out. The Commissions for the reforming 
of Canon Law, for the improvement of Church Music, for 
the unravelling of the Biblical problem, have engaged his 
sympathetic attention ; the multiplication of congregations 
and of offices, and of dignities, has not escaped his eagle 
scrutiny ; his desire to give all parts of the Church due 
representation in the College of Cardinals has been ex- 


amplified by the appointment of a South American Prelate ; 
new life has been infused into the Roman Universities ; 
Apostolic Visitors have been appointed for Italy ; the 
initiation of Provincial instead of Diocesan Seminaries is, we 
believe, under consideration. His Encyclicals, too, on the 
Social Question in Italy, on the Teaching of Christian Doctrine 
throughout the world, his letter to the Austrian Prelates 
on the ' Los von Rom ' movement in the Dual Empire, 
his many consistorial references to the present policy of 
the French Republic, have aroused universal interest. 
What is best for the present circumstances, not what is 
most in conformity with traditions is his aim ; and friends 
and foes alike admit that Pius X is not to be debarred by 
difficulties from carrying his view into practice. 

Politically, too, the power of the Holy See has been 
sufficiently demonstrated. The representative of the Pope 
undertook, and successfully carried out, to the satisfaction 
of the contending parties, an arbitration between Brazil 
and Bolivia, and later between Brazil and Peru ; the 
Emperor of Russia has expressed his anxiety to have a 
regularly accredited Ambassador of Rome at St. Peters- 
burgh ; the Sultan of Turkey and the ruler of China 
were anxious for a Papal representative at Constan- 
tinople and Pekin ; the Mikado received, in his island 
kingdom, with every mark of honour, the Extraordinary 
Envoy of the Pope ; the Kaiser is well known to be playing 
at Rome for the place vacated by France ; the new King 
of Norway officially notified his accession to the throne to 
the Holy See the first official communication between 
Rome and Norway since the Reformation ; while in the 
forthcoming assembly of the Powers at the Hague, it is 
not improbable that the Holy See will secure the repre- 
sentation in their councils that had been previously refused. 

In Italy the relations between Church and State, though 
remaining essentially the same, have been considerably 
modified. A spirit of mutual forbearance and conciliation 
has taken the place of the bitter opposition consequent 
upon the events of 1870. The utter rout of the forces of 
anarchy and disorder brought about by the union of Italian 


conservatives has not been without its lesson to the Vatican 
and the Quirnial. Italy has refused to follow in the wake 
of the anti-Catholic party in France, but she intends to 
profit by it, in securing for herself, in part at least, the 
French Protectorate over the Catholic missions. On the 
other hand, in his Whitsuntide Encyclical, Pius X urged 
the Catholics to throw themselves into the social work, to 
form associations on the model of the German Catholic 
Associations, to dispute the ground with the anti-Catholic 
socialists, and, eventually, to form a Catholic party to 
defend Catholic interests in Italy, as the Centre defends 
them in Germany. It was an appeal for the union of the 
conservative and radical elements into which the Catholic 
ranks in Italy had been long divided. Three men, dis- 
tinguished in economic circles, were appointed to draft 
the constitution of the new organization, and have since 
then given the fruits of their labour to the world. But, 
unfortunately, for the present, the Christian Democrats, or 
Autonomists, as they are called, have not ceased in their 
campaign of opposition. We are not, however, without 
hope that under the stress of circumstances the present 
bitterness will pass away, and all Italian Catholics will be 
found united in their allegiance to the policy sketched by 
Pius X. 

There has been a marked revival of Catholic life through- 
out Italy. In the municipal elections the Catholics, either 
alone or in alliance with some friendly party, achieved 
some notable successes ; the Holy Father's discourses to 
the children and the grown-up people of Rome have excited 
the greatest interest ; the efforts of the Catholic bishops 
to help the poor Italian emigrants have won the marked 
recognition of the Government and of the King; the jubilee 
of Bishop Bonnomelli of Cremona, who had done so much 
for the Italians in the East, was a national festival for 
Italy, while the death of Mgr. Scalabrini of Piacenza, the 
friend of the Italian emigrants of the West, was lamented 
as a national loss. The attitude of the leaders in the 
literary world has been considerably modified towards 
the Church. Giovanni Pascoli sang the golden jubilee of 


Mgr. Bonnomelli. Fogazzaro organized the celebrations in 
honour of Cardinal Capecaltro, and Graf has recently 
announced his conversion to the Catholic faith. The 
social works initiated by the clergy and by the people, of 
which the diocese of Bergamo is a standing example, con- 
tinue to spread rapidly ; and on the whole, despite the 
divisions in Catholic ranks, the Church has no reason to 
regret her progress in Italy during the year just passed. 
In France the policy initiated by M. Waldeck-Rousseau, 
and in greater part carried out by M. Combes has, at last, 
under M. Rouvier, been brought to a successful issue. 
The Church and State are finally divorced. The decree 
that went forth so often from the Masonic lodges has in the 
end received the approval of the Chamber and the Senate, 
and the signature of the President of the French Republic- 
France as an official Catholic nation has ceased to exist. 
For Catholics throughout the world, but more especially 
for Irish Catholics, the news has been a cruel blow, but, 
it was one for which they were prepared. They may 
indeed have hoped that the Church would have made a 
better struggle, they may have counted too much upon 
the traditional devotion and generosity of the French 
nation, they may have thought that even in the last moment 
a man^would arise capable of repairing the blunders of the 
past, and welding together the friends of religion and of 
liberty, but still they knew that, sooner or later, the 
divorce must come. 

The important question must now be faced, what is 
to be done under the new conditions ? According to the 
new law the Republic will no longer recognize officially 
any ^religion, and will give no aid to its support. The 
Budget of Worship and all departmental and communal 
estimates for religious expenses will be supressed. The 
ministers of religion who are over sixty years of age, and 
who have given, at least, thirty years service, are to receive 
as a pension two- thirds of their present salary, those over 
forty-five, and who have given over twenty years work, 
receive one-half, and all others will receive their full salary 
for the first year after the separation, two-thirds for the 


second, one-half for the third, one-third for the fourth, 
and henceforth the State will recognize no obligations 
towards them. 

The property of the Church in France cathedrals, 
churches, seminaries, presbyteries, with all their belongings 
will be transferred to the Associations of Worship 
which will take the place, in a certain sense, of the present 
fabriques. These associations, whose sole object is to 
be religious, are to consist of seven persons in a parish 
of one thousand people, of fifteen if the parish has over 
a thousand and under 20,000, and of twenty-five if the 
population be greater. These parochial associations can 
unite together with a central direction and adminstration, 
and thus the religious associations in a diocese may be 
joined together for diocesan interests. They will be re- 
cognized by the Government as legal corporations, and wiU 
enjoy all the privileges of such. They are to give an account 
of their work to the people once a year, and their financial 
status is to be examined by governmental departments. 

On this point there are two restrictions to be noted, 
one of which is injurious to the Church and the other 
distinctly favourable. These associations can build up a 
reserve fund, but the extent of that reserve is strictly 
limited. For associations with 5,000 francs of revenue 
they can accumulate only a sum equal to three times 
their annual expense, and for the others the reserve fund 
must not exceed six times their annual outlay. The 
reserve must be securely invested ; but in addition they 
may also accumulate a special fund, to be placed in certain 
investments, for the buying, construction, repair or 
decoration of property suitable for the objects of the 
association. On the other hand, it is understood, though 
the final decision rests with the Council of State, that no 
association will be recognized unless its priest is in a 
position to perform the usual duties of a Catholic priest, 
that is to say, that he is in subjection to his bishop who 
is himself in communion with Rome. If this interpreta- 
tion be given to the law, the danger of schism will be, 
to a great extent, removed. 


To these associations of worship will be handed over 
most of the Church property, the cathedrals, churches, 
seminaries, presbyteries, etc., with this difference that in 
case of the churches they are to be handed over gratuitously, 
but in the case of archiepiscopal and episcopal houses, 
they are given for only two years, and the seminaries and 
presbyteries for five years. On the expiration of these 
terms they become the property of the State or department 
or commune. But beside this movable and immovable 
property, the associations can obtain funds by gifts, by 
collections, by fees for religious ceremonies, by foundations, 
by hiring out the seats and places in the church, and in 
many other ways, the only restriction being that they can 
receive no help from the State under any title whatsoever. 

Regulations for securing public order are also intro- 
duced. Religious gatherings are under the surveillance 
of the police ; with the mayor lies the regulating of pro- 
cessions and of ringing the bells ; heavy fines are levelled 
against anyone forcing another to join a religious function 
or to contribute to its expenses, against ministers of 
religion defaming by sermon or public notice any citizen 
of France, against any minister of religion who would 
encourage resistance to the laws, or whose sermons would 
tend to rouse one party against another. These are the 
principal clauses of the Bill of Separation. 

Now, there are two lines of opinion in France regarding 
the action that should be taken in the present circumstances. 
One party would have nothing to do with the new law. 
They would not organize these associations of worship 
nor give any countenance to their organization ; they 
maintain that such associations introduce democratic 
elements into the Church, essentially at variance with her 
Divine constitution. Besides, they argue, the present law 
is but the beginning of the persecution. The anti-religious 
elements are not content, and, as a result, the very earliest 
opportunity will be utilized to place on the statute-book 
still more stringent measures. But another, and we think 
a wiser, party stoutly maintain that Catholics should be 
up and doing, that they should begin at once the work 


of organization, that the principle of lay control of the 
finances, though not the usual system, is, still, not in 
opposition to the constitution of the Church, that the fear 
of future robbery should not prevent the householder 
from fortifying his house against attack. They point 
out, too, that what the Church has lost in funds she has 
gained in freedom ; that the appointment of bishops, which 
hitherto rested with the Government, will now be vested 
in the Holy See, which will appoint men, not for their 
political services or their readiness to meet the wishes 
of the secular power, but for their ability and readiness 
to defend the interests of the Church ; that the fourteen 
Sees now lying vacant on account of the action of the pre- 
sent Ministry can at once be filled, and that with good bishops 
to guide the fortunes of the Church, the present crisis will 
soon pass away, and in the end Catholicity will progress 
as it has progressed in the English-speaking countries. 

The opinions of these latter will, we trust, prevail, but 
until the regulations of the Council of State for the en- 
forcement of the law are seen, and especially until the Holy 
Father has spoken, it is not safe to give a very definite 
opinion. Pius X has followed the course of events in 
France with anxious attention. He has heard the views 
of all parties expounded by their ablest exponents ; he has 
around him many devoted counsellors who are in close 
touch with the state of affairs in France ; he has no interests 
to seek except the welfare of the Church, and, therefore, 
he is in a position to pronounce an impartial verdict 
on the new law, and to give an authoritative declaration 
on the policy which should be adopted by French 
Catholics. We are confident that he will soon publish his 
views, and we trust that they will be loyally accepted 
by all. 

But, if Catholics have reason to regret the state of 
affairs in France, they have still better grounds to rejoice 
at the position of the Church in the German Empire. 
What a change since the days of the Kulturkampf under 
the Iron Chancellor ? The Kulturkampf and its authors 
are gone, but the fruit of their work remains, and is repre- 


sented by the Centre party in the Reichstag, which party 
in itself is typical of the perfectly organized forces of German 
Catholicism. It is now the most powerful section of the 
German representatives, counting one hundred pledged 
members, and. in union with the Alsatians, Poles, Guelfs, etc., 
can command over one hundred and thirty votes on any 
religious question. The Emperor perfectly recognizes that 
the Centre is the only real bulwark against the advancing 
tide of Socialism, and hence his readiness to comply with the 
demands of the party. Nor are there any signs of weakness 
or decay to be found in the Centre. The recent elections in 
Bavaria were a sweeping triumph for the Catholics over 
the Liberals, and in Baden, too, they have achieved some 
notable successes. The Catholic Congress held this year 
in Strasburg, was even more imposing than before, and 
the utmost unanimity marked the proceedings. Per- 
secution was advantageous to Germany. It welded 
together the Catholic forces, and we are not without hope 
that it may produce the same effect in France. 

Perhaps the most interesting development in the 
Empire during the past year was the attacks made upon 
the Catholic student societies at the German universities. 
For over sixty years the Catholic societies have existed 
at the universities. The necessity for such separate 
foundations will be evident, if it be remembered that most 
of the student bodies are organized on a duelling basis, 
or recognize the lawfulness of such forms of ' satisfaction^ 
The motto of the Catholic societies, on the contrary, is 
religion, science and good-fellowship. In recent years 
many new societies were formed, the work of organization 
was perfected, and the Catholics had secured a position 
at the German universities that they could have never 
hoped for without such union. The result was noticeable, 
both in the tone of the universities themselves, and in 
the public life of the country. 

The extreme Protestant parties took alarm at the spread 
and success of the movement. The Evangelische Bund, 
corresponding more or less with ' The Protestant Alliance ' 
of these countries, passed resolutions condemning the 


Catholic student societies, and calling upon the Government 
to suppress them. Their cry was the freedom of university 
life. Young men, they said, going to the universities should 
begin life without guiding strings, they should be at 
liberty to select for themselves in religion and politics, 
and the Catholic societies were a menace to the intellectual 
and political life of the Empire. The agitation soon spread. 
Jena was the first place to adopt their resolutions and the 
technical schools of Hanover were not slow to follow the 
example, and in the February Re-union at Eisenach the 
decree of dissolution against the Catholic societies was 
pronounced. The matter was brought before the Reichstag. 
The Catholic students were ably defended by Dr. Porsch, 
himself a member of a Catholic student society and the 
Chamber was practically unanimous in condemning the 

In May, the Minister of Education summoned the 
Rectors of the universities to a conference, and the student 
societies were one of the items for discussion. The Minister 
insisted that the students were free to do as they pleased 
, to join any or no society and he called upon the rectors 
to allow no intimidation or persecution of the free cor- 
porations. His instructions did not put an end to the 
controversy, a campaign of boycott was initiated, but the 
Catholic students were not to be easily crushed. Their 
answer to the agitation was the foundation of many new- 
societies, and nobody who saw them march through the 
streets of Freiburg to High Mass, last summer, or through 
Strasburg at the Catholic Re-union of Germany, could have 
any fear that they mean to barter one iota of their freedom 
or their principles, even at the bidding of the Evangelische 

For Catholics throughout the Russian Empire the recent 
disasters have not been without good fruit. Religious 
as well as political liberty has been granted by the recent 
Imperial decrees. But in no other part of the Empire has 
the Church benefited more than in Poland. There the 
freedom of religion was hedged round by many restrictions. 
The priests were at best only ticket-of-leave men ; they 


could not go outside their parish without special per- 
mission, and re-unions were almost an impossibility. Reli- 
gious instruction in Polish was forbidden, and in the schools 
Polish was ruthlessly pursued. But the recent war dis- 
asters put an end to such autocratic rule. The Russian 
popular assembly is certain to be favourable to Poland, 
as is shown in the resolutions of the Zemstovs in 

The first result of the Imperial decrees may be seen in the 
territory of the ' Uniate ' Ruthenians. These unfortunate 
people were betrayed by their Metropolitan. They had 
been in communion with Rome, but their Primate joined 
the ' orthodox ' Church years ago, and they suddenly 
found themselves registered as orthodox. They were com- 
manded to conform to the orthodox religion, their priests 
were banished, their churches sequestrated. Persecution 
followed persecution, in spite of the protests of the Holy 
See, but the poor unfortunate people refused to accept the 
orthodox faith. The result was that they were left without 
the Sacraments of the Church, except Baptism, which they 
administered themselves ; they assembled in the woods or 
private houses for their devotions. They remained devoted 
to Rome in spirit, though separated from it by force, and, 
as soon as the Imperial ukase appeared they hastened to 
put themselves into communication with Rome. The 
result is that the Church has gained an immense number 
of recruits in the last six months; by many it is estimated 
that over half a million have declared themselves Catholics, 
anxious to remain in submission to Rome. Whole villages 
have turned over at the same time. These are only the 
first fruits of the new awakening in Russia, and still more 
important developments may be expected in the near 

The state of Catholicity in the Dual Empire (Austria 
and Hungary) is not entirely satisfactory. We fear that 
there, too, the evils of State control are only too visible 
and that an effort must be made if the Church is to main- 
tain her position. But it is pleasing to know that there is 
new life and energy in the Catholic ranks. After the 


Papal Letter to the Austrian Bishops on the ' Los von 
Rom ' movement a proselytizing movement adopted by 
the Pan-Germanic party serious steps are being taken to 
combat the evils. Societies are being formed, churches are 
being built, collections are being organized to send priests 
into the districts hitherto neglected. The religious char- 
acter of the schools is engaging serious attention, and an 
effort is being made to found a new Catholic University at 
Salzbourgh. How far such a step is prudent in Austria 
at present, we leave it to the organizers to determine. 
Unfortunately, the Catholic parties are not unanimous in 
regard to the line of action to be pursued, and the present 
political troubles between Austria and Hungary have 
tended to throw the religious programme into the back- 
ground. But the recent re-union of the Austrian Catholics 
may help to put an end to their dissensions, and if they 
were only united, the new energy in the Catholic ranks 
would give us hope for the future of Austria. 

We can merely glance at the remaining Continental 
countries. In Belgium the Catholic party still controls 
the Government, and bids fair to control it for a long 
time to come, though we are still uncertain whether it is 
wise to identify the interests of the Church with the for- 
tunes of a political party so closely as has been done ; in 
Holland the Catholics form about one-third of the popula- 
tion, and the Catholic representatives hold the balance of 
power between the Evangelicals and the Socialists ; in 
Switzerland the position of the Catholics could hardly be 
more encouraging ; in Sweden there is a Catholic popula- 
tion of two thousand, with a Vicar-Apostolic and sixteen 
priests ; in Norway the number is a little higher ; in 
Denmark the figure reaches about seven thousand. Spain, 
if anything, has improved under its excellent young 
Catholic king, and Portugal is no worse than it has been 
for years. 

Before passing to other countries it might be well to 
to call attention to the serious struggle which the Church 
is forced to sustain throughout the world in defence of 
religious education. In Ireland and England our readers 

THE CHURCH IN 1905 13 

are perfectly familiar with the difficulties of the situation ; 
in France religion has been banished from the schools, but 
we hope the scholars are still not neglected ; in Italy reli- 
gious instruction used to be given unless the parents object 
now, unfortunately, the parents must demand it ; in 
Austria and Belgium there is danger brewing ; in America 
separate schools still keep their flag flying, as is shown by 
the Sheedy Report in the recent blue book on education ; 
in Canada the Laurier compromise has secured Catholic 
teachers for Catholic children in the north-western terri- 
tories ; in Australia the bishops have reasons for protesting 
against the system ; and in New Zealand the united Hier- 
archy have registered their objection against wholesale 
Bible reading in the public schools. The cause of religious 
education is a sacred one and an important one, and from 
this brief epitome of the state of affairs throughout the 
world, it will be evident that the enemies of the Church 
are sparing no pains to secure the ultimate triumph of 
secularism. It behoves Catholics to note the turn which 
affairs are taking, and to determine upon the line of defence 
best suited to modern requirements. 

In the United States Catholics have no reason to regret 
the work that has been done in recent years. According 
to the Wiltzius Directory (1905) there are now under the 
United States jurisdiction, 22,127,354 Catholics that is to 
say, about twelve millions on the mainland, over one 
million in Porto Rico, and seven millions in the Philippine 
Islands. Great sacrifices are being made to maintain the 
separate Catholic schools. New York alone has paid out 
4,839,000 dollars for its sixty schools, frequented by 40,000 
pupils, and their annual cost exceeds 320,000 dollars. By 
the recent decision of the President we understand that the 
Indian Catholic schools can receive an endowment from the 
funds annually devoted to the Indians in lieu of regular 
government withdrawn since 1899. New dioceses have been 
formed, and new activity is evidenced by the Federation 
of Catholic Workmen's Societies, and, in the literary world, 
by the project of publishing a scholarly and scientific 
Catholic encyclopaedia. 


The need of such a publication has long been felt. 
Encyclopaedias, indeed, there are in sufficient numbers in 
the English language, but a glance at a few of the articles 
will be sufficient to prove how little the writers understood 
or appreciated Catholic beliefs and sentiments. It is 
to such books that Catholics must at present have 
recourse, if they want to procure the information 
they require ; and the influence for evil upon their 
readers is sufficiently evident from the work the Ency- 
clopaedists did in undermining the faith of the French 
nation. Hence it is, that a number of Catholic scholars in 
America have determined to do for the English language 
what has been already done for the French and the German. 
The names of the committee, embracing, as it does, the fore- 
most Catholic scholars in America, some of them Pro- 
fessors at the Catholic University, are a sufficient guarantee 
that the work will be done in a scholarly style. Writers 
have been secured throughout the English-speaking Catholic 
world, and the publishers are prepared to spare no expense 
to make the encyclopaedia not unworthy of the Catholic 
faith. We wish the project every success. 

There is, too, another institution on American soil to 
which Irish Catholics turn with sympathy and confidence 
the Catholic University at Washington. They look to- 
it as the crowning and completion of the great work of 
education done by Catholics in the States ; they recognize 
its necessity, they know its capabilities, and they are con- 
fident that under its present management it will satisfy 
all their expectations. Difficulties it has met with, we 
admit, friends have not rallied round it as they might 
have done ; its financial reverses would have broken the 
courage of less devoted labourers ; but, as Cardinal Gibbons 
put it in his memorable letter, the honour of Catholic 
America is pledged for its success, and Catholic America 
seldom knows failure. The Pope has blessed the work, 
the bishops are at present unanimous in its support ; an 
annual collection taken up through the States about the 
beginning of Advent has been inaugurated ; the present 
financial status, though far from perfect, is reassuring ; 


and with its excellent staff we are confident the number of 
its students will equal that of the leading American uni- 
versities. It requires time, no doubt, before the necessity 
of such an institution is recognized in certain circles, 
but nowadays we would fain believe that the recognition 
is universal. 

In Australia and New Zealand the progress of the 
Church has been completely satisfactory. In 1904 a 
great Catholic Congress was held at Melbourne, attended 
by representatives from all parts of Australia, and the 
report of the proceedings prove beyond doubt the vitality 
and the advance of the Church in Australia. During the 
present year the Australian Hierarchy met together at 
Sydney, under the presidency of Cardinal Moran, and in 
their joint pastoral issued to the Australian people the 
progress in the Church is sufficiently indicated : 

The period [they say] has been one of quiet growth and 
consolidation rather than of that pioneer missionary expansion 
which was distinctive of earlier periods of our history. Our 
Catholic population in Australia has grown to something over 
a million (1,011,550). The clergy number over thirteen hundred ; 
the teaching brothers over six hundred ; the nuns over five 
thousand five hundred. We maintain thirty-three colleges for 
boys, and one hundred and sixty-nine boarding schools for 
girls ; two hundred and fifteen superior day-schools, ten hundred 
and eighty-seven primary schools, ninety-four charitable in- 
stitutions, and the children in Catholic schools number over 
one hundred and twenty-seven thousand. From these figures 
it can be seen that although ours is a land which has developed 
and grown with the rapidity of adolescence, the Church has 
progressed also, even so as to keep well to the front among the 
most progressive institutions of the country. 

The news of the progress of Catholicity in Australia 
was welcome to Catholics throughout the world but especially 
did it send a thrill of pleasure through Irish hearts. Under 
the Southern Cross many of our exiled countrymen have 
found a home, and the interests of the Church there are 
in the hands of Irish ecclesiastics. Their devotion to their 
Mother Church and country was appropriately expressed 
in their address to the Hierarchy of Ireland, and in the 
name of Catholic Australia Cardinal Moran, a few days ago, 


sent his touching message of sympathy to the representa- 
tives of the Irish nation. 

For the Catholic Missions, too, the year 1905 has not 
been an unfavourable one. It was feared that the religious 
disturbances in France would have had a disastrous effect 
in places far remote from France, for, as everyone knows, 
French Catholics have been the mainstays of missionary 
efforts during the last one hundred years. French men 
and French money were freely placed at the disposal of 
the Church, and we are confident, even in these dark days, 
that God will not desert a nation which has done so much 
to spread the Gospel light. It is true, no doubt, that the 
banishment or suppression of the religious Orders and the 
diplomatic rupture with the Vatican have had injurious 
effects on the Catholic missions ; and nowadays with the 
separation of Church and State, when the people will be 
obliged to contribute to the support of their pastors and of 
the Church, it will be impossible to expect that there will 
not be a diminution in the amount of French contributions 
to the Propagation of the Faith and other kindred societies. 

But the Providence of God is watching over the Church. 
If one race or nation fail, another arises to take its place. 
Germany, which till recent years did comparatively little 
in the missionary field, is rapidly coming to the front. 
Numerous societies have been established throughout 
Austria and Germany for the spread of the Gospel, for 
collecting funds and for training missioners. The Em- 
peror, too, is not unconscious of the advantage such efforts 
might bring to the State in developing the sphere of German 
influence in distant lands. He recognizes to the full, what 
France has gained by its protectorate over the Christian 
missions of the East, and in the present crisis he hopes that 
Germany might occupy the place vacated by its rival. 
America, too, bids fair to excel in its contributions 
towards the funds of the Catholic missions. It was only 
in 1897 that the Council of American Bishops officially 
took up the work of the Propagation of the Faith, and 
warmly recommended it to the generosity of American 
Catholics. Nor has their appeal been long without a 


gratifying response. According to the most recent reports 
the diocese of Boston has actually contributed more money 
than the great diocese of Lyons, which is the home of the 
organization, and which for eighty- two years has headed 
the list ; and many other American dioceses have been 
almost equally generous in their subscriptions. There is, 
then, no fear that the Catholic missionary forces will be 
crippled for want of funds, and, despite the few reverses 
which even this year they have met with, the progress of 
the missions has been steady and re-assuring. 

In England, during the year that is passed, the question 
of education has been most prominent in Catholic quarters, 
The Bill of 1902, though good, in so far as it recognizes the 
rights of parents to the religious education of their children, 
has not been working so smoothly as many of its sup- 
porters anticipated. When the local authorities are un- 
friendly, difficulties of all kinds have been put in the way 
of the Catholic schools. The premises were condemned, 
or the teachers were underpaid, as in London, or the ne- 
cessity for separate schools was disregarded. With patience 
and determination perhaps the difficulties will pass away ; 
but } without professing to possess an intimate acquaintance 
with all its workings, we must admit that we have for the 
future the gravest fears. 

The limit of compromise has at least been reached, 
and, we think, Catholics can surrender nothing more without 
surrendering principles for which the Catholic Church has 
maintained many a severe struggle. Hence it is that 
friends were shocked and alarmed at one incident in the 
history of the school question last year, namely, what was 
known as the Bradford Concordat. There, the Catholic 
authorities seemed to have agreed to hand over a Catholic 
secondary school to the management of a committee, 
two-thirds of whom were to be elected by the City Council 
and only one-third by the trustees. Teachers were to be 
appointed without any reference to their religious beliefs^ 
and no religious education was to be given in school hours, 
or to be paid for from the public rates. The principle of 
Catholic teachers for Catholic children is, we think, the main 



contention of the Catholics, and no compromise surrendering 
such a principle could be tolerated. Fortunately, the 
Catholic Education Council promptly condemned the Con- 
cordat, the Bishops expressed their approval of the form 
and substance of the condemnation, and, as a result, the 
Catholics who had signed the agreement withdrew from the 
understanding. Such weakness, though in the most difficult 
circumstances, does much to injure the Catholic position. 
What fortune the present year may have in store for 
the Catholic schools of England we do not profess to know. 
The policy of the Liberal Government depends upon so 
many factors, at present uncertain, that no man, short of 
a prophet, could hope to foretell what the next few months 
may bring to light. That the Education Act of 1902 will 
be modified we have very little doubt ; but that the Catholic 
schools of England will suffer by the modifications we 
have not the slightest fear. The separate treatment of 
Catholic schools may, indeed, be the solution, and though 
the separate treatment has been time and again severely 
criticised, we are not yet convinced that it involves any 
certain risk of future ruin. It would, indeed, be a privilege> 
but it would be a privilege for which Catholics have made 
a sacrifice never made, and never likely to be made, by 
any other Christian denomination. It would be a privilege, 
too, guaranteed by a Liberal Government, and Tory Ad- 
ministrations, are not, from their principles, opposed to such 
privileges. But whatever be the plan proposed, of one 
thing we are confident, and that is, that the interests of the 
Catholic schools of England are safe in the hands of the 
Irish party. However much the party may have reason 
to resent the attitude of some of the leaders and organs 
of English Catholic Toryism, they have pledged themselves 
to maintain the cause of Catholic education, and they are 
not accustomed to shirk their pledges. But if they are 
prepared to do the work, if they are prepared to undertake 
the responsibility, and in their present position the responsi- 
bility is a serious one, surely they should be allowed to 
measure the ground for themselves, and to select the spot 
best suited for manoeuvring. 


In Ireland, too, the Education question, primary, 
secondary, and University, has been the main topic of dis- 
cussion in Catholic circles during the year 1905. The 
Commissioners of National Education by their amalgamation 
tendencies, and their withdrawal of fees for the teaching of 
the Irish language, have aroused popular feeling against 
them as it has hardly ever before been aroused. How long 
they can continue under present circumstances in setting 
at defiance the protests of managers, teachers, and people 
yet remains to be seen. Thinking men are at last waking 
up to recognize the anomalous position which Trinity 
College holds in the educational advance of the Irish nation. 
If indeed it were an Irish University, progressive with the 
progress of the times, anxious for the development of the 
mental and material resources of Ireland, proud of the 
Irish literary and historical treasures left to it to unfold 
we could well understand why Dublin University should 
exercise a predominant influence over secondary and 
primary education in Ireland. But, there it stands on 
Irish soil indeed, but almost the only English institution 
which has remained for centuries uninfluenced by its Irish 
surroundings. With its immense revenues, drawn for the 
most part from Irish sources, it has persistently refused to 
suit its teaching to Irish requirements or Irish sentiments, 
with the result that foreigners have had to be summoned 
to superintend the industrial development, and foreign 
scholars French and German and Italian and Danish 
have had to undertake the publication of Irish manuscripts, 
many of which are safely lodged in the Library of Trinity 
College. Unfitted by its constitution to advance with the 
progress of the times, it has either stood still or gone back 
when similar institutions were advancing, and now it 
stands an object of contempt for any one who understands 
the work a national university should accomplish. Yet, it is 
such an establishment as this, itself above all examination 
or supervision, outside the sphere of every commission or 
report, that manages to control, to a great extent, the 
secondary and primary education of the country. We 
trust that the recognition of such an anomaly will soon be 


universal, and that the recognition may brin gthe country 
relief from such a reactionary influence. 

The University grievance was well kept before public 
attention during the year. This is in itself a distinct 
gain, for one of the great difficulties in the way of some 
settlement is, the fact that the mass of the people have 
never realized the importance and necessity of such an 
institution. In the early part of the year the Trinity College 
Scholarships consisting partly of College foundations and 
partly from funds supplied by Sir John Nutting opened 
the eyes of the people that Trinity College, with its falling 
numbers and its shattered reputation, was willing to stoop 
to any methods that might fill its vacant halls. The 
proposers of such a plan must surely have lived all their 
lives inside the walls of Trinity College, else they would 
have better realized the feelings which such a bribe was 
likely to evoke amongst the Irish people. The Bishops 
promptly expressed their condemnation of such a scheme, 
and strengthened their condemnation by establishing a 
number of Scholarships themselves for the most promising 
Intermediate students. The scheme of Scholarships has 
been taken up by some representative bodies throughout 
the country, and it is possible that in this direction some 
little might be done, not indeed to solve the question, 
but to relieve the most glaring wants of the present in- 
tolerable position. But as things stand at present, where 
there is no guarantee of permanency, representation, or 
effective control, the people will never rally whole-heartedly 
to such a scheme. Still the number of new forces and 
elements in the field give us hope for the future of the 
question. The Gaelic League, the Graduates' Association, 
the Maynooth Union not to speak of a host of individuals 
have each in turn submitted their views on the situation, 
and suggested the remedies which they thought best. It 
may be that with the advent of the new Government the 
prospect of a settlement will be brighter, but at the worst 
they cannot be darker than under the last Administration. 



AS no satisfactory T answer has yet been given, from 
a Catholic standpoint, to Mr. Mallock's work on 
the Credibility of Religion, we have thought that it 
should not be allowed to pass out of sight without some 
notice from us. Immortality, Free-will, and the Existence 
of God Mr. Mallock understands by Religion, assent 
to the existence of these three things as objective facts 
have ever been absorbing themes of philosophical 
speculation. But other and more personal motives have 
led us to the study of Mr. Mallock's book. Religion as a 
Credible Doctrine is of particular interest to students of Neo- 
Scholastic philosophy, for this reason, that it purposes to 
be a reasoned denial of the possibility of Neo-Scholasticism. 
Neo-Scholasticism professes to base on the findings of 
modern science an intellectualistic thesis affirming the 
existence of God, Free-will, and Immortality as objective 
certainties. Mr. Mallock concludes 200 pages of detailed 
argument thus : 

If we fix our minds on the great primary doctrines . . . 
and if we compare them honestly with the actual facts of the 
universe, as science, by research and experiment, is day 
after day revealing them, we find that these doctrines thus 
tested are reduced to dreams and impossibilities that in the 
universe of law and reason there is nowhere a place left for 

There is more. Mr. Mallock proceeds to build up what 
he has thrown down. How ? As Kant in the eighteenth 
century, by proving that Practical Reason or, as Mr. 
Mallock calls it, ' the subjective value of things which make 
up the practical life of all men ' postulates Free-will, 
Immortality, and God. This conclusion opened up a new 
problem. Kant, living in the eighteenth century, might 
write a * Critic of Pure Reason ' and a ' Critic of Practical 
Reason,' and bestow on posterity the legacy of their re- 


conciliation, but Mr. Mallock, writing in the twentieth 
century, was bound to face frankly the problem of the 
reconciliation of two contradictory conclusions. Honesty 
is at times inconvenient, whatever the makers of proverbs 
may say. While loudly disclaiming any intentions of 
emulating Hegel, Mr. Mallock closes his book as follows : 

Here, then, we find ourselves standing between two worlds 
the cosmic world, with all that is implied in it, on the one 
hand ; and the moral world, with all that is implied in it, on 
the other. Such being the case, when we consider either of 
these two worlds separately, we assert, as reasonable men, 
that each is no less real than the other ; in experience, more- 
over, both these worlds are united ; and yet, when the intellect 
compares them, we find that the two are contradictory. As 
reasonable beings we can unite these two incompatible worlds 
in a single reasonable synthesis by one means only ; . . . 
we must learn, in short, that with regard to the deep things 
of life, that the fact of our adopting a creed which involves 
an assent to contradictories is not a sign that our creed is useless 
or absurd. . . . 

In reviewing Religion as a Credible Doctrine we are 
bound therefore to enter on a treatment of such interesting 
problems as the possibility of Neo-Scholasticism, the value 
of the Kantian Basis of Metaphysics, and the value of 

A word about method. Mr. Mallock singles out Father 
Maher, Father O'Driscoll, and Dr. W. G. Ward, as ex- 
ponents of Neo-Scholasticism. Precisely these reasons that 
urged Mr. Mallock to mention these great names dispense 
us from a like task. These three writers, in ' virtue of 
their position and the scope of their works, are widely 
representative rather than great or original.' In omitting 
their names, therefore, we do not change in any way the 
terms of the combat. Father Maher and Father O'Driscoll 
have replied. Both have preferred to point out where 
Mr. Mallock misrepresented them, rather than to enter 
on a direct refutation. 

For the rest, we intend to reproduce faithfully Mr. 
Mallock's thought, that readers may have it before their 
minds when reading our criticism. While leaving to the 


reader the decision of the worth of our own efforts, we are 
confident that we have loyally set forth every argument 
and fact of importance adduced by Mr. Mallock in favour 
of his theories. 


The first argument generally advanced by religious 
apologists runs thus : Intellect is a faculty specifically 
distinct from sense as is proved by the fact that its 
acts, and particularly that act known as self-conscious- 
ness, display aptitudes fundamentally opposed to the known 
properties of matter. Such absolute contrariety, which, be 
it noted, is admitted by atheistic scientists, proves that the 
intellect, or the rational soul of man, is essentially distinct 
from the body, and is therefore capable of surviving it. A 
belated, and self-contradictory, and yet most popular 
fallacy is Mr. Mallock's comment on this argument. 

Everyone assents to the unimaginable nature of the 
connexion between consciousness and organized matter ; 
but everyone, including our religious apologists, admits 
that this connexion is a fact. Now, asks Mr. Mallock, is 
not the alleged fact of necessary separability just as dim- 
cult to imagine, and just as contrary to analogy, as the 
admitted fact of connexion ? The argument is an assump- 
tion that the unimaginable cannot exist ; whereas, the 
very phenomenon of the admitted connexion is unimagin- 
able, and one alternative explanation of it is just as 
unimaginable as the other. Again, the religious apologist 
admits the unimaginable in admitting that spatial pressure 
can excite non-spatial pain. And if non-spatial pain can- 
not exist, as the religious apologist holds it cannot, without 
the spatial pressure that excites it, how can it be self- 
evident that non-spatial intellect is essentially independent 
of the operations of the spatial brain ? 

Finally, there is the same apparent contrariety between 
the consciousness of the brute and matter as there is between 
matter and the consciousness of man, and therefore this 
first argument of the religious apologist shows that pigs 
have immortal souls, or does nothing to show that men 


The second argument of the religious apologist is an 
attempt to demonstrate, by the ordinary methods of ob- 
servation, that man and man only possesses the various 
faculties that comprise Intellect attention, judgment, 
reflection, self-consciousness, the formation of concepts, 
and the processes of reasoning. Let us take these faculties 
seriatim, observes Mr. Mallock, and see if observation and 
experience warrant us in maintaining that in all living 
creatures, with the sole exception of man, all trace of every 
one of these faculties is wanting. 

Let us begin with attention, judgment, and reflection. 

Does the elephant when he feels a bridge, before he" will 
trust his weight to it, not judge and reflect in an obvious and 
appreciable manner ? Does not a dog judge and reflect when 
he moves aside just in time to avoid a stone thrown at him, 
the speed of which he must have accurately gauged, discri- 
minating between swift and slow ? And yet again, do animals 
never show attention ? Does a horse, a dog, or a deer, hearing 
some sound, never start, then stand motionless, and then bound 
away ? 

Next, let us take self -consciousness. The question is 
not as the religious apologist puts it whether there is 
not an obvious difference between the operations of the 
mind of a Descartes speculating on the Ego, and any opera- 
tion we can assign to the mind of a dog, an ape, or an 
elephant, but whether the highest mental operations of 
dog, ape, or elephant are inferior in a greater degree to 
those of a new-born baby, than those of the new-born baby, 
speechless, and so wanting in reason, that it does not know 
that its own leg is its own, are inferior to the mental opera- 
tions of the poet, the mathematician, and the philosopher. 
We are inquiring whether the animal nature has really an 
unbroken connection with human nature, or no ; and, 
therefore, we must take on the one hand the faculties of 
the higher animals, and on the other those^of the new- 
born babe. 

Is there, then, the smallest warrant for saying that the 
highest animal at the highest stage of its development 
recognizes itself as an Ego in a manner demonstrably 
different from that in which the human being recognizes 


itself at its lowest stage. Baby, for a considerable, time_does 
not know it has a self ; and even when its mental develop- 
ment has begun to be clearly perceptible when it first 
cries for its pap-bottle, or for a piece of rubber to bite 
upon who can say that its consciousness of its own self 
is clearer than that of a dog fighting for a bone with an- 
other dog ? If there is no break and we know there is 
none between the consciousness of the full-grown man and 
the baby's, how can we pretend that, as an actual and 
demonstrable fact, an impassable gulf yawns between the 
baby's consciousness and the dog's ? 

But now, observes Mr. Mallock, we approach the 
apologist's citadel the formation of concepts. The essence 
of a concept is this : it is a general idea of a thing as distinct 
from any particular specimen of it for instance, a general 
idea of milk as distinct from the milk in this jug or in 
that jug. The apologist maintains that the philosophy of 
the cradle abounds in such concepts for instance, ' milk 
nice,' or the infant naturalist's classification of the first 
horse as a ' big bow-wow.' The animal, on the other hand, 
is conscious of nothing but a multitude of individual things. 
But, rejoins Mr. Mallock, does not a cat realize as a fact, 
which is true generally, that milk is nice, just as clearly 
as a child does ? It knows by the look and smell of it 
without tasting it that the milk in this particular saucer 
is a specimen of a fluid whose niceness it has learnt already. 
Does not the dog recognize other dogs as creatures belong- 
ing to the same species as its own ? Do not cows and 
horses, who have been at first frightened by trains, reach, 
when they have ceased to be frightened by them, to some 
such conclusion as, ' trains not dangerous ' ? The animal's 
judgments are at all events more clear than the baby's, 
and certainly do not show signs of so great a distance 
from the child's, as the child's show from those of the 
mature philosopher. 

Having thus satisfied himself of the insufficiency of 
these two main contentions of the religious apologist, 
Mr. Mallock passes on to the examination of some less 
important arguments. 



Firstly, it is asserted that men alone are capable of 
disinterested and reasonable affection. Is this true ? 
How is it evident that the dog who watches by his dead 
master's body is animated by a feeling of a kind radically 
different from the feelings of a human mother who watches 
by her dead child ? 

Secondly, it is maintained that animals, unlike men, 
make no progress. This statement, according to Mr. 
Mallock, is the very reverse of the truth, if we apply it to 
mankind at large. Tribes of savages exist to-day, who are 
still in the condition of the men of the Stone Age. While 
in itself the Stone Age reduces, in point of duration, the 
age of historical progress to less than a bustling yesterday 
in the life of a man of sixty. On the other hand, the 
progress of man in the arts is admittedly due, in a very 
great degree to a purely physical superiority the adapt- 
able human hand. If men, then, with human hands have 
remained stationary for countless thousands of years, 
why need the fact that animals have remained stationary 
also prove that, besides lacking the hand, they must have 
been lacking in every faculty that can be called intellectual 
likewise ? 

Thirdly, the apologists tell us that Physiology cannot 
locate the higher mental faculties. It seems, therefore, 
that the higher mental faculties can employ, within limits, 
any portion of the brain indifferently ; and it is concluded 
that these higher faculties are demonstrably separable 
from matter. This alleged fact, observes Mr. Mallock, is 
one no physiologist will admit. Some religious apologists 
base the fact on Goltz's experiments. Unfortunately for 
them, Goltz's experiements were made on dogs ! 

Fourthly, Science, according to these apologists, cannot 
point any difference between the animal brain and the 
human brain sufficient to account for the admitted superi- 
ority of man's powers ; therefore, man's superior powers 
are demonstrably independent of the brain. What is the 
fact ? Flechsig, a distinguished physiologist, and one 
cited frequently by apologists, declares that in the thought- 
centres of the brain, which are distinguished by their 


structure from the sense-centres, man does possess precisely 
that degree of peculiarity which analogy might lead us to 
expect as an explanation of his mental pre-eminence. 

Finally, all these apologetic arguments are based on the 
supposition that by observation, inference, or otherwise, 
we can learn, with approximate accuracy, what the mental 
life of the animals is. Yet these same apologists admit 
that ' our assurance with regard to their (the animals) 
subjective states can never be more than a remote con- 
jectural opinion.' What, then, becomes of the whole 
argument in favour of man's immortality ? 

At this point, Mr. Mallock passes on to consider the 
case of the other side. ' We have listened to religious 
dualism attacking scientific monism. Let us now listen to 
scientific monism as stating its own case : it attacks religious 

To enable his readers to grasp the full strength of the 
scientific, Mr. Mallock insists on the fact, and cites names 
thereto, that modern apologists recognize the claim put 
forward by science to interpret the universe so far as the 
universe is accessible to it, and recognize also the sub- 
stantial truth of the conclusions which thus far it has 
reached. That evolution, for instance, explains a vast 
number of phenomena which were formerly regarded as 
due to separate acts of God, that it explains, in particular, 
the variety of living species as a result of a continuous and 
single process rather than as a result of a number of isolated 
and arbitrary interferences this all educated apologists are 
in these days eager to declare that they accept as fully, 
and with as little fear, as their opponents. Yet, they are 
ever nervously on the watch to discover limitations and 
flaws. They fail to understand that whilst, on the one 
hand, lacunae have been discovered in the class of evidence 
with which, in a special manner, the name of Darwin is 
associated, other evidences of the doctrine for which Darwin 
contended namely, the essential unity of man with the other 
animals have accumulated in overwhelming strength 
and have done more to make the doctrine a demonstrable 
indeed a visible, fact, than any of the detected lacunae 


have done, or can do, to cast doubt upon it. Thus, within 
the last quarter of the nineteenth century, it has been 
demonstrated, firstly, that the evolution of the individual 
man is identical with the evolution of the animals most 
closely allied to him ; and, secondly, that the organic 
evolution of the individual human and animal equally 
is in each case an epitome of the long evolution of the 
species. We will deal with these two facts separately. 

And, first, for the comparison of the embryonic evolu- 
tion of man and the allied animals. The first act of the 
great drama of conception is common to man and to the 
animals most nearly allied to him one of those minute, 
ciliated cells, known as spermatozoa, is admitted within 
the female ovum, and the egg-cell, barren of itself, becomes 
the source of life. As the drama proceeds, the identity of 
its incidents, in all these cases, continues ; not only that, 
but the mode of origin in the parent body of these two 
protagonists, the male cell and the female cell, is the same- 
* The embryo of the man and of the anthropoid ape retain 
their resemblance much later at an advanced stage of 
development when their distinction from the embryos of 
other animals may be seen at a glance.' It is impossible 
to elucidate such facts as these, except by the assumption 
that these animals have a common parentage. 

But, pursues Mr. Mallock, more important embryo- 
logical discoveries remain. Ontogenesis is the brief and 
rapid recapitulation of phylogenesis : that is to say, 
alike in the case of man, and of the animal species gener- 
ally, that gradual and slow development of the species 
from lower forms to higher may be seen taking place with 
the rapidity of a brief epitome in the embryo of each indi- 
vidual living creature from the moment of its conception 
till the final moment of its birth. Of this truth it will 
be enough to give two illustrations. 

One is the fact that in the embryo of man and of the 
allied animals, the gill-clefts of our far-off aquatic ancestors 
emerge and subsequently disappear. Thus, the supposition 
of aquatic ancestry, treated with such injudicious scorn by 
the theologians, is attested afresh by the evidence of a 


living document every time a child is conceived and grows 
to maturity within the womb, 

A second, and more familiar fact, gives us a daily minia- 
ture reproduction of the great process of evolution, in 
virtue of which we are men, and not frog-like things our- 
selves it is the transformation of the tadpole, an animal 
that swims in the water, into a frog, an animal that hops 
on land. We have here the ancient development of the 
land animals from the fishes re-enacted for us in the open 
light of day. 

And there is more to add. As the embryo of the baby 
recapitulates the evolution of man as an organism, so does 
the progress of the baby from an unthinking to a thinking 
being recapitulate the evolution of the specifically human 
intellect ; and each mother who has watched with pride, 
as something peculiar and original, the growth of her 
child's mind, from the days of the cradle to the days of 
the first lesson book, has really been watching, compressed 
into a few brief years, the stupendous process which began 
in the darkest abyss of time, and connects our thoughts, 
like our bodies, with the primary living substance whether 
that be wholly identical with matter or no. 

What are the existing lacunae in that mass of circum- 
stantial evidence collected by evolutionists compared to 
the overwhelming unanimity with which all this cloud of 
witnesses declare that all life is, in kind and origin, the 
same ? The history of religious apologists of recent years 
has been that of a long series of failures. Time after time, 
scientific conclusions were pronounced false, because posi- 
tive proof was wanting for this or that detail ; and lo ! in 
the midst of the theological jubilation the missing proof 
has often been found. Such occurrences should be a 
warning to these apologists who favour the gaps-in-existing- 
evidence arguments. 

Before quitting the question of man's immortality, 
Mr. Mallock employs an argumentum ad hominem, and from 
the satisfaction he takes in exposing and developing it, he 
clearly thinks that he is giving the coup de grdoe. When, 
asks Mr. Mallock, is this imperishable soul introduced into 


its perishable envelope ? At the moment when the male 
spermatozoon and the female ovum coalesced. Now, 
argues Mr. Mallock, since the entire animal life, vegetative 
and sentient, is one ; and since the animal life is derived 
entirely from the parents, and the indivisible human life 
is not it follows, that whilst the animal ovum and the 
animal spermatozoon contain in themselves necessarily 
the principle of life from the first, the human ovum and 
the human spermatozoon are, before their coalescence, 
so much below the animal that they do not contain in 
themselves any principle of life at all. Animal life arises 
from organic matter that is living. Human life from 
organic matter that is dead ! 

If we look back, says Mr. Mallock, over this aggregate 
of facts and arguments, one conclusion and only one, leaps 
into light, that whilst life endures, the individual lives, 
dies dies as the rose dies, never to bloom again ; and that 
the mystery of the man's life and the mystery of the pig's 
are one. 

Here we have only been able to present a summary of 
Mr. Mallock's arguments on one particular phase of the great 
question he discusses. Editorial tyranny compels us to re- 
serve our criticism of these arguments till next month. 



IN my last article I described the position of the Catholic 
Church in relation to science and scientific liberty ; and 
in the present article I purpose to deal with the doctrine 
and discipline of the Catholic Church in relation to educa- 
tional liberty, as it affects the Family, the State, the Founder 
of a private school, the Teacher. Are Catholic parents free 
to choose the school, the college, the university they think 
best, for the education of their children ? Is the Catholic 
State free to adopt the system of education it considers the 
most perfect and the most suitable to the circumstances 
of the time, to establish a neutral or purely secular system 
of education, to oblige by law all children to attend the 
State schools and forbid the opening of private schools ? 
Are the laity of the Catholic Church free to open schools 
and to teach, or are they excluded from the teaching pro- 
fession ? What is the measure of freedom accorded to 
Catholic teachers in the course of instruction which they 
deliver to their pupils ? 

I will begin with a brief exposition of the rights and 
duties of parents in regard to the education of their children ; 
then I will pass on to describe how schools and colleges and 
universities should be constituted, according to the laws of 
the Church, in Catholic countries ; and from this we can 
infer what the attitude of the Church is, and whether it is 
reasonable or unreasonable, towards freedom of education, 
whether of the primary, intermediate or university order. 


Rationalist socialists advocate the theory that the child 
is born not into the family but into the State, and that it 
is the State and not the parents that has the right and is 
directly charged with the duty of determining the manner 
of the rearing and education of the infant citizen. But here 
the Church intervenes to define and vindicate the rights 


and liberties of parents against this theory of the absolutism 
of the State. According to the Catholic theory the child 
is born into the family, and only through the family into 
the State. If a family lived apart, isolated and separated 
from all those aggregations of human families that we call 
States, the parents surely would have the right and the 
duty of determining and supplying the means of physical 
subsistence and of mental and moral training to their 
children, and these rights are not surrendered or sacrificed 
by entrance into the corporate civic life of the State. Citi- 
zenship does not carry with it the loss of parental rights, 
but offers to parents facilities for the discharge of their 
parental duties through the ministry of others, for example 
in schools, which would not exist if they lived isolated and 
external to the social life of the State. It is not the province 
nor indeed the practice of the Civil Authority to interfere 
in the internal affairs of the family, in the domestic arrange- 
ments, in the relations between father and son, in the 
system of education which a mother adopts in teaching 
her infant children, whether it be wholly secular or wholly 
religious or a combination of religious and secular instruc- 
tion, but only to correct excesses and to supplement the 
efforts or supply for the deficiency or inability of parents by 
establishing schools for the education of the young. 

In the miniature kingdom of the home the parents reign 
supreme, the father and the mother are the king and queen, 
and the children are at once a part of the parental being 
and the subjects or citizens of the kingdom of the household. 
And how are the parents to govern the household, what are 
their duties towards their youthful subjects ? After Bap- 
tism their duties are of a material order, to provide for the 
life and physical development of the infant ; but with the 
opening and expansion of reason new duties succeed one 
another, to minister to the mind suitable religious and secular 
instruction and to the will education or moral formation, 
to^develop a sense of duty towards God, towards parents, 
towards the different orders of superiors, towards mankind 
generally, towards oneself, to sow the seeds of good habits, 
to cultivate a great admiration for Christian and civic virtue 


and a feeling of disapproval and reprobation of vice and 
particularly of national vices. They are bound to govern 
the household so as to present to the State, when their child- 
ren come to have independent and responsible relations with 
their fellow-citizens and enter into the life of direct personal 
responsibility to the civil authority, strong, earnest, indus- 
trious, trained, educated, morally-disciplined, devoted sub- 
jects ; and to the spiritual kingdom of the Church men of 
faith and of hope and of charity and of obedience, who will 
combine in their lives the virtues of good citizens and good 


I pass on to consider what should be the scope and con- 
stitution of primary schools according to the Catholic ideal. 
Canonists ' distinguish State and municipal schools, schools 
established by private persons or associations but open to the 
general public, and what may be called the family school, 
where the children of the family receive instruction from 
tutors or governesses. 

To begin with the last : Has the Church the right to 
define the kind of education that should be given in the 
family school ? Is it not the inalienable right of parents 
to determine the education of their children ? Whence 
then comes the jurisdiction of the Church to take cogni- 
zance of the programme of instruction in the school of the 
home ? The parents have, no doubt, the right to determine 
the education of their children. But even apart from the 
hypothesis of supernatural religion it would be the duty 
of parents to provide for their children, together with 
secular instruction, moral and religious instruction and 
education. If God had made no revelation to the world 
parents would naturally be guided in choosing a course 
of moral instruction for their children, by their own innate 
or reasoned conception of the duties imposed by the natural 
law. But the Christian moral code is founded on super- 
natural religion, and Catholics, besides their subjection to 
the natural law, are members of the visible divine society 

1 Cf. Cavagnis, Institutions Juris Publici Ecclesiastici (ed. tertia), vol. iii' 
1. iv, c. i, a. iii, from whom the following exposition is taken. 



of the Church to which they owe obedience, and they recog- 
nize the right and duty of their religious pastors to define 
the obligations of parents towards their children as they 
recognize their right and duty to define the obligations of 
masters towards their servants, of rulers towards their 
subjects, and of mankind generally towards God and the 
neighbour. But it is not alone indirectly or through the 
jurisdiction it exercises over the parents that the Church 
acquires authority to interfere in the Christian education 
of the young. The children themselves, who are inducted 
by birth into the family, are born again by Baptism into the 
spiritual kingdom of the Church and so become the subjects 
of the Church and the objects of the combined care and 
solicitude of their parents and ecclesiastical pastors. 

But, it will be asked, what is the extent and what are 
the limits of the Church's authority to take cognizance of 
the family course of education ? The Church claims no 
authority over the family except in matters of faith and 
morals. With the course of secular instruction given in 
the household she does not interfere, except, as canonists 
say, in a negative way, that nothing be taught which is 
contrary to faith or morals. But she commands, in the 
exercise of her positive jurisdiction, that the education of 
the home shall include the teaching of Christian doctrine, 
she claims the right of determining a programme of religious 
instruction suitable to the different ages of children, and 
while not claiming the right of approval of the teacher at 
his appointment she claims the right of vigilance over the 
teacher charged with religious instruction and of remon- 
strating and ordering his removal should he be found to be 
teaching doctrines at variance with the formularies and 
moral principles of the Catholic Church. The Church does 
not command that every school exercise in the family 
commence and end with prayer, or that the catechism be 
taught concurrently with every secular subject, or that it 
be taught every day, or that it be taught by the teacher 
who is employed to give secular instruction ; the teachers 
employed in the family are regarded as assistants to the 
parents and not as their substitutes, the parents may prefer 


to teach the catechism themselves or get it taught by priests 
or religious, but they satisfy the discipline of the Church 
if in the home system of education religion constitute an 
obligatory subject in the programme of instruction. 

Practical Catholics, who get their children taught by 
tutors or governesses at home, fulfil these parental duties 
spontaneously from a sense of religious duty and without 
the need of admonition from their ecclesiastical pastors ; 
and I only refer to the home school because it is the model 
of what the system of education in the State schools should 
be to satisfy the religious convictions and obligations of 
Catholic parents. 


The Church the State and the Parent meet in the State 
school and demand the recognition of their respective rights 
and the equitable adjustment of their respective claims. 
Let me observe again that I contemplate at present only 
a Catholic country where the Government, the Church^ the 
parents the teachers and children are Catholics, where the 
rights of the Church and State are duly defined and respected, 
where there is no encroachment of the Civil Power on the 
rights of the Church nor of the Church on the rights of the 
State. What then are the rights and duties of the Church 
and State and Parent in respect to the education given in 
primary State or municipal schools ? 

The State, in the fulfilment of her mission to promote 
the natural well-being of her subjects, establishes primary 
schools to supplement the efforts or supply for the inability 
of parents to give a reasonable education to their children. 
In this her authority and power are undisputed, and the 
Church makes no claim of a right to interfere at the erection 
of State schools or in their maintenance or their hygienic 
condition or their equipment or the programme of secular 
instruction or the system and nature of the secular educa- 
tion given, whether it be literary or technical, national or 
neutral, or the hours of school or the duration of the course 
of primary education. Individual churchmen may be 
.appointed by the State to administer the laws relating to 


the State schools, or in their capacity of citizens may 
interest themselves in the extension and improvement of 
primary secular education ; but the Church as a divine 
institution, with a spiritual mission to create and develop 
and foster the supernatural life of the soul, claims no other 
authority over the sovereign independence of the State in 
respect to secular government and secular education in State 
schools than the negative authority that requires that 
nothing shall be enacted by law or taught in schools that 
is contrary to faith or morals. But can the Church forbid 
the establishment of a purely secular system of education ? 
Can she command that religion be taught in the State 
primary schools ? Does she claim the right of appointing 
or approving the teachers to be appointed ? 

It might be argued on behalf of the State that her juris- 
diction is confined to protecting the life and property and 
promoting the natural and secular well-being of her subjects, 
that she may relieve parents of a part of their duty towards 
their children though not of the whole and that conse- 
quently, while providing secular instruction, she may leave 
to the Church or to private benevolent religious enter- 
prise ;or to the care of the parents the duty of instructing 
the children in the supernatural truths of the Catholic 
religion. And it might be argued that this is a legitimate 
theory at least in regard to day schools ; because in the 
case of the public day schools as in the case of the home 
school the teachers are regarded by canonists not as 
substitutes for. but as assistants to the parents, the school and 
the home constitute one moral educational establishment, 
and though the school course be confined to secular instruc- 
tion and religion be taught at home the whole system of 
education may be called one integral system of combined 
secular and religious instruction. 

But the Church requires, in the first place, that the 
system of education in primary boarding schools, where 
the teachers are substitutes for the parents and are 
charged with the parental obligations, shall combine 
religion with secular instruction. She argues and insists 
from her experience of two thousand years that, though in 


individual cases no injury may be sustained from a divided 
education, when secular instruction is commanded by 
the public authority of the State and received in the public 
schools and religious instruction is left to private initiative 
and enterprise, religion is in danger of being unappreciated, 
undervalued, regarded as unimportant and indifferently 
taught if not altogether neglected. And she argues, from 
the instrinsic nature of the case, that mental instruction 
does not complete the formation of youth, that schools are 
established not alone to store the mind with the rules of 
grammar and arithmetic and similar subjects, and teach 
the art of reading and writing and keeping accounts, but 
to inculcate a sense of moral duty, to educate the will, to 
teach the importance of good habits, to direct the orderly 
evolution of the whole man. . 

Moral training of some sort is therefore at all times and 
in every possible condition of mankind an essential part 
of any complete system of primary civic education ; and 
surely it would be most prejudicial to the State and un- 
natural to establish a system of education which should 
occupy itself solely with the duty of filling the infant mind 
with the rules of arithmetic, grammar and the like, and 
exclude from its programme or neglect the moral formation 
of the future citizen. The conception of moral duty would 
presuppose, even in a purely natural state of society, cer- 
tain doctrinal beliefs, such as the existence and .supreme 
sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man, but 
obviously natural ethics would not presuppose supernatural 
religion. In a purely natural order the State would of 
course instruct children only in the principles of natural 
ethics and in natural religion. But in the hypothesis of 
supernatural revelation the revealed moral code supple- 
ments and takes the place of natural ethics ; and hence we 
see the Christian nations conform their laws and their 
worship and their day of rest to their conception of the 
principles of Christian morality. And as the Catholic 
State conforms to the rule of Christian morality in its laws 
and public worship so, the Church teaches, the moral 
training given in the schools should be Christian moral 


training, and as a foundation for this moral training the 
children should be carefully instructed in the truths of 
the Christian religion. 

And though it is true that, in the case of day schools, 
canonists speak of the teachers in the schools as assistants 
to the parents, the Church requires that the programme of 
education in these schools as well as in boarding schools 
should include the teaching of Christian doctrine. For, 
again, her long experience teaches her that when, in the 
school system, secular subjects alone are taught by the 
authority of the State, religion is in danger of being under- 
valued and treated as relatively unimportant ; and though 
the teachers in day schools are considered assistants to the 
parents and the education of the children is supposed to 
be completed at home, the State schools are understood 
to supply a complete specific course of primary civic educa- 
tion, and should therefore include the teaching of the 
moral system and religion by which the State itself and 
its citizens are supposed to be guided even in their public 
political life and actions ; the school course includes all 
the subjects of secular instruction though these subjects 
be also taught by the parents, and why therefore should 
it not include moral training though the catechism be 
also taught at home by the parents ? 

Christian morality therefore and the doctrines of the 
Christian religion enter into the programme of primary 
education because the State, the parents, the teachers and 
the children are Catholics ; and thus by reason of the 
obligation of teaching Christian morality and Christian 
doctrine the Church has positive jurisdiction to take cogni- 
zance of the religious teaching in State schools. This, again, 
does not necessarily imply that the different school exer- 
cises should begin and end with prayer, or that the cate- 
chism should be taught at every class or every day, or 
that it should be taught in the school or by the teacher 
who is employed to give secular instruction. It supposes 
only the fundamental principle that the system of educa- 
tion should combine religious and secular instruction, 
that the school authorities should include catechism in 


the programme of obligatory work in the school and that 
the Church has the right of defining how much catechism 
should be taught. It may be taught by the teacher charged 
with secular teaching or by a special catechist or by the 
priests of the parish : it may be taught in the school or in 
the church, if convenient : but it should constitute a part 
of the obligatory school programme, and at the inspections 
made or examinations held in the school the teaching of 
religion ought be a subject of inspection and examination 
like the secular subjects on the programme. 

Finally it follows from the positive jurisdiction of the 
Church in respect to supernatural religion that, though the 
State has the right of appointing the teachers, the Church has 
the right of exercising vigilance over or giving approbation to 
teachers charged with religious instruction, the right of 
demanding the dismissal of teachers dangerous to the faith 
or morals of the children, and the right of exercising vigil- 
ance over the schools to see that the prescribed programme 
of religious instruction is taught ; ' hinc legislatores chris- 
tiani solent parochis, qui repraesentant auctoritatem 
ecclesiasticam in suo gradu magis immediato cum populo, 
jus concedere scholas has visitandi et interrogandi pueros 
de re religiosa ; dicimus Christianas, qui a et apud acatholicos 
id solet adhuc obtinere, quia principium de schola laica satis 
recens est.' Ecclesiastical approbation may be given to 
teachers by including religion among the subjects at the 
examination for the teacher's diploma, by committing this 
portion of the examination to an examiner sanctioned by 
the Church, and by the examiner's report that the can- 
didates are qualified to teach Christian doctrine. When a 
special catechist is appointed with the exclusive duty of 
teaching the catechism in school the Church can claim the 
right of designating the catechist. 


What is the position of religion in intermediate schools 
and universities ? Does the Church command that Christian 
doctrine shall constitute a part of the obligatory scholastic 


programme of the teachers and students ? The Church's 
authority is co-extensive with the needs of souls, and 
she can command for the schools and for the non. 
scholar world the course and mode of religious instruction 
which she considers necessary or useful for the spiritual 
protection and improvement of her children. The Church 
does not command that religion be a part of the obligatory 
programme in schools, whether primary or superior, where 
only a particular subject is taught as, for example, in 
medical and veterinary and technical schools. The local 
pastors may make special provision for the religious in- 
struction and protection of the students of such schools, 
but religion does not constitute, by the general law, an 
obligatory part of their scholastic programme. Still the 
same religious education is not sufficient for all, and the 
Church can command that in schools where a full course 
of secondary education is given a higher course of moral 
and religious formation and education form a part of the 
obligatory programme of instruction. This should include 
a suitable course of apologetics, as men scientifically edu- 
cated experience more difficulty than others in accepting 
truths on authority and require to be instructed in the 
motives of credibility to understand that the assent of 
faith, though resting on authority, is perfectly reasonable. 
The scholastic religious education of the laity is then 
complete. Though the Church naturally establishes a 
theological faculty in her own universities, outside the 
theological faculty religion does not constitute in univer- 
sities an obligatory part of the scholastic programme of 
lectures and examinations. Neither does the Church claim 
the right of appointing or approving the professors outside 
the faculty of theology, but the right of exercising vigilance 
and remonstrating and commanding that a particular 
person reasonably suspected or proved to be dangerous to 
the faith or morals of the students be not appointed or be 
deprived of his appointment. The professors should be 
imbued with the Catholic spirit and teach nothing contrary 
to religion. But the students are supposed to have com- 
pleted their scholastic religiou.3 < education and, like men 


in the world, are required only to attend the university or 
parochial sermons and instructions ; but it is desirable that 
they should have their own chapel with instructions and 
conferences suitable to the peculiar and varying wants of 
university students. 


I come now to the questions asked at the beginning of this 
article : Are Catholic parents free to choose the school, the 
college, the university they wish for the education of their 
children ? Is the Catholic State free to establish a purely 
secular system of education ? Are Catholic laymen ex- 
cluded from the teaching profession ? What is the measure 
of freedom allowed to the teachers themselves ? 

I. I would recall a distinction frequently made during 
the course of these articles between physical and moral 
liberty. Our modern non-Catholic critics generally deny 
the existence of physical liberty or physical power of self- 
determination, and should hold that parents, when they 
send their children to a particular school or college or 
university, are mechanically determined thereto by the 
physical laws of nature, or if they act spontaneously 
that they are necessarily determined in each case by the 
force of character, disposition, advantages to be gained 
and the like, whereas the Catholic Church teaches as an 
article of faith that parents have the power of determin- 
ing, by the self-determination of the will, where they shall 
send their children to school. But about moral liberty ? 
Determinists, having reduced man to the nature of a piece 
of physical or ideal mechanism, are rather inconsistent in 
their denunciations of the Catholic Church for her denial 
of moral liberty ; but what does the Church say ? She 
says that the question cannot be decided on its own 
immediate merits and without reference to more funda- 
mental principles. If there were no God, she says, 
morality would not enter into the programme of education: 
if deism were true, natural religion alone would con- 
stitute the subject of religious education : if a non. 
dogmatic Christianity had been established, then an 


undenominational indeterminate Christian instruction 
should be given in the schools : and in the hypothesis of 
the divine institution of a definite confession of faith, of the 
Catholic religion, Catholic parents are bound to send their 
children to Catholic schools and colleges where they are 
instructed definitely in the moral system and doctrines of 
the Catholic Church ; but among the approved schools to 
which their children have access parents have the right 
of determining and choosing the school to which they 
wish to send their children. Parents are bound absolutely 
to be diligent in the moral formation of their children : 
in the hypothesis of a supernatural revelation and religion 
they are bound by divine law to instruct their children 
in the principles of supernatural religion : and in the 
hypothesis of a divine Church to which they own 
allegiance they are responsible to her for their observance of 
divine law, they are subject to her jurisdiction and to 
the laws that relate to the religious education of their 

II. Similarly, the Church would say, Catholic govern- 
ments have the physical power of establishing purely 
secular schools, of compelling children to frequent them, 
of forbidding the opening of private schools ; but they 
cannot lawfully establish a purely secular system of 
education, nor forbid the family school or private schools, 
nor compel all children to frequent the State schools, even 
if they be constituted according to Catholic principles. 

III. Catholic laymen are not excluded from the teaching 
profession. They may establish schools, primary or inter- 
mediate, but subject to the general rules already described 
for combining religion with secular education. 

IV. There are no restrictions on the teaching liberty 
of Catholics except those imposed by the creed which they 
profess and believe to be true. And if we examine carefully 
the Catholic creed and the demonstrated conclusions of 
science we shall find that the truths of religion harmonize 
admirably with the conclusions of science, that there is no 
opposition between them, that the truths of the creed 
are a most effective protection against the spurious and 


unworthy theories that are not unfrequently advanced in 
the name of science. 

I have dealt with Catholic education in this paper only 
in relation to liberty, and as it should be conceived and 
established in Catholic countries. I hope at some future 
time to offer a study of the principles that guide the Church 
in regulating education in what she considers abnormal 
conditions, in mixed communities where the State system 
of national education is neutral or undenominational. 


[ 44 ] 


THE first part of the Vatican edition of Plain Chant, 
namely, the ' Kyriale,' that is, the part containing 
the chants for the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus, 
and Credo, as well as for the Ite, Missa est, and Benedicamus 
Domino and for the Asperges and Vidi aquam, has appeared 
at last. It had been waited for anxiously and with some 
uneasiness. It was an open secret that the cause of the 
delay lay in some dissensions amongst the members of the 
Pontifical Commission. When this difficulty had been 
overcome we shall see presently in what manner dis- 
concerting rumours as to the nature of the forthcoming 
edition got abroad. We are now in a position to formulate 
an opinion, and let me say it at once, the result before us 
is sorely disappointing. I make this statement with the 
utmost pain. For I know that the opponents of the 
attempted return to the tradition will rejoice, and many 
friends of the old chants will be disheartened. But the 
truth must come out sooner or later, and it is best, there- 
fore, to let it be known at once. 

Let us recall what has happened. In his Motu Proprio 
on Church Music, of 22nd November, 1903, Pope Pius X 
ordained the return to the traditional chant of the Church. 
Accordingly, in a Decree of 8th January, 1904, the Con- 
gregation of Rites, withdrawing the former decrees in favour 
of the Ratisbon (Medicaean) edition, commanded that the 
traditional form of Plain Chant should be introduced into 
all the churches as soon as possible. Soon afterwards 
his Holiness, in order to avoid anything like a monopoly 
in the chant books, conceived the idea of publishing a 
Vatican edition of Plain Chant, which all publishers, cap- 
able of doing it in a satisfactory manner, should be free 
to reprint. The Benedictines of Solesmes having, with 
extraordinary generosity, placed at the disposal of the 
Holy See the result of their long continued and expensive 
studies in the field of Plain Chant, Pius X published, under 


25th April, 1904, the Motu Proprio concerning the ' Edizione 
Vaticana dei libri liturgici continenti le melodie gregoriane,' 
from which I must quote a few extracts. The document 
opens thus : 

Col Nostro Motu Proprio del 22 Novembre 1903 e col susse- 
guente Decreto, pubblicato per Nostro ordine dalla Congrega- 
zione dei Sacri Riti 1'8 Gennaio 1904, abbiamo restituito alia 
Chiesa Romana 1'antico sup canto gregoriano, quel canto che 
esse ha ereditata dai padri, che ha custodito gelosamente nei 
suoi codici liturgici e che gli studi piii recenti hanno assai 
felicemente ricondotto alla^sua primitiva purezza. 

His Holiness then proceeds to state that he has deter- 
mined on a Vatican edition of the chant, and lays down 
a number of directions : 

(a) Le melodie della Chiesa, cosl dette gregoriane, saranno 
restabilite nella loro integrita e purezza secondo la fede dei 
codici piu antichi, cosl per6 che si tenga particolare conto 
eziandio della legittima tradizione, contenuta nei codici lungo 
i secoli, e dell'uso pratico della odierna liturgia. 

(b) Per la speciale Nostra predilezione verso 1' Or dine di 
S. Benedetto, riconoscendo 1'opera prestata dai monaci bene- 
dettini nella restaurazione delle genuine melodie della Chiesa 
Romana, particolarmente poi da quelli della Congregazione di 
Francia e del Monastero di Solesmes, vogliamo che per questa 
edizione, la redazione delle parti che contengono il canto, sia 
affidata in modo particolare ai monaci della Congregazione di 
Francia ed al Monastero di Solesmes. 

(c) I lavori cosl preparati saranno sottomessi all'esame ed 
alia revisione della speciale Commissione romana, da Noi re- 
centemente a questo fine istituita. . . . Dovri inoltre 
procedere nei suo esame con la massima diligenza, non per- 
mettendo che nulla sia pubblicato, di cui non si possa dare 
ragione conveniente e sufficiente. . . . Che se nella re- 
visione delle melodie occorressero dimcolta per ragione del 
testo liturgico, la Commissione dovr& consultare 1'altra Com- 
missione storico-liturgica, gia precedentamente istituita presso 
la Nostra Congregazione dei Sacri Riti. . . . 

(d) L'approvazione da darsi da Noi e dalla Nostra Con- 
gregazione dei Sacri Riti ai libri di canto cosl composti e 
pubblicati sara di tal natura che a niuno sara piii lecito di 
approvare libri liturgici, se questi, eziandio nelle parti che 
contengono il canto, o non siano del tutto conformi all' edizione 
pubblicata dalla Tippgrafia Vaticana sotto i Nostri auspici, o 
per lo meno, a giudizio della Commissione, non siano per tal 
modo conformi, che le varianti introdotte si dimonstrino pro- 
venire dall'autoriti di altre buoni codici gregoriani. 


There can be no reasonable doubt about the meaning 
of this document. Mark how, in the opening, his Holiness 
speaks of the chant as having been guarded by the Church 
jealously in her codices, and as having been restored to its 
primitive purity. Then, under (a) the work of the Com- 
mission is clearly denned. The melodies are to be re- 
established in their integrity and purity. As criterion for 
this is to be taken, in the first instance, the reading of the 
oldest codices. In the second place, however, account is 
to be taken of the legitimate tradition contained in the 
codices of later centuries. This is necessary, particularly 
as some melodies are not contained in the oldest codices. 
Such is the case, for instance, with a large number of melo- 
dies of the ' Kyriale,' which are not of Gregorian origin, 
but were composed centuries afterwards, some of them 
even later than the eleventh century, the date of our 
earliest staff notation MSS. Moreover, it is conceivable 
that in some particular point the oldest MSS. may be 
wrong, as each of them represents the tradition of merely 
one place. It would be the business of scientific criticism 
in such an instance to determine the original version from 
later evidence. Finally, the practical use of the present 
Liturgy is to be taken into account. This is necessary, 
because in some cases the wording of the liturgical text 
has been slightly altered in our modern liturgical books. 
In such cases the original melodies must be adapted to the 
new wording, unless, indeed, the Congregation of Rites 
can be induced to restore the original wording, for which 
the Pope makes provision under (c) t 

Again, under (c) the Commission is directed to see that 
nothing should be published which could not be properly 
accounted for. The meaning of this is plain. It would 
be absurd to suppose that the President of the Commission 
could ' account ' for a passage by saying : ' This seems to 
me beautiful ; therefore, I have put it in.' 

Altogether the document is most wise and statesman- 
like, and we had reason to expect something very perfect 
as the outcome of it. But then something unexpected 
happened, as the novelist says. By a letter of his Eminence 


Cardinal Merry del Val, dated 24th June, 1905, Dom Pothier, 
the President of the Commission, was made the sole judge 
of the version of the new edition, and the other members 
were reduced to the position of his helpers. What led up 
to this decision is not public history, and I have no desire 
to lift the curtain. Let it suffice to judge the proceedings 
by their result. 

Ostensibly the cry got up against the redactors, the 
Solesmes monks, was that of ' archaism.' I need not go 
into the question of archaism at length. Dom Cagin has 
dealt with it admirably in the Rassegna Gregoriana, of 
July- August, 1905. I will make only one remark. I 
could understand a modern musician objecting to Plain 
Chant altogether, because it is archaic. But if we accept 
at all the chant of thirteen centuries ago, what difference 
does it make whether a phrase here and there is a little 
more or less * archaic ' ? 

It seems that Dom Pothier himself not long ago 
differed very much from those who now talk of ' archaism,' 
for, speaking of the variants of the Plain Chant melodies 
that crept in in the course of time, he said : 

Toutes ces variantes s'expliquent et, a certains points de 
vue, peuvent plus ou moms se justifier, mais aucune d'elles ne 
constitue un progr^s. La maniere plus simple et plus ddgagee 
de la melodic primitive est aussi la plus douce et la plus dis- 
tinguee, celle qui a pour elle, avec le merite de Tantiquite, celui 
de 1'art et du bon goilt. l 

And Father Lhoumeau, his pupil, and but the echo of 
his master, says : 

Cet examen d'une simple melodic nous amene a des conclu- 
sions qui ressortent de 1'etat general du chant gregorien, car 
ce que nous voyons ici se retrouve partout. Si Ton veut re- 
staurer 1'art gregorien il faut toujour revenir aux sources, et ce 
qu'il y a de plus ancien, c'est ce qu'il y a de plus pur, 
de plus artistique, et non pas seulement de plus archa'ique, 
comme peuvent le croire certaines gens. a 

1 Revue du chant grtgorien, i5th December, 1896, p. 70. 
* Ibid.. 15th June, 1895, P- l &9' 


In the Preface, too, of his Liber Gradualis of 1895, Dom 
Pothier claims that he always has followed the authority 
of the oldest codices. 

But we need not delay over this, for, as we shall see, 
the question of ' archaism ' has not really much to do with 
the changes from the original made in the Vatican edition. 

Dom Pothier, as soon as he had got a free hand, set to 
work vigorously, and at the Gregorian Congress in Stras- 
burg last August, it was announced that the last sheet 
of the * Kyriale ' had got the final 'Imprimatur. At the 
same time the Commission, that is to say, the majority of 
the members present in Strasburg, declared that the 
* Kyriale ' represented the fruit of the long and enlightened 
labour of the monks of Solesmes. We shall see how much 
truth there is in this. For, as generally known, the Solesmes 
Benedictines make the reading of the MSS. their supreme 

To get any definite information on the relation of the 
' Kyriale ' to the MSS., my only way was to go to 
Appuldurcombe, the present home of the Solesmes Bene- 
dictines, and study the MSS. They have there over 
four hundred of the best codices in photographic re- 
production the material on which the Vatican edition is 
based and with that same generosity with which they 
offered the result of their studies to the Holy See, they 
place their library at the disposal of students. Accord- 
ingly I went there, and I now publish the result of my 
investigations. Within the time at my disposal it was 
not possible for me to go into all the cases where the 
Vatican edition seems to deviate from the authentic version. 
Giulio Bas, one of the consultors of the Commission, in a 
letter to the Giornale d'ltalia, states that they number 
130. Accordingly I left aside, of set purpose, all the cases 
that presented difficulty, that would require anything like 
a careful weighing of the evidence, to get at the true version, 
and confined myself to those where the Vatican edition is 
glaringly at variance with the reading of the MSS. And, 
alas ! as the patient reader will soon see, they are only 
too many. 


Before I take up the pieces contained in the ' Kyriale * 
one by one, I have to make a couple of general reflections. 
The first concerns the German tradition of the chant, 
for which Dom Pothier shows a strange predilection. One 
of the chief peculiarities of this German tradition is the 
frequent substitution of the minor third a c for the 
second a bb or a b. Is this tradition a 'legitimate 
tradition ' ? I should think not. It detaches itself at one 
point from the general current of tradition which flows 
from the time that we first can trace it, down to our own 
days, and remains in opposition to it ever afterwards. It 
may have a certain title to continued separate existence, 
but it has no claim to general acceptance. But there is 
more. I do not for a moment believe that Dom Pothier 
is going to accept this German tradition in its entirety. 

g - 

Surely he is not going to make us sing (i) 1'~* * 

Sta-tu- it 
instead of (2) 

Sta-tu- it 

There is a question, therefore, of making a selection. 
On what principle, then, is this selection to be made ? 
The aesthetic taste of an individual ? Dom H. Gaisser, 
one of the most prominent members of the Commission, in 
an interview recently published in the Katholische Kirchen- 
zeitung, and again in the Giornale di Roma, of 3rd Decem- 
ber, 1905, points out the danger and instability of such a 
criterion. He reminds us that not only is taste an indi- 
vidual thing, varying greatly in different people, but it is 
also dependent, to a very great extent, on what one has 
been accustomed to. Those, therefore, that have been 
accustomed to the ' Kyriale ' of Dom Pothier's Liber 
Gradualis, including Dom Pothier himself, will be pre- 
judiced in favour of the readings which, for some reason or 



othfr, got into that publication. To give an example, 
the Vatican ' Kyriale,' in accordance with the Liber Gra- 

dualis, has the 'Paschal' Kyrie thus: (3) i 

K^-ri- e 
All the MSS., except the German ones, have : 

(4) * 

Kf- ri- e 

To me it seems that the double ac of the Vatican version 
is decidedly tautological, and that the older version with 
its gradual rise first to b and then to c is immensely superior. 
Dom Pothier evidently thinks differently. But I believe 
he has stated that in some cases he made too much con- 
cession to the modern taste in the ' Kyriale ' of his Liber 
Graduates, and accordingly those pieces have been changed 
in the Vatican edition. What guarantee have we that after 
a few years he will not find that he made too much con- 
cession to the German tradition ? 

My next remark is about the reciting note of the 8th 
mode. It often happens that in the course of a 
melody a number of syllables are recited on one note. 
For such recitation the Gregorian melodies had, in the 
8th mode, the note b, while the reciting note of the psalmody 
in that mode seems always to have been c, as at present. 
Thus we find in the Antiphon Vidi aquam this passage : 

. . . a 

{ . 

et omnes, ad quos perve-nit a- qua i-sta 

In the course of centuries this reciting note, owing probably 
to causes similar to those that brought about the German 


tradition mentioned above, was almost universally changed 
into c. Thus, the Liber Gradualis has 

(6) ^T 

a 8 ' ' 

et omnes, ad quos perve-nit 

It seems to me that in many cases this change has been 
to the detriment of the melody. Thus in the example (5), 
the gradual rise of the melody, which rests first on b, then 
on c, and finally rises, on ista, to d, constitutes a great 
beauty, which is lost in the version at (6). Still, as the 
change was almost universal, I could understand the 
position of those who claim that it should be maintained. 
But what does the Vatican edition do ? It evidently goes 
on the principle of ' pleasing both parties,' and gives half 
the recitation to c, half to b, thus : 


et omnes, ad quos perve-nit 

Three syllables on c, three on b, nothing could be fairer, 
and nobody has any right to complain ! The procedure is 
a great testimony to Dom Pothier's amiability, but what 
about his critical judgment ? 

In this same Vidi aquam we find the following : 


6- fr 

tern- plo 
The MSS. are divided as to the figure on the first syllable 


,*_ i" 

of tempio, some/ te have (ga) f ' others (gb) j[ 


the best have (gc) 


The version of the Vatican edition is not found in any 
single one ! 

At dextro and the alleluja immediately following, all the 
oldest MSS. except the German have a b g a and g a b a b. 
The Vatican edition follows the German tradition in sub- 
stituting c for b. 

I have already referred to the Kyrie of the Mass I 
(Tempore Paschali). I have now only to call attention to 
the difference in the final figure of examples (3) and (4). 
All older MSS., neumatic and in staff notation, of all coun- 
tries have the Pressus as at (4), only German MSS. of later 
origin have the reading (3) adopted by the Vaticana. 

A very striking fact is met with in the Gloria of this 
Mass. All MSS. and printed editions down to the nine- 
teenth century ascribe this Gloria to the yth mode, ending 
it on g. The edition of Reims-Cambrai (1851), was the 
first to change the ending to b and thus make the Gloria 
a 4th tone melody. The Vatican edition sides with Reims- 
Cambrai ! In this Gloria also the German substitution of 
c for b has been accepted at excelsis, hominibus, and the 
corresponding places. 

In the Agnus Dei nine MSS. of France, England, Spain, 
and Metz have on Dei the figure a b d ; one German, 
one Italian, and one French have g b d. The Vaticana 
follows the minority. 

The Kyrie of Mass II (Kyrie Fons bonitatis) has been 
dealt with, in a masterly fashion, by Dom Beyssac in the 
Rassegna Gregoriana, November-December, 1904, where 
the MSi evidence is subjected to a thorough examination. 
I can confine myself, therefore, to giving some extracts 
showing the difference between the version of the MSS. 




K^-ri- e Chri-ste Ky- ri- e 

1 The last note of this example ought to be g instead of a. 



and that 

of the Vaticana 


a i Jn 

'% : 3-3S 

" % 

% * * 


Ky-rie Chri-ste 

OH: n 



- ri- e 

In the Gloria of this Mass all the MSS. have at propter 

magnam gloriam tuam : (12) 


glo- ri- am tu- am 

Dom Pothier writes : (13) ffi 

glo- ri- am tu- am 

The i second Agnus of this Mass is an adaptation of a 
trope. All the MSS. without tropes repeat the melody of 
the first Agnus. 

In the first Christe of Mass III, all the MSS. have e g g a. 
Dom Pothier changes this into e f g a. 

In the Gloria all the MSS. have a Podatus on the final 
syllables of Domine Deus and Domine Fili. The Vaticana 
has single notes. 

The intonation of the Sanctus is thus in the Vaticana : 




This piece is found in eight MSS. Seven of these have 
gab, one has gaccbagf. Dom Pothier takes the latter 


version, but omits the b after c c. The reason for this 
change is easy to guess. It is to avoid that diaboltts in 
musica of the medieval theorists, the tritone. I admit 
that the tritone sometimes causes a little difficulty to 
modern ears. But if we are to eliminate all the tritones 
from the Gregorian melodies, what is to become of them ? 
And if we are to make this concession to the modern taste, 
why not change other things as well, why not, for instance, 
sharpen the leading note ? I think that the full tone 
under the tonic causes far more difficulty to the modern 
musician than a few tritones. As a matter of fact, in one 
case, as we shall see below (Gloria of No. VII), Dom Pothier 
has sharpened the leading note. So we cannot know what 
may happen before the Vatican edition is completed. But 
why not go a step farther and do away with the antiquated 
modes altogether, and present all pieces of Plain Chant 
either in the major or the minor mode ? And, finally, 
why retain that puzzling rhythm of Plain Chant ? Why 
not re-write it nicely with bars in {, f, and f time ? I 
must confess I see no satisfactory answer to these questions! 
Once we leave the firm ground of the tradition, we get into 
shifting sands, and there is no stopping anywhere. 

In the Agnus of this Mass all MSS. are agreed in having 
a single note on the first syllable of Dei. The Vaticana 
has three. All MSS. are agreed in having a Quilisma on 
tollis. The Vaticana has a simple Podatus. All MSS. are 

agreed i 8% The g fl % 

in . J B. Vaticana . *** 

reading ' reads : 

pecca- ta pecca- ta 

All MSS. are agreed in placing e on the accented syllable 
of miserere. The Vaticana has /. The melody of the second 
Agnus in the Vaticana is not to be found in any MS. 

In the Gloria of Mass IV, the vast majority of the 
MSS. have the last figure on, Glorificamus te as g / e. 
The Vaticana has g g e. 

The Agnus of Mass V is found in two MSS. At tollis 


and miserere the^one has b, the other >[>. The Vaticana 
has c. 

In Mass VI, in the second last Kyrie, nearly all the 
oldest MSS. have two notes on the second syllable, and 
nearly aUVMSS. mark a b\>. The Vaticana has one note on 
ri and has 6fl. 

In the Gloria the vast majority of MSS. have two notes 
on the, final syllable of excelsis. The Vaticana has one. 
At the first, peccata all the MSS. that have substantially the 
reading of the Vaticana, have the figure a b c. No MS. 
whatever has a c as the Vaticana. Of the Amen several 
variants are found, but not amongst them the version of 
the Vaticana. 

In the Kyrie of Mass VII, the vast majority of the MSS. 
and all the best, place the Clivis a f on the second syllable 
of eleison. The Vaticana places it on the first. 

The Gloria is found only in some English MSS. They 
all write it in'c and have a flat at the cadence of Deus Pater 


omnipotens. The Vaticana writes it in / and omits the 
flat, thus sharpening the leading note, as mentioned 
above. At Cum sancto Spiritu the MSS. read 

the Vaticana . 

(18) -^r-i 

Spi- ri-tu Spi- ri-tu 

The Agnus of Mass VIII is found only in one MS. (Paris 
Bibl. Nat. Lat., 905 fol. A.). On tollis it has the notes / e d c, 
Dom Pothier changes this into f d d c. At mundi the MS. 
nas / g g /, Dom Pothier writes / g /. On the second syl- 
lable of miserere the MS. has g, Dom Pothier writes g a. On 
the second Dei, the MS. has c a 6 c, Dom Pothier writes 
cage. At the second tollis the MS. has a gag, Dom Pothier 
writes a g a. It is hard to suppress one's indignation at 
this. But we have a long way to travel yet. So I hurry 
on with the bare enumeration of facts. 

In the Gloria of Mass IX aU old MSS. have c on the 
first syllable of deprecationem, Dom Pothier has d. At 


Cum (sancto Sp.) thirty-nine MSS. have e, three have d e t 
Dom Pothier follows the minority. 

In the Sanctus the MSS. write (19) , o 

Sa- ba- oth 

Dom Pothier (20) 

Sa- ba- oth 

Similarly at Domini. The figure at Deus is found in no 
MS. At tua most MSS. have 6> a g a. No MS. has the 
reading of the Vaticana, b\> a g. 

In the Agnus the Vaticana writes (21) 


Of eighteen g f Two have * aa \ 

MSS. sixteen |^g (23) 1% 

have (22) 

De- i De- i 

The version of the Vaticana finds, therefore, no authority 
at all in the MSS. Similarly the note on qui in the second 
Agnus is not found in any MS. 

The Kyrie of Mass X, which is the older form of that 
in No. IX, is found in three MSS. All three have double 
notes on the accented syllable of eleison. The Vaticana has 
single notes. 

The Gloria is found only in one MS., the one published 
with the Sarum Gradual by the Plainsong and Mediaeval 
Music Society. The Amen runs thus" in this MS. 


A- men. 



Dom Pothier changes this into (25) 

A- men. 

The Sanctus of this Mass is not found anywhere. It 
seems to be Dom Pothier's own composition. The same 
holds of the Sanctus No. Ill, and the Agnus No. II, of the 
Cantus ad libitum. Now there is not, of course, any objec- 
tion to Dom Pothier or anybody else composing new pieces 
of Church music, and if they select to write in the style of 
the Gregorian music, they are at perfect liberty to do so. 
But I certainly think that such compositions ought to have 
no place in the Vatican edition, which purports to be a 
collection of medieval music. There might be some excuse 
in the case of new texts, for which no melody exists, though 
I should consider it better to arrange some existing melody 
to them, as was the general usage from the seventh to the 
fifteenth century. In the Ordinary of the Mass, however, 
for which we have such a large number of medieval pieces, 
such a procedure is altogether unwarranted. 

In the Kyrie of Mass XI the vast majority of MSS. 
have on Christe the figure deb a and suppress, in the second 
eleison, the / g a bfr of the first. Dom Pothier skips the b 
on Christe, and writes the second eleison like the first. For 
the second Kyrie the vast majority of MSS. have either 

(26) P" STU or (27) 

K^-ri- e K^-ri- e 

Dom Pothier writes (28) 

Ky-ri- e 

In the Gloria eight MSS., and these not very good onesj 



Qui se-des 

Some sixty have -g ^ 

(30) ^ J" 


Qui se- des 

The Vaticana sides with the minority. 

In the Gloria of Mass XII at Filius Patris two Treves 
MSS. end e e, twenty-five others have e f. The Vaticana 
has e e, though in the corresponding place at tu solus sanctus 
it has e /. 

For the Gloria of Mass XIII there is only one MS. It 

has the intonation thus 




G16-ri- a in excelsis De- o 
Dom Pothier cuts out the / on in. Later on the MS. has 



D6mi-ne De- us, Agnus De- i, Fi- li- us Patris 

Dom Pothier changes the c on Agnus into /, thereby losing 
the pretty effect of the varied middle phrase ! Could any- 
thing be more discreditable to an editor ? 
The Sanctus is found in two MSS., Worcester and, Sarum. 

Worcester has 

Sarum has (34) 

D6mi-ni. Ho-sanna 

D6-mi-ni. Ho-sanna 

Dom Pothier 
writes (35) 


. ^ 


D6mi-ni. Ho-sanna 


In the Kyrie of Mass XIV all the MSS. have a (, in the 
second Kyrie melody. The Vaticana omits it. In the 
Gloria, on the last syllable of miserere, practically all MSS. 
have a four-note Climacus ; the Vaticana has three notes. 
In the A men the German codices are followed against all 
the others. 

In the Kyrie of Mass XV the second eleison takes the 
reading of one MS. against forty. In the Gloria, at Tu 
solus Dominus, most MSS. have the intonation e g a or 
g a a. No MS. has the reading of the Vaticana. 

In the Agnus of Mass XVI, on the last syllable of the 
first miserere, one MS. has a Clivis, thirty-seven have a 
Podatus. The Vaticana has a Clivis. 

For the second Kyrie of Mass XVII the sources are one 
MS. and one printed book, both of the sixteenth century. 
Both divide the figure on eleison after a (c b\> a g a \ f e g) 
as the Ratisbon Edition and the Missal (Benedicamus for 
Advent and Lent) do. The Vaticana writes the notes a f e 
as a Climacus. 

For the figure on the second syllable of Hosanna in 
the Sanctus the MS. evidence is : one for, thirty-four 

In the Kyrie of Mass XVIII all the MSS. that have that 
melody give three notes to the first syllable of the second 
eleison. The Vaticana has two. 

In the first Credo, at visibilium and in all the corres- 
ponding phrases, two MSS. of the late fifteenth century 
have a, all the others g. The Vaticana has a. At Genit um 
one MS. of the fifteenth century is followed against all 

At de Spiritu only the Cistercians and Dominicans share 
the reading of the Vaticana. At venturi the vast majority 
of the MSS. and all the old ones end on d, not on e, as the 
Vaticana does. 

We come now to the Cantus ad libitum. In passing 
I may note that the Kyrie II has only two Christe, evidently 
an oversight. The Kyrie VI is a later form of the Paschal 
Kyrie dealt with above. I may remark that here we 
meet the Pressus c b b g, that is simplified in the other 


version. Another trifle is that in the first Christe the 
eleison has a different melody from the former version. 
The MSS. have both melodies, but each MS. gives the same 
form for both the older and the later version. 

Kyrie X is the older form of No. XI in the body of 
the book. Here we find for the second Kyrie the melody 
given above as No. 27. The last Kyrie, however, is not 
found in any MS. as given in the Vaticana. 

In the Gloria I we are met by an interesting psycho- 
logical problem. We have seen that in many cases Dom 
Pothier showed a curious leaning towards the German 
tradition. Now this Gloria, attributed to Pope Leo IX> 
belongs mainly to the German tradition. Accordingly we 
find very frequently the third a c. Thus, the miserere 
nobis runs in the MSS. as follows : 


mi- se-re-re nobis 

What does Dom Pothier do ? He changes the first c into 
b ! Qui potest capere, capiat. 

For the Gloria II we have three MSS. They are agreed 

in writing - ' " 3 Dom Pothier - L -- ! ' g - 

(37) writes (38) 

homi-ni-bus homi-ni-bus 

At deprecationem nostram the MSS. have e e for nostram. 
Dom Pothier writes d d, although in the corresponding 
place, at unigenite, he has e. 

For Gloria III there are nine MSS. They have a 
Pressus at excelsis (g f f e) and double d at te (Laudamus 
U, etc.) Dom Pothier has a simple Climacus and a single 
d. At Domine Deus, Rex coelestis six MSS. have 



9. . 

Dom Pothier's 
version (40) 

-L. a % 

a . 

* J 

* a P. r 

1 r> 

Do- mi- 


Ddmi- ne 

is not found in any MS. Similarly, the melody of the final 
Patris is not found in any MS. 

We have come to the end of our weary journey. It 
would be difficult to see any definite principle in all the 
cases where Dom Pothier has defied the evidence of the 
MSS. In some cases, as we have seen, he followed a special 
current of tradition against the general tradition ; in others 
a morbid fear of the tritone made him introduce changes j 
But for most cases the only actuating principle that could 
be assigned is his * aesthetic taste,' or shall we say, his 
whim ? In any case it is clear that he has given up his 
role as restorer of the ancient melodies, and has joined the 
rank of the ' reformers.' 

It is a melancholy sight, this procession of the ' reformers' 
as they pass through the centuries, although they are 
headed by a St. Bernard. He at least, or rather his musical 
adviser, Guido, the Abbot of Cherlieu, had some show of 
reason for his changes. For it was on the Scriptural autho- 
rity of the In psalterio decachordo psallam tibi that he cut 
down all the melodies exceeding the ten-note compass. 
The Cistercians were followed in a mild way by the Domini- 
cans, who looked upon the repetion of melodic phrases, 
and upon the melisma at the end of the Alleluja verses as 
redundant. There is a gap then until we come to the end 
of the sixteenth century, when the cry of ' Barbarisms ' 
was got up, and eventually, in 1614 and 1615, the Medicaea 
resulted. And now they come in regular succession through 
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, each subsequent 
editor improving on his predecessor, and according to his 
own peculiar ' aesthetic taste ' mutilating the poor Gre- 
gorian melodies, until at last they richly deserved the general 
contempt into which they had fallen. In the nineteenth 
century the need of a return was felt. But still editors 


could not resist the temptation to reform to some extent. 
Thus, to mention only a couple, we have the edition of 
Reims-Cambrai still yielding to the fear of ' barbarisms,' 
and the edition of Cologne reducing all Gregorian rhythm 
to duple time. All these editions have come and gone, 
and now in their wake we find the Vaticana, really the 
saddest spectacle of all, because none of the others were 
the direct outcome of an act of the central authority of the 

What next ? One thing is certain to me. The Vaticana 
cannot last. Dom Pothier has, indeed, already got a con- 
siderable number of authoritative pronouncements in 
favour of his edition. There was first a letter from Cardinal 
Merry del Val, of 3rd April, 1905, of which Professor Wagner 
gives some extracts in a paper published for the Gregorian 
Congress at Strasburg. Then the other letter of 24th 
June, quoted above, and finally two decrees of the S.R.C., 
dated nth August and i4th August, which, to some extent, 
annul the wise and liberal regulations as to other editions, 
laid down in the Motu Proprio of 25th April, 1904, sub (d) 
quoted above. But what is this compared with the for- 
midable array of decrees that backed up the Medicaea ? 
And yet, with one stroke of the pen, an enlightened and 
determined Pope cancelled them all. No, this question 
cannot be settled by decrees. If the Vaticana cannot stand 
on the strength of its intrinsic excellence, no artificial 
propping up by decrees will prevent it from tumbling 

But what are we to do ? The best thing, in my opinion, 
would be, if the Solesmes Benedictines would publish the 
MS. version of the ' Kyriale.' It seems to me that the 
whole world, as far as it is interested in Plain Chant, is 
anxious to know the MS. version of it, and the monks of 
Solesmes would satisfy a general demand by publishing 
that. But if for some reason or other they should choose 
not to do so, or if Dom Pothier, through the power of the 
Congregation of Rites, should succeed in preventing the 
original form of the melodies of the Church from being 
published, then we shall have to be satisfied with the 


Vatican edition for a time. We may console ourselves by 
the thought that of all existing editions the Vatican edition 
is decidedly the best. If we compare it with the * Kyriale ' 
of the Liber Graduates or Liber Usualis, we find not only 
many of their melodies much improved, but also a con- 
siderable number of new ones added, some of them of 
great beauty, particularly the older and simpler forms of 
the As^erges and of the Kyrie de Beata and in Dominicis 
Per annum. The labours of the Solesmes monks have not 
all been in vain. But I hope still that before long the 
unconditioned return to the tradition, so happily inaugu- 
rated by the early acts of our reigning Pontiff, will be 
fully accomplished. 




THE scene changes rapidly in France. The French mind is 
ever active and restless. Some few years ago the question which 
mainly occupied the thoughts of ecclesiastics in that country 
was whether Father Hecker was a saint or not, whether there 
are passive as well as active virtues, virtues which the Holy 
Ghost allows to lie dormant for years, perhaps for centuries, 
and stirs to life and action when He pleases, according to 
His own will and the requirements of the age. Pope Leo XIII 
settled that controversy. 

Then the Abbe Loisy startled the ecclesiastical world with 
his book L'Evangile et L'Eglise, soon to be followed by a reply 
to his critics in another small volume, Autour d'un Petit Livre. 
In both these works, which were intended as his reply to Das 
Wesen des Christentums, of Professor Adolph Harnack of Berlin, 
the Abbe whittled down the essence of Christianity to very 
small proportions indeed. He discarded with little ceremony 
the Gospel of St. John, and indeed everything in the other 
Gospels that stood in the way of his theories. He attributed 
motives to the sacred writers and proceeded to reject what he 
thought might be ascribed to these motives. One got up from 
the perusal of his book without knowing whether he still clung 
on to the Divinity of our Lord. He held a theory utterly incom- 
patible with the teaching of theologians as to the knowledge of 
Christ. Our Lord, according to him, did not realise for a long 
time that He was the Messiah, and when at last he became 
conscious of the fact, He had no complete conception of its 
significance. The coming of the Kingdom of God in a vague 
way, was all that He anticipated. The Abbe indeed protested 
that he judged only from the evidence of the Gospel taken as a 
human document, and did not presume to set aside anything that 
was essential in the teaching of the Church. But his works 
speak for him, and their disturbing tendency could not be 
denied. They were condemned, and the author disappeared both 
from his chair in the Sorbonne and from the public view. 

No sooner, however, had the Abb6 Loisy gone under tern- 

porary eclipse than a new band of apologists came to the front. 
They are partisans of what they call the ' Philosophy of 
Immanence.' Some of them are laymen, like M. Blondel, a 
University Professor, M. Edouard Le Roy, a distinguished mathe- 
matician, and M.Fonsegrive, editor of the Quinzaine ; others are 
priests, amongst whom the most prominent are the Oratorian 
Abbe Laberthonniere, the Abbe" Jules Martin, and the Abb6 
Charles Denis. Most of the articles expository of the new system 
have appeared in the Annales de Philosophie Chretienne. But as 
that review does not circulate very widely amongst the general 
public, the principal articles have been published in book form 
by their authors, 1 and a resume" of the system was recently 
contributed to the Quinzaine by M. Edouard Le Roy. 

It was this last article that brought matters to a crisis. For 
doctrines that had hitherto been expressed in very obscure pro- 
lixity were now formulated in fairly intelligible language. The 
article was severely condemned by the Bishop of Nancy, Mgr. 
Turinaz, who wrote a pamphlet against it. Cardinals Perraud 
and Coulli6 lost no time in congratulating the author of the 
pamphlet, and denouncing the new apologetics as foolish and 

In the course of the controversy the new system was opposed 
chiefly by the Abbe" Fontaine in his Infiltrations Kantiennes et 
Protestantes, by Pere Le Bachelet, S. J., in De I' Apologetique Tradi- 
tionnelle et V Apologetique Moderne, by the Abbe de Sertillanges, 
the Abbe de Grandmaison, and others in various reviews. 

But what is this new doctrine ? In the first place Scholastic 
Philosophy is put aside as a phase of Christian thought, good 
in its day, admirable as a synthesis, interesting as the apparatus 
of former ages, but no longer capable of establishing harmony 
between reason and faith, between revelation and science, be- 
tween dogma and philosophy. Its arguments are valid only 
for those who have the faith already. It presupposes faith. It 
is of no value when addressed to the unbelievers of our time. 
If we wish to influence our contemporaries we must enter into 
their difficulties, see how far we can adopt their point of view 
and their methods, and lead them gently to the fold of salvation 
by a path that they are willing to tread. Miracles and pro- 
phecies have no longer any demonstrative value for those who 

1 L' Action, by M; Blondel; La Demonstration Pkilosophique, by the 
Abb< Martin. 



are versed in the philosophy most widely received in our day. 
They are, like all other external things, merely phenomena. 
What matters to us is internal, permanent, immanent. There 
is no equation whatever between what we feel and see and what 
we think. Thought itself is an act, and the abstraction which 
expresses it is merely a symbol, and as such incapable of expres- 
sing it completely. What we know, even of ourselves, is not 
the full measure of what we are. But the important thing is 
what we do know, not what we express, and still less what is 
outside us. It is in that interior consciousness that we must 
seek both light and guidance. It is there we must settle with 
ourselves the sense and form in which we can accept the dogmas, 
formularies, and teaching of the Church. And as this con- 
sciousness is never at rest but always in fieri, we are bound to 
follow its guidance whithersoever it may lead us. It is there 
that reason has its seat and its autonomy ; but it is there also 
that the existence of a supernatural order is most fully realized, 
that the Holy Ghost directly exercises His power, that the 
Christian religion in all its beauty and grandeur wins our 
allegiance and faith. Doctrinal and religious convictions are 
acquired by a process as mysterious as faith itself, and have but 
little to do with metaphysics or science. We feel within us that 
both are true in their domain and that is enough. The link 
between them is in ourselves, immanent and permanent. There 
is no reciprocal dependence of one on the other. Intellectual 
and speculative knowledge is entirely independent of knowledge 
of the exterior world. And what is recognized within us as 
right and true the intensity of the trained will must communicate 
to others. Faith is not acquired by any process of reasoning. 
It comes from above ; and he who receives the gift is con. 
vinced of its truth with a more solid and all pervading 
conviction than any human knowledge can beget. The 
Author of our nature has implanted in us the need of the 
supernatural, without which we are incomplete and unsatisfied. 
In that inmost fortress of our conscious being we recognize 
that need and all that results from it the Redemption, the 
Gospel, the Church. The authority of the Church is a moral 
necessity : but its definitions and decrees tell us what is wrong 
rather than the metaphysical sense of what is right and true. 
That is for ourselves, each one according to his own light and 
conscious condition. 

Such are the fundamental outlines of this new system. It is 


phenomenalist, subject! vist, idealist, with Kant ; voluntarist 
with Schopenhauer ; monist and evolutionist with Hegel. It 
has in addition to other serious disadvantages as an apologetic 
system of Christian and Catholic philosophy this one, that in 
some of its main proposals it comes into direct collision with the 
Dogmatic Constitution of the Vatican Council, which says : 

' Ut nihilominus fidei nostrae obsequium rationi consen- 
taneum esset voluit Deus cum internis Spiritus Sancti auxiliis 
externa jungi revelationis suae argumenta, facta scilicet divina, 
atque imprimis miracula et prophetias, quae cum Dei omnipo- 
tentiam et infinitam scientiam luculenter commonstrent, divinae 
revelationis signa sunt certissima et omnium intelligentiae 

It is undoubtedly a good and wholesome sign of the times 
to see both clergy and laity in France so much alive to the 
necessity of meeting their contemporaries as far as possible 
on their own ground ; but it is also an object lesson in the 
danger of laymen and priests who have not a true grasp of the 
principles of Theology, setting themselves up as founders of 
new systems and as renovators of the great bulwarks of 
tradition. If it be possible for the Church in any sense to come 
to terms with the philosophy most in vogue at the present day 
in the non- Catholic and scientific world, it must be done by 
thoroughly trained theologians and equally experienced philo- 
sophers. The worst of it is, that the best trained theologians 
and philosophers are, to a great extent, leaving the field open 
to men whose good intentions nobody will question, but whose 
equipment for the task is neither singly nor collectively what 
it should be. Perhaps there are better days in store for us. 
Faxit Deus! 


MR. AUGUSTINE BIRRELL, who now controls the ' Board of 
Education ' in England, has written a very interesting essay on 
' The Ideal University.' It is published in a volume of 
Miscellanies (Elliot & Stock, 1902). In discussing the question 
of the patronage and general management of a University, 
he says that the nation at large should be interested in it. 

' The history of Oxford and Cambridge during the last 
century,' he writes, ' proves the result of national indifference,' 


and in support of that opinion he quotes the author of Terrae 
Filius, who says : 

' I have known a profligate debauchee chosen Professor of 
Moral Philosophy, and a fellow who never looked upon the 
stars soberly in his life, Professor of Astronomy. We have had 
History Professors who never read anything to qualify them 
for it but Tom Thumb, Jack the Giant Killer, Don Belianis of 
Greece, and such like valuable records. We have had number- 
less Professors of Greek, Hebrew, and Arabic, who scarce under- 
stood their mother tongue, and not long ago a famous gamester 
and stock-jobber was elected Margaret Professor of Divinity.' 

And, farther on : 

' An ideal patron is, perhaps, a contradiction in terms, but 
if it is to be found anywhere it will be, I believe, in a small 
combination of men of high character, reputation, and general 
learning, who may be trusted to act independently and judi- 
ciously. The head of a political department, a town, or county 
council ! Retro me Sathanas. These are persons that stand self- 
condemned. They have not the time, the temper, the disposi- 
tion, or indeed any single one of the necessary qualifications. 
The existing professors of the University, though they might 
well be represented on the Board of Selection, should not have, 
in an ideal University, a predominant influence upon it ; and 
especially should the Board be confined to one Universityjof 
whose exclusive interests they should be fiery partisans, and 
with whose fortunes and reputation they should be as closely 
as possible allied.' 

Finally on the question of a site he writes :- 

' I will end where a more dexterous orator probably would 
have begun, with the site of my ideal University. Much has 
been written, much can still be written, on this golden theme. 
Had one the eye of an old Benedictine or Cistercian monk, 
seeking where to establish a religious house of his Order to the 
glory of God and the comfort of the brethren, one might enlarge 
upon soils and prospects, on water-meadows and trout streams : 
dreams of Tintern and of Fountains, of Wye and Tweed might 
cross the inward eye that is, the " bliss of solitude " but 
standing where I do, in 

" Streaming London's central roar," 

amid the huge population of the mightiest and richest, though 
not the most beautiful or the most beauty-loving city the 
world has ever known, I have already found the object of my 


search. When all is said and done, what is more stimulating to 
the mind of man than the vast tide of population as it pours 
through the arteries of a great city ? Where else in the wide 
world is there so powerful a magnet as London ? Not a day 
passes but hundreds are drawn within her grasp. Where else 
are there, can there be, so many young creatures richly endowed 
with natural gifts capable of cultivation, astir with the uneasi- 
ness of youth, seeing the vision of the world, feeling the " wild 
pulsation," hearing their days before them and the tumult of 
their lives, and yearning for the large excitement that the 
coming years may yield ? If ever there was a theatre for aca- 
demical actors, it is London. If ever there was a people and 
an age that needed the higher Education, we are that people, 
and we live in that age." 

THE MINERVA FOR 1905-1906 

THE Minerva, which is a ' Directory ' for the Universities of 
the world, published annually by Triibner of Strasburg, 
gives, amongst other things, the statistics of students, together 
with the names of the authorities and staffs of the various 
universities. In last year's issue we noticed that the Rector 
of the University of Vienna, with 6,205 students, was a 
Catholic priest, the Rev. Franz Schindler, Professor of 
Theology. This year the post is occupied by Dr. von 
Philippsberg, a professor of law. In the German and 
Austrian Universities the rector is changed every year, 
and is usually selected in turn from the different faculties. 
Last year the Rector of the University of Bonn, with 
3,217 students, was the Rev. Johann Heinrich Schrors, 
Professor of Theology in the Catholic Faculty. This year the 
Rectorship is occupied by Professor Jacobi, of the Philosophical 
Faculty. Last year the Rector of Wiirzburg, with 1,321 students, 
was the Rev. Sebastian Merkle, a Catholic priest and Professor 
of Church History. This year the post is occupied by Professor 
Theodore Boveri, from the Philosophical Faculty (Science and 
Mathematics section). 

On the other hand, the Rector of the Czech University at 
Prague, with 3,487 students, is this year a Catholic priest, the 
Rev. Antonin Vrestal, Professor of Theology ; whilst in the same 
city a Catholic priest has been replaced as Rector of the German 
University, with 1,335 students, by Dr. Josef Ulbrich, Professor 


of Law. In the year 1895 the number of students^at these two 
universities was, respectively : 

German University . . .1,192 
Czech University . . . 2,519 

In the year 1905, the figures are, 

German University . . . 1,335 
Czech University . . . 3,487 

Thus it will be seen, whilst the Czech University is forging 
ahead, the German establishment is almost stationary. 

The University of Munich, with 4,766 students, has also 
this year a Catholic priest at its head, Dr. Otto Bardenhewer, 
author of various works on Scripture and Patrology. 

The University of Louvain in 1895 had 1,475 students ; this 
year it has 2,148. The Catholic University of Freiburg in 
Switzerland had 308 students in 1895. It has now 558. The 
Catholic University of America, which had 60 students in 1895, 
has now 123. 

The number of students attending the Universities in Great 
Britain and Ireland in the years 1895 and 1905, is as follows : 










London (Univ. Colls.) 



Manchester . 




Not given 





Durham 1 





Not given 








Not given 















St. Andrews 






1 Durham now includes the Medical School and College of Science in 





Dublin University (Trin. Coll.) 1,124 



Not given 






Not given 


Amongst the largest Foreign Universities, 

are : 






















St. Petersburg 










THE following statistics of population, according to the 
most recent census, are taken from Kurschner's fahrbuch fur 
1906 : 

GERMAN EMPIRE, 56,367,178. 

Protestants, 35,231,104 ; Catholics, 20,321,441 ; Other Christians 
210,265 ; Jews, 586,833. 

The chief States of the Empire are represented as follows : 

Prussia, 34,472,509. 

Protestants, 21,817,577 ; Catholics, 12,110,229 ; Other Christians^ 
142,498 ; Jews, 392,322. 

Bavaria, 6,176,057. 
Catholics, 4,362,563 ; Protestants, 1,749,206 ; Jews, 54,928. 

Baden, 1,867,944. 
Catholics, 1,131,413 ; Protestants, 704,058 ; Jews, 26,132. 

Wurtemberg, 2,169,480. 
Protestants, 1,497,299 ; Catholics, 650,311 ; Jews, 11,916. 

Kingdom of Saxony, 4,202,216. 
Protestants, 3,972,063 ; Catholics, 197,005 ; Jews, 12,416. 


Alsace-Lorraine, 1,719,470. 
Catholics, 1,310,391 ; Protestants, 37,278 ; Jews, 32,264. 


Catholics, 35,570,870; Protestants, 4,224,095; Greek Orthodox 
or Oriental Church, 3,423,175 ; Jews, 2,076,277. 

Austria, 26,150,708. 

Catholics, Latin Rite, 20,660,279 ; Catholics of Greek, Ruthenian 
and Armenian Rites, 3,136,535 total Catholics, 23,796,814 ; 
Protestants, 494,011 ; Greek Oriental Church, 607,462 ; 
Jews, 1,224,899. 

Hungary, 19,254,559. 

Catholics, Latin Rite, 9,919,913 ; Catholics of Greek, Armenian 
and Ruthenian Rites, 1,854,143 total Catholics, 11,774,056; 
Protestants, 3,730,084 ; Greek, Orthodox or Oriental, 
Church, 2,815,713 ; Jews, 851,378. 

RUSSIA, 128,797,534. 

They are divided as follows, Russia in Europe, 105,843,997 ; 
Russia in Asia, 22,953,537. The religious statistics are : 
Greek Orthodox, 89,606,106; Roman Catholics, 11,420,227; 

Protestants, 6,213,237 ; Other Christians, 1,224,032 ; Jews, 

5,189,401 ; Mahommedans, 13,889,421. 

FRANCE, 38,961,945. 

In every thousand of the population 980 are Catholics, 16 
Protestants, i Jew, other denominations, 3. 

France has upwards of 50,000,000 subjects in her colonies ; 
but the proportion off Catholics amongst them is not given. 

ITALY, 33,218,223. 

The Directory says that Italy is almost exclusively Catholic, 
there being in the country only 65,596 Protestants, and 35,617 

SPAIN, 18,618,086. 

All Catholics, except 8,000 Protestants and about 1,000 

PORTUGAL, 12,693,132. 
All Catholics, except 500 Protestants and 200 Jews. 

BELGIUM, 6,985,219. 
All Catholics, except 20,000 Protestants and 4,000 Jews. 


HOLLAND, 5,430,973- 
Protestants, 3,068,129 ; Catholics, 1,798,915 ; Jews, 103, 

TURKEY, 24,028,900. 

In every hundred, 50 are Mohammedans, 40 Greek Orthodox, 
4 Catholics, and i Jew. 

GREECE, 2,433,806. 
Greek Orthodox, except 24,000 Mahommedans and 600 Jews. 

DENMARK, 2,464,770. 

All Lutherans, except 5,373 Catholics, 5,501 Baptists, 3,476 

SWEDEN, 5,221,291. 

All Protestants, except 37,000 Baptists, 1,390 Catholics, 
3,402 Jews. 

NORWAY, 2,240,032. 

All Protestants, except 10,286 Methodists, 5,674 Baptists, 
1,969 Catholics. 

SWITZERLAND, 3,3i5443- 
Protestants, 1,916,157 ; Catholics, 1,379,664 ; Jews, 12,264. 


In every thousand of the population, 131 are Catholics, 575 
Anglicans, 46 Scotch Established Church, 246 Dissenters, and 
2 Jews. The total population of the British Colonies and 
Possessions Beyond the Seas is given at 355,372,000. 

CHINA, 330,130,000. 

This includes Manchuria, Mongolia, Tibet, and Turkestan, 
All Confucians and Buddhists, except 20,000,000 Mahommedans 
about 1,000,000 Catholics, and 1,000,000 Protestants. 

JAPAN, 48,35i,7 6 4- 
Nearly all Shinto and Buddhists. 

UNITED STATES, 76,303,387. 

Of these 66,990,802 are whites ; 8,840,789 negro and mulatto ; 
266,760 Indians ; 119,050 Chinese ; 85,986 Japanese. The effort 
to classify them according to religious persuasion has been given 
up in despair. We are simply told that they are divided into 
a hundred different sects. 

CANADA, 5,372,000 
Statistics of religion not given. 



Argentine Republic 5,160,983 

Bolivia . . 1,734,000 


Chili . 


Costa Rica . 

. 1,572,797 
. 4,160,000 


SOUTH AMERICA, 63,147,271. 
All Catholics : 

Haiti . 


















AUSTRALIA, 4,086,933. 

In every thousand of the population 699 are Protestants, 
238 Catholics, 4 Jews, 12 heathens, and 47 unregistered. 


Europe, 401,542,000 ; Asia, 822,718,000 ; Africa, 142,567,000 ; 
America, 148,012,000; Oceania,4, 086,933. Total, 1,518,925,933. 

J. F. HOGAN, D.D. 

[ 75 ] 

Iftotes anb (Queries 



REV. DEAR SIR, The parish priest of parish A assists at the 
marriage of vagi in parish B, without the license of the local 
pastor. Is the marriage valid ? I always thought that the 
parish priest of the place where the marriage is contracted is 
the proprius parochus of vagi, but some doubt has arisen in my 
mind, owing to teaching of Genicot, vol. ii., page 551, who says 
that according to St. Alphonsus any parish priest can anywhere 
validly assist at the marriage of vagi. 


The question raised by our correspondent has been often 
discussed by theologians, 1 some of whom hold, principally 
on the authority of Sanchez and St. Alphonsus, that any 
parish priest in the world can validly assist at the marriage 
of vagi even outside his own parish, and others* the vast 
majority maintain that only the parish priest of the 
place where the marriage is contracted, or another priest, 
by his permission, can so act. We accept the latter opinion 
for the following reasons. 

The general principle which governs the reception of 
the Sacraments by vagi, subjects them to the parish priest 
in whose territory they happen to be. No law of the Church, 
decision of a Roman Congregation, or reason derived from 
the nature of the case, makes an exception of the Sacrament 
of Matrimony. 

Again, there is a twofold connexion the one local and 
the other personal by which anybody can be subject to a 
parish priest in regard of marriage, since the decree Tametsi 
is local and personal in its binding force. It is evident that 
vagi have a local connexion only with the parish priest 

'Genicot, vol. ii., n. 551. 

*Lehmkuhl, vol. ii., n. 776 ; Wernz, n. 178 ; Feije, n. 238 ; Rosset, n. 


in whose parish they are at the time ; nor have they a per- 
sonal connexion with any parish priest of whom they are 
not subjects by reason of a domicile or quasi-domicile in his 
parish. Hence the local parish priest, and he alone, can 
validly assist, and delegate other priests to assist, at the 
marriage of vagi. 

The argument put forward on the other side that there 
is no reason why vagi should apply to one parish priest 
rather than to another is quite invalid, because by their 
presence in the parish vagi have a local connection with the 
pastor of that place ; all the argument proves is that vagi can 
submit themselves to any parish priest by going into his 

Moreover, in an authoritative document x Benedict XIV, 
expressly states that the parish priest of the place where 
vagi are is their proprius parochus in the sense of Trent : 
' Ipsorum (vagorum) parochus is dicitur in quorum (cujus ?) 
ditione versantur ; quod pariter asserendum est, licet alter 
solum ex illis, qui conjugium petunt, vagantium numero 
adscribantur.' This plain official statement leaves little 
room for doubt about the true doctrine. 

Hence we hold that the opinion of Lehmkuhl, etc., is 
the only one which has speculative probability in its favour ; 
nor can we admit that the other view is probable in practice 
on account of extrinsic authority, because there are few who 
hold it, and because it is wrongly attributed to Sanchez 
and St. Alphonsus. Sanchez 2 says of vagi : 

Hinc infertur, si quis pristinum domicilium omnino deserens, 
iter agat, aut naviget anirao acquirendi novum domicilium dum 
nondum acquisivit, incipiens habitare, posse eum coram quo- 
cunque parocho contrahere matrimonium. Quia est vagus, et 
nulli subditus : ut probavi n. 2. Item quia potest cuicumque 
fateri, tanquam vagus, ut diximus n. 5 et 6. Ergo et coram 
quocunque parocho contrahere matrimonium. 

In this passage Sanchez says that a vagus can be married 
before any parish priest, but he does not say that any parish 
priest can assist at the marriage outside his own parish ; on 

1 Instr. 33, n. 10. - De Matrimonio, i. 3, disp. xxv., n. 13. 


the contrary, his argument shows that he speaks of a parish 
priest who is in his parish, because he bases his teaching on 
a parity between Matrimony and Penance. But only the 
local parish priest, or another priest having delegated juris- 
diction for the parish, can absolve a vagus, a doctrine which 
Sanchez held as is clear from a previous paragraph, n. 5, 
in which he proves that any parish priest can absolve vagi : 
' Ubique (vagi) sortiuntur forum, possuntque pro delictis 
alibi commissis puniri,' an axiom which holds only so long 
as the delinquent is in the territory of the ecclesiastical 
authority concerned. 

St. Liguori is also credited with the same view because 
he said : ' Commune est, quod vagi possunt contrahere 
coram quovis parocho, ita Sanchez,' etc. 1 Now St. Alphonsus 
asserts that any parish priest can assist at these marriages, 
but he does not say that he can do so outside his own 
parish, which is an entirely different thing. 

We agree, therefore, with those theologians who hold 
that the only safe doctrine is contained in the clear autho- 
ritative statement of Benedict XIV, who declares that the 
parish priest of vagi is he in whose parish they happen to be 
at the time of marriage. 


REV. DEAR SIR, I get intentions for Masses from day to 
day, and have always on hands just about the number I can say 
in one month. But special occasions occur, corpse-house Masses, 
nuptial Masses, etc. Now I find on several occasions that 
although I have only as many Masses as I can easily say in a 
month from any fixed date, still owing to the unforeseen cir- 
cumstances I have mentioned, some of these are on hands A five 
or six days more than a month from the date I received them. 
Can I keep these intentions, seeing that I have more than I 
can easily discharge within a month from the present date, or 
must I forward them to the Bishop ? 


In the case stated by our correspondent there is no 

1 Vol. ii. n. 1089. 


obligation to transfer the honoraria to the Bishop, although 
there is one to celebrate the Masses at once. 

The time available for the lawful celebration of Masses 
must be reckoned according to moral estimation and not 
on strict mathematical lines. Hence, when a month is 
allowed, any term within five weeks would, probably, be 
included therein ; and consequently a priest who can cele- 
brate the remaining Masses within that period is not bound 
to transfer them to the Ordinary. 

Moreover, the decree Ut debita allows any delay in cele- 
brating Masses, and in transferring them to the Bishop, 
which is in accordance with the reasonably presumed con- 
sent of the donor ; such consent seems to exist in the present 
case for a delay of a few days, since the priest can celebrate 
the Masses in a shorter time than the Bishop can hope to 
have them said ; and since the Bishop could, in conformity 
with the decree, hand back these Masses to the same priest 
who is without superfluous honoraria. Hence the Masses 
can be lawfuUy retained in the circumstances. 

What has been said so far is independent of a further 
question which arises in connexion with the article that 
commands the transference of unfulfilled obligations to the 
Ordinary. Having indicated the time available for the 
celebration of manual Masses the decree gives, in its fourth 
article, an authentic interpretation of that part of the decree 
Vigilanti which ordered that Masses be given to the Bishop 
after a year : 

Ad tollendas ambiguitates, Emi. Patres declarant ac statuunt 
tempus his verbis praefmitum ita esse accipiendum, ut pro 
missis fundatis aut alicui beneficio adnexis obligatio eas de- 
ponendi decurrat a fine illius anni intra quern onera impleri 
debuissent ; pro missis vero manualibus obligatio eas deponendi 
incipiat post annum a die suscepti oneris, si agatur de magno 
missarum numero ; salvis praescriptionibus praecedenlis articuli 
pro minore missarum numero aut, diversa voluntate offerentium. 

Do the words referring to a small number of Masses imply 
that these must be given to the Bishop as soon as the avail- 
able time for celebrating them has elapsed ; or do they mean 


that, although the decree Vigilanti continues to rule them 
they must nevertheless be celebrated under pain of sin within 
the times specified in a previous article ; or do they state 
that the decree Vigilanti has no reference to them, the pro- 
visions of a previous article in regard to the lawful time of 
their celebration being considered sufficient ? If the first 
interpretation is correct they must be given to the Bishop 
as soon as the time for celebrating them has elapsed, unless 
the donor wishes them to be retained ; if one of the other 
interpretations is accurate they need not be transferred at 
least till the end of the year. 

The first is urged by the fact that the article expresses 
the intention of removing difficulties concerning the mean- 
ing of the decree Vigilanti, and, unless the time when the 
decree insists on the transference of a small number of 
Masses is indicated in the words salvis praescriptionibus, etc., 
the principal difficulty of the case remains to be solved. 
It might also be fairly said that, in the context, the natural 
meaning of the phrase salvis praescriptionibus, etc., is, that 
in the matter of giving honoraria to the Bishop, the time 
mentioned in a previous article is obligatory. 

The second is favoured by the absence of any definite 
reference in a previous article which the fourth commands 
to be observed, to this obligation of transferring honoraria ; 
and also by the fact that when there is question of a large 
number of Masses to be personally celebrated, some of them 
must be said before the end of the year, and yet there is no 
obligation of giving them to the Bishop till the year has 

The third seems to be entirely excluded by the univer- 
sality of the obligation imposed by the decree Vigilanti 
which says : ' Omnes . . . utcunque ad missarum onera 
implenda obligati, sive ecclesiastici, sive laici in fine cujus- 
libet anni missarum onera quae reliqua sunt, et quibus 
nondum satisfecerint, propriis Ordinariis tradant juxta 
modum ab iis definiendum'; nor is there any sign of a revo- 
cation of this provision, which would now free a small 
number of Masses from the rule laid down for them by the 
decree Vigilanti. 


Although the first interpretation seems the most prob- 
able, still the decree Ut debita is hardly so clear as to exclude 
the second as improbable, which can in consequence be 
adopted in practice till an authentic decision shall be given. 
Hence there is an additional reason for not transferring to 
the Ordinary the few remaining Masses which a priest can 
celebrate personally or by another within five or six days. 



REV. DEAR SIR, In the Diocese to which I belong, though 
there is no Diocesan law, there is a long standing custom that 
the least number of priests necessary for a Missa Cantata de 
requie should be five, and for a Missa Solemnis de requie, 

I would like to know (i) What is the least number required 
by the general law of the Church for a Missa Cantata de requie ? 
(2) If, notwithstanding the Diocesan custom referred to, any 
justification can be alleged for a priest who holds a Missa Cantata 
de requie, without having invited the minimum (five) where this 
attendance could be easily procured ? (3) Is it justifiable to 
substitute the Missa Cantata de requie for the ordinary parochial 
low Mass, considering many business people, who wished to 
assist at a low Mass only, are unduly delayed ? 

A reply in an early number of the I. E. RECORD would 
oblige, yours faithfully, 


The Exequial Mass contemplated by the Rubrics, and 
referred to by the Roman Ritual 1 as desirable on the death 
of a member of the faithful, is a Solemn Mass de requie cele- 
brated with deacon and sub-deacon, or at least a Missa 
Cantata. It is only to these that the privileges apply that 
have been so generously granted by the Church. Evidently, 
then, the Exequial Mass is entitled to a certain degree of 
solemnity, without which it cannot take place. As far as 

'Tit. vi., c. i. n. 4. 


we can ascertain there is no general law laying down the 
minimum number of priests that should be present to 
render legitimate either the solemn Requiem Mass or the 
Missa Cantata. All that is required seems to be that there 
should be a sufficient number of sacred ministers about the 
altar and of singers in the choir to ensure that the function 
will be carried out with due decorum. From this point of 
view numbers do not count, for one priest in the choir who 
can sing will lend more religious eclat to the ceremony than 
half-a-dozen who cannot sing. If the Office is recited 
before the Mass, as it ought to be, then there should be 
enough of priests or clerics present to recite it properly. 
Diocesan legislation can, however, step in and declare the 
conditions under which the Exequial Office is likely to be 
carried out properly, and where there is a ruling on the 
matter it must, of course, be adhered to. We think that 
where such a regulation exists there can be no justification 
for disregarding it, where compliance with it entails no 
difficulty or inconvenience. 

The Roman Ritual 1 says : 'Si quis die festo sit sepeliendus 
Missa propria pro Defunctis praesente cadavere celebrari 
poterit : dum tamen Conventualis Missa et Officia divina 
non impediantur, et magna diei celebritas non obstet.' 
Now the parochial Mass is one of the things that cannot be 
neglected, and hence, per se, the Exequial Mass cannot be 
substituted for it. 2 Moreover, the Parish priest is bound 
to apply the Mass pro populo, and the Exequial Mass is not 
allowed unless it is said pro defuncto. Hence, where there 
is only one Mass in a parish church the case is clear. Sup- 
posing there are two Masses in a church on a Sunday, may 
the Exequial Mass be substituted for one of them ? We 
think it may, at least according to the general law of the 
Church,which contemplates only one parochial Mass properly 
so called, unless there is some diocesan regulation, or some 
other inconvenience that would forbid it. We assume, of 
course, that the Missa de requie can be properly carried out, 

'Tit. vi., c. i. n. 5. \S.C.R. Deer. n. 4024. 



that there is a sufficient number of priests available for this 
purpose, and that it does not prevent the performance of 
any necessary parochial functions. The Exequial Mass 
should supersede that one of the two Masses said on a 
Sunday, which is the less important, and with which the 
sermon or devotions are not connected. 


REV. DEAR SIR, Will you kindly answer in the I. E. RECORD 
the following question : What Preface should be said in the 
Mass of the Forty Hours' Exposition, when it takes places 
(i) on the First Sunday of Advent, and (2) when it takes place 
on the Second Sunday of Advent, when that Sunday falls within 
the Octave of the Feast of the Immaculate Conception ? 

In the first case the Mass to be said is the Mass of the Sunday, 
with a commemoration of the Blessed Sacrament, but I am 
doubtful whether the Preface should be of the Sunday, De 
Trinitate or of the Blessed Sacrament, De Nativitate. 

In the second case, the Second Sunday of Advent, when 
that Sunday falls within the Octave of the Immaculate Con- 
ception, the Mass should also, I believe, be of the Sunday, with 
a commemoration of the Blessed Sacrament only, but as three 
Prefaces occur that of the Sunday, the Blessed Sacrament* 
and the Blessed Virgin I do not know which should be said. 


In the first instance the Preface to be said is that of the 
Sunday, De Trinitate. There is no change to be introduced 
into the Mass of the day on account of the Exposition 
except the commemoration of the Blessed Sacrament, under 
the same conclusion as the prayer of the Mass. In the second 
case the Preface should be De B.V.M. Here again the 
Exposition makes no change in the Mass of the day except 
the Commemoration, and the Preface of the Octave takes 
precedence over that of the Sunday. 



REV. DEAR SIR, May I trouble you to let me know through 
the I. E. RECORD (i) What is meant by the colour ' Rubeus,' 
which is prescribed by the Rubrics for the Masses of certain 
feasts ? Will any one of the manifold varieties of ' Red ' suffice ? 
(2) Is it rubrical to have candles lighted in a church during Mass 
or Benediction ? I am, yours faithfully, 

G. D. 

1. Red is one of the primary colours, and has various 
shades or hues from the bright scarlet to the sombre purple. 
We would say that any of these tints, so long as it can 
popularly be designated ' Rubeus,' fulfils the liturgical 
requirement. As the symbol of fire and blood, red testifies 
burning charity and consuming self-sacrifice. It is appro- 
priately used, therefore, on the Feasts of the Sacred Passion 
of our Saviour, of the Holy Ghost, and of the Martyrs. 
The Spouse in the Canticles is ' candidus et rubicundus.' 

2. We presume that there is question of the lights that 
burn before statues, and that our correspondent wishes to 
know if these lights may be retained during Mass or Bene- 
diction. In a previous issue of the I. E. RECORD 1 we dis- 
cussed the propriety of these lights, and concluded that 
they are not forbidden by any ecclesiastical enactment, 
provided that they do not give rise to the danger of de- 
tracting from the worship and adoration due to the Blessed 
Sacrament or of confounding the cultus duliae of the images 
of the saints with the cultus latriae which is to be rendered 
absolutely to God Himself and relatively to the material 
things which represent Him. The question was asked 
whether images and statues in the locality of the High 
Altar on which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed should 
be covered during the Exposition of the Forty Hours, and 
the reply was, * Negative : et solum tegenda est imago quae 
extat in Altari in quo fit exposition 

In 1874 another question was asked : * Permittitur ne 
vel saltern toleratur antiqua consuetudo tenendi sacras 

1 Sept. 1904, pp. 256-8. * S. R. C. Deer., n. 3241. 


magines detectas in Capella vel Altari, stante Expositione 
Quadraginta Horarum ? ' In the reply the matter was 
referred to the discretion and prudence of the Ordinary. 
If, then, images, except in accordance with the first Decree 
given those on the High Altar may remain uncovered 
and exposed during the Forty Hours' Adoration, there is 
no reason why lights should not be used before them. 
But on this occasion, lest they should attract too much 
attention to the detriment of what is due to the Blessed 
Sacrament, the lights should be used very sparingly. 


THE Bull Quaecunque, issued by Clement VIII in 1604, 
lays down in detail all the things that are to be observed 
in the establishment of Confraternities. According to this 
constitution, supplemented by subsequent decisions and 
regulations of the Pope and the various Congregations, the 
following must be carefully attended to. 

A parish priest about to set up any Confraternity in his 
parish should, as a first preliminary, seek the counsel and 
authorization of his Ordinary. As a general rule Bishops 
have jure ordinario, the power of erecting confraternities 
within the limits of their dioceses. This faculty does not 
belong to the Vicar-General without express mention. In 
regard to confraternities that are associated with certain 
religious Orders, the powers of canonical erection are vested 
in the Generals of these Orders exclusively, and may not be 
exercised by Bishops independently of special delegation 
by the Holy See. The erection of a Confraternity is one 
thing, however, and the aggregation or affiliation, by which 
the confrerie becomes a participator in the privileges and 
indulgences enjoyed by the Arch-confraternity of the same 
name in Rome, is quite another, and power to erect did not 
always presuppose the faculty of affiliating. The erection 
was often a condition on the fulfilment of which affiliation 
was obtained from the Arch-confraternity. As far as our 


country is concerned this distinction is of no practical im- 
portance, for by an Instruction issued by the Propaganda in 
June, 1889, Bishops subject to it have full powers for estab- 
lishing all Confraternities and Sodalities approved by the 
Holy See, and for granting to them all the privileges and 
favours which affiliation could confer. To be able, however, 
to endow the Confraternity of the Rosary with the very 
special privileges that are peculiar to it, recourse must be 
had to the General of the Dominicans. Bishops, then, have 
the plenitude of power, as regards the Confraternity of 
Christian Doctrine. The authorization of the Bishop should 
be in writing, and should be deposited in the archives of the 
parish or Confraternity, so that if the canonicity of the 
erection were ever called into question, this documentary 
evidence might silence all doubts. When the requisite per- 
mission is being sought for the erection of the Society, the 
statutes or rules by which it is to be controlled should be 
submitted for episcopal approval. These rules should be 
simple and modelled upon what is demanded by the end 
of the Confraternity and the means and practical method 
of giving it effect. What has been said in the last number 
of the I. E. RECORD about the regulations for working the 
Confraternity in Rome will supply suggestions for drawing 
up a code of rules that will be suitable to the needs of each 
place, for it must be remembered that Bishops can modify 
the statutes of the Arch-confraternity so as to make them 
practical and workable in their dioceses. The appointment 
of a Director must be also made by the Bishop, and it would 
be of advantage if the priest so nominated were also to 
receive the power of delegating another priest to act in his 
stead, in case he ever found it impossible or inconvenient to 
discharge the duties in person. Mention of this fact should 
be made in the statutes. In nominating the Director the 
Bishop will give him all requisite faculties for blessing 
badges and medals and imparting all the Indulgences of the 
Society. Since 1861 Bishops have the power of appointing 
the parochi pro tempore as Rectors and Directors of the 
various _Confraterni ties. The next thing is the reception 


of associates or members. In all Confraternities the actual 
entry of the names is essential. If there is a canonically 
erected branch in the parish, it is enough to enter the names 
on the register of this branch. If there is no canonically 
erected branch, then the names must be sent on from time 
to time to some place where such a branch exists. The 
Director himself, or some one duly authorized by him, makes 
entry of the names. If the Director should not happen to 
write the list, it would be well if he initialled it to give it 
the sanction of his authority. This enrolment comprises 
the essentials of reception. For most Confraternities there 
is a special formula, but there seems to be no special one 
for the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. The general 
form will be quite sufficient. As we have not found it in 
the Roman Ritual we give it here : 

Auctoritate mihi concessa Ego vos (te) recipio et adscribo 
Confraternitatis Doctrinae Christianae vosque participes facio 
omnium gratianim, Indulgentiarum, privilegiorum, bonorumque 
spiritualium ejusdem Confraternitatis in nomine Patris, etc. 

On the occasion of inaugurating, or re-establishing the 
Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, it would be advisable 
to surround the simple reception of members with more or 
less solemnity. The nature of the Confraternity being 
explained to the people beforehand and the advantages of 
membership being put before them, a convenient hour 
might be selected for the enrolment of members when it 
would be possible to have Benediction of the Blessed 


We have come across a copy of the Provincial Statutes 
of the Archdiocese of Dublin, published in 1831, which 
contains in the Appendix the rules for the Confraternity of 
the Christian Doctrine. As some of our readers have been 
anxious to know where they might procure a copy of these 
rules, we gladly publish them. They may not be alto- 
gether suitable to the conditions of modern times, or to the 
circumstances of particular places, but they will afford a 


basis to go upon, and may be modified, with the authority 
of the Bishop, wherever necessary: 

1. The object of this Society is to promote, amongst all 
classes of the faithful, the knowledge of the Christian Doctrine, 
and is to be in all things under the special care and superintend- 
ence of the parochial clergy. 

2. The President, Vice-President, and Treasurer are to be 
elected by ballot, on the first Sunday of January in each year, 
and a Secretary is to be appointed by the President. The 
election of these officers must be confirmed by the Parish Priest 

3. The members are also to be chosen by ballot ; but no 
person can be proposed until he shall have obtained a written 
certificate from some one of the parochial clergy, and he cannot 
be voted into the Society, until he shall have been employed for 
two months in discharging the duty of a member. 

4. A meeting of all the members shall be held on the first 
Sunday of each month, at which anything regarding the welfare 
of the Society shall be discussed and determined. If possible, 
one of the clergy (Director) shall attend this meeting. 

5. A Committee of five shall be chosen on the first Sunday 
of each quarter, and these, with the President, Vice-President, 
and clergy shall arrange the classes, appoint the teachers, 
award the premiums, and transact all the other business 
of the Society. 

6. The teachers of each class should, as far as possible, be 
charged with the instruction of the children in their own neigh- 
bourhood, and are, at all times, to watch over the conduct of their 

7. There shah 1 be a public examination held the first week 
of May in each year, and the premiums shall be distributed on 
the third Sunday of the same month, by the Priests in the 

8. Each member, when enrolled in the Society, is to pay One 
Shilling, and One Penny a month afterwards. The Treasurer 
shall pay no money unless he receives a written order signed 
by the President. 

9. Any member absent from Catechism for three successive 
Sundays without some very good reason, or who shall allow his 
subscription to be three months in arrear, shah 1 first be admonished 
by the President to discharge his duty more regularly, and, if 
he neglect such admonition, he shall no longer be considered a 
member of the Society, and must be re-elected if he wish to 

- 10. Any member who shall frequent public-houses, or give 
bad example in the parish, must be expelled from the Society. 
Members are exhorted to approach Holy Communion the first 
Sunday of each month, in order to gain the Plenary Indulgence. 


Rule 5 is the most important. It should provide for (a) 
the attendance and classification of the pupils ; (b) pro- 
gramme of instruction suitable to each grade ; (c) books to 
be used ; (d) appointment of teachers, notaries to record 
na/nes of absentees, prefects to arrange pupils in their proper 
places and grades, and be generally helpful during the classes ; 
(e) time at which instructions are given and their duration ; 
(/) officers to look up the absentees and bring them in. 

Rule 9. Persons may become members of the Society, 
even though they do not participate actively in the Sunday 
classes, provided they undertake to promote the welfare: 
of the Society in any of the ways indicated in last issue. 






DIE 24 APRIL. 1905. 

Maximae sint tibi grates, Venerabilis Frater, 1 qui diserta 
allocutione dilectos filios coram Nobis ostendens iucunditatem 
ac solatium animo Nostro attulisti. Si enim semper et praecipue 
cordi Nobis est iuventus, verbis satis significare non possumus, 
quantum gaudii Nobis afferat conspectus uvenum Gentis 
Polonae, cuius et praeclara spirat memoria gestarum rerum et 
magnam erga hanc Sanctam Sedem coniunctam . cum fiducia 
pietatem agnovimus. 

Hi enim fratres sunt illorum, qui sicut perbelle meministi, 
ineunte saeculo XIII, ferventi religionis ardore incensi innumeri 
in Syriam et Palaestinam dimicantes convenerunt, ut loca 
sanctissimis Redemptions nostrae mysteriis consecrata recu- 
perarent et christiani nominis hostes ad catholicam veritatem 
converterent. Hi filii sunt illorum patrum, qui tremefacta 
Europa ad impetus hostium praepotentium, pectorum suorum 
praesidia inter primes insignibus proeliis opposuerunt : iidem 
religionis et civilis cultus vindices acerimi, fidissimique custodes- 
Hi sunt iuvenes, qui macte virtute saeculi fallacias et malorum 
exempla caventes, ad omnem christianam laudem animose con- 
tendunt, nee postrema cura ea est aliis prodesse exemplo, 
scilicet ut multi numerentur, qui cum illis rerum omnium, 
quae honestae sint communione iungantur. 

Dum porro vos, dilecti Filii, non degeneres virtutis patrum 
gaudenter perspicimus, praeclaras voluntates vestras omni, ut 
par est, commendatione prosequimur, atque animos etiam 
vobis ultro addimus, ut studiis vestris earn gloriam sectemini 
quae in probanda Deo et Ecclesiae fide vestra continetur. Quod 
si in hac via fideliter institeritis, minime dubitamus lucem 
exempli vestri plurimum valituram, ut plures ea excitati, ac 
tristi eorum conditione permoti, qui saeculi erroribus anguntur, 

1 Illmo. ac Revmo. Archiep. Leopoliensi. 


sesse vobis socios adsciscant et ad certandum bonum certamen 
alacritatem vestram studeant aemulari. 

Haec autem omnia pro ingenii vestri docilitate feliciter 
consecuturos confidimus, praesertim cum noverimus vestrum 
moderatores et magistros, quorum multos praesentes laetanter 
conspicimus, collatis in unum viribus et consiliis, cuncta quae 
in illis sunt adhibere, ut vestrum omnium animi in catholicae 
professionis officiis roborata virtute ct subsidiis auctis con- 
firmentur et praestent. 

Vobis propterea, electi iuvenes, eximii magistri, et tibi in 
primis, Venerabilis Frater, qui omnes singulari charitate permoti 
ad Nos adiistis, gratum animum Nostrum nominatim profitemur, 
pariterque petimus, ut civibus vestris quos ut amantissimos 
iilios habemus maxime caros, paternam benevolentiam Nostram 
reduces testari velitis : quibus vobisque cunctis vestrisque 
f amiliis et universae Polonae Genti caelestium auspicem munerurn 
Apostolicam benedictionem ex intimo cordis affectu in Domino 

Pius PP. X. 






Venerabilis Frater, 1 salutem et Apostolicam benedictionem. 

Maronitarum cum Apostolica Sede coniunctionem neces- 
situdinis, ab avis et maioribus singularem, egregie proximis 
diebus testata sunt officia, quae tu, Venerabilis Frater, et nonnulli 
tecum Episcopi nobilesque, de Clero et populo viri complures, 
totius gentis vestrae nomine, praesentes Nobis praestitistis. 
Equidem pergrata perque iucunda haec Nobis accidisse osten- 
dimus : iterum vero profitemur libenter, Nos pietatis obser- 
vantiaeque vestrae testimoniis suaviter affectos esse, gratiamque 
vobis agimus de Petriana stipe caeterisque muneribus, quibus 
istam ipsam pietatem pro facilitate probastis. Praesertim 
laudare satis non possumus earn, quam perspeximus in vobis, 
tuendae promovendaeque catholicae fidei constantiam : quam 

1 Illmo. ac Revmo. Domino Eliae Petro Huayek, Patriarchae Maroni- 
iarum, Antiochiae. 


quidem Orientalibus, qui ab Ecclesia Romana dissident, salutari 
et exemplo et incitamento esse intelligimus. Haec, quamquam 
significavimus coram, tamen his etiam litteris significata volui- 
mus ; earn nempe ob causam, ut paternus Noster in omnes 
dilectos filios Maronitas animus constaret luculentius. Neque 
enim commissuri unquam sumus, ut minus a Nobis diligi quam 
a Decessoribus Nostris videamini. Vos interea vestraque omnia 
enixe divinae benignitati commendamus, atque auspicem 
caelestium bonorum, testemque praecipuae benevolentiae Nostrae 
tibi Venerabilis Prater, et reliquis Venerabilibus Episcopis 
universaeque genti Maronitarum Apostolicam benedictionem 
peramanter in Domino impertimus. 

Datum Romae apud S. Petrum, die XXIX lunii, festo 
Apostolorum Principum, anno MDCCCCV, Pontificatus Nostri 

Pius PP. X. 




Bme. Pater, 

P. Praepositus Generalis Carmelitarum Discalceatorum ad 
Sacrorum Pedum osculum provolutus, exponit S.V. non raro 
contingere ut christifideles, qui ad Conftem. B.M.V. de Monte 
Carmelo admitti postulant, invalide recipiantur, turn ob omissam 
nominum inscriptionem, turn ob aliam causam. Ne itaque 
praefati christifideles gratiis et privileges memoratae confti. 
concessis inculpatim priventur, Orator S.V. humiliter exorat, 
quatenus receptiones ad eamdem conftem. quacumque ex 
causa usque ad hanc diem invalide peractas, benigne sanare 

Et Deus, etc. 

S. C. Indulgentiis Sacrisque Reliquiis praeposita, utendo 
facultatibus a SS. D. N. Pio Pp. X, sibi specialiter tributis, 
petitam sanationem benigne concessit. Contrariis quibus- 
cumque non obstantibus. Datum Romae ex Secria. eiusdem 
S.C., die 28 lunii 1905. 

A. Card. TRIPEPI, Praef. 
Pro Secrio. : IOSEPHUS M. Cancus. COSELLI, SuUus. 

t 92 ] 


THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS : An Historical and Doctrinal 
Inquiry into the Nature of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. 
By the Very Rev. Alex. MacDonald, D.D., V.G. 
New York : Christian Press Association Publishing 

IN an age when Protestants no longer cling to the extreme 
principle of the one rule of faith, founded on each one's individual 
reading of the sense of Scripture, but appeal to the early centuries 
of Christianity as witnesses to dogmatic truth, works such as. 
that under notice are very much in season. For Catholics, too,, 
both those who view Dogma from the standpoint of the pro- 
fessed critic, and those who humbly submit to take teaching 
from others, the historical method of dealing with Theology 
is increasingly important. 

The present work is a historico-theological examination of 
the central idea in the Eucharistic Sacrifice. In the early portion 
of his volume the author discusses the subject of sacrifice in 
general, and both from appeals to the voice of Tradition, and 
from a detailed examination of the history of sacrifice, he shows 
conclusively that the destruction of the Victim was in all cases 
the essential notion in this particular sort of worship. He 
proves, consequently, that the view held by some of the older 
theologians, and revived in later days, which would see in sacri- 
fice", merely a common meal, a sacred banquet, eaten by the wor- 
shippers in communion with the Deity, has no historical or 
traditional evidence to support it, besides being in direct con- 
flict with the teaching of Scripture. 

He next considers the Mass itself, andjseeks for the formal 
constituent of the sacrifice therein. In doing so, he proposes 
to himself to show that the Scholastic explanations, which so- 
generally obtain in the schools of to-day, are founded on prin- 
ciples unknown to the Fathers as well as to the earlier schoolmen ; 
nay, are quite at variance with the pure Patristic idea. The 
Fathers are quoted, and in our opinion, quoted justly, to prove 
that theyjield the Mass to be the same sacrifice at that offered 


at the Last Supper and on Calvary. Modern theologians, no 
doubt, say the same ; but since they explain the immolation of 
our Lord in the Mass as consisting in His being reduced to the 
state of food and drink, Dr. MacDonald would have it that this 
is to set up a new sacrificial action in place of that insisted on 
by the Fathers, according to whom there is not merely specific 
but even numerical identity between (what are called) the two 
sacrifices, and an identity not only as to Priest and Victim, but 
also as to the sacrificial action in both. Much better to keep to 
the old view : in the Supper-room, Christ offered up the first 
Eucharistic sacrifice, and as this oblation virtually contained 
the bloody oblation of Himself some hours later, He may be 
regarded as judicially slain, even before the Jews laid hands on 
Him in the Garden. The Last Supper, then, with the subse- 
quent Crucifixion, is in reality the first Christian Passover, and 
in the Mass the moment of the Supper and the moment of the 
Crucifixion two moments, which, by reason of the connexion 
between them, are really one are repeated, or rather are con- 
tinued, for evermore. 

The author sets forth his views in language that is always 
clear and telling, and strong by its moderation. From what 
we have said, it will be inferred that the point of view taken up 
is an interesting, and, in some degree, a novel one ; but there is 
abundance of quotation, as well as theological reasoning, to show 
that it is but the old, and in the author's mind, the true and 
consistent view revived. 


Macmillan & Co. 1905. 8vo. 145. net. 

WHATEVER our opinion may be of Mr. O'Brien's politics, 
we must recognize that he has written a fascinating book. 
It is indeed the best thing' in the way of literature that we 
have yet seen from him. Not that it is entirely free from 
his peculiar defects _.of excessive emphasis, exaggerated state- 
ment and harrowing, almost agonizing sentiment ; but it is 
more self-possessed, calm, and controlled than anything that 
has yet come from the same author. 

Mr. O'Brien seems to have constantly before him the 
object of converting Englishmen to sounder views on Irish 


politics. The same we remarked in his early novel When 
we were Boys. It is a laudable object, and we believe that 
this last volume will be a powerful instrument in the task 
of securing it. It will, in our opinion, be impossible for any 
Englishman to read some of the chapters in this book, 
particularly those on the Forster regime, without feeling 
ashamed of the folly that is there revealed to all the world. 
Possibly in furtherance of his main purpose, Mr. O'Brien 
goes farther in the way of concession to British prejudices 
than the majority of Irishmen would be prepared to go. Thus, 
for instance, we come across passages which cast a vivid side- 
light on Mr. O'Brien's views on education. Writing about the 
mixed school in Mallow the polite establishment of the Misses 
Babington, in which his mother was educated Mr. O'Brien 
says : 

' In the Misses Babington's polite establishment, the girls 
gentle and simple, Protestant and Catholic, seemed to have 
mingled together with an amenity which, I am afraid, is 
wanting in the more recent relations of classes and creeds in 
Ireland, and which served in a surprising degree to mitigate 
the brutality of the strict letter of the law in pre-emancipation 
days. Quite half the families with whom my earliest recol- 
lections of small dances and games of forfeits are associated, 
belonging to one or other of the half-dozen Protestant sects 
which had their conventicles in Mallow to which of them, or 
for what reasons, it never struck us to inquire, no more than it 
struck the occupants of the old graveyard, where Protestant 
and Catholic reposed side by side.' 

After having graduated in two elementary schools in 
Mallow, Mr. O'Brien was sent for his classical education to the 
Protestant ' Diocesan College ' of Cloyne. Here he tells us : 

' Three-fourths of the pupils were Protestants. Here again 
my experience of the commingling of classes and creeds was 
of the same happy character as all my early recollections in 

Those who wish to have proof of the influence of the classics 
on a man's life will read the following with interest : 

' I knew all about Virgil before I could ever read a page 
of Shakespeare. I could construct trashy Greek verses at a 


time when my hand-writing in English was little above the 
dignity of pot-hooks. I could tell nearly every battle of the 
Peloponnesian wars, as Grote told them, years before I had heard 
of Crecy or Agincourt. ... At twelve years of age pro- 
foundly ignorant of all that was modern, I could rattle through 
all the common school classics even Livy's gnarled sentences 
and Herodotus' Egyptian adventures with a facility, and 
even joy, that sometimes made "Old Edward's" eyes beam 
at me over his spectacles.' 

And yet it can hardly be said that all this has had a 
very classical result. Intellectually and in all other respects 
Mr. O'Brien seems to be more of the Gothic than of the 
Classic build. 

In his references to education, however, it is only fair to 
say that he roundly condemns the Queen's Colleges, and says 
that he could never look on the college in Cork as an Alma 
Mater t although he had carried off some of its highest prizes. 

In his conclusions on the policy of the Fenians, to whom 
he at one time belonged, he says : ' The moral influence of 
the Secret Society is wholly bad. A life of conflict with the 
Church demoralises all except the most stoical.' 

Another feature of the book, and one which has pleased 
us more than any other, is the author's memorial of Dr. Croke. 
Mr. O'Brien says he has only contributed one stone to the 
monument which he hopes will be one day erected to the 
memory of that great Archbishop. We re-echo the hope, and 
we note, with satisfaction, that Mr. O'Brien's contribution 
is a precious one. We should like to give some extracts from 
Mr. O'Brien's references to the Archbishop ; but no extracts 
will give a satisfactory impression of this book. It must be 
ead and judged as a whole. 

J. F. H. 

Barry, C.SS.R. Dublin : M. H. Gill & Son. 1905. 
35. 6d. net. 

WE are glad that the life of Count Arthur Moore has not been 
allowed to pass away without a suitable memorial, and we con- 
gratulate Father Barry on the handsome volume in which he has 
perpetuated it for us. Count Moore was a thoroughly good 
man, a sterling patriot, according to his own conception of the 


word, and a Catholic of whom Ireland had reason to be proud 
Of his devotion to the Church he gave the most generous and 
life-long proofs, and of his desire to benefit the Irish people 
and to improve their condition, there is ample testimony in 
this volume. The Archbishop of Tuam, in his admirable 
Preface, sums up the various activities of the late Count in 
language which could not be excelled by us, and we commend 
it to the attention of our readers. For our part we have only 
to say, that there was nothing in the life of the Church and of 
the country that appealed to all that is best and noblest in 
Irishmen and Catholics that did not appeal to Count Moore. 
The holy places in Palestine which he visited so often, the holy 
places of Rome in which he was almost as much at home as his 
friend Marrucchi, the holy places of Ireland which he did so 
much to perpetuate, were always in his heart. The poor and 
the suffering had no more practical benefactor. Catholic edu- 
cation in all its grades had no more staunch supporter. ' The 
Catholic Truth Society of Ireland ' counted him as one of its 
Vice- Presidents, and one of its most active members. Catholic 
soldiers and sailors looked up to him as one of their most devoted 

All this is made clear and patent in the pages of Father 
Barry. But behind it all there was the refined and polished 
gentleman who never obtruded his generosity or zeal, and who 
won the hearts of those who approached him by his kind and 
gentle manners. 

He may have been sometimes a little rash and impulsive ; 
but if that is a defect it is one which Irishmen readily overlook. 
It was, in any case, outbalanced by so- many virtues that it 
scarcely deserves to be reckoned. With great pleasure we re- 
commend this biography, which we should be glad to see in 
every_.reading-room and every private library in the country. 
Its influence will be for good wherever it is read, and the words 
of Scripture will be verified that ' A good life hath its measure 
of days, but a good name 'shall live for ever.' 

J. F. H. 

" Ut Chfisliani it* tt Kotnani si'tis.'' "As you are children of Christ, so ba you children of Rome. ' 
Ex Dictis 5. Patncti. In Ltbro Armacano, tol. q, 

The Irish 
Ecclesiastical Record 


No. 458. 

Journal, untor Episcopal Sanction, 

] FEBRUARY, 1906. [ 

$ ems. 
Vol. XIX. 

Father Denifle, O.P. 

Rev. Michael O'Kan"., O.P., Limerick. 
< Religion as a Credible Doctrine.'- II. 

Rev. J. O'Neill, Ph.D., Carlow College. 
The Blood of St. Januarius. 

Rev. Richard Fleming, C.C., Greystones. 
A Scholastic Discussion. 

Rev. Edward Nagle, Clonmel. 
Lord Randolph Churchill. 
Very Rev. T. P. Gilmartin, D.D., Vice-Pres., Maynooth College. 

General Notes 

'The Dublin Review 

Relations with the Vatican. 

.' Statistics of Marriage. The Clergy in Parliament. Diplomatic 
is Vatican, Monsignor Capel. ' The Irish Theological Quarterly.' 

The Editor. 
Notes and Queries. 

LITURGY. Rev. Patrick Morrisroe, Maynooth College. 

Decree concerning: Confraternity of Mount Carmel, Mass to be said in certain 
Church. 'Beaedictio Mensae.' 


The Use of Musical Instruments at Sacred Functions. Indulgences for Saturday 
Devotion to the Immaculate Virgin. Pmilege of the Way of the Cross in 
newly-erected Churches. Removal ofa Parish Priest. Indult granting permission 
to Secular Priests of the Third Order of St. Francis to say a Votive Mass of the 
Immaculate Conception on Saturdays. Appointment of Confessors of Nuns. 
Pope Pius X, and the German Catholics. 

Notices of Books. 

I'usage des Congregations a vceux simples. Catholic Truth Society Publications. 

Nihit Obstai. 

Censor >ep. 

Smptimi $otest. 


Arc'niefr. Dublin,, 
Hibermae Pritnas 

BROWNE & NOLAN, Limited 
Publishers and Printers, 24 & 25 


SUBSCRIPTION I Twelve S'ni'lmgs per Annum, Post Ftee t payable in advance^ 





XI Speciality. 




Telephone No. 1. Telegraphic Address " CONAN, DUBLIH." 

A Stained Class Studio in Ireland. 


The opportunity of encouraging Home Industry has now arrived. A Studio has been 
opened specialising solely in STAINED GLASS, the Principal ot which has had a 
thorough training in the ART of staining and painting Glass in England. The disheartening 
failures the Clergy have had to meet with are now at an end, 

ADVICE conscientiously given on jStained Glass Decoration. 

Apply to w. . ROBERTS, 




AlUr Wu Gurilcs, Sferioe Unties, & fc" e 

Bejt TBLllOW CrOWI) SO&P. A Pure old-ftsWoned Soap in Bars, 
71)6 F^VOUrite SO^P. 4 A Pure Free-lathering Soap in Tablets. 


Lift U Ul/f 


Iron and Brass Bedsteads and Woven Wire Mattresses a Speciality. 

Mangles, Wringers, and Laundry Appliances. Kitchen Utensils and Brushes of every description. 

Institutions supplied on Special Terms. 
Kitchen Range, Sieve, esncf Grate 

21 & 22, Christchurch Place, and 2,Werburgh St., 



IN the death of Father Denifle, which occurred unex- 
pectedly at Munich on the loth of last June, the 
Dominican Order has lost one of its most celebrated 
members, and the Catholic Church one of her 
staunchest defenders. He was on his way to Cambridge 
to receive the degree of Doctor of Letters, which the 
University had decided to confer upon him for his dis- 
tinguished merits in historical research, when the hand of 
death struck him down. 

Joseph Denifle was born in the Austrian Tyrol, at the 
village of Imst, in Ober-in-Thal, in 1844. His father, who was 
schoolmaster and organist of the village, taught him music, 
for which the lad showed considerable talent. He made 
his elementary studies at the cathedral school for choristers 
in Brixen, and at the age of seventeen entered the Domi- 
nican novitiate at Gratz in Styria. It was the study of 
the Conferences of Pere Lacordaire that decided young 
Denifle to take this step. He was professed on the 5th of 
October, 1862, and exchanged his name of Joseph for 
Henry Suso, of whose life and writings he was afterwards 
to make a special study. After his philosophical and 
theological studies which he made at Gratz, at Rome, 
and at St. Maximin, in France, he was ordained priest 
in 1866. In 1870, when he took his degrees in theology, 
he was appointed professor at Gratz, and taught for ten 



During the years of his professorship, Denifle preached 
in the cathedral at Gratz, and in the principal cities of 
of Austria. The subject-matter of his sermons was pub- 
lished in a volume of exceptional merit, Die Katholische 
Kirche und das Ziel der Menscheit (The Catholic Church 
and the End of Humanity). 1 He relieved the monotony 
of a professor's life by a close study of German mysticism 
in the fourteenth century. The place occupied by the 
Dominicans in the mystic movement of that period had 
for him a special attraction, and in 1873 he gave to the 
world the charming volume, Das geistliche Leben, Blumen- 
lese aus den Deutschen Mystikern und Gottesfreunden des 
14 Jahrhunderts. z The author in this work, which contains 
2,500 passages, has co-ordinated the most striking texts of 
the principal mystics, in accordance with the three degrees 
of Christian perfection the purgative, the illuminative, 
and the unitive and he shows such a marvellous grasp 
of his subject that those who knew his methods and his 
almost phenomenal powers of application were led to 
expect works of higher and still greater critical value. 
A series of studies on * The Friends of God,' 3 and his efforts 
to restore to the ' Friend of God in Oberland ' his true 
identity, instead of confounding him, as had been hitherto 
done, with Nicholas of Basle, were partially crowned with 
success, and drew the attention of the learned to his novel 
methods of criticism. 4 Five years subsequently he proved 
that the * Friend of God ' never existed, and that the works 
which were published under this name were written by 

1 We wish to express our indebtedness for many of these biographical 
facts, to the article of Mgr. Kirsch, a distinguished friend of Father Denifle, 
in the Revue d'Histoire Ecclesiastique, also to the article by M. Pelzer 
in the Revue Neo-Scolastique, and to an article by P6re Conlon, O.P., 
in the Annales Dominicaines. 

* ' The Spiritual Life, an Anthology of German Mystics and Friends 
of God in the fourteenth century.' A French translation and adaptation 
of this work has been published by the Countess of Flavigny, under the 
direction of the author La Vie spirituette d'apres les Mystiques allemands 
uu xiv. siecle. 

1 Cf., Alzog, Universal Church History, vol. iii., p. 128. 

* These studies were published in the Historisch-politische Blatter, 
vol. Ixxv., 1875, pp. 17, 93, 245, 340. 


Rulman Merswin. 1 Denifle was recognized, in a very 
short time after the publication of these studies, as a 
specialist in German mysticism, and his splendid powers 
and sound criticism proved that he had no equal on this 
subject. In 1874, Preger published the History of German 
Mysticism (Die Geschickte der deutschen Mystik), which 
contained many inaccuracies, and was wanting in the 
critical value which such a work demanded. In a series 
of articles, published in a leading review, 2 Denifle handled 
the work with great severity, and fearlessly pointed out 
to the author that he did not possess the qualifications 
for the due accomplishment of the work he had set him- 
self to perform. About this time he announced the publi- 
cation of a work on German mysticism which should treat 
of Tauler and Suso, but with the exception of some articles 
which appeared later the work was never completed. 

His controversy with Preger prepared the way for a 
critical editon of the works of Henry Suso, but as he was 
called to Rome, only the first volume of the work was 
published. 8 Denifle devoted a considerable time to the 
study of Tauler and published his book on spiritual poverty, 4 
and two years later he published a critical study on the 
conversion of Tauler. 5 ( 

These studies on Suso and Tauler brought about a 
controversy with Jundt, who published about the same time 
a work on the ' Friends of God ' in the fourteenth century, 
and in an appendix criticized some of Denifle's conclusions. 
In two articles published in the Historisch-politisch Blatter? 

1 These studies appeared in the Zeitschrift fiir deutsches Alterthum 
und deutsche Litteratur (vol. xxiv., 1880, and vol. xxv., 1881). Under 
the general heading, ' Die Dichtungen des Gottesfreundes im Oberland,' 
Denifle examines in turn ; ( i ) ' Das Meisterbuch ' (vol. xxiy. p. 200) ; 
(2) ' Die Proteusnatur des Gottesfreundes ' (p. 280) ; (3) ' Die Romreise 
des Gottesfreundes ' (p. 301); (4) 'Die Dichtungen Rulman Merswins ' 
(p. 463) ; and in an Epilogue, vol. xxv., p. 101, he draws his conclusions. 

1 ' Eine Geschichte der deutschen Mystik,' Historisch-politische Blatter, 
vol. Ixxv., 1875, PP- 679, 771, 903. 

1 Die Schriften des sel. Heinrich Seuse, t. i., Deutsche Schriften, Munich, 

4 Das Buck von der geistlicher Armuth, bekannt als Johann Tauler s 
Nachfolgung des armen Lebens Christi, Munich, 1877. 

& Tauler s Bekehrung kritisch untersucht, Strasburg, 1879. 

e Vol. Ixxxiv., 1879, pp. 797, 878, 'Taulers Bekehrung Antikritik gegen 
A. Jundt.' 


Denifle defended himself against the criticisms of Jundt 
and pointed out many defects in the work, which seems 
to have escaped its author. Father Denifle was an in- 
timate friend of Mgr. Greith, Bishop of St. Gall, who was 
also an interested student of the works of Dominican 
mystics. The bishop induced him to write the life of 
Margaret of Kentzingen, which appeared with notes in 
the Zeitschrift fiir deutsches Alterthum. 1 

The German mystics always possessed a peculiar charm 
for him, and we find him returning to them again and again 
in several articles which he subsequently published. His 
sympathies were drawn to Master Eckhart, and several 
articles appeared, in different reviews, on the acts of the 
process against Eckhart in 1327, on his doctrine, on his 
Latin writings, and on his birth-place. 2 These studies 
on the famous mystic constitute an epoch in the literature 
of German mysticism, and place Master Eckhart in a new 
light. He was not born at Strasburg, as it was hitherto 
generally believed, but at Hochheim, a district of Thuringia, 
about two leagues north of Gotha. His German sermons 
and writings represent but a very small portion of his work, 
the greater part being written in Latin. He is not the 
pantheist that history represents him, as he does not 
identify God and the creature inasmuch as the creature is 
but a manifestation of God, but inasmuch as the being of 
God so fills and permeates all creation that God is the 
formal being of all creatures. Denifle arrived at this 
conclusion from a minute and exhaustive study of the 
Opus Tripartitum, the manuscript of which he found in 
the library of Erfurt, and of which, at the time, he publi- 

1 T. xix., 1876, p. 478 ; Das Leben der Margaretha von Kentzingen. 
Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Gottesfreundes im Oberland. This work, 
says Pere Conlon, placed Denifle in the first rank of writers on mysticism. 
It received unbounded praise in the leading German reviews, and proved 
its author to be a man of vast learning and phenomenal powers of research. 
Annales Dominicaines , September, 1905. 

* ' Aktenstucke zu Meister Eckharts Prozess ' (Zeitschrift fiir deutsches 
Alterthum, vol. xxix., p. 259) ; ' Meister Eckharts lateinische Schriften 
und die Grundanschung seiner Lehre ' (Arch, fiir Litter atur und Kirchen- 
eeschichte des Mittelnlters, t. ii.,pp. 417, 652) ; ' Das Causanische Exemplar 
lateinischer Schriften Eckharts in Cues ' (Ibid., p. 673) ; ' Die Heimath 
Meuter Eckharts' (Ibid., t. v., p. 349). 


shed the most important passages. Before this manuscript 
appeared in print, he came upon a second, more accurate 
and more complete in detail, in the library of the hospital 
of Cuse-sur-Moselle, written in 1444 at the instance of 
Cardinal Nicholas de Cues, which confirmed the conclusions 
he had already arrived at from the study of the first. 

Eckhart was no enemy of scholasticism, as some writers 
on mysticism assert l : 

Their judgments upon the philosophical talents of Eckhart 
[says Denifle] should bring joy to all scholastics. They claim 
him (Eckhart) as the herald of the philosophy and theology of 
the future, as the father of Christian philosophy, as one of the 
most original thinkers of the Middle Ages. But they were not 
aware that the admiration they expressed for the philosophy 
of Eckhart, was simply addressed, in its due and lawful measure, 
to the mother from whose bosom Eckhart had been nourished, 
namely, scholasticism, whose doctrines we meet, for the first 
time, though not in the measure to be desired, in his German 
writings. 3 

In his controversies with Preger. Denifle always insisted 
that without a profound knowledge of scholastic philosophy 
and theology a proper understanding of the mystics is 
impossible : 

The historian of German mysticism [he writes] should be 
profoundly versed in scholasticism, especially in the writings 
of St. Thomas ; otherwise he displaces the mystics from the 
historical surroundings to which they belong. He will deny 
that they themselves are but the term of an evolution which 
is a fact, and he will never understand their terminology still 
less their doctrines. 8 

In an able article that appeared in 1888, Denifle un- 
masked the plagiarist Nicholas of Strasburg, who had 
copied almost entirely the writings of John of Paris, and 
circulated them as his own.* Thus the mystical life of 
the fourteenth century, personified in Henry Suso, Margaret 
of Kentzingen, Tauler, and Eckhart, occupied the hours 

1 Preger, Ch. Schmidt, etc. 

* Archiv. fur Litter atur und Kirchengeschichte des Mittelalters, vol. ii., 
p. 424. 

* Ibid., vol. ii., p. 532. 

4 'Der Plagiator Nicolaus von Strassburg.' ibid., vol. iv., 1888, p. 312. 


that he was able to spare from his duties as professor. 
His labours on German mysticism earned for him a reputa- 
tion that was not confined to Austria and Germany. The 
excellence of his work did not escape the Master-General, 
who determined to call him to Rome, and open up a 
wider field for his investigations. He left Gratz for Rome 
in 1880, as the socius of the General for German-speaking 
countries, and he was destined to spend the remainder 
of his life in the Eternal City. 

In Rome he found a new sphere for his activity, but 
for want of documents he had to defer his studies on the 
mystics. In the Roman archives and libraries, however, he 
found material to resolve questions that had long occupied 
his thoughts. In 1878, Leo XIII addressed his Encyclical 
letter Acterni Patris to the Catholic world on the revival 
of the study of scholasticism, and especially the study of 
St. Thomas, the prince of scholastics. He determined to 
bring out a new and critical edition of the works of the 
Angelic Doctor, and Denifle, who even then occupied the 
first rank among paleographers, was selected as one of 
the editors. The work was not congenial to his spirit, 
which required a wider and more comprehensive field 
for the exercise of its powers than textual criticism would 
allow, and consequently, after a few months, he begged 
to be relieved of the task. 1 

In the course of his studies on German mysticism, 
Denifle was struck by the number of existing prophecies 
which announced impending calamities on the Church 
and society. In Rome he had an opportunity of examining 
them still more closely, with a result that he himself could 
hardly have foreseen. Leo XIII had thrown open the 
archives of the Vatican, and at the instance of Cardinal 
Hergenrother, the archivist, Denifle was, to his own great 
delight, appointed sub-archivist. He first intended, says 
M. Pelzer, to give an exact account of the prophecies 

1 During the winter of 1882-1883, Denifle was sent to Spain to collect 
and collate manuscripts for the Leonine edition, but as one of his colleagues 
told the writer of this article, he was much more occupied in collecting 
matter on the theologians and mystics of the Middle Ages than in collating 
the manuscripts of St. Thomas. 


of the fourteenth century, which announced impending 
calamities, and this further led him to the study of similar 
prophecies of the twelfth and thirteenth. In studying the 
Abbot Joachim and the Eternal Gospel, and its vicissitudes 
at the University of Paris, he found that the knowledge 
then possessed on these subjects was absolutely inadequate, 
and that comparatively little was known of the dispute 
between the University of Paris and the Mendicant Orders. 
Denifle forthwith conceived the project of publishing a work 
on the University of Paris and the Mendicant Orders, in 
which the Eternal Gospel should be studied in an appendix. 1 
While preparing this work, having discovered that nearly 
all the authors who had written on the University of Paris, 
and notably Du Boulay, in his Historia Universitatis 
Parisiensis, had been deceived on the origin of the Uni- 
versity, Denifle took up the work from the beginning, 
and determined to study the schools of the University of 
Paris from its foundation till the end of the fourteenth 
century. He undertook, at the same time, to write a history 
of the other universities of Europe. The first volume 
appeared at Berlin in 1885, under the general title, Die 
Universitaten des Mittelalters bis 1400. He had designed 
to complete the work in five volumes. The first volume 
(Entstehung und Griindungsgeschichte der mittelalterlichen 
Universitaten bis 1400) opens (pp. 1-40) with a study on 
the designation of the universities of the Middle Ages 
(universitas, studium generate, academia, gynasium) ; next the 
author treats of the rise of Paris and Bologna (pp. 40- 
218) ; then the other universities of Europe up to 1400 
(pp. 219-652). The universities are then studied in their 
relation to the schools that had preceeded them (pp. 1 
652-742) ; in the causes that led to their establishment 
(pp. 743-791) ; and the volume closes with conclusions 
which the author has drawn from the text, and some 
additions and appendices (pp. 800-814). 

The appearance of this volume determined the General 
Council of the Faculties of Paris to ask Denifle to undertake 

1 He afterwards published some articles on the Eternal Gospel ; 
' Das Evangelium aeternum und die Commission zu Anagni,' Archiv., i.. 
pp. 49-98 ; ' Protokoll der Commission zu Anagni,' ibid., pp. 99-142. 


a work much more vast in extent. Under its patronage, 
and with the assistance of M. Emile Chatelain, professor 
of paleography at the Sorbonne, Denifle began to collect 
and edit, with notes, all the documents relating to the 
University of Paris from the end of the twelfth century 
till the end of the fifteenth. The first volume 1 appeared 
in 1889, and was published at the expense of the Minister 
of Public Instruction. It was awarded a prize of 10,000 
francs, and Denifle was decorated with the badge of the 
Legion of Honour. The four volumes already published 
appeared at intervals during the next ten years. The 
first treats of the period from 1200, when Philippe Auguste 
guaranteed by privilege the personal safety of the students 
of Paris to the reign of Philippe le Bel in 1285 ; 2 the second 
to the reign of Jean le Bon; 3 the third to the death of 
Clement VII in 1394 ;* the fourth to the reform of the 
University in I454. 5 For the fifth volume, which is yet 
unpublished, Denifle had reserved the schism, the ponti- 
ficate of Benedict XIII, the general and provincial Councils, 
the errors of Wicklifle, and the controversies of the Council 
of Constance. He decided to publish apart under the 
general title, Actuarium Chartularii Universitatis Parisiensis 
documents relating to the study of arts in the four great 
national Universities. Only two volumes were published 
in 1894 and 1897. They contain the * Liber procuratorum 
nationis Anglicanae (Alemanniae) ' the first for the years 
I 333- I 4o6 ; the second for the years 1406-1466.' 

1 ' Chartularium Universitatis Parisiensis sub auspiciis consilii generalis 
facultatum Parisiensium ex diversis bibliothecis tabulariisque collegit et 
cum authenticis cards contulit Henricus Denifle, O.P., in archivio Sedis 
Apostolicae vicarius, auxiliante Aemilio Chatelain, bibliotheca^ Uni- 
versitatis in Sorbona conservatore adjuncto.' 

1 Paris, Delalain Frdres, 1889, pp. xxxvi., 714. 

"Published 1891, pp. xxiii., 808. 

4 Published 1894, pp. xxxvii., 777. 

'Published 1897, pp. xxxvi., 835. 

' M. Marcel Fournier, in his work Les slatuts et privileges des Uni 
versites Franqaises, criticized the author of the Chartularium, but he had 
no conception of the manner of man with whom he had to deal. Denifle 
published a brochure, Les Universes Franqaises au moyen age Avis 
a M. Marcel Fournier (Paris, 1892), in which he gave M. Fournier what 
he did not in the least expect, and in another article which appeared 
in the Revue des Bibliotheques (1892), ' Les de!6gues ' r des Universites 
Francaises au concile de Constance,' he criticized Fournier's work with 
great severity, and brought discredit on many of his conclusions. 


These masterpieces of historical erudition earned for 
Denifle a world-wide fame and placed him in the front 
rank of writers on the Middle Ages. His researches in 
the publication of the Chartularium brought prominently 
before him the disastrous effects of the Hundred Years' 
War on the churches and monasteries of France. This 
important factor in ecclesiastical history was too valuable 
to be dismissed, and Denifle, with characteristic impetuosity, 
which in his case was justified by the marvellous f grasp 
of his comprehensive mind, which was always occupied 
with two or three collateral subjects at once, interrupted 
his work to study the 300 volumes in folio of petitions 
addressed to the Holy See, and relating to the material 
and moral calamities that the Hundred Years' War had 
brought upon the Church in France. The work appeared 
in two volumes, 1 and is one of the most valuable additions 
that has ever been made to the history of the Church in 

In studying the vast field which his researches on the 
University of Paris covered, he gathered together an in- 
comparable collection of documents, which he published 
from time to time in a series of studies relating to the 
history of the Universities, 2 and which in all probability 
he intended to embody in the work which his labours 
for the French Government had interrupted. 

The works of Denifle on the University of Paris, and 
other collateral subjects connected with it, which his re- 
searches have enabled him to give to the world, will prove 
of immense value to all future historians of the Middle Ages. 
It may with justice be said that he has revived and clothed 

1 Vol. i. f La desolation des eglises, monasteres et hopitauxen Franc? 
pendant la guerre de Cent ans (Paris, i 897) ; Vol. ii., La, guerre de Cent 
ans et la desolation des eglises, monasteres et hopitaux en France (Paris, 

1 ' Die Sentenzen Abaelards und die Bearbeitungen seiner Theologie 
vor Mitte des 12 Jahrhunderts,' Arch., vol. i., pp. 402-469, 584-624 ; 
' Die Sentenzen Rolands, nachmals Papstes Alexander III ' (Freiburg, 
I 89i); ' Quellen zur Gelehrtengeschichte des Predigerordens im 13 und 
14 Jahrhunderts,' Arch., vol. ii., pp. 165-248 ; ' Die Handschriften der 
Bibelcorrektorien de 13 Jahrhunderts,' Arch., vol. iv., pp. 263-311, 471-601. 
Denifle has published several other studies of the highest importance 
for the study of scholasticism, cf., Pelzer, Revue Nto-Scolastique. August, 


with a new interest all the subjects he has treated in his 
work ; and if we may not give him the place of a pioneer 
in the history of university education in the fourteenth, 
fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, we are absolutely safe 
in asserting that no one has treated this period with 
such profound science and judgment, with such unerring 
criticism and wealth of erudition, as he. He has eliminated 
errors and legends in which the history of the Middle Ages 
abounded ; he has settled for ever, as historical facts, a 
number of points that were hitherto doubtful, and brought 
to light others that were completely unknown ; and he 
has furnished materials that will be indispensable for 
future writers on the Middle Ages. 

He will remain [says M. Pelzer] the indispensable guide 
for those who undertake the historical study of medieval 
civilization, of the Catholic Church, of Luther and Luther- 
anism, of France and England, of Germany and Italy in the 
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, of the teaching of universities, 
of Papal diplomacy, of philosophy, of law, of mysticism and 
of exegesis. 

His history of the universities of the Middle Ages outclasses 
the work of Du Boulay, who was hitherto the great authority 
on the subject. His conclusions are always safe, because 
they are drawn, wherever possible, from manuscript 
sources, and he has opened up, in his edition of the 
Chartularium, one of the richest mines of historical learning 
that has ever been given to the world. 

The University of Paris was, for a long time, the first 
school in Europe, and students of every nation flocked 
to it in large numbers. Its scientific importance began 
to diminish in the fifteenth century, and it became rather 
a national institution than a cosmopolitan seat of learning. 
Thus about the end of the fourteenth century every political 
event in France was discussed in the University, which, 
at the time, was regarded as on equal footing with the 
Bishop of Paris, the King and Parliament. 1 

Father Denifle [says M. Pelzer] does not confine himself to 

1 C/., Mgr. Kirsch in a study which he consecrated to the work of 
Denifle in the Revue Thomiste ' L'Universite de Paris au moyen age' 
vol. ii., pp. 661-685. 


the mere collecting and publishing of the original documents 
relating to the University, numbers of which exist not only in 
Paris, but in several other archives and libraries. He has 
added to a critical text numerous notes on persons mentioned 
in the documents, on events and on the existing manuscripts 
of the works which he uses in the compilation of the Chartu- 
larium itself. He has made the reading of it easy for the student 
by the annexation of a double table : one chronological, which 
reproduces the regests of documents published ; the other 
onomastic, which gives the required information on the names 
cited, and their titles, etc. Thus the second and fourth volumes 
contain respectively 3,000 and 4,500 proper names. The 
edition is prefaced by long introductions in which Denifle 
studies, on broad lines, some results of his researches, on the 
institutions, the persons, and the events to which the docu- 
ments refer. He corrects opinions that had hitherto been 
erroneously received, and gives his own conclusions, based 
on a wealth of evidence, on which future historians may 
confidently rely. 

It would be impossible to do justice in the space allowed 
us, to the work Denifle has accomplished for the history 
of scholastic philosophy and theology. We can but refer 
the reader to a noble article that M. Pelzer of Louvain 
has written on Denifle, in the Revue Neo-Scolastique, the 
official organ of the first school of scholastic philosophy 
in Europe. Denifle' s studies on Abelard and his disciples, 
on the Abbot Joachim and the Eternal Gospel, bring to 
light facts that had been long unknown, clear up doubts 
that had existed for centuries, and dispel legends that had 
supplanted truth for generations. 

In the midst of his labours on the University of Paris, 
and the calamities of the churches and monasteries during 
the Hundred Years' War, Denifle was struck by the ex- 
traordinary decadence among the secular and regular 
clergy during the fifteenth century. In studying the 
sources of this decadence, and pursuing its evolution, he 
was brought face to face, in the third decade of the sixteenth 
century, with numbers of priests and religious who lived 
in open violation of their sacred vows, and who, to the 
indifference which was characteristic of the period, added 
the denial of religious beliefs that had hitherto been held 
sacred. He found Luther at their head, and he determined 


to devote his energies to unmasking the hyprocrisy and 
wickedness of the apostate. 

Having found Luther at their head [says M. Pelzer], he 
undertook the regressive study of the reformer to the beginning of 
his teaching. To check the results of his researches, he retraced 
his steps and followed, in an inverse direction, the evolution 
of Luther year by year. He wished to determine, in the life 
of Luther, the psychological moment that would enable him 
to understand the personality of the apostate and to explain 
his rSle as the leader of a sect. 

In 1903, the first volume of his monumental work on 
Luther appeared. 1 The first edition was exhausted in a 
month, and a second was urgently demanded. Denifle 
recast the first volume and divided it into three volumes, 
the first of which appeared in 1904, and the second a few 
days before his death. The second volume is composed 
of a large number of texts on justification. Each of these 
texts has an introduction, and is borrowed from Patristic 
and medieval theologians and exegetes, as the title of the 
volume indicates. 2 The end the author had in view in 
this volume was the complete refutation of the funda- 
mental doctrine of Lutheranism, justification by faith 
without works. He wished to test the affirmation of 
Luther, that, with the exception of St. Augustine, all the 
interpreters of Scripture, in the Western Church, understood 
the text of St. Paul* relating to justification as he had 
expounded it. In this volume the doctrines of Luther are 
confronted by the teaching of the Fathers, and of medieval 
exegetes and theologians. He proves that Luther had a 
most imperfect knowledge of the golden age of scholas- 
ticism, and even that was acquired through the school 
of Occam, and he also shows how this ignorance has 
been perpetuated, and is characteristic of the best treatises 
of contemporary Protestant theology. He criticises severely 
numerous citations taken from St. Augustine, Venerable 

1 Luther und Luthertum in der ersten Entwickelun^ quellenmassiq 
dargestellt, vol. i. (Mainz, 1903). 

1 Luther und Luthertum, Die eibendliindischen Schriftauslege-r bis 
Luther uber Justitia Dei (Rom. i. 17) und Justificatio (Mainz, 1905). 

' Rom. i. 17. 


Bede, St. Bernard, and the scholastics, in the great edition 
of the works of Luther, which the editors were not able 
to identify. Two of them, however, have had the generosity 
to do justice to the learning of Denifle. Professor Kohler 
says : * His knowledge of medieval literature is astonishing,' 
and Kawerau speaks of * his incomparable knowledge of 
ancient ecclesiastical literature, and his marvellous grasp 
of the literature of the Middle Ages.' The appearance of 
Denifle's book on Luther raised a storm among the Pro- 
testants of Germany, and created what may, with justice, 
be called a panic. Harnack and Seeberg, and a number 
of others, entered the lists against Denifle to defend their 
idol whom he had damaged beyond hope of repair, but 
their literary reputation suffered seriously in the attempt, 
and they soon discovered that they had to deal with a giant, 
sure of his own strength as he was certain of the justice 
of his cause. He demolished their arguments in a pamphlet 
which he published in 1904^ and Luther shall remain, 
for all time to come, the discredited hypocrite that the 
German Dominican has proved him to have been. The 
publication of the third volume was announced for the 
end of 1905, and the second volume, which Denifle had 
time to prepare before his death, is to be published this 

To the works to which we have already referred, and 
which represent but a part of the immense labours of the 
learned Dominican, we must add another which was pub- 
lished at Rome in 1888, Specimina paleographica Regcsto- 
rum Romanorum Pontificum. The life of Denifle was a 
life of intense activity, and from 1880 till 1905 not a single 
year passed without some volume from the pen of this 
literary giant. Articles on a vast variety of subjects 
appeared in the leading periodicals of Germany and 
France, 2 and from 1885, in conjunction with his friend 
Father Ehrle, S.J., the Archives fur Litter atur und Kirchen- 

t Luther in rationalistischer und Christlicher Beleuchtung Prinzipitlle 
Auseinandersetzung mit A. Harnack und R. Seeberg, (Mainz, 1904). 

* Cf . Deutsche Litter atur zeitung ; Mtmoires de la Societe^de I'histoire 
de Paris et de I' lie de France ; Zeitschrift fiir Katholische Theohgie ; 
Historisches Jahrbuch ; Revue des Bibliotheques ; Revue Thomiste 


eschi,chte dcs Mittelalters appeared regularly till his death, 
and its pages contain many of his best and most original 

In his preface to the History of the Universities of the 
Middle Ages, 1 he explains the method he rigidly adherred 
to in all his historical studies : 

The analytic method [he says] is the only one that guides 
us to the discovery of truth ; it saves us from an error into which 
we often fall, and which results in the seeking of proofs in 
support of preconceived ideas and assertions, to the complete 
obscuring of the common adage qui nimis probat nihil probat. 
I am convinced that in using the synthetic method we cannot 
arrive at solid conclusions, in a field of research where much 
has yet to be done, and where we must first of all establish 
particular facts. We run the risk of taking as general what 
is, in reality, particular ; of basing conclusions on defective 
inductions, regarding as particular incidents, universal facts, 
and of^confounding different epochs. I do not like such con- 
clusions j^aSjthe following : It has been thus in this place, and 
in that j century ; therefore it has been the same elsewhere, 
and in antecedent and subsequent centuries. We do much more 
for historical science by confining ourselves to the domain of 
facts and mastering them one by one. 

It was characteristic of Denifle to go to original sources 
even when published matter was available. His numerous 
researches had familiarized him with the contents of the 
principal archives and libraries of Europe, to an extent 
that he knew exactly what they contained relating to the 
life and works of any scholastic. When engaged on any 
work he was never satisfied till he had collated every 
manuscript that he could find of the work itself, and 
arranged and classified every document he could discover 
bearing upon it. In an interesting study on Denifle's 
personality, 2 Mgr. Ehses says that there was nothing 
mechanical about his work. He examined every document 
that passed through his hands minutely, though he might 
not have been able, at the time, to make immediate use 
of it. It was due to his analytic method and to his passion 
for original research that the historical works of Denifle 

1 Cf., pp. xxiii. et sq. 

* KOlnische Volkszcitung, July 15, 1905. 


are so accurate and trustworthy, and that future writers 
will be able to rely upon them with complete confidence. 

This article would be incomplete if, having noticed the 
life-work of Denifle, we omitted to say something of his 
original personality. In appearance he was tall and slight 
with piercing blue eyes, and dark auburn hair which he 
generally wore long ; he was extremely abrupt in manner, 
and his intense application to whatever work he had in 
hand made him, at times, totally unconscious of his sur- 
roundings. He was frank, sometimes to the verge of 
rudeness, in conversation, and in his writings he expressed 
his views of men and things with almost brutal severity. 
He speaks of the ' lies ' of Preger, and the ' romancing ' 
of Reuter, two opponents whom he had to castigate in 
some of his controversies. He warns all who may be 
inclined to trifle with truth of this side of his character : 

Since my childhood [he wrote in 1903], I have regarded 
frankness and probity as the basis of intercourse with my fellow- 
man. For thirty years I have fought many a hard fight, but 
there is one thing that my opponents will always grant me. 
They know how they stand with me ; they know that my methods 
are open and straightforward, and that I neither involve nor 
conceal my thoughts. If I discover a lie, I call it a lie ; and 
if I detect a trick, a duplicity, or a forgery, I designate it by 
these words. 1 

As he tells us, in his preface to Luther und Luthertwn, he 
wishes to strike the reformer to the heart. He knew the 
unpopularity his work would bring upon himself, and the 
storm of hate that should burst upon him, but as he says 

Someone had at last to do it, and to submit willingly to 
air, the ignominy that the world reserves for him who con- 
scientiously announces the truth such as it appears to^him, 
and gives things their proper names ; who relates not only facts 
even the most unpalatable but who draws from them their 
logical conclusions, because he knows from experience that 
Protestant readers do not do so, when this subject is in question. 2 

With all the cares and preoccupations which his literary 

1 Luther in rationalistischer und Christlicher Beleuchtune, p. 5. 
. 6. 


labours entailed, he was always prepared to look after 
the spiritual interests of those who sought his guidance. 
Whole families of the highest rank and greatest distinction 
were under his spiritual direction. In his private life 
he was the simplest of men. During the hours of mental 
relaxation he was amused by the simplest jest, and he 
took great delight in challenging the lay-brothers to a game 
of draughts. He had the spiritual charge of them for years, 
and he seldom failed to turn up at their recreations, and 
enter with great zest into their simple amusements. 

Father Denifle was a member of the most illustrious 
academies of Europe of Vienna, Prague, Gottingen, and 
of the Academy of Inscriptions and Belles Lettres of Paris. 
He had several decorations from the Emperor of Austria 
which are only given to those who are distinguished in 
science and art, and besides these he received the order 
of the Iron Crown. He was decorated by the Emperor 
of Germany, and, as we have seen, France enrolled him 
in her Legion of Honour. A few years ago he received the 
Doctorate from the Academy of Munster in Westphalia, 
and the University of Cracow placed him among the 
doctors in her roll of honour. A tardy recognition, but 
none the less appreciated, came from the Protestant 
University of Cambridge, but on his way to receive it 
God called the labourer to his reward, and, we trust, gave 
him a more glorious decoration than any man has to 




MR. MALLOCK'S reasons for rejecting the spirituality 
of the soul, as proved from self-consciousness, may 
be briefly put thus : Everyone admits that we can- 
not imagine how the thing called matter and the thing called 
mind are connected in man ; yet everyone admits that they 
are united in point of fact. Is it not, therefore, just as 
reasonable to hold that they are one indivisible thing, as to 
hold that they are two distinct things ? Their connection 
is unimaginable, yet it is a fact, why should the unimagin- 
ability of their oneness necessarily prove their duality ? 
Because, we venture to assert, that Mr. Mallock has not 
grasped the precise point of the argument. We admit 
freely that we cannot explain how mind and matter are 
united in man, but we deny that this forces us to accept 
their oneness. If the act of self-consciousness is proven 
independent of matter, then the soul, the entire principle 
of that action, must be independent of matter. Operari 
sequitur esse. Now, ' the act of self-consciousness implies 
absolute identity between myself thinking about some- 
thing, and myself thinking on that thinking self : ' it is an 
instance of the complete or perfect reflection of an agent 
back upon itself. An action of this kind is in open and 
direct conflict with all the fundamental characteristics of 
matter as known to physical science. Atom A may act 
on atom B, but atom A could not turn back on atom A 
without assuming a character absolutely contradictory to 
the essential nature of matter. Therefore, this act of self- 
consciousness is not the act of anything intrinsically de- 
pendent on matter. I may not know, I do not know, 
how matter and mind are connected, but I am absolutely 
certain that the thing within me, which is the source of 
self-consciousness, and which all agree to call mind, must 
be intrinsically independent of my material organism, of 



matter. Unity is essentially repugnant, duality must be 
accepted. Imaginability has nothing to say with the 

-Mr. , Mallock confounds two different .things carefully dis- 
tinguished by me, the simplicity and the spirituality of mental 
activities. He then represents me as proving the spirituality 
of the soul by, the non-spatial character.' of its activities. . . . 
My answer is to refer the reader to page 469, where I explicitly 
point out the difference between! the^ : spirituality and the sim- 
plicity or non-spatial character of a mental activity. I there 
state formally at the beginning of the thesis concerning the 
spirituality of the soul that the principle of conscious life in the 
lower animals though non-spatial is yet not spiritual. I then 
prove, not from consciousness which the animals possess 
but from self-consciousness, from thought and from free volition, 
of which animals are devoid, that the human soul isjspiritual. 
Nowhere in this proof do I appeal to the non-spatial quality of 
consciousness. My argument is not, it is unimaginable how 
non-spatial consciousness can be dependent on an extended 
organism, but that it is absolutely unthinkable that self- 
consciousness, thought, or free volition can be acts of a bodily 
organ. 1 

Let us see if Mr. Mallock presents a stronger case against 
the second main contention of the apologist. The first 
thing that strikes Mr. Mallock's readers is that he does not 
devote a single line to that proof which the apologist is 
bound to furnish in favour of this part of his thesis. Mr. 
Mallock contents himself with stating the conclusion with- 
out a word of explanation of the terms involved, and then 
proceeds to marshal against that conclusion an array of 
facts. We intend to supply the lacunae. We intend to 
use Mr. Mallock's words to ask our readers ' to accept 
the statement that men possess certain faculties of which, 
in other living creatures, there is not even a trace, on 
grounds similar to those on which all of us do accept the 
statement that men can boil tea-kettles, and other living 
creatures cannot,' namely, on the grounds of the ordinary 
methods of observation. And, then, we shall discuss Mr. 
Mallock's objections in detail. 

' Maher's Psychology, p. 606. Many able Neo-Scholastics deny that 
the principle of life in irrational animals is simple, and deny that 
sensations are simple. Mercier, Psychologie, p. 351, sixth edition; 
Fontaine, La Sensation et La Pensee, pp. 29-32 ; Nys, Cosmologie, pp. 


The thesis of the apologist is : Science proves that man, 
and man alone, is capable of certain manifestations which 
indubitably demand spirituality of intellect, namely, 
rational language, morality, religion, and that progress 
which results from individuality. We shall first prove 
this thesis, and then apply it. 

Rational language is, according to Mr. Mivart, 1 * the 
external manifestation by sound or gesture, of general con- 
ceptions : not emotional expressions, or the manifestations 
of sensible impressions, but enunciations of distinct judg- 
ments as to " the what," " the how," " the wherefore." ' 
And, in 1889, Max Muller, 2 as President of the Anthropo- 
logical Section of the British Association, said : 

If all true science is based on facts, the fact remains that 
no animal has even found what we mean by a language ; and 
we are fully justified, therefore, in holding with Bunsen and 
Humbolt, as against Darwin and Romanes, that there is a 
specific difference between the human animal and all other 
animals, and that the difference consists in language as the 
outward manifestation of what the Greeks mean by Logos. 

Morality does not here mean that feeling inspired by 
fear of chastisement, but that shame inspired by the viola- 
tion of inflexible laws made known to each man through 
the voice of conscience. Now, every nation has its own 
laws, and every state of civilization has had, and has, its 
own peculiar practices on such essential matters as chastity, 
property, and human life. Still the untiring efforts of 
ethnographists and naturalists have brought to light this 
fact, that there was, or is, no known race, however bar- 
barous and degraded, that had not, or has not, adopted 
customs and established sanctions which prove the exist- 
ence of, and assure respect for, the moral notions. Who 
has ever seriously maintained, with any show of proof, 
that the animals respect or recognize the moral notions ? 

Religion, in so far as it implies belief in a superior 
Being, or beings, capable of influencing our destiny, and 
also the persuasion that some part of our being will survive 

1 The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer, p. 75. 
*M. Duilhe de Saint-Projet, Apologie, p. 397. 


death is also found among every race of men. Some years 
ago, evolutionists made great capital out of the fact that 
certain races of savages were atheistic. Scientists, with 
no apologetic leanings, have proved the falseness of this 
view. ' J'ai cherche Patheisme avec le plus grand soin. 
Je ne 1'ai rencontre nulle part, si ce n'est a 1'etat erratique, 
chez quelques sectes philosophiques des nations les plus 
anciennment civilisees.' 1 Who has ever spoken of the religion 
of the brute ? 

Progress is another characteristic of man. What a 
change from the world of the pre-historic man of the qua- 
ternary period to the world of to-day. The rude arms 
and utensils of the pre-historic races are jealously treasured 
in our museums, and rightly so, for they are our legacy 
from our earliest discovered ancestors. Yet, how primitive 
are these instruments, and how far on are we not gone, 
from the cradle days of our race. How many sciences, how 
many industries, how many religions, how many styles of 
architecture, how many arts, how many inventions for the 
comfort and pleasure of men, how many different fashions 
in dress and clothing have not come and gone through 
the various centuries ? And to-day, the rush of progress 
is faster than ever. But the dumb creatures about us ! 
Truly, they seem not of us : they do not even appear to 
realise that things are changing around them. The throb 
of human progress awakes no responsive chord within 
them : they are heedless of the feverish rush of humanity 
towards the goal of happiness. It has ever been so with 
them. Never through the roll of the centuries have they 
shown any trace of personal initiative. From the first they 
have shivered as men did when the bitter blasts blew, 
and when the frost and snow encircled them ; from the first, 
they have had certain tasks to fulfil, and when the sun set 
and darkness came down, they, too, like men, betook them- 
selves to rest. They must have then felt the same need of 
physical comforts as men did ; yet, they never lit a fire 
against the winter's cold, never donned a garment to keep 

1 yuatrefages, Introduction a I' 'etudes des races humaines, p. 278. 


out the sleet, never built a shelter for the night, never made 
a tool to help them at their toil. They have lived as long, 
and longer, than man on the earth. Yet, at all times and 
in all places, uniformity and stability have marked the 
conduct of the individuals within each species. No pro- 
gress, no change. 

Here, then, are facts as palpable as the boiling of tea- 
kettles : man is capable of rational speech, man is religious 
man is moral, man is capable of personal progress, and of 
profiting of the progress of others and man alone is cap- 
able of these things. Within these sacred precincts no 
animal has ever entered. And the question arises, why is 
man capable of such things ? A moment's introspection 
gives us the answer. Each man discovers within himself 
acts of two kinds : the eyes see, the ears hear, the imagina- 
tion imagines objects of such and such size, of such and such 
colour, of such and such proportions. 

But there are acts of another kind. Each human being 
can convince himself by personal observation that his 
inner faculties can grasp ideas and principles which have 
no connection with matter or with sense abstract and 
universal ideas, which ignore or prescind from all indi- 
vidualizing conditions. For instance, my concept of man 
represents the nature or essence of man, and is applicable 
to each one of hundreds of millions of human beings 
scattered everywhere throughout the globe. It represents 
only the essential attributes of man, and prescinds 
from colour, shape, size, or any other individualizing 
factor. I turn over the leaves of my Shakespeare Hamlet, 
Macbeth, Romeo, Caesar, etc., loom up before my mind, 
with oh ! so many masterly- tinted individualizing traits. 
Yet, my concept never varies, it is one, and it is found 
beneath the peculiar characteristics of these creations of 
genius, everywhere the same, everywhere man, everywhere 
the one human nature. Now, a concept of this kind cannot 
come from a faculty intrinsically dependent on sense. 
Sensations, however reproduced, aggregated, blended, or 
refined, are material phenomena, and include a set of 
individualizing conditions, and are applicable only to 


objects that are characterized by these conditions. A 
sensation, therefore, is not abstract, not universal. Now, 
the existence of universal ideas and concepts, altogether 
removed from sense and matter, alone accounts for these 
four distinguishing facts, and alone accounts for their 
absence in the animals. 

Thus, rational language implies the transference of 
thought, and since the sensible image varies from moment 
to moment, and from individual to individual, this trans- 
ference would be impossible if there were not behind the 
image a universal and abstract concept, independent of 
all fleeting influences, and conveying to my neighbours 
exactly that which I wish to convey. Again, in every 
proposition, the predicate is abstract, and Max Muller tells 
us that all names were originally terms conveying some 
general attribute of the subject. On the other hand, given 
an intellect capable of knowing the abstract and the uni- 
versal, the possessors cannot fail to establish a medium of 
intercourse. ' The reflective activity of the intellect, com- 
bined with the social instinct, would inevitably lead these 
beings to manifest their ideas to each other, were such 
ideas in existence.' 

Morality presupposes necessary and universal principles 
of conduct, be they few or many. The notions of good and 
evil binding at all times and in all circumstances notions 
and principles that can be grasped only by an intellect 
capable of universal and abstract ideas. Therefore, it is 
that man is moral, and the brute not. 

Religion, even restricted to the narrow limits of our 
definition, implies that man has seen his own littleness, 
and has sought out the author of himself and of all those 
fleeting things about him effort that involves the prin- 
ciple of causality. And, then, observing his own superi- 
ority to all about him, he thought on the future, and 
felt somehow that all did not end as his body stiffened 
out in death. Every step here demands an intellect not 
shut up within the narrow barriers of sense and matter, an 
intellect capable of the universal and the abstract. And, 
therefore, man has got his temples, and the brute his lair. 


Progress why are animals condemned to psychical 
fixity, why ever the slaves of nature, and why is man 
master of all about him, and capable of every form of 
progress ? Again, because man grasps the universal and 
the abstract, and because the animal does not. The first 
human being looked out on the vast world, conceived the 
plan of such and such an action, chose the means thereto, 
and accomplished it in his own way. His successor felt 
the same needs, but conceived another way of satisfying 
them, and so reached the same goal by another path. 
Thus, as each man faced the problems of life for himself, 
the human intellect, in virtue of its universal and abstrac- 
tive potentiality, pointed out ever new means to old ends ; 
and progress grew from generation to generation, from, 
century to century. Why did the brute creation remain 
outside all this ? Why did it not even learn the lesson by 
force of example ? Because nature denied brutes the 
power : it fixed one mode of action for them, varied it from 
species to species, but within the same species never so 
much as suggested another to them. Brutes lacked that 
faculty, which presents an ideal, capable of being em- 
bodied in diverse forms according to the end in view : in 
a word, a faculty capable of conceiving the abstract and 
the universal. Invention and progress are due to the 
application of universal concepts to matter and material 
phenomena. The brute has never made the slightest 
progress, never invented anything. He had ever as much 
need of invention and of progress, as much incitement 
thereto as man. What can have been wanting save the 
universal idea ? Is it for a moment tenable that the 
brute conceived the same ideas as man, felt the same 
needs, and yet stood still, stands still to-day, and will 
stand still for ever ? 

Man, therefore, to sum up, is proven possessed of uni- 
versal and abstract ideas, and the animals are proven 
wanting in such ideas. Now, a faculty is judged by its 
acts, and the nature of the principle of any faculty by 
the nature of the faculty itself. Therefore we conclude that 
the human faculty of intellect is intrinsically independent 


of sense ; and therefore, further, that the human soul, 
principle of the intellect, is intrinsically independent 
of sense, that is, spiritual. The same argument proves 
that the animal soul is not spiritual. Here, then, with all 
the evidence of the * tea-kettle ' methods, we reach the 
conclusion that there is a difference, not of degree, but of 
nature, between the soul of man and the soul of the brute. 
Let us see if Mr. Mallock's facts invalidate our thesis. 

Does Mr. Mallock's elephant judge and reflect ? No 
one can pretend to know the elephant's mind, and, there- 
fore, his claims to intellect must be weighed by his actions. 
Elephants, since their appearance on the earth, have never 
invented a single tool, never given a sign of progress. With 
such proof to their complete want of judgment and re- 
flection, are we to accept Mr. Mallock's example as proof 
of the possession of these faculties ? Is it not infinitely 
more rational to explain this act by means of those faculties 
which elephants have ever given proof of by the faculties 
of sense-perception and by the association of sense-per- 
ceptions. May not the sight of the rapid, flowing water 
have suggested to the elephant that act of caution ? Or, 
it may be, that Jumbo has just come away from his foun- 
tain, and the sense-association of the non-resisting power 
of water revives in his brain at the sight of the colourless 
liquid. A hundred means of explaining the elephant's 
action through the sole means of sense, and sense-co-ordina- 
tion are possible, while to introduce into his brain the act 
of human judgment and of human reflection is wholly 
unnecessary, and so opposed to past elephantine history 
as to be wholly inadmissible. 

The dog, by sad experience, knows that he is not im- 
penetrable, sees the missile coming, and dodges it. Sight 
and touch and sensitive memory of co-ordinated sensations 
account for all. But, insists Mr. Mallock, the dog gauges 
the speed ? Why suppose that he does ? Does a man, 
when avoiding a similar missile, make a mathematical 
calculation ? 

The attention of the horse, the dog, the deer ? Yes, 
we admit that the horse, the dog, theMeer^are capable of 


attention, so far as attention means mere intensification 
of sensuous consciousness. But the attention which marks 
off man from the brute is of quite another order : it is the 
special application of intellectual energy to any object ; 
it is, therefore, a wholly internal act, known only to our 
own consciousness and presupposes an intellectual faculty. 
And so, too, with the judgment and the reflection proper 
to human nature. Human judgment is an act of intellect, 
by which the mind combines or separates two attributes 
by affirmation or denial. Human reflection is intellectual 
attention to our own states. Attention, reflection, and 
judgment, as proper to man, are internal acts, which imply 
the possession of intellect, and which can be proved only 
by external manifestation of a very specific kind. Animals 
have in all their history positively proved that they do not 
possess an intellect such as man possesses. They cannot, 
therefore, be capable of acts of supersensuous attention, 
judgment, or reflection. All their acts are explicable by 
purely sensuous faculties and sense-co-ordination. 

In his opening remarks on. the facts against self- 
consciousness, Mr. Mallock wastes to no purpose an extra- 
ordinary amount of eloquence. No apologist of note holds 
that baby crying for the pap-bottle has a consciousness 
of self clearer than that of the dog who fights for a bone 
with another dog. What every apologist does hold is, 
that the newly-born babe possesses that faculty called 
intellect. That faculty, however, depends on certain 
material images that it may enter into exercise, and 
students of infant physiology have shown that the infant 
organism is not sufficiently developed to permit the proper 
and complete action of the intellect. The infant senses must 
be trained, the infant brain must be developed along certain 
lines, and its various parts be properly differentiated 
all this demands time, and so far as science can say at 
present, two years or even less in very favourable circum- 
stances, and in other less favourable circumstances five 
or even six years. But this development being completed, 
the infant gives proof of intelligence. The intelligence 
of the^infant^is proved by signs of intelligence, when 


prompted thereto. That the highest animal at the highest 
stage does not possess an intellect is shown by the fact 
that no amount of training, no amount of careful education, 
will bring him to the point of giving even one unmistak- 
able proof of the possession of that faculty. The infant is 
not then in the animal stage of evolution, it is merely a 
being following the laws of development proper to that 
quite specific nature, called human nature. Every organ- 
ism demands a certain time that it may reach mature 
development, so does the human organism. The human 
intellect is extrinsically dependent on that human organism, 
it is natural, therefore, that it cannot evidence its presence 
until that organism reaches a certain stage of perfection. 
In the case of the other animals, even where their organism 
has reached its full perfection, the signs of intellect are 
wanting. Use up all the means that human ingenuity 
can suggest, and still the remotest sign of intelligence is 
not forthcoming. Why ? Because the principle of that 
intellect is wanting the spiritual soul. 1 

Before we pass on to the facts on universal ideas, we 
may remark, that though Mr. Mallock speaks of self- 
consciousness in this part of his essay, his objection has 
not touched that point at all. Self-consciousness is the 
knowledge which the mind has of its acts as being its own. 
It demands a spiritual faculty, and since the animal proves 
positively that he has got no such faculty, it follows that 
the animal cannot be self-conscious. That man is self- 
conscious is verifiable for each one for himself : at what 
precise moment the infant acquires this power is another 
question, and a delicate one, but a question that does not 
touch our thesis. 

General concepts represent the essence of some subject 
in an abstract fashion, ignoring or prescinding from all 
accidental individualizing conditions. To establish their 
existence, the psychologist describes the marks which 
distinguish them, and then appeals to each man's internal 
experience ; or, again, he may deduce their existence from 

1 See Mivart's Origin of Human Reason, 


the nature of the acts placed by man or animal. We have 
proved that the animals give positive proof of the absence 
of such concepts. The cat's recognition of milk, the dog's 
recognition of his fellow-dog, the growing familiarity of 
horse and cow with the passing train all these are explic- 
able on the grounds of association of sensuous images and 
of sensuous memory. The cat has seen and tasted milk, 
and the memory of the sweet, white liquid remains with 
him no need of a universal concept to enable him to 
recognise milk when he sees it again. Like grouping of 
sensuous and concrete associations explains the dog's 
knowledge of his fellow-dog. The cow and the horse have 
oft-times run away, and have seen that the train did not 
follow, but passed them by why should their ceasing to 
run one day mean that they had grasped a universal idea : 
this big, black, puffing something has never done them 
any harm, has never done other than pass them by with 
snorts and smoke. Perception of concrete facts explain 
their growing ease in its presence. 

The sorrowing animal beside his master's bier is in- 
capable of exactly the same feelings as those of the desolate 
mother for this reason, that his actions through life prove 
him devoid of intellect. That does not prevent him from 
feeling intense sorrow. No one dreams of denying, and 
the most orthodox apologist has not the slightest interest 
in denying, that animals are capable of intense affection. 

As to the objection on progress, we have discussed its 
value, and found it to be null. Two further points remain. 
The Stone Age, writes Mr. Mallock, makes our historical 
age a bustling yesterday in the life of a man of sixty, and 
men made no progress during that age ; further, even 
to-day, tribes of savages exist who are still in the condition 
of the men of the Stone Age. 

We do not contest that the Stone Age is immeasurably 
longer than that of historical progress. How much longer 
it was, no one can tell us. The documents that enable 
us to retrace and re-picture that age are few, but they are 
very precious, for they prove to demonstration the exist- 
ence of an intellect capable of the universal and the abstract. 


These primitive men have left us the indubitable signs 
of intelligence in their weapons, their instruments, 
their works of art, their funeral pyres. Euclid gave no 
proof of genius in his deductions from his fundamental 
theorems : he did give such proof in inventing the funda- 
mental theorems. And so these men of the Stone Age 
gave signal proof of genius, even in the invention of their 
rude arrows and hatchets. They led a wandering life : 
their forms of industry were elementary ; yet they pro- 
gressed, they multiplied gradually their conquests over 
nature. At the neolithic epoch, they show signs of fairly 
advanced civilization, though they did not yet employ 
the metals : at the paleolithic epoch, the men of the Made- 
leine were capable workmen and capable artists. Mr. 
Mallock seems to ask : Why did not these primitive men 
progress as quickly as we to-day ? The question is puerile. 
To what is our progress of to-day due to, if not to the 
labours of so many preceding generations ? If we started 
as the men of the Stone Age started, how far on would we 
have got ? Again, these men had not at all the same 
cravings and motives for progress as we have. Few in 
numbers, they led a simple life, sustained by the super- 
abundant products of the yet untrodden earth. Their 
numbers multiplied, and then the race for life began. But 
however simple that primitive life, the remains prove it to 
have been lived by beings at once intelligent and pro- 

The savages of to-day ? First, it is perfectly evident 
that those modern savages are intelligent beings. Visit 
them in their huts, speak to them, follow them in their 
hunts, and you find in them that faculty of intellect which 
you recognize to be your own. Rational language, religion, 
morality, and the capability of individual progress these 
are inalienably theirs, the signs of their manhood and of 
their intellectuality. Under the influences of education, 
these modern savages reveal all the capability of the 
ordinary civilized man. No doubt, therefore, of the com- 
munity of nature between the two. Now, to the precise 
ooint of Mr. Mallock's objection the want of progress. 


That objection rests on the false assumption that the 
modern savage is a retrograde. Modern scientific research 
proves that the modern savage is a degraded specimen of 
humanity, a man fallen and falling from his high estate. 
Facts prove that the ancestors of these savages were more 
educated, more civilized, more comfortable than their 
present-day progeny. The hall-marks of an extinct and 
more elevated civilization hang about them still. The 
richness and complexity of their language, the treasured 
remains of better days in painting and sculpture, their 
religious traditions point to a state of civilization and of 
culture much superior to that which obtains to-day. This 
thesis has the confirmation of other historical evidence. 
Tribes of modern savages are known to have lost more 
and more that civilization, which they possessed when 
their existence first became known to Europeans. And 
yet, these tribes have never lost the signs of intelligence. 
Banished by his white brother to inhospitable climes, 
whese his utmost efforts can barely eke out a miserable 
existence, the bitter struggle for life robs the poor savage 
of his ancient dignity and culture ; yet, when a cruel des- 
tiny has overcome him and his, and has left but one living 
specimen to pine away in loneliness and in misery, that 
derelict of an extinct race retains to the last those spiritual 
faculties that are the glory and the mark of his manhood. 

But, insists Mr. Mallock, human progress is due to 
the human hand ! Has not the modern savage had all 
through the centuries as perfect a hand as the European ? 
The cause of progress must, therefore, lie outside the hand. 
And how many instances have been known of men from 
whom nature or accident have taken away the hand, who 
have acquired perfect skill in writing and in the mechanical 
arts. Surely the human foot is not as adaptable as the 
fore-paw of the gorilla for such purposes ; and in the face 
of such facts as we have noted, who can maintain that 
handless men would have remained stationary, or that 
gorillas have remained stationary merely because their 
fore-paw was not as perfectly formed as the human hand ? 

To the first of Mr. Mallock's objections as regards 


physiology, and the localization of cerebral functions, we 
may reply, transeat. No apologist employs such an argu- 
ment. What apologists do say is, that the scientific 
opponents of localization at least prove * that the principle 
which dominates the living organism,' whether of man or 
animal, ' has within certain limits the power of adapting 
to its needs, and employing as its instruments, other than 
the normal portions of the cerebrum.' 

With regard to Flechsig's thought-centres, or to employ 
Flechsig's own terminology, ' association- or coagitation- 
centres,' they certainly do not account for man's superi- 
ority. Flechsig describes these higher centres as ' appa- 
ratus, which combine the activities of the various special 
senses, inner and outer, into higher unities. They are 
association-centres of sense-impressions of different quali- 
ties, visual, auditory, etc.' After what has been said in 
proving the spirituality of the soul, and according to the 
teachings of that host of scientists who style themselves 
parallelists, it is obvious that such a theory as Flechsig's 
does nothing to show the superiority of man over the 
brute. Scholastic apologists maintain the extrinsic de- 
pendence of intellect on the brain, and, therefore, if 
Flechsig's theory of association-centres stands the tests 
of experience and verification, they welcome it as one more 
contribution to philosophy. The higher intellectual acti- 
vity of man postulates a more perfect cerebrum as a condi- 
tion of action, but no mass of cerebral matter, however 
associated, can account for the phenomenon known as 

,- But, after all, asks Mr. Mallock, what does the religious 
apologist know of the subjective states of the brute ? 
Nothing directly, something indirectly. Our arguments to 
distinguish man from the brute have been based on ex- 
ternal facts speech, religion, morality, progress. Spiritual 
faculties alone explained these facts, and, as we saw, the 
presence of these spiritual faculties, plus the absence of 
these external facts throughout so many centuries, and in 
such circumstances as those in which the animals found 
themselves, is admissible. Therefore, we concluded, man 


is spiritual and immortal, and the brute is not. Is this 
argument rendered valueless, is it even touched, by the 
admission that we know nothing directly of the subjective 
states of the brute ? 

Confident of the hopeless discomfiture of the apologist 
at this stage, Mr. Mallock proceeds cruelly to pile on the 
agony by stating the case of scientific monism against 

. Mr. Mallock begins by declaring that modern educated 
apologists admit evolution. Yes, but of a very specific 
kind. The apologist postulates an absolute break between 
organic and inorganic matter, 1 between the vegetable and 
the animal kingdoms, between man that is, at least, as a 
whole, and the other animals ; and he maintains that such 
evolution as has taken place resulted from a law imposed 
and executed by the Creator. We do not insinuate that 
all apologists admit evolution, nor that apologists ought 
to admit evolution ; we merely state how far any apologist 
can admit evolution. And now let us examine those 
proofs which Mr. Mallock declares to have done more to 
make the * doctrine for which Darwin contended namely, 
the essential unity of man with the other animals a de- 
monstrable, indeed a visible, fact than any of the detected 
lacunae have done, or can do, to cast doubt on it.' 

We admit the three facts : that is, that the conceptional 
and embryonic stages are alike in man and in the higher 
animals up to an advanced stage of development, that 
gill-clefts emerge and subsequently disappear in the human 
embryo, that the tadpole changes daily into a frog. The 
conclusion read into these facts, namely, the essential unity 
of man with the other animals, we reject. 

In the first place, even if evolution is admissible for 
man's body, it cannot account for his soul. We hope to 
have proved indisputably that the human soul is trans- 
cendentally different in nature from the soul of the 
brute, and no evolutionist holds that evolution can create 

1 i.e., Science has not yet proved the physical possibility of the passage. 
Professor Burke's experiments demand further investigation before they 
can be accepted as final. 


anything. Evolution modifies things already existing. The 
human soul is something wholly new, wholly different from 
all other things. It was not, therefore, evolved. 

Secondly, we deny that the three facts mentioned 
prove the evolution of the human body. Because the human 
act of conception resembles the animal act of conception, 
are we to conclude to a common, primitive parentage ? 
Is it not at least an equally probable hypothesis that God 
if He exists, a point to be discussed later on was pleased 
to have it so ? 

Again, ontogenesis is the brief and rapid recapitulation 
of phylogenesis. Father Gerard, S.J., asks somewhere : 
' Is it a proof of a theory to translate its terms into Greek ? ' 
And with regard to this so-called law, Carl Vogt is cited by 
Quatrefages, and with approval, as saying * : 

This law, which I have long held as well founded, is abso- 
lutely and radically false. Attentive study of embryology 
shows us, in fact, that embryos have their own conditions 
suitable to themselves, very different from those of adults. 

In other words, the human being as well as the other 
animals, pass through certain embryonic phases, wholly 
and solely because these forms are the best suited for the 
purposes of existence at each respective stage. Again, 
embryology tells other tales that Mr. Mallock has con- 
veniently forgotten. Some frogs are never tadpoles, and 
some newts breed as tadpoles ! Are these latter climbing 
down their genealogical trees ? Plants, too, do not climb 
their genealogical trees ; and yet they, too, are subject to 
evolution, if evolution be a fact. Is there not, therefore, 
some other reason for the fact that animals do climb their 
genealogical trees ? Further, as ' each cell or embryo is 
determined to be one sort of animal and no other, and 
can live at all only on condition of developing towards the 
prescribed form,' it follows that even if ' the development 
of the individual is an epitome of that of the species, the 
latter must, like the former, be due to the action of definite 
innate laws unconsciously carrying out'definite preordained 

1 The Old Riddle and the Newest Answer, p. 194. 


ends and purposes. Thus whatever evidence the embry- 
onic forms may be supposed to afford in support of 
Evolution, 'they are one evident disproof of the possi- 
bility of evolutionary monistic theories.' 

Let us follow Quatrefages in his development of the 
chief argument against the evolution of man's body its 
revelations will bring to light some of those lacunae, which, 
for Mr. Mallock, are wholly minimised by the three facts 
just discussed. The distinguished naturalist accepts for 
the moment the evolutionistic data, and proves that on 
evolutionistic principles the human organism cannot have 
come from the animal. 1 

Evolution is based on two principles: (i) Ontogenesis 
is the brief and rapid recapitulation of phylogenesis ; (2) 
the law of permanent Characterization, which means that 
if an organism is once modified in a definite direction, it 
retains the mark of this modification during further 

Now, the human embryo follows the development of 
the other animals up to the point where the marsupials 
enter on the scene : afterwards, the human embryo follows 
a mode of development peculiar to itself. According, 
therefore, to the first principle, man is sprung not from 
the monkey, but from the marsupials. 

According to the second principle, two distinct organic 
types can spring from a common ancestor, but one cannot 
come from the other. Man and monkey are two such 
distinct organic types. They possess the same organs, 
but they have these organs arranged after plans completely 
different. Man is a walker, monkey a climber. And this 
principle leads us to connect man with the didelphys of 
the kangaroo family. 

Haeckel does not accept these logical conclusions ; he 
holds that the actual man is sprung from the pithecoid 
man, and that the pithecoid man, as well as the catarr- 
hiniens sans queue, is sprung from the group of catarr- 
hieniens a queue. Thus, while Quatrefages postulates at 

1 De Quatrefages, L'Espece Humaine, c. xi. 


least four intermediary types between man and the known 
animals, Haeckel postulates only one. 

Where are these intermediary types these missing 
links be they one or many, to be found ? Why have they 
disappeared in the struggle for existence, whereas the 
ancestors of the anthropomorphic apes have survived ? 
Were our ancestors less fitted to survive than those of the 
monkey family ? Haeckel can only reply that though 
pithecoid man exists no longer, he must have existed 
sometime. If he did exist, and if, though our ancestor, 
he was less worthy of existence than the ancestor of the 
dumb apes about us, and therefore went down in the 
struggle for existence, surely we must find some traces of 
him in the geological records. If our ancestor, he was not 
made of salt, and must, therefore, have left some traces 
of himself in the earth like all other animals. The trans- 
formation of a species is admittedly a slow process, and 
therefore the missing links must have lived a long time 
on the earth, and must have been exceedingly numerous. 
Yet, all efforts to discover the missing links of this par- 
ticular chain have been fruitless. The bowels of the earth 
have been torn open, and many wondrous things of the 
past brought to light. Not a trace, however, of our so- 
called ancestor or ancestors ! We have men and monkeys, 
the ancestors and the posterity of monkeys, men and mar- 
supials, and the ancestors and posterity of marsupials 
in a word, all the data that can be desired to form a judg- 
ment, but the links that ought to hold together this evolu- 
tionistic chain are not to be found ! Why ? Common 
sense, and fair interpretation of the scientific facts, warrant 
us in replying : Because these particular links of the 
evolutionistic chain were never forged. 1 

As to Mr. Mallock's paragraph about the evolution of 
the human intellect from the primary substance, it does 
not contain a word of proof, and it is evident at this point 
that it is a delicious bit of monistic poesy deserving as much 
credence as Dante's Vision of Hell. 

1 Though this argument shows that the arguments in favour of the 
evolution of the human body are less complete than Mr Mallock con- 
tends, it does not disprove all probability of that evolution. 


The danger of arguments from gaps-in-evidence is as 
evident to the apologists as to their opponents. And 
certainly a science which has had its Bathythius and its 
Colorado Beetle cannot afford to throw stones. 

With regard to the time of origin of the human soul, 
there are two opinions. St. Thomas maintained that 
1 during the early history of its existence the human foetus 
passes through a series of transitional stages in which it 
is successively informed by the vegetative, the sentient, 
and finally by the rational soul.' Others maintain that 
the rational soul ' is created and infused into the new 
being in the originating of life in conception.' Clearly, 
Mr. Mallock's objection cannot be formulated against St. 
Thomas's view. Nor for the same reason is it valid against 
the second view : no one holds that the human ovum and 
human spermatozoon, principles of conception, are dead. 
They are living when in the second view God, at the 
moment of conception, creates and infuses the human soul 
into the organism formed by the coalescence of the human 
ovum and the human spermatozoon : at the same moment 
the other vital principal disappears, and the rational soul 
exercises its functions. Not an instant intervenes between 
the disappearance of the one and the appearance of the 
other. All is simultaneous. 

To repeat Mr. Mallock's words, if we look back over 
this aggregate of facts and arguments, one conclusion and 
only one leaps into light, that whilst man endures, the 
animal dies dies as the roses die, never to bloom again ; 
and that the mystery of man's life, and the mystery of 
the pig's are not one. 


132 ] 


IN one of the numerous references to miracles contained 
in the works of Cardinal Newman, he mentions the 
liquefaction of the blood of St. Januarius as one of 
the ecclesiastical, as distinguished from Gospel, miracles, 
in which he personally believed on account of the strong 
evidence adduced in its behalf. 

It has occurred to us that it would serve a useful and 
edifying purpose if we laid before the readers of the 
I. E. RECORD, however briefly and imperfectly, some 
account of the miracle and^the circumstances by which it 
is attended. We shall preface our remarks with a brief 
notice of the saint. He was Bishop of Benevento, and 
flourished towards the close of the third century after 
Christ. On the outbreak of the persecution by Diocletian 
and Maximian, he was taken to Nola, and brought before 
Timotheus, the Governor of Campania, on account of his 
profession of the Christian religion. After he had with- 
stood various assaults on his constancy, he was at last 
sentenced to be cast into the fiery furnace, through which 
he passed wholly unharmed. On the following day, along 
with a number of fellow-martyrs, he was exposed to the 
fury of wild beasts, which, however, contrary to their 
nature, laid themselves down in tame submission at his 
feet. Timotheus, again pronouncing sentence of death, 
was struck with blindness, but immediately healed by the 
powerful intercession of the saint, a miracle which con- 
verted nearly five thousand men on the spot. The un- 
grateful judge, only roused to further fury by these 
occurrences, caused the execution of Januarius by the 
sword to be forthwith carried out. The body was ulti- 
mately removed by the inhabitants of Naples to that city, 
where the relic became very famous for its miracles, especi- 
ally in counteracting the more dangerous eruptions of 
Vesuvius. His clotted blood, preserved in a glass phial, 


even to this day is wont to liquefy and bubble up as if 
but recently shed whensoever it is placed within sight of 
the martyr's head. It is thus solemnly placed, May ist, 
and September igth, each year, and the recurrence of 
the miracle is observed by the Neapolitans with various 

What a strange age we live in ! How full of incon- 
sistencies ! On the one hand men are so credulous that 
any impostor who with loud and confident voice proclaims 
his pretensions to the public, however ridiculous and 
blasphemous they may be, never fails to find ready dupes 
to follow him and implicitly believe in him. Dowie in 
America is a striking instance. On the other hand, how 
obstinately incredulous men are ; miracles are asserted to 
take place, and yet they are so confident beforehand that 
miracles do not take place, or cannot take place that they 
will not be even at the pains to examine calmly and dis- 
passionately into the evidence. 

Here is a constantly recurring miracle which any one 
of common sense, and common observation can verify 
for himself. The blood liquefies. Of this there can be 
no possible doubt. A tradition which goes back very 
many centuries bears witness to it, and the illiterate and 
the learned, the man of the much maligned Middle Ages, 
and the most up-to-date man of science, are equally com- 
petent to ascertain the fact of liquefaction. The blood 
becomes liquid ; it is not a mere matter of more or less 
solid, but a perfect solid and a perfect liquid. When it is 
in the solid state, it you shake the phial, you can hear 
the solid matter beating against the glass, and thus both 
eyes and ears bear witness to its solidity. While at other 
times it is quite evident to any one who examines the 
phial that it is a pure liquid it contains. Formerly the 
phials were not kept in a safe (custodta) as at present, and 
history relates that when Charles VIII came to venerate 
the relics he was allowed to touch the hard substance 
with a small rod, and after liquefaction, touch it with the 
same rod, and withdraw it wet with blood. There are 
two phials ; but in the one there are only a few drops, 


while in the other there is a considerable quantity ; the 
latter, of course, can be more easily observed, and, conse- 
quently, to it we shall confine our remarks. 

The condition of the blood in its liquid state is not 
uniform ; it varies in its colour from dark brown to red 
and likewise in its density, at times being what we may 
call a thin liquid, at other times thick, so as to adhere 
lightly to the glass. 

The liquefaction takes place ; the next question is, how 
it takes place. Needless to say, impiety and infidelity have 
devised various hypotheses to explain it away. These 
attempts serve one good purpose : they bear incontestable 
testimony to the reality of the fact. No one nowadays 
suggests the possibility of fraud, unless indeed some self- 
confident person, who has merely heard of the miracle, 
and gives expression to his own prejudices. 

In the splendid chapel of the saint, behind the altar 
and under the bronze statue, are two niches or recesses of 
metal, in the one is the silver bust in which is preserved 
the saint's head ; in the other the monstrance with the 
reliquary containing the two phials. There are four keys 
for the doors of these recesses ; two in the hands of the 
Archbishop, and two in the hands of the municipal autho- 
rities. For the past four centuries a committee has existed, 
formed of twelve members chosen by election from the 
different wards of the city, whose duty and privilege it 
was to safeguard the relic and make all arrangements 
necessary and becoming for its cultus. Even at the present 
day, the chairman of this committee is the Mayor of Naples. 
It is utterly impossible to open the recess and remove the 
relics, or interfere with them in any way, unless both parties, 
ecclesiastical and civil, are present and use their keys. 

Many solid bodies become liquid under the influence of 
heat. It is obvious, therefore, that heat should be ad- 
duced as an explanation of the phenomenon. But not all 
substances are thus affected by heat ; for instance, the 
contents of an egg are not dissolved but solidified by heat ; 
and this happens likewise in the case of blood. Once it is 
removed from its natural place in the veins and arteries 
of the human body, it solidifies more and more in pro- 


portion to the intensity of the heat applied to it. There- 
fore, if it be really the martyr's blood that is in the ohial, 
heat is not the explanation i 

But is it really blood ? Some sceptics have denied it ; 
but is it reasonable, merely in order to support our opinions 
and without any serious grounds, to deny a fact supported 
by the tradition of ages. Let us, however, grant for a 
moment that it is not blood, and see if that will get us out 
of the difficulty. Let it be some other substance. Surely 
it is an elementary law of physics that the melting point 
of any given substance is fixed and invariable at a given 
pressure, and that its temperature will remain unaltered 
until the whole mass has melted. If phosphorus melts at 
44 centigrade, then a substance that melts under the 
same pressure at 43 is not phosporus, or at least is adul- 
terated. If, then, the contents of the phial, whatever it 
be, be subject to the laws of nature, there will be a certain 
degree of heat at which it will uniformly liquefy. Now, on 
examination we find the exact opposite. Professor Fergola, 
of the University of Naples, has left on record that at the 
time of liquefaction, May 2nd, 1795, the thermometer 
placed beside the relics stood at 244 ; May 4th, at 264 ; 
5th, 238 ; 7th, 25 ; gth, ig4. In the observations taken 
by Professors Govi and De Luca, September, 1879, and 
published by Professor Punzo, on the igth, the thermo- 
meter registered 30 ; 22nd, 27 ; 26th, 25. In May, 1901, 
as verified by Signor Spirindeo, the temperature was i88. 
Anyone who takes the trouble to go to Naples and assist 
at the miracle at different times will be enabled, by his 
own experience, to confirm these statements. 

Surely it is incomprehensible that a substance remaining 
in a sealed phial should liquefy one day at 20, and yet 
remain solid the next day at 29. Let it be observed, 
moreover, that it passes from the solid to the fluid state 
not by a slow process but quite rapidly. For hours it may 
show no sign whatever of softening, and then in a minute 
or two it is a perfect liquid. Not less mysterious is the 
difference of time before liquefaction takes place. Con- 
sulting, again, the records of Professor Fergola, we find it 
happened May 2nd, temp. 24% after -a delay of 12 m. ; 


May 2nd, at precisely the same temperature, after 2 m. ; 
while May 3rd, temp. 25, it delayed 41 m. ; on the 8th, 
temp. 266, it delayed 23 m. ; while on the gth, temp. 
I94, it only took a quarter of an hour. Similar facts can 
be verified every year ; they are borne witness to by 
Humphrey Davy, Lavoisier, Waterton, Dumas, Kotzebue, 
and a thousand others : and we need not take up the time 
of our intelligent readers in showing how contrary they are 
to the known laws of nature. To deny, therefore, that 
the substance is really blood does not tend to make the 
question more easy of solution. 

But, is it really blood ? Well, in the first place we 
have the evidence of our eyes. Let anyone take blood 
recently shed, attentively examine its colour and appear- 
ance, and he will be convinced it is really blood that is in 
the phial. Naturally, the guardians of the relic, out of 
reverence, will not suffer it to be subjected to chemical 
analysis ; but, fortunately, the progress of science has 
provided us with a method which we can employ without 
being wanting in reverence. On the evening of September 
26th, 1902, Professor Raffaele Januario, of the Neapolitan 
University, accompanied by other professors and friends, 
was allowed to examine the relic by spectrum analysis. 
The experiment clearly^ proved it was blood, and the 
Professor exclaimed, ' The liquid undoubtedly is blood ; and 
its liquefaction, under such extraordinary and varied cir- 
cumstances, is mysterious, so mysterious that I do not 
hesitate to assert it is supernatural.' 

The liquefaction, then, is mysterious enough ; but it is 
attended by another circumstance which is perhaps still 
more mysterious. The blood increases and diminishes in 
volume during the various solemn expositions of the relic 
that take place in the course of the year, and this circum- 
stance has been noticed from time immemorial. In fact, 
so full at times is the phial, that it is impossible to deter- 
mine whether the blood is in a liquid or solid state, while 
on ordinary occasions the phial is but two-thirds full, or 
even less. Even if it were not blood, but some liquid 
which heat increased in volume, heat would not be an 
adequate explanation. If, while the exposition is going 


on, the concourse of people raise the surrounding tempera- 
ture a few degrees, this would not occasion so considerable 
an augmentation of volume ; besides, how then would it 
come to pass that if it happens to increase in May, yet in 
September, when the heat is more intense, if frequently 
diminishes. The same agent, under the same conditions, 
cannot produce diametrically opposite results. 

The increase, moreover, is not merely in the apparent 
volume, but, in the mass of blood itself. This results 


clearly from ^experiments conducted, since 1901, by Pro- 
fessor Spirindeo. He weighed the blood at various times, 
using a most delicate balance, and adopting every scientific 
precaution ; and he found that when the phial was full, 
it weighed, together with the reliquary in which it is en- 
closed, 1-015 chilogr. ; when half-full -987 chilogr. ; thus 
showing a difference of 28 grms., which would be about 
the weight of 24 or 25 cubic centimetres of blood, the 
amount which would about half fill the phial. The ex- 
periments have been repeated with similar results by 
others. September igth, 1904, weight 1-015 chilogr. ; at 
6 o'clock, p.m., 2i6t, 1-004 chilogr. ; the same hour, 22nd, 
i- 008 chilogr. 

Considering all these facts, surely the reader will agree 
with us that if ever there was a miracle this is one. Facts 
are facts, however unacceptable the inferences may be to 
an incredulous mind. But those who believe in a God 
Who takes an intimate interest in all that happens here 
below, Who loves His children, the work of His hands, will 
not be surprised that He is pleased to make use of miracles 
to raise their minds and hearts to Him ; nay, they will be 
on the look-out for such manifestations, and will humbly 
and fervently thank Him for continuing this wondrous 
miracle in this so-called enlightened age, when infidelity is 
so rampant, and for affording this sensible and striking 
confirmation of the teaching of Holy Church with regard to 
the respect and veneration due to the relics of those who, 
we hold, are now, by their merits, exalted to a high 
place in the Kingdom of God. 


138 r 


I PURPOSE, in these pages, to discuss a question to 
which a comparatively meagre space is allotted in our 
ordinary theological manuals : the Nature of Divine 
Hope. The scope of the inquiry is not, how are we to 
make an act of hope ? but, rather, what it is that we do 
when we make an act of hope ? for neither the theologians 
nor the faithful, nor the teachers nor the taught, experience 
doubt or difficulty in the actual practice of the virtue. 
The subject, therefore, can scarcely be regarded as one of 
direct practical bearing upon the Christian life ; but to 
every student of the sacred sciences who has sedulously 
endeavoured to acquaint himself with expert opinion upon 
it, and has tried to solve the problem for himself, it presents 
many serious difficulties. The effort to overcome such 
difficulties will always have attractions for the lover of 
theology, and this must be my apology for venturing to 
tread upon ground already strewn with conflicting theories 
and unlooked-for aspects of familiar truths. 

At the outset of the discussion, it will be well to recall 
some preliminary truths bearing thereon : i. Hope is a 
theological virtue having God for its primary material 
object and its formal object as well, but differing from 
faith and charity by reason of the precise aspect under 
which it regards Him ; 2. The material object embraces 
everything for which we can hope, hence God and His 
grace, our own good works, and even temporal blessings, 
in so far as they conduce to heaven ; 3. The formal object 
or distinguishing motive actus enim et virtutes ex motivis 
specificantur is variously assigned by the different autho- 
rities. St. Thomas and his school arguing that it consists 
in nothing other than the right hand of God going out to 
help His creatures (virtutis Dei auxiliatrix) ; Suarez, and not 
a few besides, contending that in it lies the goodness of 
God to us, and St. Alphonsus combining the two theories 
into one. 


The first thought that arises in our minds in connection 
with this subject is, what is the common-sense view of hope 
in general ? What is the meaning given to the word in 
ordinary language and speech ? Does it coincide with the 
desire of an absent good ? 

It will be evident, I think, on consideration, that hope 
is not synonomous with desire. It is at once the witness 
of experience and the verdict of sound philosophy that 
absence makes the heart grow fonder, even when there 
is very little prospect of satisfying our desire, and ac- 
cordingly very little hope. We might yearn, for instance, 
with an insatiable longing for an absent friend, of whose 
return we had come to despair. Who has not known 
the tireless constancy with which a mother prays for the 
return of an exiled son, even when her hope has all but 
vanished ? Or, to put the matter in another light, who 
could fail to observe the depth of our country's desire 
for the redress of her grievances even hi those very crises 
in her history when dissension was making her chances 
dwindle to vanishing point ? A drowning man will grasp 
at a straw in his last extremity, showing that his desire 
of safety is greatest when his hope is faintest. Indeed 
it is a well-known fact that we long all the more for the 
desired object when we see it receding from our grasp. 

From all this it is lawful to conclude that desire and 
hope must be specifically distinct. The same precise reason 
cannot make a man at once weak and strong in his love 
for a certain object. If his craving for it, as in the examples 
adduced, be so engrossing as to dominate all other wishes, 
and his hope at the same time but slight, it seems evident 
that the two emotions must be of different kinds, and 
accounted for by proportionately different motives. When 
the same object exercises altogether opposite though 
simultaneous influences on the will, it is clear that the 
explanation of the opposition must be sought in the 
diverse aspects towards which the will is drawn, or, to 
put it in scientific terms, in the different formal objects 
of its volitions. 

Having endeavoured thus far to state what hope is 


not, we must now proceed to state what it is. And here 
again we may take our stand on the commonly-accepted 
meaning of the word. If a man tells us that he has a strong 
hope of succeeding in a difficult enterprize, we take him 
to mean that he is confident of success. When we hear 
people say that all their hopes are centred in a great leader, 
a great general, a great hero, their language conveys but 
one meaning, their confidence of victory is in their chosen 
standard-bearer. When a nation rightly struggling for free- 
dom, declares that its hopes are placed infa great tribune 
for the realization of its aspirations, it indicates that it 
trusts in him for the accomplishment of its wishes. When 
we say that a ray of hope lights up a dark and difficult 
situation where there was nought but despair before, 
we intend to convey that faintheartedness has given way 
to buoyancy of spirit in the presence of a possible or 
probable solution of the difficulty. When relatives who 
had been in fear and trembling for the fate of their friends 
on the battle-field, are informed that the fortunes of war 
are becoming propitious, they avow that they hope more 
strongly than they had hitherto dared. Do they mean 
that they had grown more eager for their loved ones' 
return ?'; No. Their desire remains the same, but their 
spirits are cheered and their hearts elated by the brightened 
prospects. Hope, then, in its varying degrees, is ' good 
heart,' trust, confidence. 

This everyday use of the term is in perfect harmony 
with the explanation of St. Thomas. Here are the words 
of the Angelic Doctor : 

The object of hope must have four conditions : In the 
first place it must be good ; for hope, properly speaking, can 
only have to do with good, differing in this form from fear, 
which only has to do with evil. Secondly, it must be future, 
for we do not hope with regard to a thing already possessed, 
and herein it differs from joy, which relates to a present good. 
Thirdly, it must be something difficult of attainment ; for no- 
body is said to hope for what is easily obtained, wherein it differs 
from desire or cupidity, which regard the absent, absolutely 
speaking. Fourthly, it must be possible of attainment ; no 
one hopes for what he cannot reach, and in this it differs from 


A few pages further on he again points out that it is 
the contrary of despair, and shows that although an object 
be difficult of attainment, it can draw the appetite in so 
far as it is possible to reach it. That feature, he remarks, 
has an attracting force which draws us towards it. These 
and other passages of St. Thomas show that he places 
the essential element of hope, not in the love ot an absent 
good, but rather in that special outgoing of the heart 
to the happy prospect of attaining that good. And as it is 
precisely because of this feature in the desired object 
that we are trustful, elated, confident, it is clear that the 
angel of the schools is at one with the ordinary man in his 
idea of hope. 

' A thing can be possible for us in two ways,* St. 
Thomas continues, * by means of our own powers or by the 
help of others. Tn so far as we hope for what is made 
possible for us by the divine assistance, our hope touches 
God, on whose assistance it rests.' Accordingly he places the 
essential element of divine hope in the fact that it springs 
from the motive of God's unfailing help. The theological 
virtues, he goes on to declare, do not, as far as their proper 
objects are concerned, admit of that golden mean which 
is the test of virtue in general. Just as there is no limit 
to our assent of faith, resting on the divine authority, 
neither is there a limit to our hope, resting on the divine 
assistance. But, he reminds us, as in the case of faith 
there are many truths besides the primary God Himself 
to be believed in, so in hope there are many things to 
be expected besides the beatific vision, and with regard 
to these secondary material objects there is a mean to be 
observed. Having laid it down that the principal material 
object of the theological virtues is God, he distinguishes 
their formal objects thus : ' By charity we adhere to God 
for His own sake ; by faith inasmuch as He is for us the 
principle of, or the means of arriving at, truth ; by hope 
inasmuch as He is the means by which we attain to good 
our eternal happiness.' All through his works, in fact, 
wherever he touches on the matter, he either expresses 
or implies that the ground-work, the ultimate reason, the 


formal object of our hope is the right hand of Omni- 
potence stretched out to help us. At times, it is true, 
he speaks of the possession of God, the beatific vision, 
our last end, our eternal happiness, as the object of our 
hope. Not, however, without having over and over again 
pointed out that it is in the same way as the truths 
believed by faith are the object of that virtue. 

Suarez maintains that the view which he himself holds, 
the view, namely, to which I referred at the commence- 
ment of the paper is the one which St. Thomas held, 
' whatever some may say.' This very same expression, 
oddly enough, is made use of by Mazzella in quoting St. 
Thomas in favour of a different opinion. With all due 
respect for these great names, we cannot but wonder how 
any reader of St. Thomas's writings, especially of his 
Disputed Questions, one of which deals with hope could 
depart from the interpretations which the theologians of his 
own Order have placed upon his word. To place the matter 
beyond doubt, let us quote another passage from his 
works : 

The supreme good, which is eternal life, man cannot reach 
unless with the help of God, according to the text of Romans vi. 
23 : ' By the grace of God life eternal ; ' and therefore the hope 
of attaining eternal life has two objects, eternal life, namely, 
which one hopes for, and the divine assistance from which he 
hopes for it ; just as faith likewise has two objects, the truth, 
namely, which one believes, and the first truth, to which it cor- 
responds. For faith is not a virtue unless in so far as it rests 
on the testimony of the First Truth, so as to believe what is 
manifested thereby according to the text of Genesis xv. 6 : 
4 Abraham believed in God, and it was reputed to him unto 
justice.' Hence hope also is a virtue from the very fact that 
one rests on the help of the divine power for the attainment 
of eternal life. . . . Just, therefore, as the formal object 
of faith is the first truth, by which, as by a kind of means, he 
assents to the things which are believed, which are the material 
object of faith ; so also the formal object of hope is the help of 
the divine power and piety on account of which the motive of 
hope tends towards the things hoped for, which are the 
material object of hope. 

It may be useful to draw out somewhat further this 


idea of virtue. Let us compare hope with faith. In the 
latter we have an (a) assent to a truth on the (6) authority 
of (c) God revealing. It agrees with all affirmative judg- 
ments on the first score. On the second head it differs 
from science, and agrees with every judgment formed 
on the authority of another. And it gets its ultimate 
specific determination from the fact that the testimony 
relied on is the testimony of God. Hope is a (a) gladness 
of heart, at the (b) prospect of reaching some desirable 
end by (c) means of God's assistance. Hence like faith 
it has something in common with the remaining acts of 
the general class to which it belongs, it is an act of love. 
But it differs from ordinary love as being directed towards 
the possibility or likelihood of attaining the good desired. 
And finally, as faith is divine when the authority whose 
word we accept is divine, so hope is divine when the helper 
on whose assistance we rely is divine. An ignorant man 
who had never heard of the Supreme Being might believe 
in His existence on the mere word of a scientist, but 
his belief would be human faith, not divine. Similarly 
a Pelagian, as longs a he remained in error, could never 
elicit an act of divine hope. He might long for heaven, 
as an absent, arduous, and yet realizable good ; but as the 
source of his confidence to attain it would be his own 
natural powers, his reliance was not on God, and not 
divine. * Accursed be the man who trusteth in man ' 
(Jeremiah xvii.) His confidence, as St. Thomas points out, 
would be an inordinate human hope, directly opposed 
to the virtue of magnanimity. It would be what some 
theologians call Pelagian presumption. 

It is pretty plain from this example tnat we cannot 
describe the formal object of theological hope as the In- 
finite Good, our reward, absent, arduous, yet possible of 
attainment. All these notes are to be found in the vicious 
human hope of a Pelagian. We must assign, in addition 
to these notes, the efficient cause that renders the attain- 
ment possible. To omit the efficient cause in treating of 
divine hope would leave as truncated a definition of the 
virtue as the omission of the source of the authority in the 


case^of faith. And it makes all the 'difference in our 
assent to know the worth of the authority that solicitates 
it. It may be of very little value and may therefore beget 
a very feeble faith ; or it may be of infinite value, and 
thereby beget the highest certitude. So, too, the efficient 
cause that renders a desired object reachable may be of 
very limited powers, and incapable, on that account, of 
stirring up a strong vigorous hope (erectio animi) ; or it 
may be Omnipotence itself, and thus lift up the soul to an 
unbounded trust. The possibility of reaching the goal 
of one's ambition is the feature which marks off one's hope 
from mere desire and from despair, and thus far may be 
said to constitute the differentia ultima of hope. But 
if our hope is to be divine, and distinguished as such from 
all other kinds, it must be so in its distinctive elements. 
Hence no definition of this divine virtue can be adequate 
which does not mark it off by reason of the divine power 
which generates and sustains it. 

This brings me to the theory of Suarez. He contends 
that the formal object of divine hope is God, as our supreme 
good. He excludes altogether from the motive the virtus 
Dei auxiliatrix, the unfailing help of God. He is driven 
by the exigencies of his theory to relegate the other notes 
mentioned in the last paragraph to the back-ground of 
pre-requisite conditions. Hope, he says truly, must be 
love. And therefore, he continues, the only element 
than can enter into the formal object is the goodness of 
the thing hoped for. 

If one were to reply, ' Faith is an assent, and therefore 
the only thing that can enter into its formal object is the 
truth of the doctrine believed in,' it would be interesting 
to know how Suarez would endeavour to meet the difficulty. 
A transference of his reasoning to this parallel case would 
exclude the authority of God from the formal object of 
faith. Undoubtedly, faith is an assent to the truth of 
some proposition, but it does not follow that the only 
determinant of the nature of the intellectual act is the 
truth believed in. Might we not assent to the very same 
truth, the existence of God, let us say because of the 


scientific evidence in its favour, or because of merely 
human testimony, or finally, on account of the authority 
of God revealing it ? And will not any one of the three 
acts be specifically distinct from the others ? Manifestly 
the way in which the truth is presented has to do with 
the nature of the resultant act. It gives it its ultimate 
differentiating characteristic, its formal object. (The 
doctrine assented to is only the generic or material 
object.) Hope, we agree with Suarez, is an act of love ; 
but the only determinant of its formal object is not the 
goodness of the object hoped for. Otherwise it would not 
differ from despair, nor from mere desire. For both of 
these emotions centre round the goodness of an absent 
thing. I desire a thing because I consider it good for 
me ; but that alone is not sufficient to make me hope for 
it. It underlies my hope, and may lead up to it. But 
the reason why I hope is the chance of success which I 
see before me. The force which moves the will in this case, 
as St. Thomas points out, is the possibility of reaching 
what we long for ; and that it is which causes the different 
kind of act, and the need for a specifically distinct virtue. 
In fact, if one were to regard this feature as a mere condition 
of divine hope, the authority of God should be regarded 
as a mere condition of divine faith. 

Underlying the theory we have advanced under the 
shadow of the great name of St. Thomas, is the supposition 
that the ultima differentia, and not the genus, constitutes 
the formal object. It may possibly be objected that the 
genus should not be excluded. But the answer is on the 
surface : the latter constitutes the material object, and 
cannot be otherwise regarded. When we look for the 
distinguishing features of acts or virtues, we do not look 
for those in which they agree with others, but rather those 
in which they differ. The theological virtues differ from 
one another in their formal objects, or differentiae ultimae. 
They agree with one another in regard feo their primary 
material object or genus. And they differ from all other 
virtues in both respects, both in species and genus. 
The whole terminology was taken originally from the 



Scholastic doctrine of matter and form. Seeing that the 
form, as Father Maher points out in his Psychology, is the 
last ;\ compliment of reality, the final determination, it 
came to be considered analogous to the ultima differentia, 
while the germs and the matter were regarded as similarly 
related : 

Germs [says Father Clarke, in his work on Logic] expresses 
the pars determinabilis tssentiae, or, as it is sometimes called, 
the material part, inasmuch as the matter of which anything 
is made has to have its shape or essential characteristic given 
to it by something that forms or informs it. It represents 
the wider class, but has somehow to be limited in order to reach 
the species or class, which is said to contain the whole essence. 
Differentia represents the pars determinans essentiae, or, as it is 
sometimes called, the formal part, inasmuch as it informs or 
gives the form to the matter, and gives to what may be re- 
garded as an informed mass its distinguishing form or shape. 
It represents the limiting characteristic which has to be added 
to the wider class in order to limit the wider class as aforesaid. 

Acts and virtues are classified as well as all other 
objects of knowledge, and the principle of classification is 
that laid down by Father Clarke. But as it is the 
elements in the object embraced that enable us to deter- 
mine the instrinsic nature of the acts, the latter are said 
to be specified by their objects. To the genus and 
differentia of the intrinsic constituents correspond the 
generic or material and specific or formal objects. 1 

To return once more to the theory of Suarez. Besides 
the^reasons which we have already dwelt upon, there is 
another very striking difficulty against it. If this theory 
be true, we must enumerate at least four theological 
virtues, contrary to the universally accepted teaching. 
If we hold that the goodness of God to us enters, wholly 
or partially, into the constitution of the formal object 
of hope, this awkward consequence follows logically from 
the line of argument we pursued a few pages back. We 
laid it down as certain, that mere desire and hope are 
different kinds of love. Therefore, if the mere desire, 

1 Mazzella, in his Grace Tract (pp. 30 and 31) quotes Maurus and Cajetan 
in illustration of this usage of the terminology. 


apart from the hope, of our supreme good, be possible, 
there must be another theological virtue to elicit it. 

This difficulty against the views of Suarez might be met 
in either of two ways. First, by denying the possibility 
of mere desire of heaven, apart from hope of the same. 
This solution of the difficulty was evidently not the one 
chosen by the great Jesuit himself, for he admitted the 
possibility of an inefficacious desire of heaven, which is 
not hope. Such an inefficacious desire would be really 
an act of the same virtue as an efficacious desire, just as 
inefficacious love of God is still an act of divine charity. 
But apart from Suarez' admission on the point, we cannot 
see how the possibility of such a longing can be denied. 
It is surely not necessary that we should always have the 
possibility of reaching heaven before our minds ? We can 
abstract from many thoughts in our meditations on a 
subject, and why not from this ? If one might be allowed 
to appeal to experience in this matter, do not people, in 
moments of worry and exhaustion, often wish for heaven 
without actually hoping for it ? The other solution of 
the difficulty would make hope and desire belong to the 
same virtue. It is a consistent view of the case, and hence 
it commended itself to Suarez. He decided that the 
possibility of satisfying our desire was a mere condition 
necessary to be known before we could have hope. Then 
he concluded, as he was bound to do, that the two acts 
were the offspring of one and the same virtue. Perhaps 
it did not strike him that the very same reasoning should 
lead him to infer that hope and despair are also the off- 
spring of the same virtue the desire of heaven ! Nor 
could he have remembered that St. Thomas, whose ex- 
ponent and follower Suarez professed to be in this matter, 
emphatically declared hope and desire specifically distinct. 1 

Another consideration that should weigh with us in 

1 Laymann and others, who felt the force of the objections to this portion 
of Suarez' teaching, contemplated the possibility of different kinds of acts 
emanating from the same virtue. This view is so utterly inconsistent with a 
scientific treatment of the question, and so opposed to all our conceptions of 
the virtues, that I think it does not merit serious attention. 


estimating the value of Suarez' theory, is the fact that if 
the goodness of God to us were the distinguishing motive 
of hope, there would be no valid reason why this virtue 
should not remain in heaven. Faith, we know, will be 
swallowed up in vision ; charity will remain substantially 
the same as on earth ; hope, too, if Suarez be correct 
in his view, should remain substantially the same. It 
is easy to see how the authority of God will no longer 
be a motive of assent when all things will be seen by a light 
from whose presence we cannot abstract. It is easy to 
see that we shall no longer hope in God's omnipotence to 
bring us to Himself, seeing that we enjoy ensured fruition. 
But God will always be our supreme good, and as such 
must be loved. It avails not, against this conclusion, to 
point out that He will no longer be loved as possible of 
attainment, for the theory in question makes that note a 
mere condition. When the material object of a virtue 
and the formal object, are present, and the latter actullay 
affects or clothes the former, all the requisites of the virtue 
are at hand, and no condition has any further function to 
discharge. God shall always be before our eyes in heaven, 
and His goodness to us can never be shut out from our 
sight. We shall, therefore, always love Him as the source 
of our happiness. Hence it follows that if we depart 
from the teaching of the Angelic Doctor, which lays down 
the future prospect of eternal life^as the source of our hope 
here below, we are driven to admit that we shall carry 
that earthly virtue into the bliss of the heavenly court. 

It might possibly be urged against the opinion we have 
advocated, that trust or confidence is an act of the intellect, 
rather than of the will. But against any such assumption 
we are met by the full force of theological authority. St. 
Thomas, for instance, more than once refers trust to the 
will. St. Bonaventure ascribes to hope a confidence in the 
person on whom we rely, and an expectation of the object 
hoped for. Suarez, in distinguishing faith from hope, 
ascribes trust and confidence to the latter, and points out 
that faith and despair can co-exist. Mazzella refutes the 
Reformation notion of faith by proving that trust is an 


act of the will. And for that matter all our theologians who 
have written since the sixteenth century use this very same 
argument against the so-called faith of the Protestants. 
i- The question naturally arises, if St. Thomas's view of 
hope be the correct one, to what virtue are we to ascribe 
the love of concupiscence, the desire for God because He 
is good to us ? Both reason and authority unite in 
ascribing it to love of self in the laudable sense. ' Hope,' 
says the angel of the schools, ' presupposes the love of that 
which we hope to attain, which is the love of concupiscence, 
by which love he who desires a good loves himself more 
than anything else.' With him, then, this kind of love 
is charity towards oneself. It makes us love ourselves 
for our own sake, and others because of ourselves. Just 
as by divine charity I love God in myself, by this I love 
myself in God. The same high authority deals further 
with this subject when commenting on the Lord's Prayer. 
He states that we desire God, our last end, by a twofold 
tendency the longing for His glory, and the longing to 
enjoy that glory. The former he calls the love of God 
in Himself, the latter the love of ourselves in God. Cajetan, 
when expounding the teaching of his angelic master, 
says, that in one sense every love is friendship, towards 
others, if things are loved for their own sake ; towards 
ourselves, if the things be loved as our good. Mazzella 
calls concupiscence a love of God which does not rest in 
Him, but wishes good to ourselves from Him. St. Francis 
de Sales describes it as tending to our own utility, pleasure, 
or satisfaction, as returning to ourselves. St. Bernard 
distinguishes charity from inferior love of God, by the 
fact that the former is an affection for Him, not as good 
to us, but as good in Himself, for His own sake, not for 
ours. Even Suarez explicitly calls concupiscence self-love. 
And when Bolgeni, towards the close of the eighteenth 
century, started the theory that concupiscence and charity 
were identical, Muzzarelli, by quotations from the Fathers 
and Doctors of the Church, showed beyond the shadow 
of a doubt that the traditional view identified con- 
cupiscence and self-love. 


In this connexion it is interesting to recall that Luther, 
Calvin, Baius, and their followers condemned the love 
of concupiscence as sinful self-love that sought one's own 
benefit not God's, and opposed the apostle's teaching, 
' charity seeketh not her own.' And to this objection 
Ripalda replied in language that has been adopted by all 
our theologians : > 

In this love of concupiscence, by which a man loves himself, 
turpitude has no place ; both because it is not identical with 
every love of self (non fertur in seipsum utcumque), but it is 
a love of oneself as blessed and just. To love oneself, however, 
as blessed and just, is not forbidden but rather commanded, 
and because the love is not the source of evil-doing of any kind 
but of every kind of good. But love which is the source of every 
kind of well-doing is not bad, for the good tree bringeth forth 
good fruit, but the bad tree evil fruit. Therefore there can 
be a love of self which is good and not bad. 

Here, then, is a decisive argument against the theory 
of Suarez. His view of divine hope would put it outside 
the list of the theological virtues altogether. It would 
identify hope and concupiscence, and therefore make 
our own selves, and not God, the ultimate term and formal 
object of that virtue. 1 The love of God as our good would 
be not merely a necessary antecedent, underlying and, 
as it were, leading up to hope, but it would be the very 
essence of the virtue. The moving power which makes 
the will rejoice and be glad would not be the thought 
of God's strengthening assistance, but one's own use and 

A careful perusal fof the Sacred Scripture will wonder- 
fully bear out the teaching of St. Thomas : 

Have mercy on me, O God, have mercy on me, for my soul 
trusteth in Thee ; and in the shadow of Thy wings will I hope 
(Ps. Ixvi.) My God is my Helper, and in Him will I put my 
trust (Ps. xvii.) In this will I be confident ; be thou my 
Helper (Ps. xxvi.) In Thee, O Lord have I hoped. . . . 
I have hoped in the Lord. ... I have put my trust in the 
Lord (Ps. xxx.) None of them that trust in Him will offend 
(Ps. xxxiii.) In God have I put my trust ... in God 

1 The love of concupiscence is sometimes called the love of hope, but 
the meaaing is that the former must always underlie the latter. 


have I hoped (Ps. Iv.) Thou shalt have confidence, hope 
being set before thee (Job xi.) Macchabaeus ever trusted 
with all hope that God would help him (2 Mach. vii.) We 
should not trust in ourselves but in God (i Corinthians i. 8). 

We might quote at far greater length from the sacred 
volume, but we hasten to deal with a theory which has 
found credence with rather a large number of latter-day 
theologians. St. Alphonsus, Laymann, and Mazzella con- 
tend that as hope is love it must include in its formal 
object the love of God to us ; but that as it is more 
than mere ordinary love we must also admit the mercy, 
omnipotence, and fidelity of God. They agree with Suarez 
in regard to the first element, and largely because of the 
reasons he assigns, they agree with St. Thomas regarding 
the omnipotence of God, for the reasons which he put for- 
ward. And just as Suarez is very dogmatic in claiming the 
authority of St. Thomasffor his view, these are likewise 
positive in asserting that their view may be gleaned from 
the writings of the Angelic Doctor. We may quote the 
words of Mazzella in elucidation of their view : 

That must be the formal object of hope into which the act 
of hope is resolved in its ultimate analysis. To the question, 
why do you desire God ? we reply, because He is good to us ; 
to the question, why do you hope to attain to God ? we reply, 
because God, who is omnipotent, merciful, and faithful, promised 

Hence they admit that hope implies in its very con- 
ception, the reliance on the person whose assistance makes 
the desired object possible. Nevertheless it cannot be 
accepted any more than the theory of Suarez. It leaves 
the door open for the admission of a fourth theological 
virtue, divine concupiscence. Again, it is altogether 
unscientific : in the whole range of moral science, no such 
combination of motives is set down as the formal object 
of any one virtue, as each motive is of itself sufficient to 
constitute a virtue. It mixes up the act of desire and the 
act of hope, the material and the formal objects. Hence 
it cannot be admitted as the true solution of the difficulty. 

A few theologians have taken the mercy of God alone 


as the distinguishing motive of hope, others again, such 
as Juenin, took the fidelity of God to His promises. We 
have throughout understood St. Thomas to include but 
one attribute of God in the phrase which he uses to 
designate his opinion, and that attribute is the divine 
omnipotence. The exercise of the latter attribute pre- 
supposes an act of mercy on the part of God, and likewise 
a fidelity to His promises ; but we regard this exercise of 
clemency and faithfulness as preliminaries to the bestowal 
of help and grace. And in like manner we are led by the 
consideration of His boundless mercy and unfailing ad- 
herence to His word to place all our hope and reliance on 
the limitless resources of His power. Hence I conclude 
this weary paper by holding that the sole constituent of 
the formal object of hope is the omnipotence of God. 


[ 153 


HIS many friends and admirers will be consoled to know 
that the late Lord Randolph Churchill has left be- 
hind him a son who has already proved himself 
worthy of his father. Mr. Winston Churchill had impressed 
the public imagination with his pluck and daring before 
he took to literature his latest work, the life of his father, 
is an acknowledged masterpiece in the department of 
letters, his election honours are now thick upon him, and 
all the indications go to foretell for him a career more com- 
plete and not less brilliant than that of his father. It 
was one of the soft traits of this father's character that he 
reverenced his own father, the seventh Duke of Marlborough, 
and it will not be his gifted son's least glory that he spent 
three and a half years in compiling the present work, 
than which no more fitting or enduring monument could 
be erected to the memory of Lord Randolph Churchill. 
It is a book that appeals to all classes of readers A 
consistent, graphic, and at times thrilling narrative of a 
chequered and tragic life ; it is at the same tune a lucid 
summary of ten years' political history (1880-90) told for 
the most part in original documents, many of these the 
private letters of one cabinet minister to another, and 
written at times when burning questions and sharp con- 
troversies agitated all classes of society in the United 
Kingdom. Lord Randolph, it appears, had a habit of 
keeping all his letters, and the writer had access to all 
his father's papers which filled ' eleven considerable tin 
boxes.' Where memoranda and chatty letters do not 
speak, the story loses nothing in the hands of the author 
who had mastered his subject, who has inherited his 
father's courage and sympathies, and who has the power, 
in a high degree, of translating his thoughts and impres- 
sions into flowing, musical, and unencumbered prose. One 

1 Lord Randolph Churchill. By Winston Spencer Churchill, M.P. 


impression, above all others, which the reader will carry 
away from the perusal of these two volumes is that with 
all his waywardness, and all his violence, Lord Randolph 
Churchill possessed qualities of character which should 
protect his name from oblivion, viz., sympathy with the 
oppressed, courage to trample on the prejudices of his 
class, courage to speak his mind, political sagacity and 
steadfastness in unselfish friendships. He was the exact 
opposite of the prudent politician. He could on an occasion 
look out for an * ace of trumps ' in the game of politics, 
but the reader of these volumes cannot fail to be con- 
vinced that ill-starred as was his political career, his 
politics were, on the whole," consistent and sincere, and 
deserved a better fate. 


In English political history, Lord Randolph Churchill 
will be associated more than any other of his contemporaries 
with the conception and propaganda of Tory democracy. 
How a * proud sprig of the nobility ' came to sympathise 
with the masses may, to some extent, be explained by the 
following passage : 

But in the year 1876, an event happened which altered, 
darkened, and strengthened his whole life and character. 
Engaging in his brother's quarrels, with fierce and reckless 
partisanship, Lord Randolph incurred the deep displeasure 
of a great personage. The fashionable world no longer smiled. 
Powerful enemies were anxious to humiliate him. His own 
sensitiveness and pride magnified every coldness into an affront. 
London became odious to him. The breach was not repaired 
for more thanjeight years, and in the interval, a nature originally 
genial and gay, contracted a stern and bitter quality, a harsh 
contempt for what is called ' society,' and an abiding antagonism 
to rank and authority. If this misfortune produced in Lord 
Randolph characteristics which afterwards hindered or injured 
his public work, it was also his spur. Without it he might 
have wasted a dozen years in the frivolous and expensive pursuits 
of the silly world of fashion ; without it he would probably 
never have developed popular sympathies or the courage to 
champion democratic causes. 1 

1 Vol. i., p. 74. 


When this event happened he was twenty-seven years 
of age. He had passed through Eton without distinction, 
had got his degree in Oxford in 1870 with second class 
honours, was M.P. for Woodstock since 1874, which was 
also the year of his marriage. * But for the recurring 
ailments to which his delicate constitution was subject, 
and the want of money which so often teases a young 
married couple, his horizon had been without a cloud, 
his career without a care,' until the event of 1876. His 
residence in Ireland during the next four years, where his 
father was Lord Lieutenant, was, perhaps, the next factor 
in nurturing his democratic sympathies. 

Before Lord Randolph had been many months in Ireland, 
he began to form strong opinions of his own on Irish questions, 
and to take a keen interest in politics ... At Howth, 
and in Fitzgibbon's company, he met all that was best in the 
Dublin world. ... He became very friendly with Mr. 
Butt, who, with Father Healy, often dined at the little 
lodge, and laboured genially to convert Lady Randolph to 
Home Rule. Indeed he saw a great deal more of Nationalist 
politicans than his elders thought prudent or proper. 1 

He was [writes Fitzgibbon] always on the move. He had 
the reputation of an Enfant terrible. Before long he had been 
in Donegal, in Connemara, and all over the place, ' Hail 
fellow, well met ' with everybody, except the aristocrats and 
the old Tories ; for he showed symptoms of independence of 
view, and of likings for the company of ' the boys,' which led 
to some friction with the staunch Conservatives and strong 
Protestants who regarded themselves as the salt of the earth. 8 

The popular trend of his sympathies was expressed 
for the first time at Woodstock in 1877, in a speech which 
gave great scandal to the Tories, and for which his father 
could allege no excuse except that Randolph 'must either 
be mad or have been singularly affected with local 
champagne or claret.' 

I have no hesitation [he said on that occasion] in saying 
that it is inattention to Irish legislation that has produced 
obstruction. . . . England had years of wrong, years of 
crime, years of tyranny, years of oppression, years of general 
misgovernment to make amends for in Ireland. The Act of 

i Vol. i., p. 82. Vol. i., p. 79. 


Union was passed, and in the passing of it all the arsenal of 
political corruption and chicanery was exhausted, to inaugu- 
rate a series of remedial and healing measures ; and if that Act 
had not been productive of these effects, it would be entitled 
to be unequivocally condemned by history, and would, perhaps, 
be repealed by posterity. 1 

The man who held these and kindred views, and had the 
courage to express them, was bound to come into collision 
with the old school of Toryism. And except this man 
had rare power of character, he would simply be brushed 
aside or driven into the opposite camp. Well, Lord 
Randolph Churchill was not the man to be brushed aside 
or to be driven to anything. With magnificent courage 
he stuck to his views. He was as free from reverence for 
his elders as he was from fear of their frowns. Around 
him grew the famous Fourth Party, making four in all 
who sat below the gangway in Parliament in the early- 
Eighties, and were as much a source of irritation to the 
opposition as they were to the Government. The man 
1 with the fierce moustache and note of interrogation 
head* soon became a power in Parliament and in the 
country. He developed the faculty of speech direct, 
cutting, clear, epigramatic speech. He spared no man 
in his political wrath. Age, reputation, position, blood 
had no glamour for him. He became so popular with the 
masses that his party were obliged *o come to terms with 
him, and in 1885 he entered Lord Salisbury's Cabinet as 
Secretary for India. His one bond with the Conservative 
party, besides the tie of sentiment, was his opposition to 
Home Rule. It is hard to understand how a man who 
sympathized with Arabi Pasha, with the Boers, and with 
the Hellenic nationalities, could refuse political inde- 
pendence to one of the oldest nationalities in Europe ; 
but with this exception, and in particular, that of his 
Ulster campaign against Home Rule, there are few things 
in his political career which do not hang together as a 
logical, consistent, and enlightened course of action. By 
his fearless advocacy of liberal doctrines -local govern- 

1 Vol. i., p. 91. 


ment, parliamentary reform, peace and economy he won 
for the Conservative Party that democratic support 
without which it was bound to drift out of existence. His 
programme was to rally the masses (under the banner of 
Tory democracy) around the Throne, the Church, and the 
Conservative Party. Time has justified the wisdom of 
his policy. It is not, I think, too much to say, that his 
untimely disappearance from the arena of English politics 
was a national disaster, for had he remained there since, 
it is likely that England would have been spared the 
humiliation of the Boer War,, and that the Conservative 
Party would have added to, the Statute Book a more 
liberal English Education Act, and also a satisfactory 
measure dealing with the Irish University question. 


His political career, however, was in sad contrast with 
the amplitude and consistency of his political programme : 

How men may for a time prosper continually, whatever 
they do, and then for a time fail continually whatever they do, 
is a^theme in support of which history and romance supply 
innumerable examples. This chapter marks such a change 
in the character of the story I have to tell. Hitherto the life 
of Lord Randolph Churchill has been attended by almost 
unvarying success. His most powerful enemies had become 
his friends. His instinct when to strike and when to stay 
was unerring. Fortune seemed to shape circumstances to his 
moods. The forces which should have controlled him became 
obedient to his service. The frames of age and authority 
melted at his advance, and rebuke and envy pursued him idly. 
All this was now to be changed. During the rest of his public 
life, he encountered nothing but disappointment and failure. 
First, while his health lasted, the political situation was so 
unfavourable, that, although his talents shone all the brighter, 
he could effect nothing. Then when circumstances offered 
again a promising aspect, the physical apparatus broke down. 
When he had the strength, ^he had not the ^opportunity. When 
opportunity returned, strength had fled. So that at first, by 
sensible gradations, his political influence steadily diminished; 
and afterwards, by a more rapid progress, he declined to disease 
and death. 1 

This passage traces graphically the comet-like pall 

1 Vol. ii., p. 29^. 


of his political fortune. He entered Parliament in '74. 
He made the Woodstock speech in '77. In 1881 the 
Times and the Morning Post were reporting his speeches 
verbatim, while Ministers and ex-Ministers had to be content 
with reading mutilated outlines of their utterances. In 
1882, he had become the most popular speaker on the 
Opposition side of the House of Commons. When Lord 
Salisbury formed ' the Ministry of Caretakers ' in 1885, 
he entered the Cabinet as Secretary for India, and when 
the same Prime Minister returned to power in 1886, Lord 
Randolph Churchill became Chancellor of the Exchequer 
and Leader of the House of Commons. Now begins the 
backward course. * He was a Chancellor of the Exchequer 
without a budget, a Leader of the House of Commons 
but for a single session, a victor without the spoils.* It 
would seem that they were the same forces which directed 
his forward and backward course. ' He contained in his 
nature and in his policy all the "["elements necessary to 
ruin and success.' Lord Randolph was possessed of a 
' stormy and rebellious nature.' When Secretary for India 
he tendered his resignation because the Queen communi- 
cated privately with the Viceroy of India on a matter 
in which he thought he should have been consulted ; but 
the affair about which the communication was made was 
settled to his satisfaction, and there the matter ended. 
Feeling his obligation now as Chancellor of the Exchequer 
to be true to the programme of policy enunciated in his 
published speeches, he set about insisting in the Cabinet 
on a reduction in the proposed estimates for the Army 
and Navy. The Cabinet, however, held out against him, 
and on the morning of 23rd December, 1886, the public 
were ' startled to read in the Times the announcement 
that Lord Randolph Churchill had resigned the offices of 
Chancellor of the Exchequer and Leader of the House of 
Commons, and had retired altogether from the Govern- 

A fraction of the common-stock political prudence would 
have induced Lord Randolph to give way on what was 
in itself a small point. In that case he might long continue 


to exercise a potent influence in the chief council of "the 
empire, and would, perhaps, trace out for himself an orbit 
as wide and symetrical as that of Gladstone ; but prudence 
was no part of his composition. He was in the habit of 
railing one of his prudent colleagues ' old tutissimus.' 
It was by what the world would call imprudence that he 
attained one of the most coveted prizes that can fall to the 
lot of a politician, and now by what the same world would 
acclaim an act of imprudence, he allowed it to slip from 
his fingers. Was it not merely a question of reducing 
millions by some thousands ? But it was not, it seems, 
altogether an inability on his part to be accommodating j 
Behind the small issue in which he refused to yield, there 
was, we are told, radical divergence of view from his 
chief in matters of general policy. 

^ The action of Lord Randolph in resigning the office he 
held in such a manner, and on such an occasion, has two aspects 
a smaller and a larger. Both are partly true : neither by 
itself is comprehensive. The smaller aspect is that of a proud, 
sincere, over-strained man, conceiving himself bound to fight 
certain issues, at whatever cost to himself believing at each 
moment that victory would be won,^and drawn by every 
movement further into a position from which he could not or 
would not retreat. The larger aspect deserves somewhat 
longer consideration. The differences between the Chancellor 
of the ^ Exchequer and his colleagues were matters of detail. 
. . . The difference between the Leader of the House of 
Commons and the Prime Minister was fundamental. . . . 
It was a difference of belief of character, of aspiration and 
by nothing could it ever have been adjusted. There were many 
considerations and influences which worked powerfully for 
their agreement. . . . But the gulf which separated the 
fiery leader of Tory democracy with his bold plans of reform 
and dreams of change . . . from the old-fashioned con- 
servative statesman, the head of a High Church and high Tory 
family, versed in diplomacy . . . was a gulf, no mutual 
needs, no common interests, no personal likings could per- 
manently bridge. They represented schools of political 
philosophy. . . . Sooner or later the breach must here 
come. 1 

Whether he was wise or not in resigning it is anyhow 

1 Vol., p. ii. 240. 


his son's view, that having resigned he did the wrong 
thing in not fighting ' on the large ground of the unsatisfied 
aspirations of Tory democracy ' : 

Two courses therefore presented themselves at the outset : 
either to fight on the large ground of the unsatisfied aspirations 
of Tory democracy . . . or on the smaller ground of the 
Estimates. The first involved a downright assault upon the 
Conservative Government, an irreparable breach with its leaders. 
. . . The second whittled the difference down to a question 
of not very important figures. . . . The one promised a 
chance of successful strife, the other offered a prospect of re- 
conciliation. . . . But in all respects save one, the first 
was the path of courage, of consistency and perhaps of prudence 
also. It suited his nature. It freed his hands. It justified 
and explained his action in a manner which the people could 
easily understand. ' I fondly hoped to make the Conservative 
party the instrument of Tory democracy. It was a idle, an 
idle schoolboy's dream. I must look elsewhere.' No doubt 
that was the road to tread. It might have ended in Liberalism ; 
but from that he would not at a later date have shrunk. 1 

Had he joined the Liberals he would only have done 
what Gladstone before him did, and clearly in this direction 
lay the star of his political hope. Had he done so, and 
had he been blessed with the usual span of life, it is not 
difficult to imagine what might now be his place in public 
life. But remaining as he did a Conservative, he could 
not but feel keenly the loss of place and influence which 
were the co-natural term of his hitherto brilliant career. 
Such a sacrifice without a compensating reward was more 
than even his strangely rugged nature could well bear, 
and though he worked on, and worked effectively within 
the party when he was not travelling abroad, the oppor- 
tunity of asserting his natural position did not return 
until his health was completely shattered. He died on 
January 24th, 1894, at the early age of forty-five, only 
too well illustrating the motto of his house, Fiel pero 


Irishmen will find very much to interest them in these 
two volumes. Reference has already been made to Lord 

1 Vol. ii., p. 279. 


Randolph's attitude towards Home Rule. It would seem 
that at least one of the grounds of his objection to repeal 
of the Union was the loss the House of Commons would 
sustain by the absence of the Irish members : 

He could not vote for Home Rule [he said in the Woodstock 
speech of '77] because without the Irish members more than 
one-third of the life and soul of the House of Commons would 
be lost. 'Who is it but the Irish whose eloquence so often 
commands our admiration, whose irresistible humour compels 
our laughter, whose fiery outbursts provoke our passions. 
Banish them and the House of Commons composed only of 
Englishmen and Scotchmen would sink to the condition of a 
vestry.' 1 

If he remained in a Coercion Cabinet, Coercion was 
certainly not agreeable to him, and if he played what he 
calls the ' ace of trumps ' in exciting Ulster to fight against 
Home Rule, he did much otherwise to atone for what was 
certainly a grave fault. When the Reform Bill was going 
through Committee in 1884, Mr. Brodrick moved to omit 
Ireland from the scope of the new franchise, and in support- 
ing this motion, recourse was had to an argument first 
advanced by Mr. W. H. Smith, member for Westminster, 
who had asked if Irish peasants who lived in mud cabins 
should be entrusted with a vote. Lord Randolph begged 
Mr. Brodrick to withdraw his amendment, and in the 
course of his speech replied to the ' mud-cabin ' argument 
so effectively, that it was never heard of afterwards. He 
was friendly towards Irish members when it was the fashion 
to scowl at them as rebels. It was through his active 
co-operation with Lord Justice Fitzgibbon, Mr. Sexton, 
and Mr. Healy that the Irish Educational Endownments 
Bill was rushed through Parliament in the last week of 
its term in 1885. 

He was a consistent, generous, and zealous advocate 
of the claims of Ireland to a Catholic University, not 
altogether it appears from love of Ireland, but also because 
it was good English policy. Here is a plan of ' University 

1 Vol. i., p. 90. 


(Ireland) Education ' which he submitted to Lord Salisbury 
as part of the Tory programme for the Parliament '86 : 

1. The transference of Cork College to a Catholic Board 
of Management. 

2. The endowment of the Catholic University College in 

$3. The establishment of a Catholic College in Armagh. 
4. The transference of the Belfast College to a Presbyterian 
Board of Management. 

On November 2ist, 1887, he wrote to Lord Justice 
Fitzgibbon : ' I will assent to and assume parliamentary 
responsibility for any scheme which you and the Arch- 
bishop can agree upon,' and on July i4th, 1888, he writes 
to him again : ' I wish very much we could meet the 
Archbishop's views.' Had he remained in the Cabinet 
he might have been instrumental in remedying a crying 
and calamitous grievance which still remains unredressed. 
but as it was, his views and sympathies were without 
tangible issue. He must be also credited with a desire 
to do justice to the Christian Brothers. As late as 
November, 1892, he wrote to Lord Justice Fitzgibbon : 

I hope John|Morley will make a final adjustment of the 
grievances of those poor Christian Brothers. If I can usefully 
make any representations to him, instruct me. We have always 
been very good friends. 

His speech during the debate in the House of Commons 
in March, 1890, on the report of the Parnell Commission, 
was one of the many sensations of the time. It is 
graphically described here even to the incident of the 
glass of water : 

At length he began to speak louder. ' The procedure which 
we are called) upon to stamp to night is a procedure which 
would undoubtedly have been gladly resorted to by the Tudors 
and their judges. It is a procedure of an arbitrary and 
tyrannical character, used against individuals who are political 
opponents of the Government of the day, procedure such as 
Parliament has for generations struggled against and resisted. 
. . . It is a procedure such as would have startled even Lord 
Eldon ; it is a procedure such as Lords Lyndhurst and Brougham 
would have protested against. . . . But a Nemesis awaits 
a Government that adopts unconstitutional methods. What,' 


he asked, ' has been the result of this uprootal of constitutional 
practice ? What has been the one result ? ' Then in a fierce 
whisper, hissing through the^ House, ' Pigott ! ' then in an 
outburst of uncontrollable passion and disgust ' a man, a 
thing, a reptile, a monster Pigott ! ' then again, with a pause 
at which the house shuddered, ' Pigott ! Pigott ! Pigott ! n 

No wonder that after this passionate outburst he was 
denounced by the Conservative Press once more perhaps 
now for the twentieth time as a traitor ; so that the 
contention of the author may be admitted, that notwith- 
standing his attitude towards Gladstonian Home Rule, 
* Ireland was a loser by his downfall.' 


Great as is the political interest attaching to this brilliant 
work, the portraiture of the man is perhaps its most 
fascinating feature. Lord Randolph was a unique and 
picturesque character. Reserved and haughty with 
strangers, particularly with snobs, he was ' merry, frank, 
and cheerful ' with his friends. If he called eminent 
personages hard names in political warfare, he could atone 
for this fault by the ' old-fashioned courtliness of his 
manners ' in society. 

* He was the most courtly man I ever met,' observed Mr. 
Gladstone in later years to Mr. Morley. At one dinner at Brook 
House, Mr. Gladstone had talked with great vivacity and freedom, 
and held everyone breathless. ' And that/ said Lord Randolph 
to a Liberal Unionist friend as /they walked out of the room 
together, ' that is the man you have left ? How could you 
have done it ? ' 2 

A wit himself and brilliant conversationalist, he was 
most at home in the society of clever unconventional people. 
When exhausted one time from his labours, he wrote to 
his friend Lord Justice Fitzgibbon : ' Many thanks for your 
letter and telegram. My complete physical restoration 
depends on an evening with Father James Healy.' He 
was capable of forming sudden, strong, and enduring 
friendships. One of these was with Viscount Landaff , then 
Mr. Mathews, a Catholic barrister whom he got appointed 

1 Vol. ii., p. 416. * Vol. ii., p. 433. 


Home Secretary in 1886. Such an unusual appointment 
called forth a strong protest ' against the elevation of 
Roman Catholics to positions of power,' on the grounds of 
danger to the State, from the Scottish Protestant Alliance. 
This was the Chancellor of the Exchequer's immediate 
reply to the Secretary of *he Association : 


WHITEHALL, September g. 

I beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter enclosing a 
copy of a resolution passed by the Directors of the Scottish 
Protestant Alliance, and, in reply, to remark that I observe 
with astonishment and regret, that in this age of enlighten- 
ment and general toleration, persons professing to be educated 
and intelligent can arrive at conclusions so senseless and 
irrational as these which are set forth in the aforesaid resolution. 

I am, Sir, 

Yours faithfully, 


He was unaffected, reckless, and brilliant in his private 
letters as he was in his conversation. In fact his freedom 
and piquancy of speech were nowhere so unrestrained, 
so much so, that the author found himself obliged to make 
a selection for the present publication. 

His letters from abroad contain graphic and humorous 
descriptions of his experiences and impressions. He 
travelled in India, Egypt, South Africa, Russia, Germany, 
France, Norway, and descriptions of his interviews and 
feastings with such men as the Czar of Russia and Bismarck 
are written in the same free off-hand way as are his accounts 
of tiger hunts in India, and lion hunts in South Africa. 
But his private life was not all enjoyment. Nervous 
irritability, fits of despondency, disgust with politics, above 
all the shadow of approaching death supply the sombre 
tints. Altogether he was a man whom his enemies must 
forgive for his noble qualities, and whose claim to a 
cherished place in the memory of his generation no one 
will dispute. 


[ 165 I 



THE Dublin Review has got a new editor, and put on a new 
suit. I do not very much admire the cut and make up of the 
latter ; but I do admire the work of the editor. Mr. Wilfrid 
Ward is one of the ablest and most judicious of Catholic apo- 
logists at the present day, and his accession to the editorship 
of the Dublin Review will be warmly welcomed in all English- 
speaking countries. Conservative without being reactionary, 
progressive without being disloyal, he is a man in whom 
Catholics can have the fullest confidence, and readily acknowledge 
as one of their spokesmen. Of course the Church gives carte 
blanche to nobody, lay or cleric ; but in anything that Mr. Ward 
has written, even in those directions in which he has gone farthest 
in concession, there is a singular absence of that disposition to 
indulge in fads, novelties, harsh criticism, and proofs of inde- 
pendence which make much of the work, otherwise in many 
respects valuable, of some of his Catholic countrymen, so 

In the present number I suppose the unsigned articles on 
' St. Thomas Aquinas,' on ' The Destroyed Letters,' and on 
' The Functions of Prejudice,' may be attributed to the editor. 
They are all valuable. The opening article is a good com- 
mentary on Father Rickaby's recent translation, and is an 
implied declaration of policy to which anyone might subscribe. 
The article on the ' Destroyed Letters ' contains a very welcome 
announcement, and vindicates Cardinal Manning from some 
of the ugliest aspersions cast upon him by Mr. Gladstone and 
Mr. Purcell. Lord Llandaff describes his election for Dun- 
garvan in 1868, and shows a much more kindly feeling towards 
Ireland and Irishmen than his attitude towards them when 
he was in power in the Tory Government would lead one to 

I should not fail to welcome the valuable contribution of 
Professor Phillimore on ' Leonidas of Tarentum.' I trust the 
Editor will cultivate this contributor and others like him. One 
such article is worth a dozen treatises on generalities. Most 
attractive and readable also is Dom Gasquet's paper on his 


' Impressions of America.' Father Thurston's archaeological 
paper on the ' Praetorium ' is valuable for Scriptural students ; 
whilst the article on ' The Letters of St. Catherine of Siena ' 
cannot fail to stimulate interest in a subject of which more is 
sure to be heard. Altogether I can congratulate the readers 
of the Dublin Review, as well as its new Editor. 


Kurschner's Jahrbuch for 1906 gives an interesting table 
showing the propertion of married men and women per 1,000 
of the population, in various European countries. Only those 
above fifteen years of age are reckoned. 


Germany . . . . . . 547 

Austria . . . . . . . . 535 

Italy 548 

France . . . . . . . . 551 

Belgium . . 507 

Holland . . . . . . . . 516 

Switzerland . . . . . . 487 

England and Wales . . . . 536 

Scotland . . . . . . . . 477 

Ireland . . . . . . . . 382 

Ireland has the lowest proportion per thousand of married 
men and women, of all the countries given, and although she has 
a fair proportion of widows and widowers (58 men and 132 
women) still she has by far the highest proportion of unmarried 
adults, viz., 559-3 men and 496-6 women. 


IN the same German Official Directory, I find that in the 
Imperial Parliament of the German Empire the Reichstag 
which is composed of 397 members, there are no less than twenty- 
one Catholic priests, the most prominent of whom are Dr. 
Hitze, Professor at the University of Miinster ; Father Dasbach, 
of Treves ; Provost von Jadsweski, of Schroda in Prussian 
Poland ; Archpriest Frank, of Ratibor ; Father Delsor, of 
Alsace ; Dean Schaedler, of Bamberg ; Canon Pischler, of 
Passau ; Mgr. Lender of Baden ; Father Leser. of Ravensburg, 
etc., etc. 

In the Upper Chamber of the Kingdom of Prussia there are 


two Bishops, Cardinal Kopp and Mgr. Jacobi, Bishop of Hilde- 
sheim ; and in the Lower Chamber there are twelve priests. 
In the Grand Duchy of Baden the Archbishop of Freiburg is 
ex officio member of the Upper Chamber. In the Grand Duchy 
of Hesse the Bishop of Mayence and in the Kingdom of Saxony 
the Vicar Apostolic of Dresden enjoy a similar privilege. In 
Bavaria, the Archbishops of Munich and Bamberg and the 
Bishop of Passau have seats in the Upper House, and nine 
priests are members of the Lower House. 

In Wurtemburg there is a peculiar constitution. The Upper 
House consisting of 31 territorial magnates. The Lower House 
is made up of 93 members, 63 of whom are elected, and 20 
nominated by the Crown, or [hold their position ex officio. 
Amongst the latter the Bishop of Rotenburg and two other 
dignitaries of the Catholic Church are always included ; but 
there are other priests elected in Wurtemburg. 

In Austria, there are in the Upper Chamber, ' Herrnhaus,' 
at Vienna, six Cardinals, six Archbishops, six Prince-Bishops, 
and several Abbots. In the Upper House of Hungary, the 
' House of Magnates,' as it is called, there are ten or twelve 
Bishops, and several abbots and prelates. 

In Ireland, a priest, bishop, or even Cardinal, could not be 
a member of a District Council. Quite recently a great de- 
monstration took place at Armagh, because the local clergy 
were allowed to vote at municipal and parliamentary elections. 
And yet Ireland is a priest-ridden country, and we live under 
the most liberal and well-disposed government in the world ! 
And when anything has to be done to improve the condition 
of the people, the question is asked, ' Why don't the priests 
do it ? ' 


MR. HERBERT PAUL, who has recently been returned again 
to Parliament, describes in the first volume of his History of 
Modern England the efforts made by Lord Palmerston, in 1848, 
to establish diplomatic relations with the Vatican : 

' On the iyth of Februray, 1848, nine months earlier than 
the flight of the Pope, Lord Lansdowne moved in the House of 
Lords the second reading of a|Bill for authorizing diplomatic 
relations with the Court of Rome. This was really^Palmerston's 
Bill, and indeed* thejvhole of his foreignfpolicyiwas played, as 


he himself put it, off his own bat. The Bill was the direct result 
of Lord Minto's singular mission to Italy in 1847, and on principle 
it was difficult to oppose. The Pope was a temporal sovereign, 
and five-sixths of the Irish people owned him as their spiritual 
head. Some lawyers thought that the Queen might, without 
statutory authority, appoint an envoy to Rome, and receive 
an ambassador from the Pope. But the balance of opinion was 
the other way, and it was considered safer to proceed by legis- 
lation. The principle of the measure was supported by Lord 
Stanley, the Duke of Wellington, and Bishop Thirlwall. Its 
only prominent antagonist was Bishop Philpotts of Exeter, 
a militant churchman of the fiercest type, who inspired awe 
without inspiring esteem. No worse charge was ever made 
against " Harry of Exeter " than that he had supported 
Catholic Emancipation to get a bishopric from the Duke. But 
in controversy he did not always display a Christian temper, 
and he seemed to be rather orthodox than pious. Bishop 
Thirlwall's philosophic intellect almost always took a states- 
manlike view of political questions, and Lord Stanley, having 
been Chief Secretary for Ireland, knew the value of a good 
understanding with the Vatican. Although the Bill was read 
a second time by the Peers without a division, a curious mis- 
hap befell it in committee, which ultimately rendered it useless 
for all practical purposes. Lord Eglinton, whose name is 
known in fields more attractive than politics, carried by a 
majority of three votes an amendment providing that the 
Papal representative at the Court of St. James should not be 
a priest. The Bill was read a second time in the House of 
Commons, on the lyth, by a majority of 79, and Mr. Gladstone 
spoke in support of it. But the Pope declined to send a layman 
to represent him, and it became a dead letter. Mr. Disraeli, 
who was perhaps the best Leader of the Opposition the House of 
Commons has ever seen, took the opportunity of commenting 
on Lord Minto's roving errand " to teach politics in the country 
in which Machiavelli was born " ' (Vol. i., pp. 102-103). 

Lord Edmund Fitzmaurice, in his Life of Lord Granville 
(Vol. ii., pp. 281-282), gives the following historical account of 
the same project : 

' The attempt to enter into diplomatic relations with Rome 
has had a chequered history. The memories associated with 
the Earl of Castlemaine's embassy to Rome in 1687 were still 
profoundly cherished by every Irish Protestant the mission 
which Bishop Burnet had denounced as " high treason by law " 
and had even made Lord Chancellor Jeffreys " uneasy." It 
had ended in the Earl of Castlemaine being tried on the capital 


charge " for going as an ambassador to Rome," and he was sent 
to the Tower, although he pleaded that " he did not go to Rome 
for any religious purpose, but only to show courtesy to a tem- 
poral prince. and for a secular purpose." From that time 
nothing more was heard of embassies to Rome till 1848, when 
it was thought that a more open procedure might be safest to 
follow after all. 

' In that year a Bill was introduced in the House of Lords 
to enable Her Majesty to open and carry on diplomatic relations 
' with the Court of Rome," and this Bill ultimately became law, 
but subject to an alteration which, curiously enough, eventually 
proved fatal to it. On the motion of the Bishop of Winchester, 
in the House of Lords, the words " Sovereign of the Roman 
States " were substituted in the Bill for the words just quoted, 
and in consequence when, in October, 1870, the Bishop of 
Rome ceased to be " Sovereign of the Roman States," the 
Statute Law Revision Committee considered themselves justified 
in proposing the repeal of the Act as obsolete, and succeeded 
in the attempt. 

' The Act was enabling only, and while it was on the Statute 
Book from which it was so soon to disappear, no public appoint- 
ment was made under its terms ; but the practice grew up of 
allowing a Secretary of Legation, nominally appointed to the 
Grand Ducal Court of Tuscany, to reside at Rome, where he 
was regarded as de facto Minister to the Vatican, but was always 
prepared to assert that, like the Earl of Castlemaine, he was 
there for secular purposes only ; and even this arrangement 
came to an end when Mr. Jervoise was withdrawn from Rome 
by Lord Derby, and no other appointment made.' 


SOME months ago I received the following post card : 


' July i$th. 

' I take the liberty to send you"a r copy of Father Wyman's 
Certainty in Religion. You may deem it worthy of being called 
to the attention of the readers of the IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL 

' Very respectfully yours, 

' T. J. CAPEL.' 

This is the well-known Mgr. Capel, whom Disraeli introduced 
as Mgr. Catesby into his famous novel Lothair. In the same 
work, Cardinal Manning appeared as Cardinal Grandison. Both 
were indefatigable, according to the old politician, in their 


efforts to propagate Catholicism in society as well as inljthe 
intellectual world. Irish priests will be glad to hear that Mgr. 
Capel is still flourishing under the favourable sky of California. 
The author of the little volume about which Mgr. Capel 
writes, is a convert ; and that indicates that the zeal of the 
' Apostle of the genteel,' as he used to be called, is not yet dead. 
Father Wyman is a Paulist and, like all the members of the 
New York Community, a learned and zealous man. There is 
nothing new in his book (New York : Columbus Press), but old 
arguments are presented in a new and fascinating style. This 
is particularly the case in the part of the book that deals with 
the theory of knowledge, and with the prophecies and their 


THE great awakening in the intellectual life of Ireland finds its 
latest expression in the Irish Theological Quarterly, the success 
of which has already surpassed the most sanguine expectations 
of its promoters. For many years I have found it difficult to 
accommodate as speedily and as fully as I could wish the nu- 
merous contributors who sought a share of the space at my 
disposal, and I am heartily glad that they have found another 
and most valuable outlet for their activity ; the more so, as I 
have every reason to believe that the I. E. RECORD will not in 
any way be deprived of the co-operation of those who have 
undertaken this new enterprise. 

The principle underlying Dr. McDonald's opening article 
is one with which I have always had much sympathy, that 
men must be taken as they are, in their concrete, and the truths 
of religion brought home to them in such form as is most likely 
to reach them and influence them. This by no means implies 
a rejection of the old arguments, or an admission of their in- 
validity. It is, in many respects, rather an application of old 
arguments and of what is older and better than all arguments, 
reason itself, to the difficulties and troubles of those who are 
seeking to solve the riddle of their lives. If Mr. Mallock, and 
people who think with him, refuse to find any help in the origin 
of life, or in the moral argument, or in the dissipation of energy, 
it is no harm at least to try the effect upon them of a closer 
study of the origin of Free Will and of Universal Ideas. Whether 
the result will be more satisfactory who can tell ? 


In his paper on ' Socialism ' there seems to me to be great 
force in what he says about the ' accumulated stores ' that 
are the common heritage of all men, and for which all men have 
a perfect right to exact the fair and full value. On the other 
hand it is a source of satisfaction to see him remind his readers of 
democratic sympathies that, as it is ' unwise to put limits to 
the march of a nation/ it is equally impolitic to put chains on 
individual endeavour and weight it down with impossible 

Wealth confers benefits second only to those of labour itself. 

' If it offends some [says M. Thiers 1 ], it excites others, 
encourages, animates, sustains them ; and society finds in it 
so many advantages for the generality of its members that it 
ignores the grumbling and discontent of the few. After all, 
manual labour is not the only kind of labour. You must also 
have men to apply the compass to paper, to study the move- 
ments of the stars, to teach us how to cross the seas. You must 
have men to study the annals and the efforts of other nations, 
to discover the cause of the prosperity and decay of empires, 
and to teach us how to rule. It is not the man who from day to 
day remains bent over his machine, or over the soil, who will 
have leisure for such pursuits. You may indeed find a peasant 
who will one day turn out to be the great Sforza, or a com- 
positor in a printing-house to become Benjamin Franklin. But 
these exceptions are rare. It is rather the sons of the toiler, 
raised above their condition by a laborious father, who will 
mount the steps of the social ladder and reach the sublime 
heights of thought. 

* The father was a peasant, a workman, a sailor. The son 
will be a farmer, a manufacturer, the captain of a ship. The 
grandson will be a banker, a surgeon, a barrister, perhaps one 
day head of the State. . . . Thus the human vegetation operates, 
and little by little is formed the wealthy class of society, which 
is called idle but is not so ; for the work of the mind is value 
for that of the hands, and must ever succeed it if society is not 
to return to barbarism. I recognize that amongst these rich 
people there will be some, unworthy sons of wise fathers, who 
will spend their days at the gaming-table and their nights at 
pleasure, who will become stupid with drink, dissipating in 
idleness and debauchery their youth, their health, and their 
fortune. That is all true. But they will soon enough be pun- 
ished. Their career blighted before its time, their fortune lost, 
they will wander sad, disfigured, and poor, before those palaces 
which their fathers had built and which now must pass into 

1 La Propriety, p. 66. 


the possession of wiser and better men. In a generation you 
see labour rewarded in the father and idleness punished in the 
son. O Envy, implacable envy, art thou not satisfied ? 

' But are all the children of the rich of this description ? It is 
true that they do not dig, nor spin, nor wield the hammer in the 
forge. But, do they not read, study, teach, discover, govern ? 
If it is not the rich man who always makes the discoveries that 
contribute to our welfare, it is he sometimes. It is he who 
encourages them. It is he who contributes to form the learned 
public for whom the modest savant labours. It is he who has 
large libraries, who reads Sophocles, Virgil, Dante, Galileo, 
Descartes, Bossuet, Moliere, Racine, Montesquieu. If it is not 
he, it is at his house, around him, near him, that they are read, 
criticized, appreciated, and that you find that enlightened, 
polished society, with fine taste and trained judgment, for which 
genius writes, sings, and paints. Sometimes he will not be satis- 
fied with admiring the works of eminent minds ; he will produce 
some of his own. He will be the rich Sallust, the rich Seneca, 
the rich Montaigne, the rich Buffon, the rich Lavoisier, the 
rich De Medici, founders of that republic which was most fruitful 
in riches and in art, which gave to the world Dante, Petrarch, 
Boccaccio, Machiavelli, Galileo, Ghiberti, Brunelleschi, Dona- 
tello, Poggio, Politiano, Leonardo da Vinci, and Michelangelo.' 

These are certainly considerations which must not be left 
out of calculation in endeavouring to fix the boundaries of social 
rights. If the natural incentive to work is removed, the work 
is sure to fail. 

The most important part of Dr. MacRory's paper is that in 
which he deals with the theory of the ' crude scientific notions 
of the age,' and ' loose historical methods ' which have been 
supported by such a large number of writers on Biblical subjects 
in recent times. This is a question which we hope will be dealt 
with more fully ; for just as our curiosity was keenly aroused 
we saw that space limits would compel us to restrain it for 
three months more. 

Dr. Harty contributes an article on ' Fetal Life,' which is 
useful both from the theoretical and practical point of view. 
Father MacCaffrey is laying the foundation of a most valuable 
work in his paper on ' Rome and Ireland.' It is critical and 
argumentative from beginning to end. His introduction on 
' Pre-Patrician Christianity,' and his discussion of Zimmer's 
theory about Palladius and St. Patrick, are the most hopeful 
things of their kind that have appeared in our time. Some 


people may prefer fine writing and a florid style, but Father 
MacCaffrey has adopted the style which is most effective in 
these days of facts and analysis. It is the style which has been 
adopted by the most successful of German ecclesiastical his- 
torians, amongst others Rettberg, Hauck, Friederich, Bellesheim. 

I welcome, with particular pleasure, Dr. Toner's paper on 
the ' Kenotic Theory ' of Dr. Gore, or ' Depotentiation of the 
Logos.' This opens up a vast field of utility for a young pro- 
fessor, already learned and well trained, who may be trusted 
to give a good account of himself in anything that he under- 
takes. It is only natural that in the Anglican Church there 
should be ' variations ' now as there have always been. This 
latest ' variation ' in doctrine is clearly explained and put to 
the test of the ' Rule of Faith,' and will be put to a further 
test in the next number. 

The size, form, and production of the Quarterly excite my 
envy as well as my admiration. The new ship has been launched 
under an able captain. It has made its first voyage safely and 
pleasantly. May it have many others equally safe and 


[ 174 1 




WE would call the attention of our readers to an im- 
portant Decree of the Congregation of Indulgences which 
was published in the last issue of the I. E. RECORD. The 
Decree has been issued at the instance of the General of 
the Discalced Carmelites (who have this Confraternity 
under their special protection and patronage), and has 
for its purpose the reinvalidation of all the receptions 
into the Society which might possibly happen to be invalid 
from non-compliance with any of the essential conditions 
for securing membership. Priests, therefore, who may have 
reason to be scrupulous lest, owing to the omission of any 
of the necessary formalities for a valid reception such 
as the inscription of names, etc. persons so received 
might be deprived of the advantages, privileges, and favours 
attached to the Confraternity, will be pleased to know 
that possible defects of the kind have been made good 
up to 28th June, 1905, the date of the Decree, and that 
all persons received up to this date will not be deprived 
of their Indulgences owing to the non-fulfilment of any 
technical requirement. 


REV. DEAR SIR, An answer to the two following dubia 
will much oblige : 

A pastor has charge of two churches in the united parishes 
of B. Michael and St. Colman. He lives beside the church of 
B. Michael ; but as St. Colman's feast (29th October) has been 
kept from time immemorial as a parish holiday in the church 
and parish bearing his name, the pastor, rightly, as he hopes, 


considers St. Colman the titular is ecclesice, and recites his Office 
Ut duplex i cl. cum Oct. 

Now, the doubt occurred in connection with the celebration 
of Mass on the octave day of St. Colman, during the past year, 
in the church of B. Michael. The pastor had to say Mass on 
the occasion not in St. Colman's church, but in B. Michael's ; 
and as this church and parish had no connection with St. Colman 
he felt doubtful as to whether he should say the Mass of the 
Oct. of St. Colman or the Mass in the general Ordo for the day 
that is, the Mass of the Maternity of the B.V.M. Please say 
which Mass ought to have been said in the circumstances. 

The pastor in question does his duty correctly in 
celebrating the feast of the Titular, St. Colman. He is 
bound to celebrate the feasts of the Titulars of the two 
churches which are committed to his charge, for all the 
necessary conditions, making their celebration obligatory, 
appear to be present. The due celebration includes, of 
course, the saying of the office and Mass on the feast-day, 
and on all the days inf. oct. on which they may be said in 
accordance with the Rubrics. On the octave day of St. 
Colman's Feast, the pastor, we assume, recites the office 
of the octave. If he were saying Mass in the church of 
the Saint, he should also say it in conformity with his 
office. He has to celebrate, however, for some reason, 
not in the church of St. Colman, but in that of Blessed 
Michael, and he hesitates about the Mass he should select. 
What is the right thing for him to do ? In other words, 
is he to arrange the Mass in harmony with the office he 
recites, or, rather, in harmony with that of the church in 
which he celebrates, that is, with the office of the General 
Calendar ? The principle governing the solution of the 
case has been laid down by the general Decree of the Con- 
gregation of Rites, Urbis et orbis, dated gth July, 1895, 
which directs that the selection of the Mass in aliena 
Ecclesia is to be determined not by the Calendar of the. 
celebrant, but by that of the church in which the Mass 
is said. In the contingency contemplated, therefore, he 
should celebrate the Mass of the Maternity of the B.V.M. 


We need not add that the making provision for these 
particular offices, such as the Titulars of churches and 
Patrons of places will introduce a certain dislocation in the 
offices of the general Calendar, but, at the same time, it is a 
most laudable, as well as an obligatory, work to carry out 
these celebrations in the spirit of the Liturgy. In some cases 
the Titulars or Patrons will be Divine Persons or Mysteries, 
whose feasts enjoy all the rank and dignity that the Church 
can bestow on them ; in others they may be the same as 
the cathedral, or diocesan patrons, whose offices are fully 
provided for in the diocese : and in all instances the titular 
or patron will be at least a Saint of such eminent standing 
that his feast-day will be assigned a place on the General, 
or, at least, on the Diocesan Calendar, so that the only thing 
necessary will be to celebrate it as a double of the first 
class within an octave. This will involve more than making 
suitable provision for the octave day. 


REV. DEAR SIR, In some religious communities, which have 
no special rite, the custom prevails of omitting the Benedicite 
at the beginning of the grace before meals on certain feasts, 
for which a change of Versicle is prescribed in the Breviary, as 
e.g., Christmas, Epiphany, and Easter. It seems to me that 
there is no authority for this in the rubrics of the Breviary. 
Can the omission be justified aliunde ? I am, yours faithfully, 


We quite agree with our correspondent that there is 
no justification for omitting the Benedicite at the beginning 
of the form of blessing before meals. So far from sanction- 
ing the omission the Rubric in the Roman Breviary implies 
that this appropriate preamble should always be said. 
For, having given the formulae suitable to the various 
meals before each of which the Benedicite is distinctly 
introduced it states in an explicit Rubric that the changes 
to be made on special occasions affect only the Versicle 
and Psalms. ' Praedictus modus benedicendi mensam 


et agendi gratias servatur omni tempore . . . praeter- 
quam diebus infrascriptis quibus V.V. et Psalmi tantum 
variantur.' The Rubricists who notice the Benedictio 
Mensae, similarly insinuate that the initial Benedicite 
is always to be retained, and that the changes rendered 
necessary by special feasts and at certain seasons of the 
year occur only in the places already mentioned. Thus 
Appeltern : * Adsunt nonnulla tempora in quibus bene- 
dictio et gratiarum actio sunt quidem ut in communi 
formula, sed variantur Versiculi et Psalmi .M 


1 Manuale Liturgicum, vol. ii., p. 250. 





Emus, et Rmus. Dims. Cardinalis losephus M. de Herrera y de 
la Iglesia, Archiepiscopus Compostellanus, ad Sacram Rituum 
Congregationem mittens elenchum turn festorum, quae in sua 
ecclesia Gathedrali solemniter celebrantur cum musica vocali et 
instrumental!, vulgo orquesta ; turn instrumentorum, quibus 
musici utuntur in iisdem solemnitatibus : atque insuper inter- 
pretationem authenticam habere desiderans super iis, quae 
Sanctissimus Dominus Noster Pius Papa X in Motu proprio 
super musica sacra statuit, nempe : " Aliquoties, servatis ser- 
vandis, admitti possunt alia musica instrumenta, sed annuente 
Episcopo, ut Caeremoniale Episcoporum praecipit,' eidem Sacrae 
Congregationi sequentia dubia enodanda reverenter proposuit, 
videlicet : 

I. An, et in quibus festis permitti possit usus instrumen- 
torum quae (vulgo violines, violas, violoncello, contrabafo, flauta, 
clarinetes, fagots, trompas) in elencho recensentur ? 

II. An permitti possit usus instrumentorum in Officio et 
Missa defunctorum ? 

III. An proscribendus sit in ecclesiis parochialibus et 
conventualibus usus organi dicti harmonium in Omcio et 
Missa defunctorum ? 

Sacra porro rituum Congregatio ad relationem subscripti 
Secretarii, exquisite voto Commissionis super Musica et Cantu 
sarcro rescribendum censuit : 

Ad I. Ad primam part em Affirmative ; an secundam partem, 
in illis functionibus et temporibus, in quibus sonus organi 
aliorumque instrumentorum non prohibetur a Caeremoniali 
Episcoporum, a praedicto Motu proprio .et a Deretis S.R.C. 
uti in Pisana 20 Martii 1903, et in Compostellana 8 lanuarii 
1904, super Triduo Maioris Hebdomadae ; verum iuxta prudens 
Ordinarii arbitrium in singulis casibus cum dispensations a lege 


et praxi communi adhibendi in sacris functionibus cantum 
gregorianum vel musicam polyphonicam aut aliam probatam. 

Ad II. In Officio Negative ; in Missa et Absolutione post 
Missam, prouti in response ad I et servatis servandis, ita ut 
sonus organi aliorumque instrumentorum tantum ad sustinendas 
voces adhibeatur, et sileant instrumenta cum silet cantus, 
iuxta Caeremoniale Episcoporum, lib, I, cap. 28, n. 13. 

Ad III. Provisum in praecedenti. 

Atque ita rescripsit, die 15 Aprilis 1905. 

A. Card. TRIPEPI, Pro-Praef. 
L. ifcS. 

D. PANICI, Archiep. Laodicen., Secretaries. 






Rmus. P. Dominicus Reuter, Minister Generalis Ordinis FF. 
Min. Conventualium, nuper exposuit, se anno quinquagesimo 
mox expleto, ex quo dogma de Immaculato Bmae. Virginis 
Conceptu proclamatum est, veterem praxim, fere oblivioni 
datam, revocasse, exhibendi nimirum peculiarem cultum Virgini 
Deiparae singulis primis cuiusque mensis sabbatis, in obsequium 
tarn singularis privilegii intuitu meritorum Christi eidem Virgini 
collati ; quam piam praxim f. r. Clemens XIV litteris aplicis 
d. d. 10 lunii 1774 indulgentia biscentum dieram iam ditavit, 
acquirenda a christifidelibus, qui memoratis sabbatis praefati 
Ordinis ecclesias adivissent. 

Porro quum tarn laudabile exercitium, nunc denuo pro- 
positum, vehementissimo cordis affectu christifideles sint pro- 
sequuti, ne huiusmodi tepescat pietas, sed imo ferventior in 
posterum evadat, idem Minister Generalis humillimas preces 
SSmo. Dno. Nro. Pio PP. X. admovit, ut christifidelibus, qui 
singulis primis sabbatis, vel etiam dominicis, baud interruptis, 
infra spatium duodecim mensium sacramentali poenitentia rite 
expiati sacraque mensa refecti, sive precibus, sive quoque 
meditationibus ad honorem Virginis absque original! macula 
concepta aliquamdiu vacaverint, simulque ad mentum Sancti- 


tatis Suae oraverint, plenariam indulgentiam, defunctis quoque 
applicabilem, memoratis sabbatis vel dominicis lucrandam, 
tribuere dignaretur. 

Sanctitas vero Sua, votis Rmi. P. Ministri Generalis ob- 
secundare exoptans, ut erga Dei Matrem magis foveatur fidelium 
religio, in omnibus pro gratia iuxta preces benigne annuere 
dignata est. Praesenti in perpetuum valituro. Contrariis 
quibuscumque non obstantibus. 

Datum Romae e Secretaria Sacra Congregationis Indul- 
gentiis Sacrisque Reliquiis praepositae, die i Julii 1905. 

A. Card. TRIPEPI, Praef. 
L. ifcS. 

* D. PANICI, Archiep. Laodicen., Secret. 





Fr. Bonaventura Marrani, Ordinis FF. Minorum Procurator 
Generalis, ab hac S. Congregatione Indulgentiarum sequentis 
dubii solutionem humiliter expostulat : 

Ex Decreto huius S.C. in una Leodien, d. d. 9 Augusti 1843 
indulgentiae non cessant, si, destructa veteri Ecclesia, nova 
aedificetur fere in eo loco, ubi vetus existebat, et sub eodem 
titulo. Quaeritur : 

Utrum praefata resolutio applicetur etiam Stationibus S. 
Viae Crucis legitime erectis, ita ut in casu Ecclesiae ex toto 
reaedificatae fere in eodem loco et sub eodem titulo praeexistens 
privilegium S. Viae Crucis non cesset, si S. Via Crucis, quae 
in veteri Ecclesia destructa legitime erecta extabat, salva sub- 
stantia, ast sine nova erectione in Ecclesiam reaedificatam, 
prout dictum est, transferatur ? 

S. Congregatio Indulgentiis Sacrisque Reliquiis praeposita, 
audito Consultorum voto, proposito dubio respondendum 
mandavit : Affirmative. 

Datum Romae ex Secretaria eiusdem S.C., die 7 lunii 1905. 

A. Card. TRIPEPI, Praef. 
L. *S. 

%> DIOMEDES PANICI, Archiep. Laodicen., Secret. 





DIE 13 MAII 1904 

Confirmatur remotio oeconomica cuiusdam parochi inamo- 
vibilis, ob illius gravissima dissidia cum magistratibus civilibus, 
necnon et populi scandalum, illiusque translatio ad aliud bene- 
ficium simplex. 

In dioecesi Herbipolensi, loannes N a. 1897 renuntiatus 

est parochus cuiusdam loci, sed anno insequenti cum auctorita- 
ticus civilibus gravia habere coepit dissidia, quae in dies magis 
excreverunt hac etiam de causa, quod, iuxta eges Bavariae, 
parochiali muneri omcium est adnexum regendi et inspiciendi 
publicas scholas Gubernii nomine et mandato. Res itaque eo 
processerunt ut Ordinarius dioecesanus postquam pluries paco- 
chum graviter admonuerit, tandem decreto praesertim 29 Febr. 
1901 renuntiationem paroeciae et optionem ad simplex bene- 
ficium imposuit. Sed quum parochus parum curaret de episco- 
pali decreto, gravioresque dissensiones cum civili potestate 
imprudenter foveret, Episcopus iterum decreto 15 Martii 1901 
praescriptam translationem illi intra tres dies sub poena 
remotionis a paroecia implendam iussit ; addita insuper prima 
monitione canonica ob neglectum praeceptum petendi aliud 
beneficium simplex. 

Parochus loannes N . . . . ad Archiepiscopum Bambergensem 
ab hoc decreto appellavit, qui tamen die 31 Octobris 1901 sen- 
tentiam Episcopi Herbipolensis plene confirmavit. Tune paro- 
chus, posthabito iure provocandi in tertia instantia apud tertium 
Bavariae Episcopum a Nuntio Apostolico eligendum vigore 
privilegii a Pio IX per Breve Nemo ignorat concessi, maluit 
supremo Sedis Apostolicae iudicio sistere. 

Ad sustinenda iura sua, praedictus parochus loannes N. 
contendit iniuste canonicam monitionem ab Ordinario sibi fuisse 
inflictam. In decreto enim 29 Febr. 1901 nullum praeceptum 
continebatur, sed merum Episcopi desiderium quoad paroeciae 
renuntiationem. Hinc, quum nemo teneatur propriis iuribus 
valedicere ad votum superioris implendum, parochiali beneficio 
non valedixit ; eo vel magis quod in Episcopi decreto nulla suae 


decisionis ratio afferebatur. Insuper addit contra canonicas 
sanctiones et praecipue contra Cone. Trid. (Sess. 21, c. 6 de 
Reform.) militare impositam sibi a paroecia amotionem ; 
utpote quod Episcopus veram rerum cognitionem nee habuit, 
nee habere voluit, quum et testes audire et inquisitionem pera- 
gere neglexisset. De caetero dissidium cum laica auctoritate, 
de quo ipsa tantum est iudex competens, non est ratio sufficiens 
ut Episcopus parochum inamovibilem destituere possit. 

At ex adverse, Archiepiscopus Bambergensis animadvertit 
Episcopum Herbipolensem, nee in procedendo, nee in iudicando 
minime errasse. Non erravit in procedendo : turn quia Epis- 
copus est incompetens in iudicandis dissidiis exortis parochum 
tamquam Inspectorem scholasticum inter et civiles magistrate, 
quod ad Gubernium pertinet ; turn quia accusationes adversus 
parochum prolatae et per ipsius rei conf essionem et per publicam 
notorietatem satis in propatulo erant, quin opus esset testes 
audiendi atque inquisitionem instituendi canonicam. Sed neque 
Episcopus erravit in iudicando : turn quia parochus in morali 
impossibilitate versabatur absque gravi fidelium scandalo, 
fungendi munere parochiali ob notissima dissidia, turn quia in 
potestate Ordinarii est ut decreta vim rei iudicatae habentia 
monitione canonica urgeat, et tandem executioni tradat. Hinc 


An et quomodo sit confirmandum decretum Rmi. Archiepiscopi 
Bambergen. in casu ? 

Responsum fuit : Decretum esse confirmandum. 




Cupiens Reverendissimus Pater Frater Bonaventura Marrani, 
Procurator Generalis Ordinis Minorum, ut cultus erga Imm. 
Deiparae Virginis Conceptionem magis magisque augeatur, 
atque omnis controversia tollatur circa Missam votivam de 
eadem Imm. Cone, ex Apostolicae Sedis Indulto concessam 
Franciscalibus Familiis, a Sanctissimo Domino Nostro Pio 
Papa X humillimis precibus flagitavit : 


I. Ut Sacerdotes etiam saeculares, Tertio Ordini Sancti 
Francisci adscripti, qui Kalendario Romano-Seraphico utuntur, 
quoties vel in private Oratorio vel in Ecclesiis trium Ordinum 
Sancti Francisci Sacrum faciant, singulis per annum Sabbatis 
Missam votivam de Immaculata Beatae Mariae Virginis Con- 
ceptione legere valeant, prouti Alumnis vel Cappellanis trium 
Ordinum Regularium permittitur ; quemadmodum nempe 
Sacerdotibus Tertii Ordinis Praedicatorum conceditur Feria 
IV et Sabbato per annum, etiam Festo duplici minori ac maiori 
impeditis, Missam Sanctissmi Rosarii ' Salve radix ' iisdem in 
casibus celebrare. 1 

II. Ut Sacerdotes e primo ac Tertio Ordine Regulari Sancti 
Francisci Sacrum facturi in Oratoriis privatis extra Coenobium 
positis, sicuti Kalendarium Romano-Seraphicum possunt ac 
debent adhibere, ita valeant Missam votivam de Immaculata 
Beatae Mariae Virginis Conceptione celebrare, prouti in Ecclesiis 
ipsius Ordinis conceditur ; ne secus, ac praesertim Religiosi 
extra Coenobium rem divinam oblaturi eodem uti privilegio 
impediantur, ipsis admodum salutari. 

Sanctitas porro Sua, referente infrascripto Cardinal! Sac- 
rorum Rituum Congregationi Pro-Praefecto, benigne annuere 
dignata est pro gratia iuxta preces : servatis Rubricis. Con- 
tariis non obstantibus quibuscumque. 

Die 22 Martii 1905. 

A. Card. TRIPEPI, Pro-Praef. 
L. *S. 

& D. PANICI, Archiep. Laodicen., Secret. 




Petrus Gonzales et Estrada Episcopus S. Christophon de 
Habana, omne illicitum vitare cupiens, a Sacra Episcoporum 
et Regularium Congregatione sequentium dubiorum solutionem 
humillime postulat ; nimirum : 

I. An Episcopus licite valeat confessarium ordinarium monia- 

1 Indultum praesens valet etiam de Ecclesiis ad Tertium Ordinem 
saecularem Sancti Patris Nostri Francisci reapse pertinentibus, si in eis 
Kalendarium Romano-Seraphicum observetur, etiamque vim habet pro Vigilia 
proque Integra Octava Immaculatae Conceptionis. 


Hum unius Monasterii pro alius Monasterii monialium ordinario 
confessario designare ? Et quatenus negative, 

II. An Episcopus confessarium ordinarium monialium unius 
Monasterii ad munus ordinarii confessarii sororum votorum sim- 
plicium eligere queat ? Et quatenus negative, 

III. Utrum Episcopus unum confessarium ordinarium pro 
duabus Communitatibus Sororum possit licite deputare ? 

IV. An prohibitum sit Regularibus confessarios ordinaries 
sororum votorum simplicium esse, sicut pro monialibus eis 
vetitum est ? 

Et Sacra Congregatio Erum. ac Rrum. S. R. E. Cardinalium 
Negotiis et Consultationibus Episcoporum et Regularium prae- 
positae, omnibus sedulo perpensis, respondendum esse censuit* 
prout respondet : 

Ad I. Affirmative. 

Ad II et III. Provisum in primo. 

Ad IV. Affirmative. 

Romae, die i Septembris 1905. 

D. Card. FERRATA, Praef. 
L. * S. 






Dilecto Filio Burguburn, ac Praesidi coetus Conventui LII 

Catholicorum Germaniae apparando, Argentoratum. 
Dilecte Fili, salutem et Apostolicam benedictionem. 

Habiti quotannis coetus catholicorum Germaniae in earn 
Nos opinionem adduci quotidie magis iusserunt, congressiones 
easdem, quo plures numero de successione recensentur, eo etiam 
digniores et prae se ferre apparatus et edere fructus. Huius 
sane solatium rei communes nunc confirmavere litterae, Nobis 
a te datae atque a praesidibus caeteris, quum proximo ador- 
nando coetui studeretis : vestrarum enim curarum ea potissima 
fuit, aperire ex ordine omnia quaecumque erunt disceptanda 
congressui, sensusque declarare simul, quorum ductu convenietis. 
Neque modica ista est Nobis gaudendi, et gratulandi opportu- 
nitas : quid enim quam fecundam Germanorum alacritatem 
expetere possimus amplius ad inserendam propagandamque 


religionem ? Causae equidem in disputatione versabuntur graves 
salubresque, atque eaedem admultiplicem christianae vitae 
necessitatem peridoneae. Nam quibus maxime, pro conditione 
temporum expediat viis fidei nostrae et Apostolicae Sedis cultum 
provehere, proximorum sententias, catholica praelucente doc- 
trina, humane ac rite vereri, expeditiones adiuvare sacras, in- 
tegritati morum prospicere, tenuium fortunam sublevare, locu- 
pletum alere inopumque amicam conspirationem, sacri denique 
civilisque principatus concordiae consulere, in hisce, quemad- 
modum nunciasti, maximi momenti rebus vestra debet se pru- 
dentia probare. Quod autem decretum vobis sit accedere ad 
disserendum eo animo, ut hinc Nostra Decessorisque Nostri 
Leonis XIII fel. rec. prae oculis documenta habeatis, inde 
hortamenta Pauli deducatis ad usum, qui spiritu actus ac re. 
pletus Dei, omnia nostra iussit in charitate fieri, vehementis 
haec Nobis origo voluptatis est ; compertum namque et explo- 
ratum habemus quam multum emolumenti consueverint qui haec 
sequi lumina et praecepta studeant, e collatis consiliis percipere. 
Nee minus oblecta coire vos in civitatem nobilem, antiquam et 
piam ; cui gloriae est in Episcopatu Romano Pontificem dedisse 
insignem, et coelo Sanctissimam peperisse sobolem, et artibus 
monumenta illustria suppeditasse. Spem ideo firmam fovemus, 
auspiciis Praesulis Argentinensis vestraque diligentia prosperam 
apparando felicemque celebrando coetui debere operam impendi- 
Quoniam vero a summae clementiae Deo, quippe ipse est consilii 
boni largitor, implorandam censetis in primis opem, eius in vos 
atque in labores vestros devocamus ardentes gratiam, testemque 
votorum animi Nostri Apostolicam benedictionem turn vobis 
praesidibus, turn singulis e conventu sodalibus peramanter in 
Domino impertimus. 

Datum Romae, die 14 Augusti 1905. 




Earl of Granville, K.G. 1815-1891. By Lord Edmond 
Fitzmaurice. Longmans, Green & Co. 1905. 2 vols. 
8vo. 305. net. 

THE Life of Lord Granville has been pronounced by English 
reviewers one of the most important that has appeared 
in recent times on account of the letters and memoranda of 
Queen Victoria which it makes public for the first time. It 
is, no doubt, very interesting to notice the vigorous style 
in which her late Majesty knocked some of her Ministers on 
the knuckles, and the almost unmeasured language in which 
she denounced others, expressing a hope that some means 
would be found of letting them know what she thought of 

But for Irish readers there are chapters of this work, that 
have nothing to do with the Queen, still more interesting and 
important. The most prominent is the chapter on ' Ireland ' 
in the second volume, and the chapter on ' Home Rule.' 

In the former of these we get the whole story of the 
Errington mission to Rome in 1882, and a great insight into 
the intrigues and manoeuvres by which it was surrounded. 
Letters from Lord Granville to Lord Emly, from Sir William 
Harcourt to Lord Granville, frcm Lord Granville to Lord 
Spencer, etc., throw a flood of light on the whole affair. The 
part played by Lord O'Hagan, Lady Herbert, Sir Augustus 
Paget, and others is referred to. The informal, credentials 
given by Lord Granville to Mr. Errington are set forth. The 
following passage in a letter from Lord Granville to Mr. 
Gladstone will give an idea of the interest of the chapter : 

' I have received a letter from Errington complaining that 
his nose was out of joint in consequence of the attitude Manning 
was taking, strongly criticising the Pope's Irish policy, which 
the Cardinal said was alienating the Catholic population, and 
advising the Pope to^send a letter of thanks to Archbishop 

Anyone who wishes to present to the public a faithful account 


of the events of those days, or to learn them accurately for 
himself, must read this book. It cannot be done without. 
Lord Granville was the Minister of Foreign Affairs during that 
time. He had his hand at the helm, and in all foreign negotia- 
tions it was he who set the machinery going. 

History is now being made on all this period. The bio- 
graphies of Mr. W. H. Forster, of Mr. Gladstone, Lord Granville, 
Lord Randolph Churchill, on the one hand, and the recently 
published works of Mr. Davitt 1 and Mr. O'Brien* on the other, 
are forming public opinion on these events. Several of them 
make opposite charges against the clergy of Ireland. The 
English writers accuse them of complicity in revolution and 
injustice, Mr. Davitt of subservient and slavish cowardice and 
incompetence. The clergy require a champion. Exoriare 
aliquis I 

The chapter on ' Home Rule ' is sad reading for Irishmen ; 
for when the idea of self-government first began to be enter- 
tained, the interests of Ireland were like a game of chance 
in the hands of British statesmen. It was a toss up with many 
of them, as we clearly see from the evidence of this biography, 
as to whether Ireland was to have Home Rule or Coercion or, 
nothing at all. 

Altogether we commend the perusal of this work to our 
readers. It will help them to form a juster estimate of past 
events, and to shape their future conduct by enlightened 
experience. J. F. H. 

Kaegi. Translated from the German by Rev. J. A. 
Kleist, S.J. St. Louis. Mo.: B. Herder, 17 South 

ACCORDING to the prevailing English standard, proficiency 
in the classics is measured by one's ability to solve what may 
be termed the equation of idiom. A piece of English prose, 
thoroughly reflective, in all its finer shades, of the English 
mind, is selected as a test of scholarship for translation into 
Greek or Latin. Each sentence is carefully examined and is 
found, as a rule, to draw its strength mainly from its use of 

1 The Fall of Feudalism in Ireland, by Michael Davitt. 
1 Recollections of William O'Brien, M.P. 


prepositions, its beauty from the epithet or the literary refer- 
ence or the half-formed metre, so often hidden from the author 
himself. The essence of the passage must be represented in 
the classical language, and an equivalent for each accident 
must be sought out, so that the version may produce upon its 
readers all the effects of the original. Such a version is accepted 
as a proof of a thorough understanding of the classical and the 
modern mind. 

In Germany, less time is devoted to composition and more 
to reading, with the result that the German boy in an advanced 
class reads Homer or Thucydides with much greater ease than 
an English-trained boy of the same age and ability. Com- 
position is not looked on as an end, but as a means. This 
explains at once the scope and object of Kaegi's Short Greek 
Grammar. It contains the essentials of grammar for school 
purposes. All else is suppressed or relegated to small print. 
Thus, within the compass of two hundred pages, the young 
scholar finds all the forms and laws which he should know 
before attempting an author. 

The book is well printed and thoroughly up to date. In 
the latter respect, it is more reliable than Goodwin. This, 
however, may not be regarded by some teachers as an advantage. 
It seems strange that many, through a spirit of conservatism, 
adhere jealously to forms and derivations which often enough 
have been rejected by the very men on whose authority they 
depend. The chief defect in the book is the use of spaced 
instead of large leaded type in the declensions. The price is 
not stated. 

The translator refers in his preface to the Exercises which 
accompany Kaegi's Grammar. We should be glad of an oppor- 
tunity of noticing them. If he has translated them as carefully 
as he has translated the Grammar, they should be very useful. 

M. S. 


Vol. iv. 8vo. 8s. 6d. London : Macmillan & Co. 
THE fourth volume of Mr. Herbert Paul's history brings 
us from 1875 to 1885. The most interesting chapters in it 
for Irish readers are those on ' The Irish Revolution ' and 
' Lord Spencer's Task.' Mr. Paul is, in many respects, friendly 
to Ireland ; but his superior and absurdly arrogant method 


of pronouncing dogmatic judgments is trying to the patience. 
With the substance of his homilies we have but little fault to 
find. It is the form that is irritating. Apart from this uniform 
defect, this volume is marked by the same brilliant qualities 
as the proceeding ones. When the fifth and last volume appears 
Mr. Herbert Paul will have accomplished a great work, and 
will deserve to rank amongst the first historians of his time. 

J. F. H. 

ad exemplar editionis Vaticanae concinnatum et 
rhythmicis signis a Solesmensibus Monachis diligenter 
ornatum. No. 636. Rome et Tournai : Descle"e, 
Lefebvre et Cie. 

canama SS. PP. PioX., evulgatam. Ratisbon : Pustet. 

Vaticanae a SS. D. N. Pio PP. X., evulgatae. Editio 
Schwann. A. Duesseldorf : L. Schwann. 

THERE are quite a number of publications containing the 
reprint of the Vatican Kyriale. It seems that the publishers 
have come to an agreement as to the price, for what may be 
called their normal edition costs in each case, bound, one 
shilling. We have before us three of these editions, Pustet's, 
Schwann's, and DescleVs. Descles, however, is not their 
normal edition, but a smaller one in the size of the Liber 
Usualis. Moreover, it has the rhythmical signs employed in 
the last-named book, namely, the prolongation dot and the 
Episema. In addition, we find a new sign for the Strophicus, 
imitating the comma-like shape of the sign in the earlier MSS. 
We think this is a decided improvement, as evidently the Stro- 
phicus has a special significance in the neumatic notation. For 
the rest, this new edition has the same pleasing and quiet forms 
as the earlier editions of Messrs. Desclde. 

Pustet has notes of a different shape. They are slightly 
convex both above and below, which makes the angles very 
sharp, and gives a very lively appearance to the page. The 
print shows the usual clearness of Pustet's publications. Schwann 
seems to have the largest type of all. In shape it is like 


DescleVs, but the curvature is a little more pronounced. The 
page looks rather black, and would probably be improved, if 
the margin was left a little wider. His paper is very good, and 
the ornaments are in excellent style. 

H. B. 

Mulholland Gilbert. Longmans, Green & Co., 1905. 

FEW men of the last generation have deserved better of the 
Irish people than the subject of this volume Sir John Gilbert. 
By his researches on the Irish Records he led the way in a work 
that up to his time had been almost entirely neglected and his pub- 
lications gave a new impulse to the investigation of Irish History. 
A glance at the bibliography of his works in Appendix XV of 
the present volume will serve to give some idea of the work 
which he accomplished, but only a thorough study of the volumes 
themselves can lead to an understanding of the amount of 
labour which their publication must have involved. 

His History of the City of Dublin, A Contemporary History 
of Affairs in Ireland from 1641-1652, The History of the Irish 
Confederates, are already well known to the general reader, 
but these represent only a small portion of his notable contri- 
butions to the history of Ireland. 

The gifted authoress has done her work well. She gives a 
fine sketch of the life of her late husband ; and, what is better 
still, she includes his correspondence with the leading men of 
his time. Many of the letters contain much information of an 
out-of-the-way character, and all of them are exceedingly 

The book has already received a warm welcome not only 
from the Irish public, but in every quarter where the name of 
Sir John Gilbert was known. It deserves such a welcome, 
and we can confidently recommend it to our readers as a book 

well worth careful perusal. 



SeVestre. Paris: Libraire de P. Lethielleux. 
AT the present time when the separation of Church and 
State in France has been decreed, this volume of M. l'Abb 


SeVestre is very opportune. Chapters I and II deal with the 
negotiation and ratification of the Concordat in Rome and in 
Paris. Chapters III and IV give a detailed account of its 
application under the different governments from the year 
1802 to the fall of the Second Empire, 1870. The sixth chapter 
deals with the Third Republic and the Concordat. The seventh 
chapter gives a good account of the actual debates on the 
denunciation of the Concordat from 1900 to 1905. 

The second part of the volume deals with the text of the 
Concordat, and is one of the best commentaries on this famous 
document with which we are acquainted. It compares the 
French Concordat with similar agreements between Rome and 
other countries ; and also with the Organic articles, showing 
how these latter restricted the guaranteed liberty of the Church. 
The third part deals with the relations which should exist between 
the Church and the State, and gives a splendid account of the 
opinions of those opposed to the Concordat. In an Appendix 
all the documents upon which the author relies are given in full. 

At the present time, when the Church in France is the subject 
of such discussions, we know of no book which we could more 
heartily recommend. 


VCEUX SIMPLES. Dom Pierre Bastien, O.S.B. Maredsous 

THERE has been in recent times a wonderful multiplication 
and development of these Congregations. A century ago only 
a few were in existence, now they are remarkably numerous. 
But more impressive even than the sight of so many religious 
institutions is the magnitude and the variety of the works 
which these Congregations perform. The result is, that their 
respective vocations have created the need of large additions 
to Canon Law. Year after year important decrees regarding 
religious with simple vows have been issued. People behold 
the Congregations spreading in all directions and doing good 
everywhere, while all the time Rome has been indicating the 
ways and means by which this success has been attained. To 
anyone, however, who is not a specialist in ecclesiastical legis- 
lation, it would have been almost impossible ~to know all those 


decrees and constitutions. The work of Dom Bastien explains 
them in a most satisfactory manner. Of course particular 
attention has been paid to the far-reaching Constitution of Leo 
XIII, Conditae a Christo, and to the Normae, published by 
the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars. The decree 
Quemadmodum regarding frequent Communion, etc., and the 
commentary written on the decree by Cardinal Gennari, one of 
the ablest canonists in Rome, will also be of great use to con- 
fessors of religious communities. Priests and nuns that desire 
to get reliable information about the laws regarding novitiates, 
the nature and obligation of vows, the power of superiors, the 
authority of bishops, etc., will find it in this admirable Directoire 
Canonique, which has been honoured with a letter of approval 
by the Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation of Bishops and 

J. C. 


THE English ' Catholic Truth Society ' continues its good 
work with unabated zeal. We congratulate Mr. Britten and his 
colleagues on the recent additions to their valuable store of 
books. Amongst these the more important are two volumes, 
entitled Paying the Price and other Stories, by Father David 
Beanie, S.J. ; The Education Question, by His Grace the Arch- 
bishop of Westminster, Dr. Windle, and others ; Thoughts for 
Creedless Women, by Emily Hickey ; St. Hildegarde the Pro- 
phetess ; St. Ethelburga ; Catholic Answers to Protestant Charges, 
by G. Elliot Anstruther ; To Have and to Hold, by M. S. Dalton ; 
Spiritual Counsels from the Letters of Fenelon, by Lady Amabel 
Ker ; Simple Meditations on the Life of Our Lord, by Rt. Rev. 
Joseph Oswald Smith, Abbot of Ampleforth,*[etc. 

Ut Chri*ti**i it* ft Kontani sffis.'' " As you are children of Omit, so ba you children of Rome." 
Ex Did is S. Patricii. / Libra Armacano, foL <). 

The Irish 
icclesiastical Record 

$t0ntf)lg Journal, tmter (Episcopal Sanction. 

C&i'ttgmmtfj ^at 1 TvyrAD^u T A f J0uctf Sttiw. 

XT 1V1 r\ Jx w JTT IQOOi i tr n i VTV 

No. 459. J ' " L Vol. AIA. 

Thoughts on Philosophy and Religion, 

Rev. P. Coffey, D.Ph.^ Maynooth College. 

Fry ./ttev. Patrick, Boyle, C.M., President, Irish College ; Paris. 

Devotion to the Sacred Heart, 

Rev. D. Dinneen, D.D., Youghal. 

The Decision of the Court of Appeal and some Questions 
about the Mass. 

Rev. Daniel Coghlan t D.D t) Maynooth College. 

General Notes. 

Cardinal Perraud. Social Action of the Italian Clergy, New Statistics. 

The Editor. 
Notes and Queries. 

THEOLOGY. Rev. J. M. Harty, Maynooth College. 

Advent Fast. The Fast and the Use of Porridgre. The Use of Milk on Fast Days. 
Delegated Jurisdiction to hear Confessions outside the Territory of the Delegating; 

LITURGY. Rev. Patrick Morrisroe, Maynooth College. 

Questions about Baptism, Blessed Eucharist, Scapulars. Blessing of Children. 


Bequests for Masses Decision ot Court of Appeal. Indulgences for the Franciscan 

Notices of Books. 

Life of St. Alphonsus de' Lipfuori. The Truth of Christianity. Addresses to Cardinal 
Newman with his Replies. Devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus, The Spirit 

of Sacrifice and the Lite of Sa.-.rifice in the Religious State. Shinn 
ad Modam Commentarii in Aquinatis Suinmae. Fr, Deniile, O.P. 
script of St. Patrick's Latin Writings, 

ia Theologica 
Paris Maim- 

Nihil Obstat. RRfYWTJF & 

Censor Defr 

tmpnmi $otrst. Publishers and Printers, 24 & 25 




StlBSCRlPTION : Twelve Skiiltnzs Atr Annum, Post Free, tavable in 




A Speciality. 




Telephone No. 1. Telegraphic. Address "CONAN. DUBLIW." 

3dsb Catholic <Iburcb=lp>ropert * 
* Endurance Company %imite< 


19 & 20, Fleet St., DUBLIN. 

_ . , J&'Wf\f\ /\/\f\ 



This Company is prepared to receive proposals for Insurance at Ordinary Rates, of Churche 
Convents, Colleges, Schools, Residences, and all other Institutions and Buildings devoted 

Catholic purposes. 

Forms and fid I particulars OH application to VALENTINE IRWIN, Secretary. 



Altair Wu Gaj)fe Sbrine (*ndle$, & 

Be$t TilllOW GrOWI) SOkp. 1 Pnre old-fashioned Soap in Ba 
T!)S F&VOUrite SOJLp. A Pure Free-lathering Soap In Tito 


Iron and Brass Bedsteads and Woven Wire Mattresses a Speciality. 

Mangles, Wringers, and Laundry Appliances. Kitchen Utensils and Brushes of every descriptii 

Institutions supplied on Special Terms. 
Kitchen Range, Stovc t and Grate W rehouse, 

21 & 22, Christchurch Place, and 2,Werburgh St 



PHILOSOPHY is, I fear, not quite a popular study 
in our Colleges and Universities in recent years. 
The Physical Sciences, with their wonderful dis- 
coveries and captivating theories, hold out greater 
attractions to the youthful mind, while the traditional 
method of teaching Philosophy has rendered it anything but 
attractive to the unfortunate beginner. Its real attractions 
have been hidden away under a hard and repulsive-looking 
crust of half-Latin, half-English terminology, beyond which 
few have the perseverance to penetrate, and which none 
appear to have the courage to modify, or, mayhap, to 

Perhaps as a consequence of this, Philosophy has been 
very much misunderstood and very much discredited, 
even by those who, in other circumstances, would 
have been the first to appreciate it. No other science 
has suffered from so many misconceptions ; and that 
in the minds of Catholics no less than in the minds 
of non-Catholics. Many a smile is still provoked at 
the mention of the word ' Metaphysics ' ; and those 
smiles are directed at the thing that the word is popularly 
supposed to mean, namely : * a wild dance of unintelligible 
speculations in the air.' 2 A Scotchman is said to have 

1 Being in substance a Paper read before the Students' Literary Society, 
Maynooth College. 

2 Rickaby's General Metaphysics (Stonyhurst Series), preface, p. iv. 



defined Metaphysics in the following way : ' When the 
lad that's listnin' doesn't understand what the lad that's 
talkin' is sayin', and the lad that's talkin' doesn't under- 
stand what he's sayin' himself : that's Metaphysics.' The 
rebuke, with its grim humour, is not wholly undeserved. 
Something like that is what certainly does often pass for 
Metaphysics. Only the rebuke falls not upon Philosophy 
itself, but upon the heads of those, in all ages, who have 
claimed to be its guardians and exponents. 

In English-speaking countries the cultivation of that 
vague department of human speculation called ' Modern 
Philosophy ' is the pursuit of the comparative few : to the 
vast majority it is practically unmeaning, if not indeed 
positively distasteful. The speculative philosophers are 
a class apart, select if you will, but dilettante, without 
any apparent point of contact with the lives and hopes 
of the people, without any message of joy, or any voice 
of sympathy for the sufferings of the masses. I speak 
now of non-Catholic Modern Philosophy ; and what I 
have just said applies to Continental, and especially to 
German, as well as to English Modern Philosophy. 

Now, why has all this Modern Philosophy gone so much 
adrift, escaping the grasp of ' the people ' ? Why has it 
become the monopoly of ' the few ' and grown so barren 
of useful fruit for the hungering minds of men ? Have 
its disciples made good its fair promises of wisdom that 
they should not be called to account ? I fear they have 
not, and I think the reasons are not far to seek. These 
are many and various, no doubt ; but they can be fairly 
summed up in the formula that Philosophy, in modern 
hands, has become very unreal. Now Reality is Truth, 
and in so far forth as Philosophy breaks with Reality it 
breaks with Truth. It becomes hollow and vain and 
unintelligible : it ceases to have a meaning or a message 
for the human mind and heart, and becomes a mere 
empty formalism. 

Abstraction is often the ignis fatuus of the speculative 
philosopher, and Unreality is the morass into which it 
lures him. Rightly used, abstraction is the philosopher's 


guiding light ; for Philosophy is the interpretation of things 
by thought, and thought is abstract. But then, too, if 
thought is abstract things are concrete ; and this is just 
what the philosopher is in danger of forgetting. Uncon- 
sciously almost, owing to his familiarity with abstract 
thought, he proceeds to substitute thoughts for things, 
and drifts complacently away into a dreamland of un- 
intelligibilities. It was a scholastic, and one of the great 
scholastics, Cardinal Cajetan 1 who warned philosophers 
in his day not to talk m the air, but to aim at acquiring a 
knowledge of the real things of the Universe, themselves 
of course included ; and it was Descartes, the father of 
Modern Philosophy, who dreamt the delusive dream that 
he could unlock the mysteries of Concrete Nature by the 
keys of Abstract Mathematics. His attempt to replace 
Philosophy by a ' Mathematique Universelle ' was doomed 
beforehand to ( failure. And all the subsequent efforts of 
German and other idealists to weave a Philosophy of 
Nature out of their own inner consciousnesses, were not 
any more successful. It is not without some reason that 
the well known trilogy of German names Fichte, Schelling, 
Hegel is given as a reminder of the unintelligible depths 
that human thought is sometimes capable of sounding. 

No, Philosophy is not true unless it sails close to Reality ; 
and as long as it keeps there, it will at all events 
avoid outrageous opposition to sound common sense. By 
Reality of course I mean not merely all material things. 
I include more than what the senses become aware of : 
I mean all that the whole mind can see and know. And 
by sound common sense I do not mean ordinary super- 
ficial observation, but that more judicious and perhaps, 
therefore, less common use of one's natural intelligence. 
Those are reservations I make ; and another is as follows : 
when I insist that Philosophy ought to be real, and ought 
to cling to the facts of life, and that therefore it should not 
become unintelligible, I do not thereby imply that it cannot 
be difficult, but must be simple and easy. On the contrary, 

l In II, Post Analyt., cap. 13. 


being, as it is, the highest, fullest and deepest human 
interpretation of the totality of things, it naturally demands 
the most careful and earnest application of our best reason- 
ing powers. In the preface of a small volume on Philo- 
sophy, 1 I recently read the following sentence : * No one 
can be a philosopher who is not willing to think, and to 
think hard, on his own account ; no book or teacher can 
perform the operation for him.' That is perfectly true. 
The book or teacher may indeed help him to think for him- 
self. They can never do much more. Indeed they often 
do less ; and are sometimes even not so much an aid as 
an obstacle to straightforward, logical thought. 

Now, the very invitation to think for himself, should, 
I imagine, attract rather than repel the student. And 
no doubt it does attract him ; for Philosophy is the natural 
outcome of man's innate curiosity to know. It is that 
questioning sort of wonder at the unexplained, that 
admiratio of which the ancients speak, that develops the 
philosophical thirst for knowledge : a craving that finds 
expression in the poet's line : 

Felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas. 

The opening mind of youth feels itself borne onwards by 
this natural impulse to search and explain the unknown. 
In knowledge it recognizes its own power ; and by progress in 
knowledge it realizes its own nobility in the scale of created 
things. Passing from the study of external Nature to the 
study of man himself, the student follows the selfsame 
mental march as all individuals and races have followed 
since Socrates told his strolling disciples to learn to know 
themselves. And when he has made some headway in 
this latter study he will begin to appreciate the force of 
the aphorism that * 'Tis not the height nor yet the might 
but the mind that makes the man ; ' if he does not even 
go so far as to say with Sir William Hamilton that * in 
the world there is nothing great but man, and in man there 
is nothing great but mind ' ! 

1 A Brief Introduction to Modern Philosophy, by Arthur Kenyon Rogers, 
Ph.D. NewYcrk: Macmillan, 1901. 


Philosophy, then, has its own natural fascination for 
us in spite of-^or is it because of ? its own inherent 
difficulties. That there are obscurities in Philosophy or 
mysteries if you prefer the word is only another way of 
saying that our little minds are limited. Now, it may 
seem quite superfluous to observe that those minds of ours 
are not the measure of the truth of things. And yet I 
would set down after its unreality as the second great 
cause of the mistiness and vagueness of Modern Philo- 
sophy, the failure to realize, or the unwillingness to admit, 
this obvious limitation, this palpable inadequacy of the 
human mind, face to face with Reality. Man would fain 
know all things ; that was the first inordinate craving 
born of human pride. And pride will seek to satisfy that 
craving, even by feeding it on delusions. Pride will peer 
beyond the veil ; and, by trying to know the unknowable, 
only confuse what man can know. But sound human 
Philosophy has no such wild pretensions. Its aim is not 
to lead man to a knowledge of all things, but to make 
him know well the little he can know. It warns its dis- 
ciples, as St. Paul did the Romans : ' Not to be more wise 
than it behoveth to be wise, but to be wise unto sobriety.' 
But some men do not like to have to admit that there is 
a Reality above them which they cannot understand ; 
nor do they care to confess that Nature itself beneath 
them and around them abounds in enigmas which may 
never, perhaps, be solved. Hence the spectacle of modern 
philosophers who discard the mysteries of revealed 
religion on the one hand, and on the other hand proclaim 
the whole reality of the world to be simply the unconscious- 
conscious product of the evolution of mind ! 

The old world of four hundred years ago witnessed a 
strange rebellion. It was a revolt of man against mystery 
imposed on him by authority from without. He would 
adopt a new attitude towards the content of Revelation, 
and apply new principles to interpret the meaning of 
Faith. No more external authority for him he would 
be judge and teacher himself. By his own'private inter- 
pretation of Revealed Truth he would rationalize his belief, 


and he soon explained away all he could not understand f 
Traditional Christianity ceased to have any meaning for 
him as a Philosophy of Life. He soon lost all hold 
on the supernatural ; and now unenlightened, unaided and 
alone, he commenced the dreary, hopeless task of rearing 
a stable edifice on the ever-shifting quicksands of in- 
dividual reason. The eternal questions came up and 
clamoured for a solution : Whence and Whither and Why ? 
What is the meaning of life ? What is man's place in the 
Universe ? What is it ? and what is he ? and whither 
are they drifting ? But reason alone is slow to build 
up, and painful ; and it often selects, as materials, 
fancies instead of realities. Then, too, it is quick to de- 
molish, and in that it is aided by passion. I think Newman 
speaks somewhere of the all-corrosive influence of the mere 
reasoning faculty in the domain of Religion and Morals. 
No wonder ; for unbridled human reason, consciously or 
unconsciously accelerated by the impetus of passion and 
prejudice, will run riot through the most sacred human 
beliefs, until it brings the cold blight of embittered doubt 
and indifference on all who allow it an undue licence. 

These things it has done in non-Catholic Modern Philo- 
sophy. Wherever this latter does not rest in despondent 
doubt and denial, wherever it has anything positive to offer 
us as an interpretation of things, it tries to satisfy us with 
some sort or other of a dreamy, elusive pantheism. And 
that simply because it has dethroned God and deified 
Nature. It is thus, in very truth, that human thought 
is emancipated by Modern Philosophy ! Well may it 
sing of itself in Tennyson's words : 

I take possession of man's mind and deed, 

I heed not what the sects may brawl, 
I sit as God, holding no form of creed 
But contemplating all. 

But there are sects in Philosophy too : and in Modern 
Philosophy a veritable Babel of them. Where is the modern 
philosopher who is not a believer in some sect either in 
his own or somebody else's ? People call them schools ; and 
many a modern philosopher's ambition seems to be to 


anchor himself in some school for a while, and sooner or 
later, often sooner, to start a school of his own. ' What 
system of Philosophy do you teach ? ' a German Uni- 
versity student asked a youthful privatdozent* ' Is it 
Kant, or Hegel, or Schopenhauer, or Hartmann, you 
follow ? ' ' None of them now,' answered the other, ' I 
am teaching my own system ' ! And though their name 
is legion those systems they are all preoccupied more 
or less with the same few great, fundamental questions 
that bear on Religion, natural and revealed. Nor is this 
to be wondered at, for, in the world in which they move, 
Philosophy has taken the place of Faith. But it is a little 
surprising that although Philosophy has usurped the place 
of religious belief it seems still to be cultivated more as 
a speculative and academic pursuit than as something 
intensely practical in itself and fraught with momentous 
meaning for their lives and destinies. 

To us believers it is also not a little saddening to see 
those revered and sacred truths of human Liberty and 
Immortality, of God's Existence and man's Destiny, so 
lightly doubted, and so easily denied or perverted by men 
who have never known what it is to believe. Multitudes of 
those men are excellent men morally, but their intellectual 
attitude is not a little puzzling. La Morale laique, 
Morality without Religion, is of course the great fetish, 
the universal fashion, the accepted watchword of the 
infidel of the present day. Yet it is hardly necessary to 
remark that without the sanctions and restraints of religion 
the masses of humanity would make short work of ' Philo- 
sophical Morality ' in their onward and downward rush 
towards the bonum delectabile. It might be all very well 
for Nietzsche's Uebermensch in Spencer's millennium of 
' absolute ethics ; ' but for the merely human crowds who 
struggle for existence and for pleasure on this planet of 
ours it would soon bring society to a crisis. The most, 
I think, that can be said for the morale laique is this, that 
it may furnish the more enlightened and well-meaning 
few with considerations of personal dignity and social 
justice, strong enough to secure for them pure and up- 


right lives. Though even these, if they were men of thought, 
and if they addressed themselves to the three fundamental 
questions of God's Existence, and man's Liberty, and 
Immortality, would not be likely to settle down in 
comfortable unbelief. 

But then, you see, many of these, educated and other- 
wise enlightened men, either are not men of thought, or, 
if they are, it is not about these matters they think : and 
so, many do remain in the profession of unbelief. And 
those who do think about fundamental problems, the 
professional philosophers, are inclined towards infidelity 
and prevented from believing by the very influences of 
the spirit of the age itself. Outside the Catholic Church 
it is, I fear, the prevalent impression that Philosophy is 
incompatible with Faith, that it is necessarily allied to 
universal criticism and universal doubt, that the philosopher 
must be free, independent of all the sects and above them 
all ; and that he is compromised by the profession of any 
intellectual assent of Faith. He may have his private 
beliefs and opinions and feelings, of course, in the matter 
of Religion. But then, he must be cautious and modest 
about importing these into the speculative and practical 
system he offers to the world as a Philosophy of Life. In 
other words, he is expected to give a critical appreciation 
of the phenomenon of Religion, as of all other phenomena. 
And the view that perhaps meets most favour just now is, 
that Religion is a peculiar psychological phenomenon, 
manifested in the evolution of the individual and of the 
race ; varying, moreover, in its manifestations both in 
individuals and in races ; and to be regarded, accordingly, 
rather as an outcome of sentiment, and a sort of variable 
private asset, than as being something fixed and objective, 
claiming intellectual assent ; rather as a purely personal 
and subjective curiosity that may be speculated on with 
due philosophical calm, than as a thing of such enormous 
concern that the philosopher should get troubled or excited 
about it : above all, he must not violate good taste, nor ruffle 
the slumbering indifference of his fellows, by arousing the 
odium theologicum of the dark and uncivilized Middle Ages \ 


Now, it appears to me that such an attitude as that 
is as great an insult to Philosophy as it is to Religion, 
and to Reason as it is to Faith. For if it is a necessity of 
human nature to bow to the unexplained, to assent to the 
unseen, then Faith is natural and reasonable, and to 
reject it is to do violence to Reason. And if Philosophy 
is the sum-total of what we accept and believe to be the 
meaning and explanation of the world and of man, and 
according to which we are to regulate our lives, then, as 
Natural Religion of some sort is a necessity of our nature, 
and is included in that Philosophy, to make light of the 
former is to be disloyal to the latter. And will any 
philosopher maintain that his life is not full of real assents 
to much that he cannot explain ? or that the religion which 
he calls his ' Philosophy of Life ' is a system free from 
mystery ? No, for no matter who he may be who sets 
out to solve the enigma of Life, he soon stumbles up against 
one hard fact, whether he may resent it or regard it as 
an unpleasant thing, will depend, I suppose, upon his 
temperament, but pleasant or unpleasant it is a fact, and it 
is this : that he cannot avoid mystery, that his explanation 
of things to himself and for himself will never be final 
or complete or satisfacory. Nor will he ever encounter 
any other individual in the flesh whose efforts to escape 
mystery will have been a success. Nor in the whole range 
of human history will he ever hear of a man for whom 
there was no mystery, with the exception of just One, 
and He was more than man. Happy, too, will our philo- 
sopher be if he learns wisdom from that One. But he 
may not have heard of Him and may not know Him ; 
or, hearing about Him, he may, alas ! choose not to believe 
in Him. He may prefer to insist that human reason is 
able to find out for itself all it needs to know ; that it 
cannot and ought not accept what it does not understand ; 
that the revealing of mysteries to man by God would be 
useless, unmeaning, impossible, even supposing it certain 
that there is a God. Our philosopher may follow some 
such line of thought as that, or some other of the in- 
numerable mazes and caprices of human speculation : 


much of his system will always depend upon the surround- 
ings and atmosphere in which his mind develops. But one 
thing is certain, let him turn where he will, think how he 
may, he will not avoid mystery. He may fly from the 
mysteries of Revealed Religion, but by rejecting them, he 
is only embracing other mysteries perhaps deeper and 
more difficult still. He may scoff at religious beliefs, and 
ridicule Christian dogmas as absurd and unmeaning. 
From the intellectual height of his Rationalism he may 
regard, with patronizing pity, the ' bondage ' and ' super- 
stition ' of the faithful. But let him try to build up for 
himself & Philosophy without Religion, a Morality without 
God, and I promise you that he will soon get reason to pause, 
and to modify his hasty prejudices against religious belief. 
Whether he likes it or not, he will soon find himself in- 
volved in a veritable maze of mysteries : the glimmer of 
his own feeble rush-light will only make the darkness more 
obscure. And if he ignore all guidance and persist in 
being self-taught, he will in all probability render to real 
phantoms and fancies the homage he refused to apparent 
ones, when he judged the mysteries of Revealed Religion 
to be phantoms and nothing more. 

The Babel of Modern Philosophy bears far more eloquent 
testimony than the Christian Religion itself to the wide- 
spread reign of mystery both in Nature and above it. 
The very extravagance of many modern systems shows 
that when Reason proudly rebels Against mysteries im- 
posed from without, it is often rightly punished by bowing 
itself in the end to self-imposed absurdities. 

When Philosophy is interpreted in that full sense of a 
4 Philosophy of Life,' a Lebensphilosophie, it is easy for 
us, Catholics, to realize the weight of eternal consequences 
with which it is necessarily laden. For, in that larger 
and truer meaning of the word, it is an adequate inter- 
pretation of life, arrived at by man using his natural reason 
upon all available data, and accepted by him as in harmony 
with his nature and its needs. It is the Sapientia of 
the Latins : the solution of the Riddle of Life : the 
answer to our deepest questionings on our Origin, 


Nature and Destiny. Thought and Action, Truth and 
Belief, are all regulated by its supreme dictates. All- 
embracing in its aim and scope, it harmonizes Reason 
and Faith, Knowledge and Mystery, and aims at estab- 
lishing within us an abiding city of God. 

It tells us that we are not sufficient for ourselves. 
Reason itself tells us that reason itself is limited. But 
then, we, Catholics, have been brought up in the Faith ; 
and before we knew we believed ; and we have never had 
experience of what unaided reason is like. Faith went 
before, and gave us possession of precious truths that 
grew into our souls and became, as it were, a part of our 
nature. That God exists ; that we were created by Him 
and for Him, immortal and free, but weak and finite ; 
that He has enlightened our minds by His Truth and 
strengthened our wills by His Grace ; that at first He 
raised us up beyond our natural state, and that He redeemed 
us when we fell ; that He is still our last end, and that the 
meaning of life is to serve Him : all these things we believed 
before we dreamt of asking could we ever have known 
them had we been left to ourselves. It was only later on 
we began to reflect and examine. And then we thought 
it so reasonable, nay almost natural, that God should 
have spoken to men ; and that, having once spoken to them, 
He should also provide them with a sure and abiding 
means of interpreting His message. 

And as regards the contents of that message, we are 
but poorly able to judge how far it actually aids our 
reason, or what our natural powers, if left to themselves, 
could achieve. It is true that even at this very point 
in determining the limits of the natural light of reason 
the infallible guardian of that message comes to our 
assistance. For it tells us on the one hand, that there is 
in man the power of convincing himself with certainty 
that there is a Supreme God whose creature he is, immortal, 
and free, and responsible ; on the other hand, that men in 
general would never have avoided the darkest errors in 
theory, and the grossest corruption in conduct, without 
a message from on High. These, however, are but 


guiding principles that define the extreme limits of a large 
domain still open to rational speculation : and the fact 
remains that when we, Catholics, begin to study Philosophy 
we are in the peculiar position of having our minds 
already permeated with the highest and noblest truths, 
the Catholic child learns more Philosophy from the penny 
catechism than many a pagan philosopher learns in a 
life-time, so that it is by no means easy for us to dis- 
tinguish and separate from our whole mental treasure, 
the truths which we can arrive at by our own unaided 
reason ; and to build these up into the rational system 
which we understand by Philosophy in its narrowest and 
strictest sense. 1 

And that it is of great importance to make such a 
distinction, and to make it accurately, is very easily shown. 
For, firstly, in dealing with non-Catholics, we ought to be 
very careful not to present to them in the merely rational 
part of our system, any elements or any truths which, 
though appearing demonstrable to our receptive minds, 
are in reality borrowed from Revelation either in whole 
or in part. And secondly, it is no less important that we, 
Catholics, should have a purely rational philosophical 
system, as complete as human reason can make it, to set 
up against modern erroneous systems, and to have it so 
evidently superior to all others that it will attract all 
impartial inquirers. 

One of the greatest tests of such superiority at the present 
day is the all round harmony and conformity of the system 
in question with the findings of the various natural sciences. 
Hence our Philosophy must not only be in harmony with 
Faith, but in harmony with Science as well. Not only so, 
but it must be based and built on the sciences, and be a 
positive continuation of them, arrived at by the appli- 
cation of the selfsame principles of natural reason and 
experience as have built up the sciences themselves. And 
if I have been emphasizing in these pages the larger view 
of Philosophy as including Faith, and the relations of 

1 Cf, Laberthonniere. Essais de philosophic religieust, pp. xxiii. and 201 ; 
Turinaz, Une tr^s-grave Question, p. 38. 


Philosophy in the narrower sense to Religion and to the 
Supernatural, I am not to be understood as implying 
that this Rational Philosophy, built upon the sciences, 
and carried as far as human reason will bring it, is of a 
secondary importance in itself, or that the Catholic need 
not cultivate it for its own sake. On the contrary, 1 I 
consider that one of the greatest services we can render 
to the Faith, and one of the surest ways of winning the 
attention and respect of our adversaries, is by basing our 
Philosophy on the sciences, cultivating it for its own sake, 
and thus showing that the Philosophy to which the sciences 
naturally lead is precisely that Traditional Philosophy of 
the Schools which has always been in harmony with 
Supernatural Truth. 

That is the avowed object of the new Scholastic 


1 Cf. Articles in the I. E. RECORD (Jan., Feb., May and June, 1905), 
on ' Philosophy and the Sciences in Louvain.' 

[ 206 ] 




THE mission of the Church is to teach mankind. 
That mission she fulfils by preaching. Preaching 
produces little fruit unless it is adapted to the 
capacity of the audience. No science can be effectually 
taught unless the teacher begins by instruction in its first 
principles. Those who have not mastered these principles 
are incapable of profiting by higher instruction. Instruction 
in the science of faith and morals is no * xception to this 
rule. Hence, the Council of Trent laid on all pastors of souls, 
the obligation of preaching and of catechizing. Hence, 
too, the Pope, who now so wisely rules the Church, has 
reminded pastors of this two-fold obligation, and in par- 
ticular of the obligation of catechizing. To ignorance of 
the elementary truths of religion, the Holy Father attri- 
butes the spirit of indifference and of irreligion to-day so 
widespread. Therefore, he regards instruction in Christian 
Doctrine as one of the most important duties of pastors, 
and as one of the most pressing needs of the Church. It 
may, then, be of interest at the present time to study the 
history of catechism, and to examine, first, what has been 
the legislation of the Church on the subject of instruction 
in Christian Doctrine ; secondly, what texts have been 
made use of at various periods, in imparting that instruc- 

1 Sources : Histoire du Catechisme depuis la Naissancf ue V Eglise jusqn' a 
nos jours, par M. 1' Abbe Hezard. Paris : Retaux, 1900. Hefete, Histoire des 
Candles. Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien. 3 edit. Paris, 1903. A eta 
et Deer eta S. Concilii Vaticani, Collectio Lacencis, vol. vii. Wilkins, Concilia 
Magnae Britanniae et Hiberniae. Histoire des livrcs popidaires, ou de la 
litter ature deiColportage, par Charles Nisard. Paris, 1854. Migne, Patres 
Latini, vols. 98 and 101. Dom Gasquet, ' Religions Instruction in England 
in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries,' Dublin Review, October, 1893. 
' How our Fathers were taught in Catholic days,' Dublin Review, April, 
1897. Mgr. Dupanloup, Entretiens stir la predication populaire. Paris, 
1866. Compendia della dottrina cristiana f/rescritto d SS. Papa Pio X. 
Roma, 1905. 


tion ; and, thirdly, what methods have been followed for 
the efficient communication of religious knowledge. 

What has been the legislation of the Church with 
respect to instruction in Christian Doctrine ? The primi- 
tive Church had to convert a world which was pagan. 
The mode of dealing with converts was fixed by a custom 
which had the force of law. Aspirants to Baptism were 
obliged to pass through the catechumenate. Catechumens 
were admitted to be present at the instructions in the 
church. After a period of probation, they were enrolled 
amongst the candidates qualified for Baptism, and then 
they received a special course of religious instruction to 
prepare them for that sacrament. The law of the cate- 
chumenate continued in force until the seventh century. 
With the spread of religion a new order began to prevail. 
The Church had to deal no longer with converts, but with 
the children of the faithful baptized in infancy. What rules 
did she prescribe for the religious instruction of youth ? 
St. Bede is a witness to the practices of the eighth century. 1 
* Priests,' he says, in a letter to the Bishop of York, should 
be appointed in every village to instruct the people in the 
Lord's Prayer and the Creed.' The synod of Cloveshoe, 
in 747, decreed that the system of instruction recommended 
by St. Bede should be faithfully followed. The Capitu- 
laries of Charlemagne in the ninth century urge pastors 
to instruct their flocks, and remind parents of the duty 
of instructing their children in the truths of faith. A 
synod held in Dublin, in 1186, ordered that the children 
be assembled at the church door on Sundays to receive 
instruction. 2 

The synod of Beziers, in 1246, and that of Albi, in 1254, 
decreed that on all Sundays parish priests should explain 
the articles of the Creed in a clear and simple style. They 
decreed, moreover, that children from the age of seven 
should be brought to church on Sundays and festivals, to 

1 Migne, Patres Latini. vol, 98. col. 939, 

2 Hefel6, Historic des Candles, vol. vii., p. 523. 


be taught the Pater, Ave, and Credo. In 1281, the synod 
of Lambeth commanded pastors to give instruction in 
Christian Doctrine, and to repeat the same four times a 

We order [says the synod], that, every priest in charge of 
a flock, do four times a year, on one or more solemn festivals, 
either personally or by some one else, instruct the people in 
the vulgar tongue, simply and without any admixture of 
subtle distinctions, in the fourteen articles of the Creed, the Ten 
Commandments of the Decalogue, the two precepts of the 
Gospel that is of true charity, the Seven Deadly Sins with 
their offshoots the Seven Principal Virtues, and the Seven 
Sacraments. 1 

The synod of Ely, in 1364, ordered parish priests to 
preach frequently, and to explain the Ten Commandments 
in the vulgar tongue, and see that children were taught 
the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, the Hail Mary, and the 
Sign of the Cross. 2 In the early years of the fifteenth 
century the synod of Tortosa (1429), in Spain, directed that 
bishops should draw up abridgments of Christian Doctrine 
so arranged that the text might be explained in seven or 
eight lessons ; and it commanded parish priests to explain 
the same to the people several times a year on Sundays 
and festivals. The synod of Toledo, in 1473, ordered that 
the Sundays from Septuagesima to Passiontide be devoted 
to the explanation of the text of the Catechism. 

In the sixteenth century, the Council of Trent deemed 
the teaching of catechism worthy of its attention, and in 
its twenty-fourth session, nth November, 1563, it decreed 
as follows : 

They (Bishops) shall also take care, that, at least on Sundays 
and other festivals, the children in every parish shall be dili- 
gently taught, by those to whom that duty belongs, the 
rudiments of faith, and obedience to God and to their parents, 
and, if need be, they shall enforce this obligation even by 
ecclesiastical censures. 1 

The legislation of the Council was obeyed. St. Charles 

1 Wilkins, Concilia Magnae Britanniae, vol. ii., p. 54. 
a Ibid., vol. iii., p. 59. 
3 Canones et Dccreta Cone. Trid., Sess. XXIV., cap. iv. 


Borromeo, so zealous for every work of reform, set the 
example. He instituted confraternities to teach Christian 
Doctrine, and drew up wise rules for their guidance. The 
bishops in other countries were not slow to follow. In 
Ireland the days of persecution had already commenced,, 
but in those sad days the importance of teaching Christian 
Doctrine was not allowed to be forgotten. A synod of the 
province of Tuam, in 1630, decreed that parish priests, 
obliged as they were to move about from place to place, 
and to depend on the hospitality of their people, should 
catechize the family of every house where they should 
spend the night. 1 A synod of the same province, held in 
1632, exhorted priests to catechize on Sundays and festivals. 
A synod of the province of Armagh, in i66o, 2 decreed that 
all parish priests should preach or catechize on Sundays 
and holidays, under penalty of a fine of five shillings of 
English money for each omission, and privation of benefice 
ipso facto should the omission be continued for ten con- 
secutive weeks. Another synod of the same province, 
held in 1687, enacted that pastors negligent in fulfilling 
the duty of giving instruction should be suspended ; and, 
that a duly qualified assistant be given to incompetent 
pastors. A synod of the province of Cashel, in 1782, 
ordered that catechism be taught on Sundays and festivals 
either in the English or Irish tongue, according to the. 
requirements of the congregation. 

The zeal of bishops and of local synods was stimulated 
from time to time by the action of the Popes. Clement 
VII, in an Encyclical dated i5th July, 1598, urged the 
importance of teaching Christian Doctrine. Benedict XIV, 
in a letter dated 7th February, 1742, reminded all pastors 
of the necessity of instruction in catechism. Succeeding 
pontiffs were no less earnest. Pius IX spoke in the most 
emphatic terms of the necessity of catechetical instruction. 
In our own days Pius X, in an Encyclical dated i5th April, 
1905, has renewed the precept imposed by the Council of 

1 Renehan's Collection, Archbishops, p. 491. 

2 Moran, Memoirs of Primate Plunkett, p. 386. 



Trent. He commands (i) That the children shall be in- 
structed in Christian Doctrine for a full hour on all Sundays 
and holidays throughout the year ; (2) that they shall be 
prepared for Confession and for Confirmation by special 
discourses on several days ; (3) that children shall be pre- 
pared for First Communion by daily instruction during 
Lent, and, if need be, after Easter ; (4) that Confrater- 
nities of Christian Doctrine shall be established in every 
parish ; (5) that in cities where universities or higher 
schools exist, courses of higher religious instruction shall 
be established ; (6) that a course of catechetical instruction 
for adults be given in churches according to the plan marked 
out by the Catechism of the Council of Trent. 1 


Such, in outline, has been the legislation of the Church 
on the subject of catechetical instruction. Let us now 
pass on to examine what have been the texts or formulas 
on which that instruction has been based. 

In the early Church the art of printing was unknown ; 
the art of writing and reading was an accomplishment 
possessed by relatively few. Instruction, therefore, was 
necessarily oral. And this is the true meaning of the 
word catechism. In recent times the term has been 
applied to books containing the elements of knowledge ; 
but in its primary sense, catechism is instruction given 
by word of mouth. But the matter of elementary oral 
instruction was not left to chance. The elements of re- 
ligious knowledge were imparted according to a well denned 
plan. New converts aspiring to be admitted to the ranks 
of catechumens were first taught the existence of God, the 
fact of Revelation, the history of religion, the Incarnation, 
the establishment of the Church, and the doctrine of the 
Resurrection. They were forewarned of the temptations 
to which they might be exposed by scandals within and 
without the Church. When the time approached for the 

i For a modification of these rules to suit the condition of things in 
Ireland, see I. E. RECORD, December, 1905. 


reception of Baptism they were instructed in the articles 
of the Creed and taught the Lord's Prayer. They were 
taught, too, the obligation of observing the divine law, 
and avoiding the vices which it condemns. After Baptism 
the doctrine of the Blessed Eucharist was explained to themi 
All this is manifest from the Didache or Doctrine of the 
Twelve Apostles, from the treatise of St. Augustine, De 
Catechizandis Rudibus, from the Catacheses of St. Cyril of 
Jerusalem, and from the seventh book of the Apostolic 
Constitution. Thus, from the earliest times, the Creed, 
the Lord's Prayer, the Commandments, and the prevalent 
vices opposed to them, together with the doctrine of the 
Sacraments, formed the text of catechetical instruction. 

In course of time compendiums were made of a full 
course of catechism, as an aid to teachers and learners. 
Amongst such collections that attributed to Alcuin, and 
used in the school of the Palace in the reign of Charlemagne, 
holds a prominent place. Its title is Disputatio puerorum 
per interrogations et responsiones. 1 It treats, under the 
form of question and answer, of the work of the six days of 
Creation, of the six ages of the world, of the Old and New 
Testaments, of the Church, with its hierarchy, and the 
doctrine of the Mass. The Disputatio long served as the 
type of a catechism for the instruction of youth. Two 
centuries later St. Bruno of Wurtzburg made it the basis 
of a catechism for his diocese. Nor was the Disputatio 
the only catechism of the period. That of Kero, a monk 
of St. Gall's, in the eighth century, no doubt an echo of 
the practice of Ireland, and that of Olfried, in the ninth 
century, are also deserving of mention. 

In the twelfth century Honoratus of Autun wrote a 
summary of Christian Doctrine, in the form of question 
and answer, entitled Elucidarium sive dialogus de Summa 
totius Christianae Theologiae. 2 The Elucidarium, though 
open to criticism, was highly esteemed, and was trans- 
lated into French and Italian. An early French edition, 

1 Migne, Patres Latini, vol. 101, col. 1098-1144. 
z Ibid., vol. 174, col. 1109-1176. 


published at Lyons in 1480, bears on the first page the 
following appreciation : ' Ung tres singulier et profitable 
livre appelle le Lucydaire ; auquel sont declarees toutes 
les choses ou antendement humain peut douter touchant 
la foy Catholique. Et aussi y sont contenues les peines 
d'enfer,' in fol. goth. 37 ff, 2 col. 26. 1 

In the thirteenth century the taste for contrasts created 
by the works of Hugh of St. Victor, De quinque septenis 
seu septenariis, and by the De septem septenariis of John 
Salisbury, made itself felt in the form of catechetical in- 
struction. All the catechisms of that period treat of the 
seven petitions of the Pater, the seven Sacraments, the 
seven deadly sins, the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, and 
the seven principal virtues. The Creed was sometimes 
treated as consisting of two series of seven articles, seven 
relative to the Divinity, and seven to the Humanity, of 
Christ. A catechism published in France in 1279, and 
entitled Somme-le-Roi is arranged on this plan. Nor was 
this method confined to France. The decree of the synod 
of Lambeth, 1281, above quoted, directs pastors to teach 
the fourteen articles of the Creed, the Ten Commandments, 
the seven deadly sins, the seven Sacraments, and the seven 
principal virtues. One of the earliest books printed in 
England by Caxton, in 1484, was an edition of this cate- 
chism, with the title, The Royal Book. 

In the fourteenth century the Somme-le-Roi was, to a 
certain extent, supplanted by a work of Guy de Montrocher, 
bearing the title, Manipulus Curatorum. The first and 
second part of this work treated of pastoral duties, the 
third of catechetical instruction. The points treated were 
the Lord's Prayer, the Commandments, the feasts of the 
Church, the works of mercy, and the Beatitudes. 

In the fifteenth century, the celebrated Gerson, Chan- 
cellor of the University of Paris, published a short treatise 
which, to a large extent, eclipsed its predecessors. It bore 
the title, Opusculum Tripartitum de praeceptis Decalogi, 
de Confessions et de Arte moriendi. In the first part the 

1 Brunei, Bibliographic. 


articles of the Creed were explained ; the second treated 
of the sins to be mentioned in confession ; the third part 
consisted of exhortations appropriate to the dying. In a 
short preface the author states that he composed this little 
treatise that pastors might have something solid and 
practical to read to their people on Sundays and festivals, 
to teach them for what end and by whom they were created, 
moreover, what they are bound by the divine law to believe, 
to do, or to avoid, and how to arise from sin. The cate- 
chism of Gerson was long held in esteem in France ; and the 
bishops had it inserted in their rituals and ordered the 
parish priests to read it for the people at Mass on Sundays 
and festivals. 1 

The spread of the art of printing gave a new impulse 
to the production and diffusion of catechetical literature. 
Popular books with illustrations were printed for the 
use of the rural population. One of the most cele- 
brated of those popular catechisms was the Compost et 
Kalendrier des bergiers, or Shepherd's Almanack, published 
in 1492.2 It was divided into three parts. The first part 
contained the calendar, with the changes of the moon, 
a list of festivals, and the like. The second part treated 
of the * Arbre des vices et Miroir des pecheurs,' that is, 
an enumeration of the seven deadly sins, which are the 
trunks from which innumerable branches spring ; all 
united in one root, pride, and forming a tree. Then follows 
a description of the pains of hell, such as Lazarus was re- 
presented to have described to Simon the Pharisee. The 
third part treats of the science of salvation, namely the 
Pater, Ave, the Creed, and the Commandments of God 
and of the Church ; it also includes the garden of virtues, 
moral and theological, and points out how they may be 
practised. The text was throughout ornamented with 
plates illustrating its meaning. The book concluded with 
an enumeration of the symptoms of good and bad health, 
and the rules for bleeding. One can easily see how much 

1 Joanis Gersonis, Of/era Omnia. Antwerp, 1706, vol. i., pp. 426-450. 

2 Histoire des livres populates, ou de la literature de colportage depuis 
le XV si&cle, 2 vols, par Charles Nisard. Paris, 1854, vol. i., pp. 108-150. 


solid instruction was here presented in a popular and 
attractive form. 

The fifteenth century was prolific in popular books of 
this class. Amongst them may be mentioned Le Tresor 
des humains, 1482 ; L' Ordinaire des Chrestiens, 1464 ; V Art 
de bien vivre, et de bien mourir, 1492, the first part of which 
is a catechism arranged according to the plan of Septenaries. 
To this period belongs the Speculum Christianorum, com- 
posed by the monks of St. Victor. It treats of (i) what a 
Christian must do, and what he must avoid ; (2) the truths 
he must believe ; (3) of the seven petitions of the Pater, 
the seven prerogatives of the Blessed Virgin, the seven 
virtues, the seven gifts of the Holy Ghost, the seven Beati- 
tudes ; (4) of the things on which a Christian should medi- 
tate, namely, the Passion, Sin, the Pains of Hell, and the 
Joys of Heaven j 

At the same period appeared a book of like character 
in English, called Dives et Pauper, * a compendious treatise 
or dialogue of Dives and Pauper, that is to say, the rich 
and poor, fructuously treating upon the Ten Command- 
ments.' 1 This interesting work appeared in manuscript in 
the early part of the fifteenth century. Printed editions 
of it were published in 1493, 1496, and 1536. Pauper,* or 
the poor man, acts the part of teacher in the dialogue, 
and gives to Dives, or the rich man, a full and practical 
explanation of the entire matter of the Decalogue. 

The so-called reformers knew the value of popular 
books of instruction. Luther's catechism was published 
in 1520, that of Calvin in 1536. The Zurich catechism 
followed in 1639, and that of Heidelberg in 1563. To meet 
the danger arising from books of this class, the Council of 
Trent wisely legislated on the subject of catechetical in- 
struction. Before that assembly had brought its labours to 
a close a celebrated German Jesuit, Blessed Peter Canisius, 
published in the Latin language at Vienna, in 1554, a 
catechism under the title, Summa Doctrinae Christianae, By 

1 See an article in the Dublin Review, April, 1897, by the Right Rev. 
Abbot Gasquet : ' How our Fathers were taught in Catholic Days.' 


order of Ferdinand I, King of the Romans, the catechism of 
Canisius was adopted as the text-book for religious instruc 
tion throughout Germany. The zealous and saintly author 
made two abbreviations of his Summa, to which he gave 
the name Parvus Catechismus. The first edition of this 
compendium appeared in 1556. Numerous editions fol- 
lowed. The little catechism was translated into many 
languages. St. Charles Borromeo made it a text-book 
in his seminary. English editions of the catechism ot 
Canisius were published at Louvain, in 1567 ; at Paris, in 
1588 ; London, 1590 ; Edinburgh, 1591 ; Cambridge, 1595 ; 
St. Omer's, 1622 ; London, 1623. A Welsh translation 
was printed in Paris, in 1609. * To the present day the 
catechism of Canisius is held in high esteem in Germany. 
The preservation of the faith in that country in the six- 
teenth century is largely due to the solid instruction 
it contains. 

The Fathers of the Council of Trent, convinced of the 
importance of catechetical instruction, appointed a com- 
mittee of the most learned and experienced ecclesiastics 
of the time, to draw up a catechism to serve as a guide 
to pastors in imparting religious instruction. The labours 
of the committee were embodied in the Catechismus 
Romanus, or Roman Catechism, which was approved and 
published by Pius V. 

At the request of Clement VIII, the learned Cardinal 
Bellarmine made a compendium of the Roman catechism, 
which was published with the approval of that Pope, 
i5th July, 1598. Bellarmine's catechism was still further 
abridged, by the author, and quickly spread throughout 
Christendom. It was translated into fifty-six different 
languages. Editions of it in English were published at 
Douay, 1604 ; Rome, 1678 ; without press mark in 1680 ; 
and in London, 1839. An Irish translation of Bellarmine's 
catechism was issued by the Propaganda Press in 1628, 
and again in 1707. Father Theobald Stapelton pub- 
lished it in Latin and in Irish at Brussels, in 1639, the 

1 Sommervogel, Bibliothdque de la Compagnie de Jesus, arts. ' Canisius,' 
' Bellarmine. 1 


Irish text being in Roman characters. A Welsh trans- 
lation was printed at St. Omer's in 1618. 

The catechism of Bellarmine, by its simplicity, its order, 
and its diffusion, marks an epoch in catechetical literature. 
It has served as the type of catechisms since his day. 
.Zealous prelates in various kingdoms imitated the example 
of Bellarmine, and published catechisms for the instruction 
of their subjects. Amongst them Bossuet holds a pro- 
minent place. That great man, who could rise to the highest 
heights of eloquence, could also adapt himself to the 
simplest intelligence. For the instruction of his flock* he 
published a catechism in three parts. The first, or elementary 
cetechism, was destined for children preparing for Confirma- 
tion. The second part was more developed, and was 
destined for the instruction of those about to receive First 
Communion. The third part contained an explanation of 
the festivals of the Church throughout the year. Bossuet 
encouraged other writers capable of promoting the instruc- 
tion of youth, and to his advice and persuasion we are 
indebted for the historical catechism of Fleury. 

Nor were Irish ecclesiastics less active than those of 
other countries, in rendering the text of the catechism 
accessible to their people. Besides the Irish translation 
of Beliarmine's catechism, above referred to, many other 
Irish catechisms were published since the sixteenth century. 

First amongst them stands the Irish catechism com- 
posed by Primate Creagh while a prisoner in the Tower of 
London, in 1585. In 1608, Bonaventure O'Hussey, an 
Irish Franciscan, published at Louvain a catechism in 
Irish, which was reprinted at Antwerp, in 1611, and 1616, 
and at Rome in 1707. In 1612, Father O'Hussey pub- 
lished a poetical edition of his catechism in two hundred 
and forty verses. In 1660, an Irish priest, over the signature 
D. D., J. D., V.G., T.S.T.D., which has been interpreted, 
1 Dom D. Joannes Dowley, Vic.-Gen., Tuamensis, S. Theo- 
logiae Doctor,' published a catechism in prose and verse 
the latter at least being that of O'Hussey a work which 
was reprinted at Louvain, in 1728. Another Irish Fran- 
ciscan, Francis O'Mulloy, published at Rome a catechism 


in Irish with a Latin title, Lucerna Fidelium. When the 
editions of these catechisms were exhausted, Dr. Andrew 
Donlevy, Superior of the Junior Division of the Irish College 
in Paris, published in that city, in 1742, a catechism in 
Irish and English, remarkable for its fulness and clearness. 
Donlevy's catechism was reprinted in Dublin, in 1822, 
under editorship of Rev. John M'Encroe, subsequently 
Dean of Sydney ; and again by the firm of Duffy & Co., in 

In 1749, the Most Rev. Michael O'Reilly, Bishop of 
Derry, and subsequently Primate of all Ireland, published 
a catechism in Irish and in English, which was generally 
adopted in Ulster, and the English edition of which was in 
general use in the province of Armagh until 1875. Dr. 
Nary, of Dublin, published a catechism in English for the 
use of his parish, in 1720. Dr. De Burgo, O.P., published 
an English catechism at Lisbon, in 1752. Towards the 
dose of the eighteenth century, Dr. James Butler, Arch- 
bishop of Cashel, published a catechism in English. Of 
this catechism, Dr. Troy, in a letter dated 30th October, 
1777, stated that he ' thought it peculiarly calculated to 
promote the Christian Doctrine among the lower classes 
of the people.' 1 

Butler's catechism was translated into Irish by his 
successor, Dr. Bray, for the use of those unacquainted 
with English. The English edition of Butler's catechism 
has practically superseded all others in Ireland. A new 
edition of it, with some modifications whereby the sub- 
stance of each question is repeated in the answer, was 
published after the synod of Maynooth in 1875, and is now 
the catechism in general use throughout Ireland. Some 
other Irish prelates also published diocesan catechisms. 
Amongst them may be mentioned Dr. M'Kenna and 
Dr. Coppinger, of Cloyne and Ross. Dr. O'Reilly and Dr. 
MacHale of Tuam, whose Irish catechism is well known in 
the Western Province. 

So many editions of the catechism in various countries 

1 Renehan's Archbishops, p. 355. 


are a proof of the zeal of the bishops. But the multipli- 
cation of texts was not without inconveniences. Differ- 
ences of arrangement, and in form of expression, were 
inevitable. Some editors aimed at a theological exposition, 
where simplicity would have been more appropriate. 
Important points were occasionally omitted and unimpor- 
tant questions introduced. Sometimes, too, an excess of 
rigour appeared in the statement of doctrine or of moral 
obligations. Moreover, the face of the world had been 
changing. More than in ancient times men pass in large 
numbers from one country to another. Finding the 
Christian Doctrine explained in their new abodes in a 
different order from that to which they had been accus- 
tomed emigrants were, to some extent, embarrassed. The 
clergy were no less perplexed in dealing with them. 
Gradually a desire sprang up in various quarters for the 
adoption of a universal catechism. 

Provincial Councils discussed the subject. The synod 
of Vienna in 1858, of Prague in 1860, of Cologne in 1863, 
gave expression to the desire that a common text should 
be adopted. When the Vatican Council assembled in 
1869, one of the subjects proposed for its consideration 
was the adoption of a universal catechism. A schema 
was submitted to the Fathers of the Council proposing 
for adoption the Latin text of Bellarmine's catechism : 
to be translated into the vernacular by the bishops of the 
various countries. The question was discussed in four 
General Congregations. The German bishops were re- 
luctant to abandon the catechism of Canisius. 1 Mgr. 
Hefele read a Memorandum by Cardinal Raucher, in 
which his Eminence pointed out the difficulties which a 
change of catechism might create in the Austro-Hungarian 
Empire, in consequence of the approval by the government 
of the catechism then in use. The Archbishop of Avignon, 
and some other French prelates, put forward similar 
objections to a change of catechism in France. At length 
in the fifty-first General Congregation an amended schema 

1 Emilie Ollivier, L'tglise et I'Stat au Concile du Vatican, vol. ii., p. 262. 


was submitted for discussion. It proposed that the Pope 
should publish an universal catechism in Latin, based on 
that of Bellarmine and other approved catechisms ; that 
the bishops in each country should publish a translation 
of the Papal catechism in the vulgar tongue ; and that they 
should be free to add such explanation as they might deem 
necessary to refute local errors, provided the additions 
were made in such a way as not to be confounded with 
the text. 

On 4th May, 1870, the amended scheme, which we give 
below, was submitted for discussion. 1 Five hundred and 
ninety-one Fathers were present. Of these 491 voted 
Placet, fifty-six Non Placet, and forty-four Placet juxta 
modam. By this vote the principle of a universal text 
was adopted. But the question of Papal Infallibility 
was pressing for decision, and before that of the catechism 
could be reached the Council was adjourned. But the 
idea of a universal text had not been allowed to perish. 
In 1875, the Bishops of Ireland adopted a common text 
for the whole country. The Bishops of the United States, 
assembled at Baltimore in 1884, recommended the use of 
a common text in America. The Council of Latin America, 


Pius episcopus, servus servorum Dei, sacro approbante Concilio, ad 
perpetuam rei memoriam. 

De confectione et usu unius parvi Catechismi pro Universa Ecclesia. 

Pia Mater Ecclesia sponsi sui Salvatoris Nostri Jesu Christi monitis et 
exemplis edocta, praecipuum semper curam et solicitudinem erga pueros 
impendit, ut lacte coelestis doctrinae enutriti ; ad omnem pietatis rationem 
mature informarentur. Hinc sacrosancta Tridentina Synodus nedum 
episcopis mandavit ut pueros fidei rudimenta et obedientiam erga Deum. 
et parentes diligenter doceri curarent, sed illud praeterea sibi faciendum 
censuit ut certain aliquam formulam et rationem traderet Christiani populi, 
ab ipsis fidei rudimentis, instituendi, quam in omnibus Ecclesiis illi se- 
querentur quibus legitimi pastoris et doctoris munus esset obeundum. 
Id vero cum ab ipsa sancta synodo perfici non potuerit, ex ejusdem votp, 
Apostolica haec Sedes ad optatum exitum, Catechismo ad Parochus in 
lucem edito, feliciter perduxit. Neque hie constit ; sed Tridentinorum 
Patrum menti cumulatius respondere cupiens, ut unus deinceps idemque 
in docendo et discendo Christianam doctrinam ab omnibus teneretur, 
parvum quoque pro pueris erudiendis Catechismum a venerabili Cardinal! 
Bellarmino, ipsa jubente, exaratum approbavit, omnibusque Ordinariis, 
Parochis, aliusque ad quos spectat, enixe commendavit. 

Cum autem hac nostra aetate ex ingenti in diversis Provinciis 
atque etiam dioecesibus parvorum Catechismorum numero, non levia oriri 


held in Rome in 1900, adopted a similar resolution. Last 
of all, in a letter dated i5th July, 1905, addressed to the 
Cardinal Vicar, his Holiness Pope Pius X has ordered the 
adoption of a uniform text of catechism in Rome, and in 
the suburban dioceses, and has expressed a desire that 
the same text shall be adopted in the other dioceses through- 
out Italy. By the adoption of a common text, unity of 
doctrine is better preserved, emigrants from one country 
to another are more easily instructed, and the encroach- 
ments of error are more easily guarded against. 

The catechism now published by order of the Holy 
Father deserves more than a passing notice. It bears the 
title Compendia delta dottrina cristiana, 1 or Compendium 
of Christian Doctrine. It contains three parts. The 
first part, the child's catechism, extends over three chapters 
and nine pages. The second part, or short catechism, in 
sixty-five pages, contains five sections which treat of 
Faith, Prayer, the Commandments and Sins, the Sacra- 
ments, and the Theological Virtues. Then follows the 
larger catechism with a similar division. The first part 
treats of the articles of the Creed, and under the ninth 
article, six sections are devoted to the Church (i) the 

incommoda compertum est; id circo Nos, sacro approbante Concilio ob 
oculos habitis imprimis praedicto Ven. Card. Bellarmini Catechismo. turn 
etiam aliis in Christiano populo magis pervulgatis catechismis, novum 
nostra auctoritate elucubrandum curabimus, quo omnes utantur, sublata 
in posterum parvorum catechismorum varietate. 

Operam vero dabunt in singulis provinciis Patriarchae vel archi- 
episcopi, collatis prius concilio cum suis suffraganeis, deinde vero cum 
aliis archiepiscopis ejusdem regionis et idiomatis, ut illius textus in vul- 
garem linguam fideliter yertatur. 

Integrum autem erit episcopis, ejusdem parvi catechismi usu pro 
prima fidelium institutione absque ullis additamentis jugiter retento, ad 
eos uberius excolendos, et contra errores, qui in suis forsan regionibus 
grassantur, praemuniendos, ampliores catecheticas conficere institutiones ; 
quas tamen, si cum textu praedicti catechismi et non seorsim edere volu- 
erint, id ita fieri debere mandamus, ut textus ipse a Nobis praescriptus, 
ab hujusmodi institutionibus patenter distinctus appareat. 

Denique cum parum sit catechismi formulas memoriae a fidelibus 
mandari, nisi ad illas pro cujusque captu intelligendas viva voce addu- 
cantur. et hac ipsa re maxime referat ut una sit tradendae fidei, et ad 
omnia pietatis officia populum christianam erudiendi communis regula 
atque munus impositum est, usum memorati catechismi ad Parochus, uti 
saepe alias Praedecessores Nostri, ita Nos denuo summopere commendamus. 
Acta et Decreta SS. Condi. Vaticani, Schema XII, Collectio Lacencis, 
vol. vii.. Appendix, pp. 666, 667. 

1 Roma, Tipografia Vaticana, 1905. 


Church in general ; (2) the Catholic Church ; (3) the teaching 
Church and the Church taught ; (4) the Pope and the 
Bishops ; (5) the Communion of Saints ; (6) those without the 
Church. In the fourth part, which treats of the Sacraments, 
under Penance a section is devoted to explain the doctrine 
of Indulgences. Under Matrimony, the question of im- 
pediments, of civil marriage, and of divorce is treated. 
In the fifth part, which treats of the virtues, under Faith 
a section is devoted to the explanation of the meaning of 
Scripture and Tradition, and to the reading of the Bible. 
The gifts of the Holy Ghost and the Beatitudes are also 
explained. To the text of the catechism are added 
appendices. The first of these is a catechism of the festivals 
of the Church, explaining the meaning of the principal 
feasts of our Lord, of the Blessed Virgin, and of the saints. 
Next follows a succinct history of religion, as contained 
in the Old and New Testaments, and in the history of the 
Church up to the end of the general persecutions. Then 
follows a brief notice of the heresies and the general councils, 
together with suggestions how to study religion in the 
history of the Church. The little volume of 416 pages, 
I2mo, closes with formulas of night and morning prayers, 
prayers for confession and communion, and the manner 
of serving Mass. This admirable catechism is, perhaps, 
the presage of the universal text which, no doubt, will 
one day be adopted throughout the Church. 


The history of legislation shows us the mind of the 
Church ; that of texts shows the efforts that have been 
made to adopt instruction to the intelligence of the young. 
But legislation and texts produce little fruit, unless in- 
struction be imparted with method. We proceed, therefore,, 
to study the history of the methods which have been 
employed in catechetical instruction. In the early Church 
the teaching of Christian Doctrine was carried on accord- 
ing to a well-defined system. Before admission to the 
rank of catechumen, converts were taught the principal 
mysteries of religion. After admission they were gradually 


initiated in the doctrines and practices of Christianity, 
by assisting at the services and instructions in the Church. 
When their conduct gave reason to hope that they would 
loyally bear the yoke of Christ, they were permitted to have 
their names enrolled as candidates for Baptism. That 
Sacrament was solemnly administered at Easter and at 
Pentecost. At the beginning of Lent, a careful inquiry 
was made concerning the conduct of aspirants to Baptism. 
The names of those who were judged competent were then 

During the entire Lent they assembled daily in the 
church to receive instruction. Here they were fully in- 
structed in the truths of religion. From time to time 
the exorcisms, which now form part of the ceremonies of 
Baptism, were performed. As Lent advanced the text 
of the Creed and the Pater was explained, and the 
candidates were required to commit it to memory. This 
was called the traditio symboli. After an interval of some 
days they were individually examined, and made to repeat 
those texts. This was called the redditio symboli. Then 
they were obliged to renounce Satan, and his pomps and 
works ; a ceremony full of meaning at a time when the 
attractions of the theatre, and the arena, and the circus 
exercised such fascination. 

At length on Holy Saturday the history of religion 
was once more brought before them by the reading of the 
prophecies, which still form a part of the Office on that day. 
Then Baptism and Confirmation were administered, and the 
neophytes were admitted to Holy Communion. During 
the week which followed, their instruction in the doctrine 
of the Holy Eucharist was completed. Such, in substance, 
was the method of instruction, with but slight modification 
in detail, followed in the Eastern and Western Churches. 

In the account of her pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the 
fourth century, given by Sylvia, a rich lady from the south 
of France, we have a graphic description of the manner 
in which religious instruction was imparted in the East. 
She speaks of the preliminary examination at the beginning 
of Lent into the conduct of aspirants to Baptism, of the 


testimony of their sponsors, of the enrolment of their 
names. Then she describes their instruction by the 
bishop : 

Commencing with Genesis [she writes], he goes through the 
entire Scripture, explaining it, first literally, and then spiritually. 
He also explains during those days all that relates to the 
Resurrection, and to faith. Now this is called catechizing. 
When five weeks are completed from the commencement of 
the instruction they receive the symbol. And he gives the 
explanation of the symbol, first literally and then spiritually, 
by means of the Scriptures. In this way he expounds the 
symbol. And hence it comes that all the faithful in that locality 
understand the Scripture when it is read in the church, because 
they are taught it during those forty days from the first to the 
third hour, for the catechism lasts for three hours. . . . 
Then one by one, accompanied by their sponsors, they repeat 
the symbol. 

When Easter comes Baptism is administered, then 
further instruction is given. 

And as the bishop preaches and explains everything, the 
applause is so great as to be heard outside the church. And 
as in that country some of the people speak both Greek and 
Syriac, and some either Greek or Syriac only, hence as the 
bishop, though he should know Syriac, speaks only in Greek, 
and never in Syriac, a priest stands beside him, who interprets 
in Syriac what he says in Greek, so that all may understand. 
. . . And if there be Latins present who understand neither 
Greek nor Syrian, the bishop instructs them also, for there are 
brothers and sisters who know Greek and Latin, and who act 
as interpreters. 1 

The Catechises of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, of St. Chrysos- 
tom, of St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and St. Cesarius of 
Aries, are types of the method of instruction practised in 
the early Church. As Fenelon justly remarks, 1 it was the 
greatest men that were employed to give those instructions, 
hence the fruit was marvellous and now seems to us almost 

But besides the solemn religious instructions given 
as a preparation for Baptism, in certain great centres there 

1 Perigrinatio Silviae, apud Duchesne, Origines du Culte Chretien, 
3rd edit., Appendix 3, pp. 520-21. 
8 3 Dialogue sur I' Eloquence. 


were catechetical schools. The most remarkable of these 
was that of Alexandria, where Pantenus, and Clement, 
and Origen taught. The works of Clement show what the 
method of instruction was. His Exhortatio to the Gentiles, 
his Pedagogue, his Stromata or miscellaneous notes, are but 
a summary of his oral teaching. 

Such was the method of catechetical instruction in use 
in the Church until the seventh century. The spread of 
the Gospel and the disappearance of paganism introduced 
a new order of things. Those now requiring instruction 
were no longer converts, but Christians baptized in infancy. 
For their instruction new methods were adopted. The 
discipline of the secret disappears. First of all, as we 
learn from St. Cesarius of Aries, parents were urged to 
instruct their children at home, in the dogmas and practices 
of religion. Sponsors were exhorted to teach their spiritual 
children by good example. But the duty of teaching 
Christian Doctrine was in a special manner urged upon the 
clergy. St. Bede in a letter above referred to, addressed to 
Egbert, Bishop of York, exhorts him to appoint a priest 
in every village to instruct the people in the articles of the 
Creed and in the Lord's Prayer. The Synod of Cloveshoe in 
747, and of Calchut in 787, decreed that bishops should 
visit their dioceses annually ; and that priests should 
instruct the faithful in the vulgar tongue in the Creed 
and the Pater. It is manifest from the Capitularies and 
letters of Charlemagne, that in the ninth century the 
clergy were obliged to instruct the people in Christian 
Doctrine, and to assure themselves that parents and 
sponsors at Baptism knew the text of the Creed and the 
Lord's Prayer. In the twelfth century, the custom was 
introduced, as we learn from a decree of a synod held in 
Dublin in 1186, of assembling the children for instruction 
at the church door on Sundays. 

This usage appears to have been widespread. For the 
synod of Beziers, in 1246, and that of Albi, in 1254, com- 
mand priests to explain the articles of the Creed in a clear 
and simple style, on Sundays and festivals. And they add, 
that the children shall be brought to church on Sundays 


and festivals to be taught the Pater, Ave, and Credo. 
The decree of the synod of Lambeth, already referred to, 
imposed upon priests the obligation of instructing the 
people in a simple style in Christian Doctrine. Other 
synods repeat the same injunction ; and add that priests 
shall remind the people to instruct their children. Con- 
fessors were directed to inquire of parents in confession 
whether they had fulfilled that duty. From all these facts 
we gather that throughout the Middle Ages, from the 
eighth to the fifteenth century, the method of religious 
instruction in general use was this : children were taught 
the elements of religious knowledge at home ; as soon 
as they were sufficiently advanced in age they were in 
structed in the church on Sundays and festivals. Moreover, 
the general character of parochial instruction was cate- 
chetical. Formal sermons were rare. An instance of this 
is to be found in one of the earliest books published by 
Caxton in 1483. The book contained four discourses to 
be delivered to the people on Christian Doctrine. Now, 
the decree of Lambeth obliged the clergy, to repeat those 
discourses four times a year. Hence we are justified in 
concluding that at least sixteen Sundays in each year 
were devoted to give to the people plain catechetical 
instruction. Such a method could not fail to render the 
faithful familiar with the dogmas and practices of religion. 
The Council of Trent gave a fresh impulse to methods 
of religious instruction. Henceforward instruction in the 
schools and instruction in the church go hand in hand. 
The teaching of catechism in school became an established 
usage. But as poverty hindered many from attending 
school on week-days, the synod of Cambrai, 1565, decreed 
that school-masters should, on Sundays, after vespers, teach 
those unable to read ; and chaplains and clerics were re- 
quired to aid in the good work. The dioceses of Namur,. 
Tournay, Arras, and St. Omer's adopted the legislation of 
the synod of Cambrai, then their metropolis. The synod 
of Malines, in 1570, urges the establishment of Sunday- 
schools to teach the poor the catechism and the art of 
reading and writing. Thus two centuries before Robert 



Raikes organized Protestant Sunday-schools in Gloucester, 
Catholic Sunday-schools were in existence. They can be 
traced back even to the twelfth century. 

The better to carry on combined secular and religious 
instruction, confraternities and congregations were estab- 
lished to undertake the work of teaching. St. Charles 
Borromeo established throughout his diocese confraternities 
of Christian Doctrine. St. Joseph Calasantius founded 
an Order, named Scolopi, or Of the Pious Schools, to under- 
take the education of youth. Orders of women, like the 
Ursulines, were established for the same purpose. In 
France the Venerable Cesar du Bus founded the Order of 
Christian Doctrine, which devoted itself to education. 
The great Society of Jesus held aloft the banner of religion 
in middle and higher education. St. John Baptist de la 
Salle founded the Order of Brothers of the Christian Schools, 
to instruct the humbler classes. Learned men, like Canisius, 
and Bellarmine, and Bossuet, endeavoured to produce 
texts capable of being placed in the hands of children. 
Others, like Fleury, published text-books of the history of 
religion, or of the festivals of the year. Artists lent their 
aid, and illustrated editions of the catechism rendered 
the texts more interesting and instructive. In Rome an 
illustrated catechism was published in 1587, by Father John 
Baptist Romano, SJ. At Antwerp, in 1589, Christopher 
Plautus printed an illustrated edition of the catechism of 
Canisius. At Augsburg, in 1614, another edition of 
Canisius was published with one hundred and three 
woodcuts. At Antwerp another illustrated catechism, with 
fifty- two plates, was printed in 1652, and sold at the 
moderate price of two sous. In France, M. Bourdoise, 
parish priest of St. Nicholas de Chardonnet, made use of 
an illustrated catechism for the instruction of the young. 
Two French illustrated catechisms excelled others as works 
of art one published in 1607 for the education of Louis 

XIII, and the other edited for the instruction of Louis 

XIV, and afterwards published in 1645 with the title of 
Catechisme Royal. In the eighteenth and nineteenth 
centuries the utility of illustrated catechisms has been 


widely recognized. Many such catechisms have been pub- 
lished ; amongst them the edition of the catechism of 
Bellarmine, with fifty engravings from the works of the great 
masters, published by Palme" of Paris in 1884, deserves 

But, excellent as is the method of teaching catechism 
in schools, it is not possible in all countries, and even where 
it is possible, it is imperfect unless completed by instruction 
in the church. Instruction in the school gives a knowledge 
of the text, instruction in the church is needed to impart 
an knowledge of the meaning of the catechism. In all 
countries catechetical instruction in the church is an object 
of solicitude. But in no country has it been so highly 
systematized as in France. In that country it is usual to 
divide catechetical instruction into three grades, namely, 
the elementary grade, for children between the age of 
seven and nine years ; the first communion class for those 
between nine and eleven, and lastly, the catechism of 
perseverance for those above the age of eleven. The 
Reglement des Catechismes, prescribed by Mgr. Dupanloup, 
which is here summarized, will show the method adopted 
in France. 

In the elementary grade the catechism class lasts an 
hour and a half. First the children are interrogated on 
the text of the catechism ; in the second place they are 
examined on the subject of the discourse given by the 
priest at the previous class ; next follows a discourse of 
about twenty minutes' duration by the priest in charge of 
the catechism explaining the text of the catechism, or 
giving a history of religion, dwelling on the history of the 
patriarchs and prophets, on the coming of Christ, the 
establishment of His Church and the institution of the 
Sacraments. After this the written notes of the previous 
discourse are examined. Then the presiding priest gives 
a short practical discourse on the method of making the 
Sign of the Cross, of saying morning and night prayers, of 
hearing Mass and preparing for confession. Lastly, the 
Gospel of the day is read, and a short explanation of its 
meaning brings the exercise to a close. In the intervals, 


between the above mentioned exercises, hymns are sung 
or prayers recited. 

In the first communion class a similar method is 
observed. The interrogations are made on the text of 
the larger catechism. When the date of the first com- 
munion is approaching the candidates are prepared by 
special instructions, extending over about two months. 
During that period the future communicants are assembled 
in the church at least twice a week. The exercise usually 
includes Mass, and lasts two hours. During Mass hymns 
are sung and prayers read aloud, then follows the instruction 
as above described. The whole catechism is gone over. 
Particular pains are taken to inculcate the duty of prayer,, 
and to prepare the children for a general confession. 
After some weeks' instruction the children are examined, 
and a list of those qualified for admission to first com- 
munion is prepared. Special instructions are then given 
on Holy Mass and Holy Communion. The candidates are 
obliged to go to confession, at least every fifteen days, 
at this period. Finally, the preparation for first com- 
munion is brought to a close by a retreat of three days* 

The day of first communion is one of great solemnity, 
and on the day which follows, the first communicants 
assemble to assist at a Mass of thanksgiving. For eight 
days they continue to wear the white dresses or badges 
which they wore on the day of their first communion, a 
usage which is a reminiscence of the time when the 
catechumens were admitted to Holy Communion im- 
mediately after Baptism, and for eight days wore white 
garments, the emblem of innocence and joy. 

After first communion the young are exhorted to fre- 
quent a higher course of catechism, called the catechism of 
perseverance. The same order of exercises is observed 
as in the catechism of first communion. In some 
places young people continue to attend the catechism of 
perseverance until their twentieth year. 

The co-operation of several persons is necessary to 
conduct catechism in this way. Usually in large parishes 


four catechists take part in it. One presides and gives 
the signal for the various exercises. A second sees that 
the children take their places in due order, and notes the 
absentees. A third directs the singing of hymns. A 
fourth keeps a register of the marks obtained by the children 
and of their certificates of confession. When the four 
catechists are priests, each gives the instruction in turn, 
but the admonitions are reserved to the chief catechist. 
Those who attend the catechism of perseverance are 
recommended to communicate every month. 

It is manifest that children who have prepared for their 
first communion by a four years' course of instruction, 
and who then continue to attend for several years the 
catechism of perseverance, must possess a thorough know- 
ledge of the doctrine and practices of religion. 

In recent years religious instruction is being steadily 
banished from primary schools. Hence catechetical in- 
struction in the church has become more necessary. But 
in large centres there are many children, such as errand 
boys, sweeps, circus children, who can hardly be reached 
by ordinary methods. Even these are provided for. 
Confraternities of catechists have been found to assist 
the clergy in instructing such children. In Paris alone, 
in 1900, the number of ladies who voluntarily gave 
their services to this good work amounted to 2,500, and 
the number of children instructed to over 26,500. In 
Paris, too, an ambulant school has been provided for the 
jorains, or circus children, and in these they receive both 
secular and religious instruction. 

Such is a summary of the methods which have been 
adopted at various periods in imparting religious instruction. 
It shows how zealously the Church has at all times en- 
forced the duty of teaching Christian Doctrine. To carry on 
that work with success, many elements must be combined, 
parents at home, teachers in the schools, and the clergy 
must work together. The knowledge of the text of the 
catechism is not enough. The catechism must be known, 
it must be understood, it must be reduced to practice. 
Teachers in the schools can give a knowledge of the text 


of the catechism. It is the office of the clergy to explain, 
its meaning in such a way as to enlighten the intelligence 
of the young, and to move their hearts and wills to practice 

This [says Pius X] is the office of the catechist, to treat some 
triith pertaining either to faith or Christian morality, and to 
illustrate it in every possible way ; and as the end of instruction 
ought to be an amendment of life, the catechist ought to draw 
a parallel between what God commands to be done, and what 
men actually do : then by means of carefully chosen examples, 
either from Sacred Scripture, or ecclesiastical history, or the 
Lives of the Saints, he should persuade his audience, and point 
out to them clearly a rule of conduct, and conclude by exhorting 
all present to dread and fly vice, and pursue virtue. 1 

To catechize with success requires greater diligence 
than any other kind of public speaking. It is easier, 
says the Holy Father, to find an eloquent preacher than 
a good catechist. Yet catechetical instruction is no less 
noble and far more necessary than preaching. It is the 
foundation on which the spiritual life of the people depends. 
Let us hope that the recent legislation of the Holy Father 
may stimulate the zeal of pastors, and elevate still more 
the standard of religious instruction. 


1 Encyclical on Christian Doctrine, I5th April, 1905. 

C 231 ] 

IT had been my original intention to discuss, in one 
paper, the whole question of devotion to the Sacred 
Heart of our Blessed Lord, in its varied latter-day 
manifestations. But some things which have rather 
recently come within the limit of my experience insinuated 
the belief that I should discharge my duty of speaking 
with more satisfaction to myself, and with more profit to 
my readers, if I confined my attention, in this article, to 
the devotion in its daily and general aspects, reserving 
the devotion of the Nine Fridays for separate treatment. 

I trust I shall be pardoned if I discuss, at a little length, 
a subject which I referred to very briefly in a former article, 
namely, the Catholic idea of devotion to images in its 
relation to Catholic practice. I have no intention of deal- 
ing with the question in the hope of arriving at certainty 
in detail for I believe such hope a vain presumption. 
I would speak of it simply because I feel convinced that 
discussion of the matter, though it cannot lead to finality, 
may lead to salutary self-examination. 

The Catholic idea in the matter of images what is it ? 
Solemn definition has not quite decided it in terms of 
ultimate analysis, but it has fixed its limits. The 
Seventh General Council of the Church, held at Nice in 
787, to put a stop to the unholy war against image-worship 
begun by the Emperor Leo the Isaurian in 724, decreed 
that the sacred images of Christ, of the Blessed Virgin, and 
of the saints should be restored to their places of honour 
in the churches, oratories, and private dwellings. It 
declared, moreover, that it is lawful to honour all such 
images with a true and sacred respect and reverence ; but 
it solemnly warns the faithful that no image is to be wor- 
shipped with absolute, supreme worship, for such worship 
it declares to be due to God alone. 


The sacred Council of Trent, it is true, in words of 
grave admonition, reminds the bishops of the Christian 
wcrld of the solemn obligation which is laid upon them 
to preserve the truth and purity of public worship. Yet, 
right in the teeth of the iconoclasm of the so-called re- 
formers, it flings the sacred challenge of the Lord : 

The images of Christ, of His Virgin Mother, and of the other 
saints, are to be kept especially in the churches, and are to 
receive due honour and veneration ; not that we believe them 
to possess any divinity or virtue which could give them a claim 
on our devotion . . . but because the reverence shown to them 
is referred to the prototypes whom they represent ; so that 
through the images which we kiss, and in whose presence we 
uncover the head and bend the knee, we adore Christ, and 
reverence the saints whose image they bear. 1 

In my former article, of which I have already made 
mention, 2 I called the worship paid to images, relative. 
To prevent misconception, let me observe that I did not 
thereby mean to exclude, of necessity, direct reverence, 
that is, reverence paid directly and truly to the image 
itself. I simply wished to emphasize the declaration of 
the Seventh General Council, that to no image whatsoever, 
therefore to no image of Christ, our Lord, to no represen- 
tation even of the Divinity, may we give the supreme 
worship of latria as also to interpret shortly the evident 
sense of the Council of Trent, when it declares that, though 
we are to give to images the honour and veneration which 
is their due, this is not because they possess in themselves 
any divinity or virtue which could give them a title to 
our reverence, but because the honour paid to them is 
referred to the prototypes whom they represent. 

This, at all events, is a something above the plane of 
dispute, it is a dogma of faith, namely, that the rever- 
ence due to images is a reverence sacred and real. But 
the question not unnaturally arises, and is worth consider- 
ing a little what is the precise character of this reverence, 
and how is its character determined ? In other words, is 
the reverence due to the images of Christ, His Virgin 

1 Sessio XXV , De Sacris Imaginibus. 

2 I. E. RECORD, Nov., 1904. 


Mother, and the other saints, always of quite a subordinate 
character, no matter whom the images represent ; deter- 
mined, therefore, at least in substance, by the fact that 
every image is a sacred symbol, and as such, worthy of our 
veneration ? Or must the nature of the reverence be 
definitely and wholly determined by the dignity of the 
person whom the image has been fashioned to represent ; 
the reverence due to the image being on precisely the same 
level as that given to the prototype, that is, co-ordinate 
though relative ? 

I think it must be honestly admitted that a certain 
authoritative answer to these questions is a something 
still to be desired ; a fact which, considering the practical 
character of the matter at issue, seems to me to constitute 
a very mysterious phenomenon in the economy of Catholic 
definition and discipline. And certainly the mystery is 
not lessened when we turn and find ourselves face to face 
with such sharp conflict of opinion as this very question 
has given rise to in the domain of Scholastic theology. 

St. Thomas, prince of the schoolmen, holds and his 
opinion has been accepted by many of the greatest names 
amongst the earlier and later scholastics that the reverence 
due to the image is precisely the same in character as the 
reverence due to the prototype ; that, by the one individual 
act, we reverence both the prototype and the image, giving 
to the former the fulness of homage which is its due and 
yet not excluding the latter. 

Do we, therefore, suppose equality of dignity and 
identity of title ? The reply of course, is absolutely in 
the negative. For the homage, in as far as it is given to 
the original is absolute, while in so far as it extends to 
the original, it is purely relative ; it is paid to the original 
because of a dignity which is inherent, to the image because 
of a dignity which is entirely derivative. By an act of 
the mind, the sacred prototype is clothed with its image 
as with a garment, and being thus reverenced, the garment 
which it has assumed, that is, the image, becomes, as it 
were by accident, a sharer in the honour. The honour is, 
therefore, relative, because founded on, and the result of } 


a relation which is extrinsic and of the purely intentional 

Hence, according to St. Thomas, the images of the 
saints are to be reverenced with the reverence of dulia, 
those of our Blessed Lady with the reverence of hyper- 
dulia, and those of the Divinity and of Christ our Lord 
with the reverence of latria. 

The last portion of this statement seems, at first sight, 
to fly in the face of the Seventh General Council, which 
has declared that to no image whatsoever may we give 
the supreme worship of latria. That no such opposition 
really exists or was ever intended, can be inferred from 
the fact, which we are surely warranted in taking for 
granted, that the ' Angel of the Schools ' was perfectly 
aware of the decree in which this prohibition is enunciated. 

The ground of reconciliation I believe to be partly 
historical, and partly theological. It is historical, as 
supposing which must be fairly evident that the decree 
in question contemplates the existence amongst the faithful 
of a view of images which was either altogether supersti- 
tious, as giving to images a sacred dignity in their own 
exclusive right, or such a view as Cardinal Bellarmine holds 
to be the true one, as I shall explain a little further on. 
In either hypothesis, theology solves the difficulty in 
question ; for, then, the reverence paid to images could 
never be the supreme reverence of latria, but of quite an 
inferior order, if paid at all. In St. Thomas's view of the 
office of images and of the proper mode of giving them 
reverence, the homage given to the images of our Lord, 
or of the Divinity, would be, not the absolute worship of 
latria, not latria by definition, not latria in virtue of in- 
herent dignity, but the relative worship of latria, latria , 
as it were, by accident, latria founded on a borrowed, 
fleeting dignity, the outcome of the mind's endeavour. 

Apart from the great and hallowed names which stand 
sponsor for this opinion, the manner of worship which it 
advocates does seem to be the ideal. While according to 
images their due meed of reverence and their true internal 
significance, it ever tends to keep us in touch with the 


prototypes. In this view, images sweetly and silently 
introduce us to the court of heaven, but never intrude. 
They realize their office, and fulfil it faithfully ; in their 
nature mere things of earth, they know their place and 
keep it. 

It must be confessed, at the same time, that this atti- 
tude towards images, when reduced to practice, is not 
without its inconveniences ; nay, for the uninstructed or 
unthinking, it has an element even of danger. Through 
inadvertence, or, it may be, through ignorance, it is very 
easy to confuse or even pervert the relation between the 
image and its prototype ; to mistake the likeness for the 
original ; to forget that the image is but a lifeless figure, 
having eyes which see not and ears which cannot hear ; 
and, thus, to give to a soulless canvas or a senseless piece of 
sculptured stone or of clay the homage and reverence due 
only to God and to His saints. This is surely a corruptio 
optimi, a perversion which is necessarily tainted with the 
foul taint of superstition, and which may dip into the 
fouler pit of idolatry. 

Still, the opinion advocated by St. Thomas seems to 
have held its ground, practically unchallenged, from his 
own day to the beginning of the sixteenth century, and 

The sacred Council of Trent very significantly deals 
with the question of devotion to images under the heading, 
De Reformatione (' Reform'). It looked out upon a world 
of dire upheaval, a world in which so much mischief had 
been and was still being worked under the specious plea 
of * reformation.' It was fully aware that the Catholic 
attitude towards images, and the abuses incidental to 
Catholic practice, had furnished one of the strongest pre- 
texts for heretical attack. It speaks to the Christian 
world in solemn words of encouragement and in accents of 
solemn warning. And yet, on the question of the char- 
acter of the reverence which we should pay to images, it 
has thought fit to speak in terms which, as we have seen, 
are strangely indecisive. 

Not so the great Cardinal Bellarmine. Speaking 


generally, it may be safely stated that, while preserving the 
doctrines of the Church intact, his aim seemed to be, when 
dealing with the heretics with whom in his time he came 
face to face, to explain and defend Christian dogma along 
the lines of least resistance. Not unnaturally, he con- 
sidered the old Scholastic way of speaking in the matter 
of the reverence due to images, as very much open to 
misrepresentation ; and he has very little hesitation about 
giving his thoughts expression, nor does he mince his words 
in the process. 

Referring l to the opinion advocated by St. Thomas, 
Bellarmine says that such a way of speaking ' is fraught 
with danger ' a somewhat exaggerated presentation of 
the matter ; nay, it ' is calculated to lead the faithful 
astray, inasmuch as it cannot be satisfactorily explained 
without a multitude of subtle distinctions, which the authors 
themselves do not understand ' surely the Cardinal's 
zeal in the cause of orthodoxy must have led his judgment 
captive here. Lastly, it ' gives heretics an opportunity 
of more freely blaspheming ' a conclusion drawn, we may 
presume, from his own observation and experience. With 
regard to this parting shot, I may remark that the Cardinal 
does not undertake to prove it ; in fact it belongs to that 
class of statements which can be just as safely denied as 
affirmed, because equally incapable of being satisfactorily 
proved or disproved. 

He quite admits that it is justifiable to reverence images 
with the reverence due to the original, provided it is given 
as it were by accident, and relatively. But he strongly 
asserts that such a way of showing reverence is neither 
feasible, nor is it ever, except very rarely, adopted by the 
faithful. 2 

His contention, therefore, is that we ought to regard 
images simply as sacred things, sacred symbols dedicated 
to sacred uses, and, as such, worthy of our respect and 
reverence ; not, however, of such reverence as we would 
give to an intelligent being, for images have neither mind 

1 De Imaginibus, lib. 2, cap. xxii. 

2 Ibid., cap. xxiii. 


nor sense, nor life, but with a certain subordinate character 
of sacred reverence. The respect thus paid to images bears 
to the reverence due to the original a certain relation of 
analogy, and is quite incapable of being classed under the 
same immediate heading. The reverence given to the 
images of the saints the Cardinal would call not dulia 
properly so called, but dulia secundum quid, dulia only in 
a sense, a very imperfect imitation of the dulia given to 
the saints themselves, just as the image itself is an im- 
perfect reproduction of the prototype. In a like sense 
the reverence given to images of our Blessed Lady would 
be hyperdulia secundum quid, and that paid to images of 
our Divine Lord, latria secundum quid. 1 

This view of Cardinal Bellarmine contrasted with the 
opinion of St. Thomas, would explain itself somewhat 
after the following fashion. An image fresh from the hands 
of the artificer, and made to resemble in some sense our 
Lady, Queen of Heaven, for example, by that very fact 
puts on a certain inferior kind of consecration and an 
abiding character of sacredness. It has a sacred office ; 
it is, or is conceived to be, a representation of a sacred 
prototype, and, as such, is a lasting memento or reminder. 
This precisely is its function, namely, not so much to 
represent our Lady, as to help, to suggest, devotion to her. 
And from the character of its office follows the character 
of the veneration which is its due. It is a herald, not an 
ambassador. It has a certain dignity abiding in itself, 
though not of itself ; such dignity must necessarily be of 
quite a subordinate character, and can, therefore, claim 
only a subordinate character of veneration. 

If the purposes of controversy and dogmatic defence 
be alone considered, I do not think there is anyone who 
could wholly disagree with this contention of the great 
Cardinal. But if we look at the matter from the point of 
view of discipline and liturgy, one may hesitate a little 
before subscribing to his opinion. 

It is quite evident indeed that, if the faithful regard 
images as Cardinal Bellarmine contends they ought and 

i De Imaginibus, lib. 2, cap. xxv. 


almost invariably do, idolatry becomes so far an absolute 
impossibility. For, though I may forget the purpose of 
the statue which I venerate, though I may unduly regard 
it as having an excellence all its own, and consequently 
reverence it with a reverence which is quite unwarranted, 
because unfounded, still, since I look upon this excellence 
as something of a subordinate character, it follows that 
the reverence which I pay it, though not justifiable, is of 
a subordinate character as well. My reverence is misplaced 
and, therefore, superstitious, but cannot run into the 
enormity of idolatry. 

But there is another view of the question which makes 
the opinion of Cardinal Bellarmine compare less favourably 
with that of the older schoolmen. For, the image is the 
thing which our eyes can see and our hands can handle. 
Therefore, to give the image an office and a dignity of its 
own, definitely distinct from the prototype whom it re- 
presents, is necessarily to bring the image well into the 
foreground of our thoughts and to keep the prototype 
somewhat in the background. At any rate, it may be fairly 
contened that, if the practice which the Cardinal so strongly 
advocates be the true one and the one of fact, devotion to 
images does not of necessity connote adequate, conscious 
devotion to Christ and His saints. 

But perhaps we can, by one individual act of the mind, 
reverence the image with the lower reverence which is its 
due, and the original with a higher, becoming reverence ? 
And again, is not reverence shown to the image, though 
of a lower order, ultimately resolvable into reverence 
shown to the saint ? 

The second question, I am quite prepared to answer in 
the affirmative provided I am allowed to qualify my 
answer by another question: Will any saint be content 
with such devotion or reverence as the normal rule of our 
relations towards him ? 

With regard to the first question, if mere possibility 
be considered, there is only one answer, and that affir- 
mative. But, a posse ad esse non valet ittatio possibility 
and fact are not convertible terms. Such composite 


reverence is possible, but is it likely that it will ever 
become anything like a rule of life ? 

May I not reverence the original by a higher and inde- 
pendent act of reverence, at the same moment that I am 
paying lower homage to the image ? Of course I may. 
But is there not some danger lest, with my eyes resting 
on the image, I may forget the higher and more funda- 
mental duty ? We all know how easily our senses lead 
us, and the knowledge is often a bitter awakening. 

To the question what is the actual attitude of the 
Catholic mind towards images ? I honestly believe a definite 
answer utterly impossible. That Catholic devotion to 
images has always meant genuine devotion to Christ and 
His saints, it would be idle to affirm ; that it has been 
often tinged with superstition, it would be just as idle to 
deny ; to deny it would be to close our eyes against the 
clear light of history. That all Catholics, who give the 
images their due meed of reverence, look at them in the 
same way, or, that the same individual looks at them 
from the same point of view at all times and in all places, 
are propositions which I should feel very little hesitation 
in doubting or even denying. 

It is now some years since I was witness to an 
exhibition of Catholic devotion which made an impression 
upon me beyond the power of years to destroy or weaken. 
It was in the afternoon of a bright harvest day. The 
slanting rays of a sweltering autumn sun were beating 
their golden light against the sheaves of yellow grain, 
which a score of men and women were busily engaged in 
saving. Suddenly, one of the harvesters called attention 
to something passing along the road hard by. It was only 
a statue of our Blessed Lady, which was being borne from 
one of the parish chapels to another. But it was un- 
covered ; as it were, inviting reverence. All looked and 
saw and to see was to fall upon their knees and pray. It 
was a sight not to be forgotten, a sight to treasure in one's 
memory. And truly, in these latter days of weak and 
calculating faith, it is only memory that can bring such 
sterling faith in cheering vision before us. 


But, to my purpose. What view did these grand 
worshippers take of that statue passing by ? Did they 
look upon it merely as a sacred symbol, a suggestion, an 
invitation to turn their thoughts towards her whose image 
it was supposed to bear ? It may be that they really did. 
But to me they seemed and still they seem to look upon 
it as the mystic passing of their Queen. 

I began this discussion by a confession that I did not 
open it with a view to saying the last word upon the matter. 
That confession I think I have amply justified. But, I 
premised as well that I trusted the discussion would not 
prove quite fruitless. I trust so still. For I think I have 
proved that this matter of devotion to images means a 
responsibility which cannot be shirked, neither in the 
catechism class, nor in the confessional, nor in the pulpit. 
Devotion to images is a most useful and a most salutary 
Catholic practice ; but whatever view be taken of the 
office of images, this devotion can never be wholly free 
from danger. In the very nature of things, it must be so ; 
that it has been so, more than one page of authentic Church 
history could furnish proof. The moral of the whole dis- 
cussion is crystallized in the solemn command of the sacred 
Council of Trent, that, ' Everything superstitious in the 
invocation of saints, the veneration of relics, and the use 
of images be removed,'' and that ' all bishops and others 
to whom is committed the office of teaching . . . should 
diligently instruct the faithful regarding the legitimate use 
of images.' 1 

So far I do not seem to have said much to justify the 
title of my article. To remove such an impression it will 
be sufficient to call attention to the fact that the image of 
the Sacred Heart in a church is the geographical centre 
round which rotate very many of the daily devotional 
practices in honour of the adorable Heart of our Divine 
Lord. It, therefore, becomes practically a question of 
specializing my criticism. 

It is a dogma of Catholic faith that Christ as Man is to 

1 Sess. XXV. The italics are mine. 


be reverenced with the supreme worship of latria. The 
thesis which maintains that ' devotion to the Sacred Heart 
of our Blessed Lord, as practised by Catholics all over 
the world, is free from all taint of superstition,' though 
not an article of faith, admits neither of doubt nor denial, 
inasmuch as it is the voice of the Catholic Church 
believing, and advocates a devotion which has the solemn 
approval of the Apostolic See. It is also certain that the 
material object of this devotion, that is, the Thing which 
we love and venerate, is the living Heart of Christ, our 

It would fit in with my argument here to draw the 
attention of my readers to an interesting rubrical enact- 
ment, which shows very clearly the anxiety of Holy Church 
to guard this cherished devotion against all danger of 
superstitious taint. In the year 1857, the Sacred Con- 
gregation of Rites forbade the public exposition or venera- 
tion of representations of the Sacred Heart of our Blessed 
Lord apart from the full figure. The prohibition was not 
quite absolute, inasmuch as it left it within the discretion 
of the bishop to permit such representations, if he thought 

The meaning of the law is evident. It is not the dead 
Heart, but the living, beating Heart, that we are to adore 
and venerate. 

But there is another reason which might well have 
justified such an enactment. Theologians discuss the ques- 
tion whether we may venerate the Sacred Heart of the God- 
Man with a reverence less than divine. To give an answer to 
such a question is not my concern here. I merely refer to it 
as leading up to the proposition on which all are neces- 
sarily agreed, namely, that we are bound to reverence the 
Sacred Heart of Christ, primarily and in the first instance 
at least if not exclusively with the reverence of absolute 
adoration. Not that the Sacred Heart has within Its 
physical composition anything which constitutes It by 
nature divine ; but because, in virtue of the hypostatic 
union, it is the Heart of God, of the Second Person of the 
adorable Trinity made Man. It is not something linked 



with Christ our Lord, by a physical bond which is merely 
accidental, as were the garments which He wore as He 
walked by the shore of the sea of Galilee. Nor is Its con- 
nection with our Divine Lord something merely intentional, 
merely a relation of contact made by the mind of the 
worshipper, as would be an image of the Sacred Heart. 
The union is much more than all this, of an order infinitely 
higher. It is real and physical, it is intimate, it is sub- 
stantial, that is, personal ; so supremely intimate that to 
understand Its nature is quite beyond the capacity of 
human comprehension it forms one of the chief mysteries 
of our holy faith. 

On the other hand, however, though there is union 
the most undying and the most profound, there is not, 
there cannot be, identity. The Sacred Heart is, and 
always will be, human. 

Why, then, worship It as a thing divine ? Because It 
is divine, as it were, by participation. Therefore, we 
worship It not quite for Its own sake, but because we 
cannot do less than worship Him whose very Heart It is. 
And when we pay It the tribute of our humble adoration, 
He is always before our minds as the ultimate governing 
reason of our reverence ; and of a surety, we must believe 
Him God and worship Him accordingly. 

It is just here that the prohibition of the Sacred Con- 
gregation of Rites comes in. For all true reverence to the 
Sacred Heart must ultimately resolve itself into reverence 
towards the person of Christ. What more helpful, then, 
or more salutary, than that the image of the Sacred Heart 
should always form part of a whole, which represents, as 
far as the limitations of human skill permit, the living 
person of Christ, our Lord. 

Methinks I hear around me just now a subdued and 
halting chorus of question and expostulation from certain 
quarters of the Church Militant : ' What is the necessity 
for a statue of the Sacred Heart in a church at all, if the 
Blessed Sacrament be reserved in the tabernacle ? Where 
does its usefulness come in ? A statue of our Lady is good 
and helpful, no doubt, for it is a visible, constant reminder 


of her who reigns Queen of Heaven. But it seems quite 
otherwise with a statue of the Sacred Heart placed within 
a few feet of the tabernacle. What need of a lifeless Heart 
to remind us of a Living One, when the Living Heart is 
right before us ? And if we needed a reminder of the 
Real Presence, have we not got it, a sure and a safe and 
an unerring one, in the lamp which burns before the altar 
of the Living God ? ' 

And the chorus seems to swell and grow insistent : 
4 Are not the abuses which are the daily concomitant of 
this devotion, as practised in our churches, a sufficient 
and convincing proof, if proof were needed, that a statue 
of the Sacred Heart in a church where Christ the Living 
dwells, is rather a hindrance than a help ? For what does 
our modern daily devotion to the Sacred Heart too often 
come to ? Look and see a kneeling figure, a lifeless statue, 
a fleeting prayer, a lighted candle, behold its history.' 

What answer shall I make to all these indictments ? 
I do not find the task an easy one. As a personal confes- 
sion, I may state that I always prefer to kneel before the 
living tabernacle. But that is not necessarily more than 
a manifestation of individual temperament. At the same 
time, I must confess that it would be folly to deny that the 
statements and charges just enunciated are altogether 
without foundation. For it is true that, in the daily exer- 
cises of devotion to the Sacred Heart, in churches where 
the Real Presence abides, a dead Heart is sometimes sub- 
stituted for a living, a heart of stone for a Heart of flesh and 
blood, a something far less than human for a Something 
by assumption divine. 

It is a repetition all the year round of what often happens 
at Christmas time when the Christmas crib is erected. 
Worshippers, old and young and for the young the prac- 
tise is more hurtful come and pray before the little Babe 
in the manger, and, by some strange fatality, often leave 
the church without turning their thoughts, even for a 
moment, to the living Prisoner of the tabernacle. They 
seem to have forgotten that for us, the Church is the real 
stable, and the manger is the tabernacle. 


Ought we, therefore, remove the crib from its quiet 
corner, and the statue of the Sacred Heart from its pedestal ? 
We dare not answer in the affirmative ; and I would 
not though I dared. To begin with, ecclesiastical autho- 
rity not only permits, but equivalently approves of, such 
helps to devotion. Moreover, if incidental abuses be taken 
as the test of the utility of sensible objects which are in- 
tended as helps to true devotion and reverence, we should > 
if we wish to be consistent, identify ourselves with the 
naked ritual of utter Protestantism, and refuse to have 
or to worship any sacred image whatsoever. Until it is 
proved that a statue of the Sacred Heart in a church is, 
on the whole, more harmful than helpful and we have at 
hand no evidence sufficient to warrant us in coming to 
such a conclusion every consideration, not merely of 
reverence but of common sense, bids us hold our hand 
and leave the statue rest in its place. 

But I think I am not giving utterance to an opinion 
peculiar to myself, when I say that such a statue so placed 
may very easily become something perilously like a stumb- 
ling-block. For it is not as a statue of our Lady or of 
St. Anthony. It is not a reminder of somebody that is far 
away, but a help to bring us nearer still in thought and 
affection to One who is very near. 

It, therefore, ought ever be as a sacred finger-post, 
across which is written, in characters which the eye of 
faith cannot mistake, the legend, * To the Tabernacle.' 
Be it the Lord's ambassador, or His herald, or what you 
will, its significance must be full and clear, and its invita- 
tion imperative. And every light burning before it is an 
ignis fatuus, a veritable will-o'-the-wisp, if its rays do not 
glance off the statue and, like the star of Bethlehem, rest 
above the living Christ in His cradle on the altar, beckoning 
the faithful to follow and adore. 

How far is such an ideal realized ? To give a practical 
answer to this question, one or two things must be borne 
in mind. The formal aim of a statue of the Sacred Heart 
is, of course, to promote devotion to the Sacred Heart. 
Now, whatever be the objective of devotion to the Sacred 


Heart in theory, it is concreted and localized in devotion 
to the Blessed Sacrament. The test, therefore, and the 
measure of the success or failure of a statue of the Sacred 
Heart in a church is the measure in which it furthers 
devotion to our Blessed Lord in the tabernacle. 

How far, then, is its aim realized ? Perfect, or even 
approximately perfect, realization is necessarily out of the 
question in a spiritual effort into which the imperfect 
human element so largely enters. But is the realization 
even moderately satisfactory ? Is it such as, all things 
considered and all allowances made, one might reasonably 
expect ? That it is so in some cases, in many cases, I 
should be very loth to deny. But, speaking generally, I 
am afraid that only the blindest of blind optimism could 
afford to answer these questions in the affirmative. And 
even this statement does not exhaust the truth, as it seems 
to me. For there is something which is worse than failure 
there is perversion. And it has sometimes happened, 
owing to darkest ignorance the result, it may be, of even 
elementary instruction on the legitimate use of images 
that a statue of the Sacred Heart, instead of being a positive 
help towards the realization of its purpose, has become a 
positive hindrance thereto, has become, in its own despite, 
a stumbling-block and a rock of scandal. I speak with the 
energetic conviction of an eye-witness ; and in more than 
one church in Ireland have my eyes been witness to the evil. 

By way of conclusion, and as indicating whither mis- 
direction may lead in this region of Catholic devotion, 
I beg leave to submit a contrast. Firstly, I would ask 
my readers to cast their eyes on the teeming petitions with 
which the enshrined statues in our churches are constantly 
besieged, from day to day and from week to week, petitions 
clad in countless varying hues, but few of them, very 
few, even tinged with the purple red of Calvary, or with 
the azure blue of heaven. Then, I would bespeak their 
attention to the solemn uplifting voice of the holy Council 
of Trent : 

Let the Bishops diligently teach the faithful . . . that much 
fruit may be derived from all sacred images ; not only because 


the faithful are thereby reminded of the gifts and benefits 
purchased by Christ our Lord, but also because the salutary 
example of the saints and the miracles which God has worked 
through their instrumentality are brought before the eyes of 
the people to the end, that, for all these things, they may render 
due thanks ; that they may model their lives according to the 
example set before them ; that they may be led to adore and 
love God in their hearts, and to lead godly lives. 1 

A crown of contrast and I have done. What I am about 
to state will, doubtless, be the signal for some of my readers 
to hold up their hands in horror and disbelief. I should 
like to be an unbeliever myself, but unfortunately I speak 
from open knowledge. And I speak of something which, 
in the opinion of not a few, is a natural variation of the 
modern phenomenon often called, and honestly mistaken 
for, devotion though others would, I am sure, regard it as a 
*rery startling development. What, I ask, would the vener- 
able Fathers of Trent have thought, in what terms would they 
have spoken, of the action of Catholics who, having deve- 
loped a taste or a passion for betting, and having deter- 
mined to gamble on a horse-race earnings which they can 
ill afford to mis-spend, enter the sacred temple of the 
Lord, light a candle at a shrine, and, on bended knee, dare 
to ask one of the saints of God or even the Queen of 
Heaven herself to direct their choice aright, or to crown 
their choosing with success ? 

I have inverted the usual order, and kept my text for 
the end. It is from Cardinal Newman : ' Only this I 
know full well now . . . that the Catholic Church allows no 
image of any sort, material or immaterial, no dogmatic 
symbol, no rite, no sacrament, no saint, not even tie 
Blessed Virgin herself, to come between the soul and its 
Creator.' 2 


Sess. XXV. * Apologia, chap. iv.. 2. 


IT has been finally decided, by the important decision 
delivered in the Court of Appeal on Monday, February 
5th, that bequests for Masses are valid charitable 
gifts in Ireland, though there be no direction that the 
Masses shall be celebrated in public. The judgments of the 
Judges not unnaturally differed somewhat in their con- 
ception and exposition of the manner in which Masses 
celebrated in private may be deemed to be of general 
public use. I am not, however, going to deal with the 
legal aspects of this important decision, but I take occasion 
from it to write a short paper on some questions connected 
with the holy sacrifice of the Mass, and in particular with 
the questions referred to in the judgments of the learned 
Judges of the Court of Appeal. 


During the discussions on the validity of Anglican 
Orders some erroneous theories about the essential in- 
dependence and the efficacy of the Mass, which had com- 
pletely disappeared from the text-books of theology, 
were again disinterred from the tombs to which oblivion 
had charitably consigned them. The Pope pronounced 
against the validity of Anglican Orders on account of a 
defect of the essential form of ordination and defect of 
intention. Some of the Anglican divines sought to parry 
the blow by arguing that the English reformers never 
denied the true doctrine of the Eucharistic sacrifice, but 
only repudiated certain erroneous theories that had been 
advanced by some of the schoolmen ; that, no doubt, 
words and phrases which gave special prominence to the 
priestly function of offering sacrifice were struck out of 
the liturgical formularies, but only as a protest against the 
pernicious errors that had been taught by continental 


theologians ; that as the Church determined to retain 
the Eucharistic sacrifice, she must have preserved sub- 
stantially the form of ordination, and that surely her 
bishops had the intention of conferring, when they gave 
orders, the power of offering the Eucharistic sacrifice. 

Foremost among the theological offenders referred to 
was Ambrosius Catharinus. When the heretics urged 
against the true sacrificial character of the Mass the 
teaching of St. Paul 1 : ' For by one oblation He hath per- 
fected for ever them that are sanctified. . . . Now 
where there is a remission of these, there is no more an 
oblation for sin. . . . And if we sin wilfully after having 
the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice 
for sins ; ' Catharinus replied 2 by an orginal but very 
erroneous exposition of the teaching of St. Paul and of 
the relation of the sacrifice of the Mass to the sacrifice 
of the Cross. He distinguished two classes of sins to be 
remitted, original sin with the actual sins committed 
before Baptism, and the sins committed after Baptism. 
Original sin and the actual sins committed before 
Baptism he called one sin which he also called the 
sin of the Old Testament on account of the origin 
of these actual sins, as he said, from original sin ; and the 
sins committed after Baptism he called the sins of the New 
Testament. According to Catharinus the sacrifice of the 
Cross was offered for the sin of the Old Testament alone, 
that is, for original sin and the sins committed before 
Baptism, and employs the sacrament of Baptism as its 
secondary cause or instrument for the application of its 
merits ; and its superiority over the sacrifices of the Old 
Law is proved, because in them there was made an in- 
effective commemoration of the Old Testament sin every 
year, whereas it was effectively remitted by a single 
oblation of the sacrifice of Calvary. For the sins of the 
New Testament, he said, for our voluntary sins, the sacrifice 
of the Mass was instituted, and employs as its secondary 
cause or instrument for applying its merits, the sacra- 

i Heb., x. 14. 18, 26. In Heb. loc cit. 


ment of Penance ; and as our voluntary sins are many, 
the sacrifice is daily repeated. To the arguments against 
the sacrifice of the Mass from the Epistle to the Hebrews 
he replied that the Epistle deals solely with the sacrifice 
for the sin of the Old Testament, that there remains no 
bloody sacrifice for our voluntary sins of the New Testa- 
ment, but that we have the unbloody sacrifice of the Mass 
operating through its own proper instrument, the sacrament 
of Penance. 

This opinion Melchior Canus calls ' deliratio,' * and 
Vasquez is scarcely less complimentary : < manifeste ab- 
surda et contra fidem Catholicam aperte pugnat ' ; 2 and 
theologians teach as a truth of faith that the Mass is not 
an independent sacrifice, nor a universal cause co-ordinate 
with the sacrifice of the Cross and operating through the 
sacraments as secondary causes or instruments, but a 
dependent relative sacrifice occupying the position of 
secondary cause or instrument for applying the merits 
of Calvary. 

The next to be pilloried by the Anglicans for extravagant 
views about the holy sacrifice are Gabriel and Peter Soto, 
who are accused of teaching that the Mass, by divine 
institution, has the power of remitting mortal sins im- 
mediately, like the sacrament of Penance ; so that if a person 
who had committed a mortal sin, elicited an act of attrition 
for his sin and got a Mass applied for himself, he would 
directly and immediately obtain pardon through the 
sacrifice of the Mass, as through the sacrament of Penance. 
But, as Suarez explains, these theologians did not claim 
for the Mass the immediate power of effectively remitting 
mortal sin, but they taught, in opposition to the view 
that it has no power to remit mortal sin, that the Mass 
has a real efficacy for the remission of mortal sin, that is, 
by impetration, by obtaining for the sinner the grace of per- 
fect contrition or attrition with the sacrament of Penance. 

The Mass, therefore, cannot remit mortal sin immediately, 
nor more probably venial sins, but indirectly by impetrating 

1 Dt loeis theologicis, 1. xii. c. xii. 2 Disp. ccxxi., c. iv. n. 35. 


the grace of repentance : it cannot confer immediately 
an increase of sanctifying grace, but only by obtaining 
for us greater intensity of sorrow for past sins and greater 
fervour in good works : it can remit the temporal punish- 
ment due to sin immediately ; temporal favours, such as 
recovery from illness, success in life, etc. : it can impetrate 
for us, like prayer, but not infallibly, either immediately 
or to be obtained through the medium of natural causes : 
and whatever can be the legitimate object of prayer can 
also be lawfully asked for through the oblation of the 
sacrifice of the Mass. 

Finally, few if any unprejudiced critics will admit 
that the Anglican reformers had in mind only the 
erroneous teaching of Catharinus and the somewhat 
ambiguous views of Gabriel and Soto when they enacted : 
* Wherefore the sacrifice of Masses, in which it was commonly 
said that the priests did offer Christ for the quick and the 
dead to have remission of pain and guilt, were blasphemous 
fables and dangerous deceits.* 1 


I will next very briefly consider who participate in the 
fruits of the Mass, and how the Mass though celebrated 
in private may be of public general use. I shall regard 
the Mass not as a private devotion of the priest, or of the 
faithful assisting at the Mass, or of the Church generally, 
but as a sacrifice offered in the name of Christ. The 
Mass is a sacrifice of adoration, of praise and thanks- 
giving, of propitiation and satisfaction for sin, and of 
impetration. The adoration and thanksgiving of the 
sacrifice are applied not to creatures, but to God, and in 
the name of all the faithful. And thus, as the Chief Baron 
argued, a gift for Masses is a gift to God ; and inde- 
pendently of its propitiation and impetration the Mass 
is of general benefit as an act of worship in which adora- 
tion and thanksgiving are offered to God on behalf of all 
the faithful. There remain the propitiation and impetra- 
tion of the sacrifice ; and I shall consider to what extent 

i Art. XXXI. 


we participate in these fruits of the Mass by joining in 
the actual oblation, and to what extent by having Mass 
offered for us. 

1. Suarez teaches that the priest who offers, and all 
who assist at the Mass, or co-operate in the oblation of the 
holy sacrifice, receive a part of the fruits ex opere operato, 
by reason of the act of offering. Vasquez on the contrary 
holds that the Mass, like the sacraments, acts ex opere 
operato, not in favour of the minister or by reason of the 
act of offering, but in favour of the subjects for whom 
it is offered, and to whom its fruits are applied. 

2. Then these fruits of the Mass, and especially its 
satisfaction for sin, are applied in a special manner to 
those for whom the holy sacrifice is offered. But though 
the Mass be offered for a special person or for special 
persons, by the law of the Church a part of the fruits 
of every Mass, whether celebrated publicly or in private, 
must be applied for the benefit of all the faithful, living 
and dead ; though it is disputed whether this, general 
fruit includes impetration and propitiation, or is only 
impetration. Infidelity to this duty would not be, of 
course, blasphemous or heretical, but merely a grave 
violation of ecclesiastical law. Hence the Mass, though 
celebrated privately, is regarded by Catholics as an act 
of public general utility ; and it was an inadequate and 
unsatisfactory and narrow theory of law that the Mass, 
as was supposed in previous legal decisions, is an act of 
public use to Catholics only because it tends, when cele- 
brated in a public church, to the instruction and edification 
of the congregation present at the Mass ; it took cognizance 
only of the effects of the Mass ex opere operantis. 


The Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Baron argued 
that gifts for Masses are of public utility, because they are 
a partial endowment for the maintenance of a minister 
of religion. I do not consider the money,* the Chief Baron 
went on to observe, a consideration for the celebration. 
It is an alms to the clergyman, accompanied by a request 


for the celebration of Mass. . . . The Church then 
imposes on the conscience of the clergyman an obligation 
to say and apply the Mass for the prescribed intention ; 
but the obligation is one to the Church and not to the 

The relation of money given for Masses to the Masses 
themselves is, in principle, the same as the relation of 
all ecclesiastical incomes to the spiritual functions for 
which they are given, for example, the administration of 
sacraments, preaching, conducting divine service. In all 
Christian communions it is regarded as simony to sell or 
buy for a temporal consideration a spiritual ministration. 
But in all Christian communions it is considered lawful 
for clergymen to accept an income, whether of a permanent 
or casual character ; though there is considerable diversity 
of opinion about the precise title and obligation of 
ecclesiastical incomes. I will speak solely of honoraria for 

De Lugo mentions five different explanations of the 
obligation of honoraria ; but of these I shall refer only 
to the first and last. Some then, with whom the Chief 
Baron agrees, held that the obligation is one of obedience 
alone ; that there is a double precept, one on the part of 
the people of maintaining their priests, and the other on 
the part of the priests of performing for their people the 
prescribed ministrations. But the more common opinion 
is that, independently of any command of the Church, 
there is an obligation of justice ; without, however, re- 
garding the general income as a consideration for the 
general ministrations, or a particular gift as a consideration 
for a particular ministration. If, for example, the teaching 
or medical professions were too sacred to be the equivalents 
of a temporal consideration, a district would yet be bound 
in justice, they would say, to support its doctor or teacher, 
and the doctor and teacher would be bound in justice to 
minister in their districts. And so the priest is bound in 
justice to say Masses for honoraria received ; and the 
faithful are bound in justice to give alms for the support 
of their priests, some of which is given in the shape of a 


general income similar to their general duties, and some 
on the occasion of special ministrations in behalf of 
special persons, as when a priest offers Mass for particular 
individuals. But the title is specifically the same for the 
general and casual income : the income is received as an 
alms for maintenance with an obligation of performing 
certain spiritual ministrations. The donor, therefore, of 
gifts for Masses does not seek his or her own interest alone, 
but also contributes to the maintenance of the priest. And 
so the theological consideration of honoraria, whether 
they be believed to impose an obligation of justice or of 
obedience alone, favoured the judgment that gifts for 
Masses are of public utility, as being a partial endowment 
of a minister of religion. 


[ 254 I 



IRELAND has good reason to lament the death and to honour 
the memory of Cardinal Perraud. At a time when her people 
were crushed and the exterminator was at work all over the 
land the heart of Adolphe Perraud was stirred within him, 
and with the traditional affection of Catholic France for la 
Verte Erin, he came over here, spent two years in this country, 
saw everything for himself, and on his return, published two 
volumes which brought the Government of England before the 
tribunal of the civilized world. Englishmen, with all their airs 
of independence, are particularly sensitive to the verdict of that 
tribunal when once the case is presented to it. Mr. Gladstone, 
in some of his Home Rule speeches, admitted the feelings of 
shame and humiliation with which he read the works of Gustave 
de Beaumont and Mgr. Perraud. For although Perraud was 
an ecclesiastic and a bishop he was also an Academician, and it 
was felt that his voice was heard and respected in France ; and 
the voice that is heard in France soon makes itself heard to the 
ends of the world 

These two volumes on VIrlande Contemporaine, reveal not 
only a warm heart but a great mind. They show with what 
unlimited pains and with what consummate art a Frenchman 
of the better class acquires his facts and presents them to the 
public. The historical introduction, the system of land tenure, 
education, poor laws, evictions, emigration, religion, everything 
is dealt with as if that alone were the sole object of inquiry. 
The accumulative result was overwhelming ; and the gentle 
words of sympathy with which the work concluded were worthy 
of the heart and hand that undertook the labour. Who knows 
what influence these very words may have had on Mr. Gladstone 
in after years ? 

' I wish,' wrote Mgr. Perraud, ' that after having read this 
book some Englishman with a heart and courage for the good 
would say to himself, like that immortal Wilberforce who swore 
that he would know no rest until he had vanquished slavery 
" I shall not cease to labour, to write, to act on public opinion, 
to struggle, and to agitate, until England has done justice to 


Ireland and wiped out the last trace of a persecution that has 
been carried on for three hundred years." 

' I remember one day in the Basilica of St.? Peter what a 
great emotion took possession of me when I read on the humble 
door of a confessional these simple words, Gens Hibernica, and 
on another, Gens Polona. Thus, I said, conquerors have been 
able to blot out from the map of the world the very name of 
Poland, the glorious Catholic nation of Central Europe. Poli- 
ticians and worldly sages take but little interest in the mis- 
fortunes of Ireland, because she suffered in the cause of Catholi- 
cism. But the Holy Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman Church has 
neither admitted this suppression nor shared in this indifference. 
Near the tombs of the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in the 
centre of Catholicity, she guards these great names, immortal 
souvenirs, watchwords of holy and invincible hope. Ireland and 
Poland, noble sisters who have suffered so much and who suffer 
still for our holy faith, hold firm in your hands the standards 
of St. Patrick and St. Casimir ! You have to your account no 
dishonest triumphs, no guilty successes. Through the long 
career of persecution and trial through which Providence has 
led you it is for noble causes that you have done battle, for 
justice that you have struggled to the last drop of your blood. 
In the eyes of those who measure all things by success you 
were wrong to fight, since you have been conquered ; your ene- 
mies are right for they have succeeded. But for those who 
look to the morality of history far different is their judgment. 
To them your defeat is only apparent as is the victory of your 
persecutors ; for besides the fact that God, the Master of the 
future, can, when and how He pleases, give you back what the 
violence of politicians has wrested from you, you have kept 
in spite of your enemies the treasure of which they wished, 
above all things, to despoil you. You have kept it, and it has 
increased and fructified in your hands. Like the Church, your 
mother, you have grown great under persecution ; and whilst 
the triumphant nations are going to sleep in indifference and 
are growing sluggish and material in the abundance of their 
gain, you, the illustrious victims of the past and the present, 
hold up to the eyes of the world, the inextinguishable torch of 
faith, and hope, and love. Have courage ! Your trials will 
not last for ever. The works of iniquity crumble and perish. 
" Vidi impium superexaltatum et elevatum sicut Cedros Libani, 
et ecce non erat " (Ps. xxxvi.) ' 

Cardinal Perraud, soon after his ordination, joined the 
Congregation of the Oratory, the Congregation of which Male- 
branche, Morinus, Thomassin, Richard Simon, Massillon, and 
Gratry were members ; but for many years hej.occupied the 


position of Professor of Church History at the Sor bonne. It 
is usual to have at least one bishop in the Academy founded 
by Richelieu, and soon after the death of Mgr. Dupanloup, 
Mgr. Perraud was elected as one of the forty immortals. 

He looked the very picture of a medieval bishop, and it 
was said that he was cold and distant in his manner. That he 
was not so to those who knew him well, I could give many 
proofs ; for Cardinal Perraud was the intimate associate and life- 
long friend of one who was near and dear to me. During the 
time he was writing and preparing his book on Ireland they 
were constantly together ; and when, after upwards of thirty 
years in the service of the French clergy, his Irish friend was 
called away to found a college in the United States, I find in 
the midst of a long correspondence the following letter, which 
whatever else it may be, is not cold or distant : 

' AUTUN, 25 Juin, 1884. 

' Dans quelques jours vous terminerez votre longue et f 6conde 
mission au Grand Seminaire de Paris, et vous vous disposerez a 
franchir les mers pour vous rendre au poste oti la Providence 
vous appelle. 

* Ne voudrez-vous pas, avant de vous rendre en Irlande, 
ou je sais que vous devez aller prendre conge de votre famille 
venir recommender a Notre Dame de Paray-le-Monial le S6mi- 
naire de Boston et me donner en me'me temps la consolation d'une 
visite ? 

' Je serai a Autun toute la premiere quinzaine de Juillet. 
Si cette combinaison ne vous parait pas absolument impossible 
laissez-moi la joie de vous embrasser et de vous revoir avant 
que la dynamite ou le cholera aient dispose de nous. 

' J'ai re$u il y a quelques semaines une lettre de Maxime 
du Camp. II est desole de votre depart. 

' Votre bien affectueusement devoue en N.S.. 

^ ' ADOLPHE Louis, 

1 Ev$que d Autun.' 

In 1899 he wrote him a long letter to America, telling him 
that he had been very ill, and was near ' going over to the 
majority ' ; and he adds : 

'DEAR FATHER HOGAN, Puisque je n'ai pas ete dans 1'autre 
monde je garde quelque espoir de vous revoir dans celui-ci. 

* Votre bien affectueusement devou6 en N.S. 

'A. L. Card. PERRAUD, Ev. d' Autun.' 


And in another not long after, he concludes a business letter 
with the words : 

' DEAR F. H., Nous reverrons-nous en ce monde ou seule- 
ment dans la region superoceanique des reunions definitives ? ' 

They are both now in the region superoceanique, enjoying, 
I hope and pray, the reward of their labours for the Church 
which they loved and served so faithfully. 


MR. BOLTON KING, the well known writer on Italian insti- 
tutions and history, in his work entitled Italy To-Day, gives an 
interesting account of the work accomplished by the Italian 
clergy in the revival of industries, co-operative organization, 
and other forms of social activity : 

' Their social programme, as drafted at the Congress of 
Rome in 1894, aims at the building up of the " Christian 
Catholic Social Order." It wishes to protect and develop 
the property of charities and religious corporations as a 
" reserve treasure for the people ; " to protect national 
and municipal estates, which are to be used for the public 
good or leased to the poor ; to encourage and protect small 
properties ; to promote tenancy reform by long leases and 
compensation for improvements ; to encourage profit sharing ; 
to make usury illegal and regulate the operations of the Stock 
Exchange ; above all, to promote " corporations " both of 
employers and workmen if possible, of workmen alone if the 
employers stand aloof. Their municipal programme includes 
a wage clause in public contracts, a fair wage for employees, 
fair rents for tenants on municipal or charitable estates, a re- 
duction of local duties on articles of necessity, and a vigorous 
administration of sanitary and factory laws. But its most im- 
portant work is independent of State action. It has done little 
in the towns, but in parts of North Italy it is carrying on a very 
valuable work among the peasants. It has almost monopo- 
lized the Village Bank movement ; and, in 1899, could count 
800 affiliated banks. It has at least three " Rural Unions ~ 
to defend the interests of all agricultural classes, a large number 
of small friendly societies, a few co-operative stores and co- 
operative dairies, a Hail Insurance Society, besides some thirty 
People's Banks in towns to make credit easy to the small trades- 
man and artisan, and a central bank at Parma. In the diocese 
of Bergamo it has carried co-operation among the peasants to a 
high state of development ' (page 56). 

VOL. xix. R 


Further on, he says (page 183) : 

' A very remarkable movement has arisen of late years, 
taking shape in various forms of co-operative activity, which 
promises to redeem the Italian peasant from his indigence. 
His first need is to obtain capital on easy terms. Till recently, 
if he wanted to add to his stock or plant vines or mulberries, 
or buy new instruments, or seed, or chemical manures, the small 
farmer, who always lives from hand to mouth, has had to borrow 
at an interest of from 4 to 12 per cent, per month. Under such 
conditions any general improvement was of course impossible. 
We have seen how the Government failed to meet the need. 
Some of the larger savings banks and People's Banks offered 
easy loans to agriculturists, but as a rule they required better 
security than the small farmer could give, and though they 
have lent a considerable amount to the proprietors and larger 
farmers they have only here and there reached the peasant. 
It needed something more popular in its constitution, more 
adapted to the means of the small man ; and the want has been 
met by the development of the Village Banks (casse rurali). 
They owe their existence to Dr. Wollemborg, now a Deputy 
of the Constitutional Left, who, copying in the main the German 
Raffeisen Banks, founded the first in a Lombard village in 1883. 
Nine years later, when there were nearly more than sixty of 
them, the Catholic Congress started a vigorous propagandism 
in their favour, and since then they have spread with marvellous 
rapidity. There are now over 800 Catholic, and at least 125 
unsectarian, village banks. They are humble institutions, each 
confined to its own village with a membership usually between 
twelve and fifty, seldom with a capital of more than 300 or 
400, lending little sums (averaging 8) as a rule for three or 
six months to the small farmers and peasant proprietors, who 
are the majority of their members. Their working expenses 
are very low ; they exactly meet the wants of the little farmer, 
and so prudent is their management that their losses hardly 
exceed -05 per cent, of their loans. Through a large part of 
Lombardy and Venezia they have banished the usurer. Exact 
statistics of their operations are not forthcoming, but two years 
ago they had a membership of about 19,000 and the Catholic 
Congress estimated at the same date that its young banks alone 
hid advanced 280,000. In 1897, seventy-three banks in 
Piedmont lent 50,000, and had deposits exceeding 48,000 ' 
(pages 183-4). 

Another form of organization is found in the Consorzi Agrari. 

* Their chief business is to supply chemical manures, which 
are always carefully analyzed, and they have succeeded in re- 
ducing their prices from 20 to 50 per cent. Sometimes they 


allow credit and are said to have done so without loss. Prob- 
ably they appeal to the middling rather than to the very small 
farmer, but so far as figures go they are of even greater import- 
ance than the Village Banks. One of the Milanese societies 
did a business of nearly 36,000 in 1898. The Agricultural 
Association of Friuli came hardly behind with 30,000. Alto- 
gether they sold 760,000 worth of stuff in 1899. Some of them 
are developing their activities in various directions. They 
keep high-class rams and bulls, or lend out model implements. 
They have done much to encourage co-operative dairies and 
agricultural education, they agitate for a reduction of railway 
rates ; in Venetia they supply good maize as a protection against 
pellagra. Here and there they have made a few essays towards 
the co-operative sale of farm produce. Their Federation, which 
has three works for manufacturing chemical manures, sends 
samples to every parish priest, and affixes in the railway stations 
tables showing the relative value of fertilizers. So important 
is their work felt to be that Signer Ferraris has recently pro- 
posed that federated " Agricultural Unions " on very similar 
lines should be established by the State in every district, and 
that all rural proprietors should be deemed to be at least nominal 
members. His scheme amounts to a huge national co-operative 
society, embracing all agriculturists and supplying most of their 
needs. It would sell them manures and seed, implements and 
cattle, and work in close co-operation with the travelling teachers 
of Agriculture. It would provide for agricultural education. 
It would promote the co-operative manufacture of wine, and 
butter, and cheese, and olive oil. One branch of its work 
would be a great bank for agricultural loans at 4 per cent, for 
which every rural post office would act as an agency ; and 
Signor Ferraris asks that the deposits in the Post Office Savings 
Bank, amounting to 2,000,000 a year, should form part of its 
capital. He hopes that the private Savings Banks and the 
People's Banks should advance an equal amount, and that thus 
4,000,000 a year would be put at the disposal of Agriculture. 
It is a gigantic and attractive scheme, but in spite of what has 
been done in Prussia, it is extremely doubtful whether any 
scheme of this kind is desirable or possible in Italy. If the 
Consorzi remain voluntary associations as now, they are more 
likely to run in wholesome channels than if they are taken 
under the State's paralysing protection ' (page 186). 


IN an article in the February number of the Nineteenth 
Century, Professor J. W. Taylor, of Birmingham University, 
discusses the question of the declining birth-rate in Great 
Britain, and calls attention to the method of correcting 


official statistics recently introduced by Drs. Newsholme and 
Stevenson. One of the remarkable things about this new and 
more scientific method is, according to Professor Taylor, ' the 
extraordinary position it gives to Ireland as heading European 
peoples in fertility.' 

' Ireland (according to these authorities) has a low crude 
birth-rate, which becomes one of the highest in Europe, when 
correction is made for the fact that only 76-5 per 1000 of the 
population, as compared with 117-0 in England and Wales, are 
wives of child-bearing age, only 32-5 per cent, of the women aged 
15-45 being married, as compared with 46-8 per cent, in England 
and Wales. . . . The low crude birth-rate of Ireland is owing to 
the fact that a large proportion of the child-bearing population 
of Ireland has been transferred to America. Those remaining 
in Ireland who are of child-bearing age are adding to the popu- 
lation at a much higher rate than the corresponding population 
of England, as shown by the fact that the corrected legitimate 
birth-rate of Ireland is 35-6 and that of England and Wales 
27-3 per 1000 of population .... Ireland is chiefly a Roman 
Catholic country in which preventive measures against child- 
bearing are banned, and the birth-rate represents in the main 
the true fertility of the country, while in Germany and in England 
the birth-rate is the resultant of two forces the relative magni- 
tude of which is unknown, viz., natural fertility and artificia 
measures against it.' 

The following are the concrete results between 1901-1904 : 

Total per 1000 Total 

of Population Legitimate 

Bavaria .. .. 40-37 35-59 

Austria .. .. 38-50 32-84 

Norway .. .. 37-79 35-62 

Sweden . . . . 36 19 32-90 

Ireland . . . . 36 08 35*59 

German Empire 35*34 32-01 

Italy .. .. 33-71 31-17 

Scotland .. -.33*38 31*65 

Belgium .. .. 31-01 28-85 

England and Wales . . 28 41 27-29 

France .. .. 21-63 19*29 

The general results of Professor Taylor's studies are as 
follows : 

' It is no good trifling with facts (i) Our birth-rate is 
steadily declining ; (2) this is due to artificial prevention ; 
(3) the illegitimate birth-rate is affected as well as the legitimate, 


and from the same cause : therefore, the illegitimate birth-rate 
is no longer a criterion of morality ; (4) this is slowly bringing 
grievous physical, moral, and social evils to the community.' 

In a recent publication of the Goerres-Gesellschaft I find 
some remarkable tables presented by Dr. Hans Rost of Augs- 
burg. He is inquiring into the natural causes of crime and 
particularly suicide, and in this connection he studies the rela- 
tions between crime and alcohol. One of the most remarkable 
tables which he has made out is that relating to Denmark. Here 
we find the consumption of alcohol steadily decreasing for sixty 
years, and with it a corresponding decrease in crime. 

Consumption of Alcohol Number of Suicides 
in litres, per head to the million 

1831-1840 .. .. 8-0 103 

1850-1854 .. .-3*2 107 

1860-1864 .. 2-2 86 

1871-1875 .. ..2-8 70 

I88I-I885 .... 1*7 67 

1886-1890 .. ..1-5 66 

It is remarkable that the recovery of its political indepen- 
dence has synchronized in Norway with the national recovery 
from drunkenness. 

J. F. HOGAN, D.D. 

[ 262 ] 

Botes anb (Queries 



REV. DEAR SIR, As the fast formerly falling on the Saturdays 
of Advent has been changed to the Wednesdays, may it not 
be argued that when Christmas falls on Saturday, or on Friday, 
as in the year 1903, and Saturday is consequently not a fast 
day, the Wednesday preceding Christmas Day in such years 
should not be marked a fast day? 


In the I. E. RECORD, 1880, page 747, and 1881, page 51, 
his Grace the Archbishop of Dublin, then President of 
Maynooth, dealt at length with this practical question. 
We deem it sufficient for present purposes to give the 
conclusions of his Grace's articles, referring our corres- 
pondent to the articles themselves for a full discussion 
of both sides of the question. The transference of the 
Advent fast from Saturday to Wednesday was not a 
translation of the fast of individual days to other individual 
days, but rather a general transfer of the fast, previously 
observed on Saturday, to Wednesday, so that every 
Wednesday falling within Advent thereby became a fast 
day. This conclusion implies that even though a par- 
ticular Saturday of any week would not have been a fast 
day according to the old system, every Wednesday occur- 
ring in Advent is a fast day according to the new system, 
brought into existence by the favourable reply of the Holy 
See to the request of the Irish Bishops made in 1875.* 


REV. DEAR SIR, Will you kindly give your opinion in the 
next number of the I. E. RECORD on the following question 

1 Cf. Maynooth Statutes, p. 352. 


which has given rise to some controversy ? A person who is 
bound by the fast may take eight ounces of bread, etc., for 
breakfast. How much porridge can he lawfully take ? Can 
he take only eight ounces of porridge, or can he take as much 
as eight ounces of meal will amount to when boiled with the 
necessary quantity of water ? 


There are two lines of thought to be found in theological 
works on the question proposed for solution, for while 
some theologians * consider that the Church, in ordering 
the fast, desires not merely the diminution of nourishment, 
but also the absence of satiety, others 2 of equal authority 
think that the Church regards alone the diminution of 
nutrition, brought about by the use of a smaller quantity 
than usual of those foods that are permissible as to quality 
either by the law itself or by legitimate custom. The 
former maintain that as much porridge may not be taken 
at the collation as eight ounces of meal will produce, but 
the latter hold that it is lawful to take as much 
as will arise from eight ounces of meal. The opinion of 
these latter seems reasonable in theory, and is certainly 
safe in practice on account of the authority of its patrons. 


REV. DEAR SIR, Now that Lent is not far off I would like 
to get your opinion on a few points concerning the abstinence 
from milk. First of all, I take it for granted that as butter 
is allowed at the collation a person may use milk freely at the 
same time ; secondly, that although butter is not allowed at 
the smaller collation (of two ounces) milk may be used to colour 
tea, etc. say about one of milk to two parts of tea, etc. 

Supposing these few points to be correct, I would like to 
know ist. May persons who are bound to abstain take milk 
in tea, etc., as often as they wish during the day outside the 
two occasions already mentioned ? If so, may they use it freely, 
for example, may it be a fourth of the drink ? 

2nd. As milk appears to take the place of wine in this 

1 S. Alphonsus, n. 1029; Lehmkuhl, i. n. 1211. 

z Genicot, i. n. 437 ; Berardi, Pravis Cong. ii. n. 1474 ? Noldin, ii. n. 672 ; 
Antonelli, ii. n. 495. 


country, and a drink of wine is not a violation of the law of 
abstinence, may a person drink milk just the same as he would 
wine, etc. ? 

3rd. And supposing that he may not, would you consider 
the drinking of a cup of it a mortal sin ? 

An answer to the above will oblige. Yours faithfully, 


In replying to the questions of our correspondent it 
is necessary to draw a distinction between the laws of 
abstinence and fast. The general law of abstinence 
prohibits the use of milk during the whole of Lent, 
but dispensation has introduced a relaxation into these 
countries, by reason of which only Ash Wednesday, Good 
Friday, and in some places Spy Wednesday, come under 
this strict abstinence. On these days milk may not be taken 
even in tea, and grave matter seems to be the same as in 
violation of the fast. 

The law of fast, as distinct from the law of abstinence, 
prohibits the use of milk in the same way as it forbids 
the use of other kinds of food. Hence milk, like butter, 
may be freely taken at the principal meal, as also at the 
collation, provided such an amount is not taken as will 
violate the regulations of custom in regard to quantity. 
Hence, at this meal milk may be used as an accompaniment of 
bread, etc., to such an extent that the sum total of nutritious 
elements consumed does not exceed what is equivalent to 
eight ounces of ordinary food like white bread. Neither 
custom nor general dispensation allows milk at the light 
repast which is usually taken in the evening in Ireland. 

There seems to be no difficulty in determining, at 
least approximately, the quantity of milk which is equiva- 
lent in nutritive elements to a given amount of bread, 
and it is, therefore, easy to find out how much milk is 
required for grave matter. Taking the analysis of Dr. 
Parkes as correct, 1 in 100 parts of white bread there are 
40 parts of water, 8 of proteids, 1*5 of fats, 49-2 of carbo- 
hydrates, and 1-3 of salts ; while in 100 parts of milk there 

1 Chambers's Encyclopadia. art. ' Diet.' 


are 86-8 parts of water, 4 of proteids, 3-7 of fats, 4-8 of 
carbohydrates, and -7 of salts. The nutritive elements 
are proteids, fats, and carbohydrates ; so if we eliminate 
the water and the salts we can find by a simple calculation 
the amounts of food-stuff in a quantity of bread and in 
the same weight of milk. Expressed in terms of mechanical 
potential energy, one ounce of fats equals 35I-56 1 foot- 
tons, one ounce of proteids equals 165-2 foot-tons, and 
one ounce of carbohydrates equals 151-66 foot-tons ; hence 
one ounce of fats, 2-12 ounces of proteids, and 2-31 ounces 
of carbohydrates are equivalent to one another in food- 
stuff. By reducing proteids and carbohydrates to their 
equivalent in fats we find that in 100 parts of white bread 
there is an amount of nutrition which equals 26-47 parts 
of fats, while in 100 parts of milk the nutritive elements 
equal 7-66 parts of fats ; in other words white bread is 
3-45 or practically three and one-half times more nutritious 
than the same weight of milk. It follows that, four ounces 
of bread over and above the permitted allowance, being 
grave matter, fourteen ounces of milk are required for the 
same. In an ordinary breakfast cup of rich milk there 
are about eleven ounces, and, consequently, more than a 
breakfast cup of milk is required to constitute grave matter. 

As for the axiom : potus non frangit jejunium, only 
those liquids which contain small quantities of nutritive 
matter can be classed under ' potus.' Water, wine, tea 
and coffee with a small infusion of milk and sugar, are 
such, and can, consequently, be taken as often and as 
copiously as a person wishes. Milk, which contains 
a large nutritive element, cannot be considered * potus.' 
One part of milk to two or three parts of tea is, as it seems 
to us, too much to allow, still, it is better not to disturb 
the consciences of the faithful by laying down very rigid 
lines for them when they are not likely to reach the limits 
of grave matter, even taking coalescence into account. 

Though we have not followed the order of our corres- 

1 The figures given in Chambers's Encyclopedia are 151 -56, but the 
context shows that this is a misprint. 


pondent, we hope that he will find a reply to all his queries 
in what has been said. 


REV. DEAR SIR, A bishop or a parish priest can delegate 
another priest to assist validly at the marriage of subjects 
outside the diocese or parish. Is the same true of jurisdiction 
to hear confessions ? An answer will oblige. 

C. C. 

Speaking speculatively, bishops and parish priests can 
give jurisdiction by which confessions of subjects can be 
heard outside their territories. A parity with matrimony 
would go to prove this. But that delegated jurisdiction 
is of no use in practice, because approbation is necessary 
for the valid exercise of delegated jurisdiction in regard to 
confessions of seculars, and that must be obtained from the 
bishop of the place where the confession is heard. With 
approbation the confessor receives jurisdiction from what 
source we need not examine whereby he can hear the 
confessions of penitents who are * peregrini * in the place. 
Hence a distinct and separate concession of jurisdiction 
is superfluous. 




REV. DEAR SIR, I should be very much obliged if you would 
solve for me, in the I. E. RECORD, the following questions : 

1. Baptism. When godfather of child is not actually present 
at the ceremony, is it necessary that someone should stand 
godfather by proxy ? 

2. If neither godfather nor godmother touches the child 
during Baptism when water is being poured over the head of 
infant, does that invalidate their spiritual relationship with 
the child ? 

3. In the case of an adult is it proper for the recipient to 
stand or to kneel while water is being poured ? 


4. According to Lehmkuhl, care should be taken that the 
water do not fall from the head of infant into baptismal font. 
If such be the case, is it proper, whilst holding bowl in order 
to catch water after it has been poured over child's head, to 
perform the ceremony over baptismal font, that the water 
may not drip upon the floor ? 

5. Holy Eucharist. Do the Rubrics require that in extract- 
ing Blessed Sacrament from ciborium, for administration to 
the sick, that the priest should be vested in cassock, cotta 
and stole, or is it sufficient to use stole only, thrown over 
clerical coat ? 

6. Indulgence 'In articulo mortis.' Is confession and con- 
trition followed by Extreme Unction only (not with Holy 
Eucharist), sufficient claim to blessing with indulgence in 
articulo mortis ? 

7. Is it proper in all cases to refuse Holy Communion (pro 
tempore) to one who makes confession after many years away 
from church, and is in immediate danger of death ? 

8. Could you let me know in what book I should be able 
to find the indulgences given, and prayers prescribed, for each 
and all the scapulars ? 

9. Am I right in supposing that a priest who has privilege 
of enrolling in all the scapulars, has power also to enroll him- 
self in all these confraternities ? If so, what is the formula 
to be used, when all the scapulars are joined together, and 
suspended by single ribbon. 


Some of the queries raised by our correspondent possess 
more of a Theological than a Rubrical aspect, but as their 
solution does not involve any serious difficulty, and as 
they are severally treated of by Rubricists, we shall 
presume to answer them here. 

i. One of the essential conditions for the exercise 
of valid sponsorship is that the patrinus should at 
least touch the infant whose spiritual paternity he 
wishes to undertake and assume. If the godfather 
cannot be present in person, he must depute some 
agent, or procurator, to perform in his name this 
all-important act. In this case it is the principal who is 
the true sponsor, and who, consequently, contracts the 


impediment of spiritual relationship, and incurs all the other 
responsibilities attaching to the office of patrinus. The 
view maintaining the necessity of this contact with the 
infant on the part of the sponsor, either -per se or per 
procuratorem, is based on the authority of the Roman 
Ritual, the Canons of the Church, and the Council of Trent, 
which speak of the patrinus as levans, tenens, suscipiens, 
or tangens, etc., baptizatum. None of these words will be 
verified, nor will the office connoted by the least exacting of 
them be discharged, unless there is some kind of contact 
between the sponsor and child. To be valid, Theologians 
lay down that this contact must have the following 
qualifications : (i) It must be real and physical : a 
merely momentary, or moral contact is not enough. 
(2) It must be simultaneous, at least morally, with 
the actual administration of the Sacrament by the 
minister. (3) While it is not necessary that contact 
should take place on the flesh of the infant, yet it 
must be exercised on some part of the body, and 
not on the clothes merely, of the baptizatus. In a 
word, the sponsor must perform an act such as, in the 
estimation of men, may be construed into an equivalent 
of what is implied by the Latin word tangens. The case 
of an adult is no exception. ' Nam ceremonia susceptionis 
ac sustentationis patrini inducta non est ab Ecclesia ad 
supplendam corporis imbecillitatem sed ad significandam 
infantiam et imbecillitatem spiritualem.' 1 In places where 
the child is held by the godmother, the godfather is required 
merely to put his right hand on or under the right 

2. If neither godfather nor godmother touches the child, 
vel per se, vel per procuratorem, there is no valid sponsor- 
ship, and consequently, no spiritual relationship contracted. 

3. The Rubric supposes that the catechumen stands 
while the water is being poured on his head. To facilitate 
matters for the minister he should ' incline forward, his 
head and neck being uncovered, and his hands joined.' 3 

1 Sanchez, D. 56, n. 5, z O'Kane. Rubrics of Rom. Kit., n. 343, 

s O' Kane, n. 372. 


4. The basin, or vessel pelvis seu bacile 1 necessary to 
receive the water which has been poured on the head, 
should be of sufficiently large dimensions for the purpose. 
If this is so then it will be impossible for any drops to 
escape, and it is immaterial whether the vessel is held 
immediately over the font or beside it. For convenience' 
sake the latter would seem to be the better way. The 
water thus used as the matter of the Sacrament should 
be reverently disposed of, and the basin should be kept 
exclusively for use in the Baptistery. The construction 
of modern fonts, which are divided into two compartments, 
renders the employment of any vessel quite unnecessary. 

5. The Rubric on this point 8 assumes that the Blessed 
Sacrament is carried to the sick in solemn procession, 
and therefore directs that the priest be vested in soutane, 
surplice and stole when he opens the tabernacle. In 
these countries, where the priest carries the Communion 
to the sick privately and in ordinary dress, Rubricists* 
do not insist on the use of any sacred vestment for the 
purpose of merely taking the pyx from the tabernacle, 
unless it be necessary to uncover the ciborium in order to 
transfer some consecrated particles to a small pyx. In 
this case the reverence due to the sacred species thus exposed 
would require that the vestments above prescribed should 
be used, and also, that two candles should be lighted on 
the altar whilst the Blessed Sacrament is being transferred 
from one vessel to another. 4 

6. The Benedictio Apostolica in articulo mortis is intended 
to be the final complement of the consoling rites administered 
to the departing soul. Since its end is to impart the full 
remission of all temporal punishment due to sin, the recipient 
must be actuated by the proper dispositions, comply 
with the necessary conditions, and, if possible, perform 
everything the Church requires those to do who are pre- 
paring soon to appear before the Tribunal of their God. 
If it be impossible, owing to the suddenness of the illness 

1 Kit. Rom. De Bap. Inf., c. i. n. 44. - Rit. Rom. De Com. Inf. n. 12. 
3 O'Kane, n. 801. * Wapelhorst, Comp. Lit., n. 284. 


and the want of facilities, or to any other cause short of 
the lack of proper dispositions in the dying person, to 
administer all the Sacraments, the Apostolic Indulgence 
may nevertheless be given if it is likely to be useful. ' lis 
aegrotis concedi potest qui, etiam culpabiliter, non fuerunt 
ab incoepto morbo sacramentis refecti, subitoque vergunt 
in interitum ' non vero ' excommunicatis impoenitentibus 
et qui in manifesto peccato mortali moriuntur.' 1 It can 
be given, therefore, in every case except one of manifest 
indisposition and impenitence. 

7. The Roman Ritual says : * Fideles omnes ad Sacram 
Communionem admittendi sunt, exceptis iis qui justa 
ratione prohibentur.* Whether there is a reasonable cause 
for advising a penitent, who gets absolution, to defer 
Communion, in certain circumstances, for a short time, 
with a view to securing better dispositions, is a matter 
that must be left to the prudence and direction of the 
confessor. Long absence from church and from the practice 
of religion, is, per se, no reason why a person who now 
comes to confession, and is otherwise quite prepared, 
may not be admitted at once to the reception of the Blessed 
Eucharist. On the contrary this very circumstance may 
sometimes dictate the advisability of receiving the Sacra- 
ment of the Altar as soon as possible in order to give 
proof of a reformed life and obtain grace and strength 
to persevere in it. 

8. Our correspondent will find all the information he 
wants about scapulars, etc., in MaureL (Indulgences, etc. 8 ). 
He will also find in the Roman Ritual the formulae for the 
blessing and imposition of all the scapulars sanctioned by 
the Holy See. These formulae may not be abbreviated 
nor can the common form be used without special 
authorization .3 It was decided by the Congregation of 
Indulgences that a priest having power to enrol generally 
(indiscriminatim) can invest himself in the scapulars for 
which he has these general faculties. 

1 S. C. Ind., Sept. 1775. 

2 Published by Messrs. Gill & Son, Dublin. 

3 Rescripta Auth. n. 280. 



REV. DEAR SIR, We hear fairly often of the dedication of 
children to the Blessed Virgin, or to some saint. On the 
occasion of such dedication some ceremonies are used, but 
recurrence to the Roman Ritual, the authorized book in which 
one might expect to find such ceremonies, gives no formula. 
Can you tell us something of the matter ? In so doing, you 
will oblige, 


The Roman Ritual 1 contains a number of ' Benedictiones' 
in the Appendices, and we think that our respected corres- 
pondent might find among these some one that would 
be appropriate to the purpose in view. For instance, 
among the blessings which are not reserved we find the 
following : ' Benedictio infantis ; ' ' Benedictio pueri ad 
obtinendam super ipsum misericordiam Dei ; * ' Benedictio 
puerorum cum praesertim in Ecclesia praesentantur ; " 
' Benedictio Vestium et Cinguli quae deferuntur in honorem 
B.M.V.,' and the * Benedictio ad omnia ' which has a kind 
of universal appropriateness. Supposing, then, that the 
children are brought to the church on some feast of the 
Blessed Virgin, or on the feast of the saint to whom they 
are to be dedicated, and the third blessing above mentioned 
is employed some little external solemnity being also 
added the result will be a ceremony that will lack neither 
impressiveness nor appositeness. 

Our correspondent, we persume, has heard of the ' Union 
of the Holy Childhood.' Children may be enrolled in this 
Association from their tenderest years, and thus placed, 
in their helpless infancy, under such powerful protectors 
as the Blessed Virgin, the Holy Angels, St. Joseph, St. 
Francis Xavier and St. Vincent de Paul. The graces, too, 
attached to the membership will help to conform them 
in innocence and all the other virtues to the Divine 
Infant, and to realize the beautiful characteristics of 
this Divine Model. The formula of initiation into the 

i Descl6e, etc., Rome, 1902. 


Union is given in the Roman Ritual among the Bene- 
dictiones reservatae. Authority to establish it may be 
had from the bishop, and the conditions of member- 
ship are very simple. A small tax is paid by members. 
This goes to assist in the noble and heroic work of bringing 
the grace of Baptism and the light of faith to the 
abandoned infants of pagan parents in heathen countries. 





ON February 5th, in the Appeal Court, consisting of the Lord 
Chancellor, the Lord Chief Baron, Lord Justice FitzGibbon, 
and Lord Justice Holmes, judgment was given in the case of 
Felix O'Hanlon v. His Eminence Cardinal Logue. 

The appeal was by His Eminence Cardinal Logue against an 
order of the Master of th? Rolls declaring that a gift under the 
will of the late Ellen M'Loughlin, of Portadown, dated i8th 
July, 1891, for Masses for the repose of the souls of her late 
husband, her children, and herself was void, because there was 
no direction that the Masses should be celebrated in public. 

D. F. Browne, K.C. ; John H. Pigott, and Patrick Walsh, for 
the Appellant ; Samuel Browne, K.C. and George Greene, for 
the heir-at-law, when ascertained ; Charles Drttmgoole, for the- 


In this case Felix O'Hanlon, the trustee of the will of Ellen 
M'Loughlin, applied by summons to the Master of the Rolls to 
have the important question involved in the appeal decided, 
whether a gift for the celebration of Masses for the repose of 
the souls of her named relatives and herself was a valid charit- 
able gift, though the will contained no direction that such Masses 
should be celebrated in public. The gift is contained in a 
direction by the testatrix to her trustees to sell, in the events 
that happened the leasehold mentioned in the will, ' and to pay 
over the income of the proceeds from time to time to the Roman 
Catholic Primate of All Ireland for the time being, to be applied 
for the celebration of Masses for the repose of the souls of her 
late husband, her children, and herself.' The Master of the 
Rolls by his order dated the I3th July, 1905, decided that this 
gift is void ; and His Eminence Cardinal Logue has appealed. 
It would have been impossible, I think, for the Master of the 
Rolls, having regard to the existing decisions, to have made a 
different order. But we have been asked, and are compelled 
to reconsider the principle upon which the decisions in the 
Attorney-General v. Delany and the Attorney-General v. Hall 

VOL. xrx. s 


rest ; and assuming it to have been now determined in this 
Court, that a gift for Masses for the repose of the souls of the 
dead, to be celebrated in public, is a valid charitable gift, to 
consider further, whether such a gift is valid, though there be 
no direction for celebration in public ; in other words, whether 
its validity as a charitable gift does not rest upon far higher 
grounds than the existence of a direction for public celebration. 
J have had the advantage of reading the elaborate judgment 
which will be delivered by the Lord Chief Baron. The Court 
of Exchequer, presided over by the Lord Chief Baron, decided 
in the Attorney-General v. Delany, that a gift simply for the 
celebration of Masses was not a valid charitable gift, but the 
Chief Baron expressed his opinion that such a gift would be valid 
if there were a direction that the Masses should be celebrated in 
public. That opinion passed into decision in the case of the 
Attorney- General v. Hall ; and in this Court it did not become 
necessary for our decisions to go beyond that. I was satisfied 
myself that the very point before us would arise later, and 
I have thought that there was no valid reason for differentiating 
between the two classes of cases. Lord Justice FitzGibbon, 
however, did not shrink from considering the larger question on 
principle. He says : 

' I find it necessary to look more deeply for the real founda- 
tion of the law which the Attorney-General has expressly de- 
clined to challenge, viz., that bequests for Masses are valid, in 
order to see whether it is possible to base their validity upon 
any principle which will not also establish the charitable char- 
acter, irrespective of the mode of celebration.' 

Further consideration has satisfied the Chief Baron that the 
validity of the gift as a charitable one does depend upon a 
principle which is irrespective of the mode of celebration, and 
I concur with him in that result. 

There are some legal propositions germane to the case, 
for which it would be mere pedantry to cite authority, viz., 
that in speaking of what is ' charitable,' we use the word in 
the artificial sense, which is derived from the statutes 43rd 
Elizabeth, chapter 4, and the loth Charles II, chapter i that 
included amongst charitable objects is one which, according to 
the ideas of the giver, is for the public benefit, and that a gift 
for the advancement of ' religion ' is a charitable gift, and that 
the Court, in applying this principle, does not enter into an 
inquiry as to the truth or soundness of any religious doctrine, 


provided it be not contrary to morals, and contains nothing 
contrary to law. 

All religions are equal in the eyes of the law, and this 
especially applies since the abolition in this country of a State 
Church. Whether the subject of the gift be religion or for an 
educational purpose, the Court does not set up its own opinion. 
It is enough that it is not illegal, or contrary to public policy, 
or opposed to the settled principles of morality. A remarkable 
illustration is furnished by the decision in Webb v. Oldfield, where 
the gift was for the spread of vegetarian principles ideas that 
might, in the view of many, be erroneous and visionary. It 
may also be treated as settled law that in Ireland a gift for 
Masses in not illegal as a superstitious use. On that point 
Read v. Hodgens is a binding authority, and the case of the 
.Commissioners of Charitable Donations v. Walsh has been 
treated as a decision to the same effect, though it may well be 
that a careful examination of the gifts there might show, as 
pointed out by the Lord Chief Baron, that one gift involved a 
public celebration, and the other an endowment of religion. 

In pre- Reformation times a gift for Masses was valid at 
common law, and charitable, as the word must be interpreted. 
In Attorney- General v. Delany, evidence was given by Dr. 
Delany as to the exact nature of a Mass. He states that, ac- 
cording to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, the 
Mass is a true and real sacrifice offered to God by the priest, 
not in his own person only, but in the name of the Church whose 
minister he is. Every Mass, on whatever occasion said, is 
offered to God in the name of the Church to propitiate His 
anger, to return thanks for His benefits, and to bring down 
His blessings upon the whole world. Some portions of the Mass 
are invariable, and some are variable. Amongst those invari- 
able are an offering of the Host for his own sins and for all 
present ; as also for all faithful Christians, both living and 
dead ; and the sacrifice is offered for the Church and the granting 
to it of peace, and its preservation. It includes commemora- 
tion of the living and commemoration of the dead ; and he states 
that it is impossible, according to the doctrine of the Church, 
that a Mass can .be offered for the benefit of one or more indi- 
viduals, living or dead, to the exclusion of the general objects 
included by the Church. When an honorarium is given for the 
purpose of saying a Mass for a departed soul, the priest is 
bound to say it with that intention, but that obligation may be 


discharged by a mental act of the priest ; but it cannot be 
discharged by the ordinary parochial Mass which he says on 
Sundays and holidays. Such honoraria for Masses form portion 
of the ordinary income and means of livelihood of priests, 
and are generally in Ireland distributed by those to whom the 
distribution is entrusted, amongst priests whose circumstances 
are such that they stand in need of the assistance offered. 

Such is the evidence as to the exact nature of a Mass, both 
generally and where a commemoration of named dead is in- 
cluded. It is settled by authority which binds us that where 
there is a direction to celebrate the Mass in public the gift is 
a valid charitable one, but that which makes it charitable is 
the performance of an act of the Church of the most solemn 
kind, which results in benefit to the whole body of the faithful, 
and the results of that benefit cannot depend upon the presence 
or absence of a congregation. 

Furthermore, adopting the evidence of Dr. Delany, it seems 
to me that the bequest of a sum of money for the saying of 
Masses which cannot be satisfied by the ordinary parochial Mass, 
and the conferring of honoraria upon the priests who celebrate 
the Masses, are an endowment of the priest who celebrates this 
solemn sacrifice, and, therefore, an advancement of religion 
just as much in principle as the erection of a church in which 
they might be said, or the endowment of an additional priest 
to celebrate them. Authority is not needed for the proposition 
that a gift for such a purpose would be a good charitable one. 
I think the appeal should be allowed, and the question answered 
according to the result of our decision. 

[We are obliged to hold over the judgments of the Lord 
Chief Baron, Lords Justices FitzGibbon and Holmes till next 




Ad perpetuam rei memoriam. 


Dilectus filius Bonaventura Marrani Ordinis Fratrum Mi- 
norum Procurator Generalis impense cupiens ut erga Deiparam 


Immaculatam magis magisque Fidelium cultus augeatur, re- 
tulit ad Nos inter multiplices cultus ac pietatis signification es 
in eamdem Beatissimam Virginem consuetas, nobilem sane locum 
obtinere laudabilem earn praxim, ut peculiari Corona Septem 
devote recolantur Gaudia, quibus Deipara in Annuntiatione, 
Visitatione, Partu, Adoratione Magorum, Inventione Filii, huius 
Resurrectione et ipsius Divinae Matris in coelum Assumptione 
in Deo Salutari suo mirabiliter exsultavit. Hinc factum esse, 
ut decessores Nostri Romani Pontifices, non modo speciale 
Festum Septem Gaudiorum Beatae Mariae Virginis cum omcio 
ac Missa propria agendum plurimis in locis permiserint ; verum 
etiam Fratribus et Sororibus Ordinum Seraphici Patris Fran- 
cisci Assisiensis, quos inter ipsa devotio maius incrementum 
reperisse noscitur, Indulgentiam Plenariam, pluries vel eadem 
die lucrandam, benigne concesserint. Verum idem dilectus filius 
Procurator Generalis Minorum Fratrum animo perpendens 
devotionem erga Septem Beatae Mariae Virginis Gaudia nullo 
adhuc spirituali lucro cunctis Fidelibus communi esse exor- 
natam ; probe autem noscens eamdem Gaudiorum Coronam 
publice in ecclesiis ipsiusmet Ordinis cum aliorum Fidelium 
interventu recitari, Nos enixis precibus flagitavit, ut huic Septem 
Gaudiorum Virginis Coronae, prouti iam concessum fuit Coronea 
Septem Virginis eiusdem Dolorum. Plenarias nonnullas ac par- 
tiales Indulgentias vel ab omnibus Fidelibus rite lucrandas 
adiungere de Apostolica Nostra benignitate dignaremur. Nos 
autem quibus antiquius nihil est neque magis gratum, quam ut 
per universum orbem Fidelium pietas erga Virginem Immacu- 
latam latius propagetur, et Divina Mater in Gaudio non minus 
quam in Dolore admirabilis, pan a christiano populo recolatur 
obsequio, votis hisce piis ultro libenterque annuendum existi- 
mavimus. Quae cum ita sint, de Omnipotentis Dei misericordia 
ac Beatorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum eius eius auctoritate 
confisi, omnibus et singulis Fidelibus ex utroque sexu, qui 
publicae recitationi Coronae Septem Gaudiorum Beatae Mariae 
Virginis apud Ecclesias ubique terrarum exsistentes trium 
Ordinum Seraphici Patris habendae, adstiterint, easdem tri- 
buimus Indulgentias, quas Fratres et Sorores eiusdem Ordinis, 
quibuscum sunt in recitatione sociati, promerentur. Insuper 
iisdem Fidelibus admissorum confessione rite expiatis et Angelo- 
um pane refectis, qui Coronam eamdem quotannis turn Festis 


cuiusque e Septem Gaudiis, cum potioribus Beatae Mariae 
Virginis Festivitatibus, vel quovis die intra respectivi Festi 
octiduum, ad cuiusque eorum lubitum eligendo pie recitent, 
quo ex iis die id agant, Plenariam ; et iis, qui singulis anni 
Sabbatis Coronam eamdem recitare consueverint uno cuiusque 
mensis die, ad lubitum pariter eligendo, dummodo vere ut supra 
poenitentes et confessi ad Sacram Synaxim accedant, etiam 
Plenariam ; tandem iis qui memoratam Coronam retineant, 
illamque frequenter in vita percurrerint, in cuiuslibet eorum 
mortis articulo, si vere poenitentes et confessi ac Sacra Com- 
munione refecti, vel quatenus id facere nequiverint, saltern 
contriti nomen lesu ore, si potuerint, sin minus corde devote 
invocaverint, et mortem tamquam peccati stipendium de manu 
Domini patienti animo acceperint, similiter Plenariam omnium 
peccatorum suorum Indulgentiam et remissionem misericorditer 
in Domino concedimus. Praeterea ipsis Fidelibus ex utroque 
sexu, ubique terrarum degentibus, qui contrite saltern corde 
aliis per annum Beatae Mariae Virginis festis diebus Coronam 
eamdem recitent, de numero poenalium dierum in forma Eccle- 
siae solita trecentos annos ; et iis qui id agant diebus de prae 
cepto festivis, ducentos annos ; quoties vero Coronam ipsam 
quocumque alio anni die persolverint, toties illis septuaginta 
annos totidemque quadragenas ; iis tandem Fidelibus qui Coro- 
nam memoratam Septem Virginis Gaudiorum apud se fideliter 
retinentes, eamque frequenter recitantes, quodvis pietatis opus 
in Dei honorem, vel in spiritualem aut temporalem proximorum 
utilitatem item contrito corde exercuerint, sive in honorem 
Septem Deiparae Gaudiorum Angelicam Salutationem septies 
recitaverint, de numero similiter poenalium in forma Ecclesiae 
solita, quoties id agant, decem annos expungimus. Porro 
largimur, ut excepta Plenaria Indulgentia in mortis articulo 
lucranda, Fidelibus ipsis, si malint, liceat Plenariis supradictis 
ac partialibus Indulgentiis functorum vita labes poenasque 
expiare. Verum praecipimus, ut in omnibus supradictis pietatis 
operibus rite exercendis Coronae Gaudiorum Virginis a Fidelibus 
adhibendae, sint a Ministro Generali pro tempore Ordinis Fra- 
trum Minorum, vel ab alio Sacerdote sive saeculari, sive regulari, 
per ipsum deputando, in forma Ecclesia solita, servatisque 
servandis, benedictae. Contrariis non obstantibus quibus- 
cumque. Praesentibus perpetuis futuris temporibus valituris. 
Volumus autem ut praesentium Litterarum authenticum ex- 


emplar transmittatur ad Indulgentiarum Congregationis Secre- 
tariam, alioquin praesentes nullae sint : utque item praesentium 
Litterarum transumptis seu exemplis, etiam impressis, manu 
alicuius Notarii public! subscriptis et sigillo personaein ecclesi- 
astica dignitate constitutae munitis, eadem prorsus fides adhi- 
beatur, quae adhibeatur ipsis praesentibus si forent exhibitae 
vel ostensae. 

Datum Romae apud Sanctum Petrum sub annulo Piscatoris 
die XV Septembris MCMV, Pontificatus Nostri Anno Tertio. 

Pro Dno. Card. MACCHI. 


Praesentium Litterarum authenticum exemplar transmissum 
fuit ad hanc Secretariam Sacrae Congregationis Indulgentiis 
Sacrisque Reliquiis praepositae. 

In quorum fidem, etc. 

Datum Romae ex eadem Secretaria die 18 Septembris 1905. 

L. ifrS. 

>& DIOMEDES PANICI, Archiep. Laodicen., Secret. 


[ 28o ] 


LIFE OF ST. ALPHONSUS DE' LIGUORI, Bishop and Doctor of 
the Church, Founder of the Congregation of the Most 
Holy Redeemer. Written in French by Austin Berthe, 
Priest of the Congregation of the Most Holy Redeemer ; 
edited in English by Harold Castle, M.A., Priest of the 
same Congregation. Dublin : Duffy & Co., Ltd., 1905. 

SPIRITUAL writers agree that the reading of the lives of the 
saints is most useful. The saints are the Gospel in practice, 
and the heroism of their virtues humbles us. Saint, however, 
differs from saint. So, too, do the authors of their lives. We 
have under consideration the Life of one who lived nearly a 
century ; who was brought into contact with every class of 
society ; who was so powerful in word and work, and who, after 
a long life of spotless innocence and astounding industry, has 
had placed on his head one of the brightest diadems of glory. 
But this is not enough. We need, moreover, a scholar who 
knows how to select from superabundant materials just those 
things which enables him to give a perfect portrait of the man 
and the saint. We venture to say, that for judicious selection, 
for interweaving of incidents, for the formation of his pictures, 
for each chapter is a picture, few will surpass Father Berthe. 
He makes us live with the Saint, and our interest in him, in his 
work and sufferings, and humiliations and triumphs, grow with 
every page we read. 

The late Cardinal Parocchi was so charmed with Father 
Berthe's book, that he wrote to him, ' The Saint is profoundly 
studied in your Life, and from every point of view.' He then 
mentions how he was an example to seculars, to priests, and 
bishops. ' You present,' His Eminence continues, ' to us an 
ascetical writer of the highest order, who knew how to select 
from the rich stores of his predecessors the most safe rules 
illustrated by examples, enriched by tradition making 
accessible to the people things which before were the patri- 
mony of priests and religious. You give us, Rev. Father, an 
apologist of our faith in times full of impiety, but above all 
you give us the Doctor of Morals, declared such by the Apostolic 


See, recognized as such and venerated by the whole world.' 
He then refers to attacks made by enemies of holiness and 
truth, on one whose life was most innocent, and who would 
die rather than tell an untruth, and concludes : ' All this, Father 
Berthe, is luminous in your work, which I desire to see trans- 
lated into every language in Europe.' The author was honoured 
by a Brief from the late Holy Father, Leo XIII, and the Italian 
edition is dedicated to Pius X. 

It is not easy to give in a short review an idea of a work 
which runs into 1,600 pages. Let us begin with a description 
of the Saint : 

' Alphonsus was middle height, but his head was somewhat 
large and his complexion fair. He had a broad forehead, 
a beautiful eye a little blue, an aquiline nose, a small 
mouth, pleasant, and rather smiling. . . . His voice was musical 
and clear, and however large the church, or how long the mis- 
sion, it never failed him, not even in extreme old age. His 
appearance was very dignified, with a manner both grave and 
weighty, yet mingled with good humour, so that he made his 
conversation pleasant and agreeable to all, young and old. 
His gifts of mind were admirable. His intellect was acute and 
penetrating, his memory ready and tenacious, his mind clear 
and well arranged, his will effective and strong. These are 
gifts which upheld the weight of his literary undertakings, and 
did so much for the church of Christ. 

' His temperament was irascible rather than phlegmatic, 
but by the dominion of his virtue he made it peaceable and 
gentle beyond belief. Always recollected he was master of all 
the movements of his soul, and from the time when he gave 
himself altogether to God (1723) he was never seen to be sur- 
prised by passion, being able to open or shut at will the door of 
his own heart. He was an enemy of a pleasant and easy life, 
yet the more austere he was with himself, the kinder and more 
compassionate was he with others.' 

To life in the bosom of a model family succeeded his life as 
lawyer, as cleric, and then as Priest. In each case the author 
is able to give us the rules that regulated the conduct of Alphon- 
sus. The lawyer, the Saint says, ' is bound to thoroughly study 
the evidence, so as to put the case in the best way, and he must 
do this with as much care as though his own interests were at 
stake (page 9, No. 3). ... Justice and probity should be the 
lawyer's two companions, and he should regard them as the 
apple of his eye ' (No. 7). 


After his unprecedented success as a lawyer comes his con- 
version, which the author gives in his chapter, ' The Road to 
Damascus ' (chapter iii.) ; and a little later his ordination. In 
chapter vi., ' The Sacred Fire,' we have the resolutions of the 
young priest, starting with, ' I am a priest ; my dignity is above 
that of the angels ; my life therefore should be one of angelic 
purity, and I should strive that it should be so, by every possible 
means ;' and ending, ' I am a priest ; it is my duty to inspire 
others with a love of virtue and glorify the eternal priest, Jesus 
Christ ' (page 41). 

Speaking of his works, the reader will find a careful descrip- 
tion and appreciation of all that are more important, and al- 
though Father Berthe is sometimes, perhaps, a little too long, 
he is always interesting, for he gives us the stand-point of the 
Saint. This is particularly true of the Saint's long fight for his 
moral teaching, in which he had to defend himself against 
friends as well as open enemies. 

A glance at the table of contents reveals the order and 
variety of the matter. For example, in Vol. ii., after his con- 
secration, we have, ' A General Mission,' ' Reformation of the 
Seminary,' ' Pastoral Visitations ; ' and then comes ' The 
Famine,' which bade fair to destroy everything. Then we 
have ' Reformation of Morals,' ' Promotions,' ' Sacred Func- 
tions,' from which we pass to ' Father Patuzzi,' or his great 
combat for his theology. The chapters in Vol. i., ' The Rector 
Major,' ' The Golden Days,' ' The Saviour of Souls,' are charm- 
ing. One sees everywhere the greatness of Alphonsus' souL 
Whatever was of interest to the Church and souls was full of 
interest for him, as will be seen in the chapter on the sup- 
pression of the Society of Jesus, in his letter to the Cardinals 
after the death of Clement XIV (page 358), and his correspond- 
ence, in his old age, with the Abbe" Francis Nonnotte (page 446). 
The aged saint was in desolation to find the efforts of this noble 
priest so hampered in Paris, that he had to get his refutation 
of Voltaire printed in Geneva. When the Saint heard this, he 
exclaimed : 

' O God ! in Paris amongst these professors there is not one 
to stand up against so great a monster, and such an enemy of 
religion and the Church. And the refutation of his errors has to- 
be printed not in Paris, but in Geneva ? Alas, for us, the autho- 
rity of the Church has come to such a pass in Paris that it can- 
not confront an unbeliever, and repress his audacity ! Poor 


Archbishop ! Poor Church ! This sin certainly will not go 
unpunished. Poor France ! I weep for thee, and for so many 
poor innocent souls, who will be overwhelmed in thy cala- 

This zealous priest wrote, in 1783, to a friend, about the 
last letter he had received from our Saint. ' I cannot describe 
the deep feeling with which the little letter sent me by our holy 
Bishop, Mgr. Liguori, filled me. I look on him as the Simeon 
of the Gospel, to whom the Holy Ghost has made known such 
high mysteries. . . .' 

The Saint's own great trials did not even lessen his interest 
in the Church, and God alone knows how great those were. We 
are prepared for them in chapter vi. (page 463), ' The Hush 
before the Storm.' The storm itself is described in the chapters 
that follow ; but it was more than a storm, it was a tragedy, 
and one can say that Alphonsus died on the Cross. The heart 
that is not moved by the sufferings of this great man must be 
hard indeed and never did a word of complaint against those 
who were the agents escape his lips. 

The editor has added valuable Appendices. The first gives 
notes and corrections, the second an admirable Chronological 
Table, the third, Missions given by the Saint, fourth a list of 
Confessions of the holy Founder's companions ; fifth, Letters used 
in the Life. Then follows the most complete Alphabetical 
Index. Besides a very full Table of Contents there is an 
Alphabetical Index in each volume. 

The author, the editor, and his helpers, have had at their 
disposal all the sources of information, with the result that we 
have now, in English, a standard life of this great Doctor of the 

THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY : An Examination of the 
more Important Arguments for and against Believing 
in that Religion. By Lt.-Col. W. H. Thurton, D.S.O. 
London : Wells, Gardner, Darton & Co., Ltd. Fifth 
edition (revised), 1905. 

PREVIOUS editions of this excellent volume have been warmly 
welcomed by leading organs of almost every Christian denomi- 
nation, and we are glad to be able to add a few words to the 
chorus of commendation it has received. After reading the 


book our general impression is, that it would be difficult within 
the same compass to present the fundamental arguments in 
favour of theism and of Christianity in a simpler or more solid 
and convincing way than Colonel Thurton has done. His 
reasoning and scholarship leave little to be desired ; the straight- 
forward directness with which difficulties are met, and their 
value allowed, adds considerable force to his argument ; while 
the style, which is calm and unpretentious, is in thorough keep- 
ing with the general moderation maintained. We are all the 
more gratified with the unusual merit of the book, as it comes 
from the pen of a layman. It is not the kind of book that will 
altogether satisfy the advocates of the new Apologetics ; but 
we are old-fashioned enough to believe that, side by side with 
whatever is useful in the new, the substance of the old Apolo- 
getics must be retained. 

P. J- T. 

1879-81. Edited by Rev. W. P. Neville (Cong.Orat.) 
London : Longmans, 1905. 

THE publication of a volume like this may appear to some 
to be uncalled for, and in the case of any other than Newman 
we should be inclined to agree with that view. But in his case, 
we believe the public is sufficiently interested in everything 
connected with the great events in his career to welcome a 
memorial like this, of one of the most notable of those events 
his elevation to the College of Cardinals. To Newman himself, 
after all he had passed through, it must have come as a great 
triumph and a glorious vindication, to receive the very highest 
and strongest pledge of trust and esteem and approval which 
the Head of the Church could bestow ; and we want to know, 
as this volume enables us to know, how the Catholic world 
received the news of his elevation, and more especially how he 
himself bore the burden of his honour what thoughts and 
feelings were uppermost in his mind, and rose to his lips on the 

Admirers of Newman will come away from a perusal of 
his replies in this volume, with a heightened admiration for the 
purity and simplicity of his character. 

P. J. T. 


H. Noldin, SJ. Authorized translation from the 
German. Revised by Rev. W. H. Kent, O.S.C. New 
York : Benziger Bros., 1905. 

WE are glad to welcome this valuable addition to our English 
literature on Devotion to the Sacred Heart. It is intended 
specially for priests and candidates for the priesthood, and 
represents the substance of instructions on this devotion given 
by the author to the students under his charge in the theo- 
logical seminary at Innsbruck. Father Noldin is widely and 
favourably known for his excellent work in the department of 
Moral Theology, and his name will be enough to recommend 
this volume to those who know him as a theologian. Priests 
and students will find in the body of the work just the kind of 
material they are often in search of, to aid them in preparing 
their own instructions to the people on the nature and object 
of this devotion, and the grounds and motives for its practice ; 
and in the Appendix they will find a good deal of useful sub- 
sidiary matter. We do not hesitate to recommend this little 
volume to our readers. 

P. J. T. 


THE RELIGIOUS STATE. From the original of Rev. 

S. M. Giraud, Mss. Priest of our Lady of La Salette. 

Revised by Rev. Herbert Thurston, SJ. New York : 

Benziger Bros., 1905. 

THIS volume is a treatise on the religious life viewed as a 
life of sacrifice. Part I. explains various motives on the prac- 
tice of the life of sacrifice in the religious state, and points out 
the excellence of that practice. In Part II. the novitiate ; in 
Part III., the religious vows ; and in Part IV. the community 
life are dealt with in detail, in such a way as to exhibit every 
duty and circumstance of the religious life in its relation to the 
spirit of sacrifice. The book is instructive and edifying, and will 
doubtless be welcomed by those to whom it is addressed. To 
people living in the world, and even to non-Catholics, who desire 
to understand the true inward spirit of the religious life, this 
book may safely be recommended. The style is better than in 
many works of the kind, and the translation reads very well. 
The publishers also have done their part satisfactorily. 

P. J. T. 


SUMMAE. Auctore L. Janssens, S.T.D. Tomus VI. : 
Tractatus De Deo Creatore et De Angelis. Friburgi 
Brisgoviae : Herder (pp. xxxiv. + 1,048). 

FATHER JANSSENS has already done so much well-known 
work for Theology, it is almost needless to state that the present 
volume, the title of which sufficiently indicates its subject- 
matter, is replete with deep thought and painstaking research. 
The author accommodates to modern needs the Summa of St. 
Thomas a work for which the theological world will be 
grateful to him. 

In view of the fact that Father Janssens now holds the re- 
sponsible position of Secretary to the Biblical Commission, the 
part of his work that is of greatest interest to our readers is his 
chapters on the Mosaic Cosmogony. He begins his Scriptural 
discussion by laying down some general principles which he 
intends to follow, the chief of which is that it is not necessary 
that the sacred writer, even whilst under the influence of divine 
inspiration, should be free from error in regard to what he writes 
about matters which the Holy Ghost does not directly intend. 
In narrating, for instance, the wonderful story of Josue, pro- 
longing by prayer the light of day that victory might be gained, 
the sacred writer could not merely, by accommodating his mode 
of speech to the scientific knowledge of the day, state that ' the 
sun stood,' but could also have thought, while he wrote these 
words, the Copernican theory to be true, and the Heliocentric 
teaching false. Father Janssens does not explain how this 
principle can be reconciled with the Encyclical Providentissimus 

The learned author, then, proceeds to examine critically the 
text of Genesis, the historical evolution of Catholic interpre- 
tation of the Hexaemeron, and the principal opinions which hold 
the field in present-day criticism. In performing this last task 
he deals with two broad divisions of thought the historical 
theories and others. Speaking of the historical theories he 
examines the views of those who hold the literal interpretation 
of six natural days of twenty-four hours each, and who explain 
the different strata now existing within the earth's surface by 
an appeal either to the upheavals of the flood or to the con- 
vulsions of nature which took place between the events narrated 
in the first and those told in subsequent verses of Genesis. 


He afterwards discusses and carefully weighs the arguments for 
and against the theories which maintain that the days of Genesis 
are long periods of time. 

Passing to the non-historical theories of the creation, Father 
Janssens divides them into ideal interpretations which are 
explained with or without visions, and traditionalist opinions 
whether these connect the Biblical Cosmogony with Gentile 
myths or explain it independently of them. He notes, with 
justice, that the ideal and traditionalist interpretations in his 
dissertation on traditionalist views rather supplement than con- 
tradict one another. He subjects to criticism the opinion of 
Father Lenormant, that early Gentile myths are found in a 
purified state in the Mosaic story of Creation ; and also the more 
definite theory of Father Lagrange that the Biblical Cosmogony 
contains vestiges of myths deprived, however, of their mythical 
character, and that it holds an intermediate place between the 
Babylonian Cosmogony which is Pantheistic and the Phoenician 
which is Materialistic, the Mosaic narration showing a sub- 
stantial divergence which can be attributed only to revelation 
and inspiration. 

In putting forward his own view which is traditionalist, 
Father Janssens holds that the Biblical story is not derived 
from the Cosmogony of Gentile nations, but contains vestiges 
of a remote tradition consigned to tablets which were preserved 
amongst the Chaldeans, and brought by Abraham into the land 
of Canaan. This ancient tradition was based on primitive 
revelation, traces of which remained with the Babylonians 
and Phoenicians, and which so coloured their myths that these 
must of necessity have had points of contact with the Mosaic 
story of Creation. The Chaldaean tradition was, moreover, 
affected by the astronomical, geological, and zoological theories 
of ancient days, so that the Biblical narrative derived from it 
could not but have had some similarity with the Cosmogonies 
of those Gentile peoples who held the same scientific views. 

The remaining parts of Father Janssens' monumental work 
show the same thorough grasp of principles and the same com- 
mendable research which his readers will find in his Scriptural 
discussions. We warmly congratulate him on the success of 
his laborious undertaking. 

J. M. II. 


FR.DENIFLE, O.P. Dr. Grabmann. Mainz: Kircheim. 1905. 

THE numerous admirers of the deceased will be grateful 
for this interesting sketch. It is from the pen of one who knew 
him well, Professor Grabmann of Eichstatt. Though the 
pamphlet is small (62 pages, 8vo), it contains a most valuable 
account of Denifle's labours in palaeography," criticism, history, 
and biography. We may say that, putting aside his many 
essays and articles of which only a summary could be given, 
all his large works are fully described from those on the German 
Mystics, Tauler, Suso, Eckhart, etc., and his History of the 
University of Paris, History of the Hundred Years' War, etc., 
to his last publication, Luther und Liithertum, the book which 
caused such commotion in Protestant circles throughout 
Germany. It is the record of an extraordinary savant's life, 
and shows that Denifle more than deserved the veneration in 
which he was held by all the learned bodies of Europe. The 
graceful tribute of the University of Cambridge (page 55) is 
sure to be read with pleasure. 

R. W. 

By Newport J. D. White. Dublin : Hodges & Figgis 
Price 6d. 

FROM a review of his former work in the Analecta Bollon- 
diana, the Editor learned that one of the oldest MSS. that of 
St. Patrick's Confession was to be found in the Biblioth6que 
Nationale, at Paris. We are surprised that a man who had set 
himself to give a correct edition of St. Patrick's writings should 
have been ignorant of such an important fact. But, unlike 
many other writers, Dr. White paid some attention to his re- 
viewers, and immediately set himself to repair the defect in his 
previous work. The result of his examination of the Paris MS. 
is contained in the present booklet, and we heartily commend 
it to all who are interested in arriving at the true text of our 
Apostle's Confession. 


: ',6V Christian tia ft Romani sitis. '' "As you are children of Christ, so be you children of Rome.' 1 
fx Dictts S. Patncii, In Lt^ro Armacano, foL q. 

Ecclesiastical Record 

ri Journal, uufcrr SFytsropal Sanction, 

trt^ttttttfj gear 1 AT-IT-.TT * 

No. 460 J APRIL, I 9 06. 

JFuurt^ Setfeg. 
Vol. XIX. 

The Foundation of Unbelief. 

Rev. James MacCaffrey, S.T.L., Maynooth College. 

Compulsory Education. 

Rev. P. J. Dowling, C.M. y Cork. 

The Vatican Edition of the 'Kyriale ' and its Critics. 

Rev. T. A. Surge, O.S.B., Liverpool. 

The Church and the Schools in countries of different 
Religious Denominations. 

Rev. Daniel Coghlan, D.D.. Maynooth College. 

General Notes. 

The Origin of Life. _ The Key to the World's Progress, St. Bernard on Intemperance. 
Daily Communion. 

Notes and Queries. 

THEOLOGY. Rev. /. M. Harty, D.D., Maynooth College. 

Rules of the Index. Age at which O ' FSedatfrjSflescs, 

LITURGY. Rev. Patrick Morrisroe, Maynooih College* 

1 Orationes in Missis De Requie,, 


The Maintenance of Invalid Priests. 


Decree of tiie Sacred Congregation of the Council regarding ' Daily Communion,' 

Notices of Books. 

VIA bpf\&Mi. Aspects of Anglicanism. Le Maitre et L'Elive, 

BRO\VNE & NOLAN, Limited 

Censor Def> 

i ^attst. Publishers and Printers, 24 & 25 




SUBSCRIPTION} Twtivt Shirtings *er Annum, Pott Frte, tavablt in attvaitet t 




A Speciality. 




Telephone Ho. 1. Telegraphic Address "CONAN, DUBLIN." 

Jdsb Catholic Cburcb=lftropett\> * 
jss*^. Jnsutance Company ILfmiteb, 

19 & 20, Fleet St., DUBLIN. 




This Company is prepared to receive proposals for Insurance at Ordinary Rates, of Churches, 
Convents, Colleges, Schools, Residences, and all other Institutions and Buildings devoted to 

Catholic purposes. 

Forms and J-J I particulars on application to VALENTINE IRWIN t Secretary, 


Aihr Wu Gables, Sferine Candle 

Be$t T^llIOW CrOWD S03Lp. A Pure old-fashioned Soap In Bars, 

Tlje F3lVOUrite So&p. A Pure Free-lathering Soap In Tablets. 



^^^^^^J,,^^^^^^^^^ & BUILDERS' IRONMONGERS 

Iron and Brass Bedsteads and Woven Wire Mattresses a Speciality. 

Mangles, Wringers, and Laundry Appliances. Kitchen Utensils and Brushes Of every description, 

Institutions supplied on Special Terms. 
Kitchen Ranrjc r Stove, and Grate Warehouse, 

21 & 22, Christchurch Place, and 2,Werburgh St., 

TELEPHONE 281. ^ fc|fc __ DUBLIN. 



i HE Bampton Lectures of Dean Mansel,' says a 
writer in an English review, * delivered in the 
University of Oxford in the year 1859, w i^ De 
long remembered by those who were then in resi- 
dence.' 1 Nor is it strange that this should be so. Clear, 
concise, apparently logical, they made sceptics of many 
whose faith they were meant to strengthen. In these 
discourses, intended as they were to uphold the dogmas of 
Christianity, agnostics profess to find a complete and 
unanswerable presentation of their views. Hence, a word 
about them here, by way of introduction, may not be out 
of place. 

The period of their delivery was a critical one for the 
Protestant Church in England. The philosophic theories 
of previous writers, of men such as Locke and Berkeley, 
and Hume and Kant, in the hands of their less reverent 
disciples, were working havoc with the traditional beliefs 
of the educated classes. Revelation and supernatural 
religion were being openly assailed by men who, never- 
theless, admitted the existence of a God and the necessity 
of divine worship. In their difficulties, the orthodox 
party anxiously looked around for a champion who might 
stay the onward march of naturalism by a brilliant 
exposure of the weakness of its position, and of the fallacies 

i The Month, July, 1882. 



by which it was supported. Their choice fell upon Dean 
Mansel, and, as the results showed, no choice could have 
been more unfortunate. From that day Oxford ceased to 
be, what it always was, the home of conservatism and, 
comparatively speaking, of orthodoxy. It has since 'been 
undoing one by one, whether deliberately or under com- 
pulsion, the ties which bind it to the Church of Christ.' 1 
The method of defence adopted by the learned lecturer 
was well calculated to secure the attention of his audience, 
and in the hands of a skilled philosopher might have proved 
completely successful. He undertook to show that the 
very same difficulties by which unbelievers sought to 
overturn the Christian revelation, might be urged with 
equal force against all who ventured any positive state- 
ment regarding God. You reject, he argues, the Christian 
dogmas, because your reason cannot perceive their truth ; 
nay, rather, it perceives that they are contradictory and 
mutually destructive. But examine your own concepts 
regarding the divine nature and attributes concepts 
which you have independently of revelation and you will 
find that they, too, labour under the same defect. They 
lead only to confusion. Nor in your despair of finding 
truth can you turn to Atheism as the safe harbour, the 
only secure position for poor human intelligence, for the 
atheist but involves himself in difficulties even more 

Yet, the escape from this dilemma must be evident to 
any thoughtful observer. God does not wish to be known 
by human intelligence. He is entirely outside its range ; 
and when, in their mad thirst for knowledge, men endeavour 
to unveil Him by their natural powers they are acting as 
inordinately, and, therefore, as unreasonably as they 
would be, were they to give full rein to their animal 
passions. The great Creator is separated from us by an 
impassable gulf which no human powers can ever bridge. 
Hence, at the very outset, men must distrust their reason 
and accept faith as the only safe guide towards a know- 
ledge of the Divinity. ' Of the nature and attributes of 

i University Sermon, 4th June, 1882 Canon Liddon (apud the Month). 


God in His Infinite Being,' the Dean declares, ' Philosophy 
can tell us nothing ; of man's inability to apprehend that 
nature, and why he is thus unable, she tells us all that we 
can know and all that we need know.' l 

The Dean was unequalled in expounding the difficulty, 
but his reply could not bear analysis. There were men 
in England who had long been thinking that the dogmas 
declaring the nature and attributes of God were but the 
delusive figments of the human imagination, and that He 
could not be known, Who, if He exists, must be outside the 
field of mortal cognition. Imagine their surprise when 
they heard expounded from the Oxford pulpit, as they 
themselves could never have expounded them, their own 
most cherished convictions. They were quick enough to 
perceive that, by elevating faith at the expense of reason, 
the learned Dean had destroyed the very foundations of 
faith itself, and prepared the way for denying all know- 
ledge of God. Professor Huxley boldly proclaimed that 
Agnosticism, as he loved to call his system, in memory 
of the Athenian Altar to the Unknown God, 2 was the only 
possible position for a scientific man. Experience, he 
contended, was the only guide to knowledge, and God does 
not fall within the range of experience. But, though Huxley 
is the most violent, he is by no means the ablest champion 
of the new belief. The writings of Herbert Spencer, in- 
teresting and attractive as they undoubtedly are, have 
contributed most to its dissemination amongst the English 
people. Hence it may be useful in the beginning to briefly 
sketch the system which he propounds. 

Spencer himself tells us that his philosophic theory 
on the nature of human knowledge logically forced him 
to join the Agnostic ranks. 3 On the one hand, against 

i Lect. viii., p. 26. 

* ayv<ooT<a 6tto (Acts xvii. 23). 

3 c And this feeling is not likely to be decreased but to be increased by that 
analysis of knowledge which, while forcing him into agnosticism, yet con- 
tinually prompts him to imagine some solution of the Great Enigma which he 
knows cannot be solved." Nineteenth Century, Jan. 1884, p. 12. 

About this article of Mr. Spencer, Frederic Harrison writes : ' It is the 
last word of the Agnostic Philosophy in its controversy with Theology. That 
word is decisive.' Nineteenth Century, March, 1884 (apud Ward's Witnesses 
io the Unseen.) 


the idealists, he maintains that man can know of the 
existence of an external world, of something outside 
and beyond himself. Unless this be conceded physical 
science can be but a dream. On the other, believing as 
he does that ' mind and nervous action are the subjective 
and objective faces of the same thing,' 1 he cannot 
consistently admit those higher intellectual operations 
of abstraction and intuition for which the followers of 
Aristotle and the schoolmen contend. According to him > 
then, human knowledge is limited to the very narrow field 
of sense-perception. 

Yet, even with this limitation he is not satisfied. He 
contends furthermore that man's cognitive faculties cannot 
stretch out as if beyond the man himself into the external 
world, and grasp things as they really are in themselves, 
with their several attributes, and powers, and qualities, and 
relations. Man can know only his own sensations, or, 
to put it more philosophically, his own mental phenomena, 
which must necessarily, however, be produced by some 
external agent ; he can compare these and realize their 
various relations of co-existence or sequence that when 
one appears another should be present or immediately 
succeed, but about the objective agents or their relations 
he can never know aught for certain. 2 The external 
reality is known and spoken of in terms of his own 
diverse states of consciousness, which are to the object 
outside as algebraic symbols to the quantities they 
represent ; and, thus, human knowledge is relative not 
absolute of subjective phenomena, not of external 
realities. * What we are conscious of as properties 
of matter, even down to weight and resistance, are but 
subjective affections produced by objective agencies 
which are unknown and unknowable.' 3 

Yet, we are forced to conclude ' that behind every group 

1 Psychology, Pt. ii., p. 140. 

2 Spencer's system is but a scientific statement of the principles of the 
whole Agnostic School. Thus, Huxley says : ' It admits of no doubt that all 
our knowledge is a knowledge of states of consciousness.' (Lay Sermons^ 

P- 373-) 

8 Psychology, chap. ' Relativity of Feelings.' 


of phenomenal manifestations ' there is some * persistent 
reality, which itself ' remains fixed amid appearances that 
are variable,' and ' which must forever remain inaccessible 
to consciousness.' 1 Thus, for example, walking in the 
garden on an evening in autumn we pluck an apple from 
the tree that overshadows our path. As we hold it in our 
hands, we are conscious of a certain form and colour, of a 
certain weight, and, it may be, of a certain taste and smell. 
If we leave it outside and come again in an hour, in a day, 
in a week, or a month, exactly the same impressions are 
produced. May we not, then, safely conclude that behind 
these phenomena and producing them there must be some 
permanent reality, nay, more, that for every different 
4 cluster ' of sensations there is a corresponding object 
which holds them together, or, at least, a power which 
energizes differently, and still is uniform in its differences ? 
Thus, we arrive at our notions of different bodies, and by 
a more universal classification of phenomena at our notion 
of matter. 

Nor is this the ultimate stage ; for what is matter, in 
itself, but a mode, by which the unknown and unknowable 
agent manifests itself to our consciousness ? This agent we 
indicate by the symbol Force, drawing our inspiration from 
an analysis of our own activity. And so, the conclusion 
is inevitably forced upon us, that the world and all its 
countless phenomena are but the ever varying manifesta- 
tions of an unknowable force, energizing unceasingly and 
everywhere, which is outside us and still within us according 
to its different modes. ' Consequently, the final outcome 
of that speculation commenced by the primitive man is, 
that the power manifested throughout the universe dis- 
tinguished as material is the same power which in ourselves 
wells up under the form of consciousness.' 2 

Experience, however, teaches us that the relations 
between these mental symbols correspond with the relations 
between the external agents, and this knowledge is sufficient 

1 Nineteenth Century, Jan., 1884, p. 10. 

2 Spencer, in the Nineteenth Century. Jan., 1884, p. 9. 


for everyday life. Indeed, the true scientist never under- 
takes to explain what things are in themselves, but, ad- 
mitting the existence of an individual cluster of phenomena, 
he merely strives to reduce it to one of the classes already 
experienced ; and as his experiments proceed, he continues 
to reduce the particular classes to a few which are 
inclusive of all the rest till, at last, a time comes when 
he must bow his head and humbly confess that science can 
bring him no further. Knowledge is but classification of 
phenomena ; how, then, could the most universal class 
be known ? 

While man is thus engaged, his intellect is being employed 
in its own proper sphere, and its conclusions can be accepted 
with certainty ; but once he endeavours to pierce the veil 
which enshrouds the objective world from his gaze, once 
he strives to conjure up in his mind what it is that lies 
behind and how it exists in itself, once he dares to transfer, 
what are in reality the emotions of his own mind, to that 
which is outside it, he is merely building upon a foundation 
of sand he is only leading himself into a hopeless maze 
of difficulties and contradictions. 

It is because he knows this that the really scientific 
man is willing to spend his energies on the phenomena 
which lie within his observation, without allowing himself 
to follow the beckonings of his imagination contenting 
himself with knowing that there is some mighty energy 
outside which manifests itself in his various states of con- 
sciousness, but which as it is in reality must ever remain 
for him unknowable : 

There may be Absolute Truth, but if there is, it is out of _our 
reach. It is possible that there may be a science of realities, of 
abstract being, of first principles and a priori truths, but it is 
up in the heavens far above our heads, and we must be content 
to grovel amid things of earth, to build up as best we can our 
fragments of empirical knowledge, leaving all else to the future. 1 

Science admits its inability to comprehend this mighty 
power which lies beneath phenomena ; so, too, should 

i The Prevalence of Unbelief 'the Editor (the Month, June, 1882). 


religion. By professing to understand something about 
the nature and attributes of the ultimate reality, and 
picturing it to its devotees as endowed with magni- 
fied human powers, it is only degrading the objects of 
its worship, and involving its disciples in hopeless 

Thus, the theist endeavours to account for the world 
around us by the existence of a Supreme Creator, Him- 
self uncreated, by Whom all things were produced from 
nothing, yet, creation from nothing is impossible for it is 
Tinthinkable. 1 Besides, if this hypothesis were true, He 
must have created space which was, therefore, at some 
period non-existent, and space could never have been 
non-existent because its non-existence cannot be 
conceived by any process of imagination. Again, the 
supposition of a self-existing being must necessarily 
involve the supposition of infinite past time ; yet, pile 
up time how you will, it could not have been infinite- 
it must have had a beginning. The First Cause, too, if 
there be a First Cause, should be, as is evident, both 
infinite and absolute, but how could He possess either 
attribute, if He be imagined as the producer of the 
world to which He must necessarily stand in the rela- 
tion of a producer, and the production of which must 
have implied some change of addition or subtraction 
in His own mode of being ? Furthermore, how could 
the Supreme Creator possess infinite power and yet 
be unable to do evil, infinite goodness and yet the 
cause of sin, infinite justice and yet always full of 
mercy, infinite freedom and yet living on without change 
or alteration ? Such are a few of the contradictions in 
which Theism involves its believers, and surely it would 
be more in accordance with human intelligence and more 
agreeable to the ultimate reality to honestly confess our 
ignorance, and bow our heads in silent worship before 

1 Spencer's first principle and Ultimate Postulate ' is that whatever 
is unthinkable is not true, and that is true whose contradictory is un- 


that which must ever remain for us the unknown and 
' unknowable.' * 

Yet, all things unite in proclaiming the existence of such 
a power. Unless it be supposed whence are the phenomena 
of sense whose relations we perceive ? Merely relative and 
symbolic as our knowledge is, does it not necessarily 
suppose some objective being of which it is the symbol, 
and must not science in its most advanced stage arrive at 
that absolute reality which it can never know because it 
can never classify ? Yes. The existence of this ultimate 
reality ' is the primary datum of consciousness,' 2 the in- 
definite and almost imperceptible concept which is supposed 
by all cognition, and though we are confined to mere 
phenomena, ' yet the momentum of thought inevitably 
carries us beyond conditioned to unconditioned existence 
as this ever persists in us as the body of a thought to which 
we can give no shape.' 3 'Hence our belief in objective 
reality, a belief which metaphysical criticism, cannot for 
a moment shake.' And, thus, ' amid the mysteries which 
become the more mysterious the more they are thought 
about, there will remain the one absolute certainty that 
we are ever in presence of an infinite and eternal energy 
from which all things proceed.' * 

There is, then, according to Spencer, a first cause, an 
ultimate reality, an infinite, absolute and unconditioned 
existence, but we can never know aught of it except that 
it is whether it is personal or impersonal, endowed with 
intelligence or unintelligent, mind or matter. It is the 
unknowable. It has nothing to do with us, and in pur- 
suing it we are like the child that for hours vainly pursues 
its own shadow. It may have some mode of existence 
far transcending anything which the human imagination 
can ever conceive, and our clear duty is to recognize that 

1 ' What is knowable,' writes Mr. Balfour, ' Spencer appropriates without 
exception for Science What is unknowable he abandons without reserve 
to Religion. Religion has the "Real," Science the "Intelligible" and 
"Relative."' (Foundations of Belief , p. 285). 

2 First Principles (Spencer). 

* Ibid. 

* Ibid. 


this is so, to admit that we are incapable of bringing it 
within the sphere of our cognition, that all our concepts 
of it for we cannot help conceiving it are but the merest 
symbols in no way corresponding with the reality. This 
is the true position for a religious man to assume. Better 
any day an honest confession of ignorance than an absurd 
pretence of knowing what can never be known. 

Before discussing the merits of a system, which, in the 
hands of a writer of Spencer's ability, must necessarily 
appear plausible, it might be well to mention that this 
particular form of error is by no means of recent date, 
and that even to-day it is rejected as puerile by many of 
the ablest scientific men. One might think, as the writer 
was often tempted to think, on hearing the oft-repeated 
boast that the dogmas of religion were fast crumbling 
before the triumphal march of science that some new 
discovery in Philosophy had been made, or, at least, that 
all the modern scholars were ranged in the Antitheistic 
camp both of which conclusions would be equally mis- 
leading. The progress of knowledge has given us nothing 
new in this matter ; it has only helped to serve up in a more 
agreeable form what is as old as the days of Pyrrho and 
his disciples. No doubt, Professor Huxley asserts with 
more warmth than courtesy, that ' those who believe 
that God created the world have not yet reached that stage 
of emergence from ignorance in which the necessity of a 
discipline to enable them to be judges has as yet dawned 
upon the mind,' 1 but that we may rightly appreciate the 
worth of such generalizations we have only to remember 
that even in England such men as 2 Faraday, Lord Kelvin, 
Professor Stokes, Sir William Siemens, Balfour Stewart, 
Tait, Sir Robert Owen, Clerk, Maxwell, Mivart have no 
fear of maintaining that ' the existence of God, the Creator 
and Preserver, is absolutely evident.' 3 Reassured by such 
trustworthy support from the physical science camp, we 

i The Tablet, Aug. 20, i88i,apud Ward's Philosophy of Theism, vol. ii..p. 107. 

B Vide Zahm, Catholic Scitnce and Catholic Scientists. 

8 The Unseen Universe, p. 71, ed. 5, Profs. Stewart and Tait. We have not 
referred to Catholic Scholars like Cauchy, Ampere, Le Verrier, Biot, Pasteur, 
Becquerel, Babinet, Faye, etc. 


can proceed with more confidence and self-possession to 
examine the imposing structure built by the ceaseless 
activity of the man whom agnostics love to call * our great 
philosopher,' l ' the apostle of the understanding.' a 

Though at first sight Spencer's system appears to 
have at least the merit of consistency, yet on closer examina- 
tion, one may discover some startling breaks in his chain 
of argument, bridged over, no doubt, by an imposing 
phraseology ; and, what is still more dangerous for his 
reputation as a philosopher, not a few inexplicable con- 
tradictions. Beginning with the fundamental principle 
that man can never know aught but the relations of 
phenomena, and that all else is but a delusion and a dream, 
he should in very consistency have denied that we can 
ever know for certain whether any objective reality exists 
beneath this world of appearances. Indeed, Professor 
Huxley, in this respect more logical than ' his philosopher,' 
appears to have accepted this conclusion. Yet Spencer 
vehemently contends that the existence of an ultimate 
reality is the primary datum of consciousness, that 

The momentum of thought [whatever it may be in his 
system] inevitably carries us beyond conditioned to un- 
conditioned existence, as this ever persists in us as the body 
of a thought to which we can give no shape, [that on the 
recurrence of certain phenomena] we are compelled by the 
very relativity of our thoughts to think of these in relation to 
a primitive cause, and the idea of a real existence which 
generated them becomes nascent.* 

Now, if man's knowledge is confined completely to men- 
tal phenomena, or, as Huxley would have it, ' states of con- 
sciousness,' how can he ever be but in complete ignorance of 
all else save his own sensations? how can he conjure up the 
concept a concept which Spencer strangely enough admits 
to be objectively true of an Infinite Being, which is above 
his powers of cognition ? If our highest knowledge consists 

1 Frederic Harrison, Nineteenth Ctntury, apud Fr. Gerard, S.J. 
Prof. Clifford (apud ibid). 
First Principles. 


only in the better classification of phenomena, how ' could 
the momentum of thought ' carry us beyond conditioned 
existence into another and a real world ? If the human 
mind has no powers of intuition, if it cannot immediately 
perceive some judgments as necessarily true for all times 
and places, why should we be compelled by the very rela- 
tivity of our thoughts to refer these impressions to a positive 
cause, or why should they generate in us the notion of real 
existence ? Thus, in direct contradiction to his own most 
cherished canons, Spencer crosses the boundary of the pheno- 
menal world, and tells us what he sees ; he admits that the 
human mind has the power of abstracting altogether from 
the individual notes and rising to a true concept of the uni- 
versal (in this case the Infinite), and he confesses the objec- 
tive and necessary validity of the judgment which, from its 
very nature, the mind is forced to pronounce, that whatever 
begins to be must have a cause. 1 

Again, Spencer's fundamental principle is that knowledge 
is merely symbolic, and without any objective validity. But 
evidently this very principle itself must either embody an 
absolute truth or not. If he regards it as absolutely true, 
then, at the very start, he is guilty of the blunder which he 
asserts to have been the great blot upon all philosophic 
sytems till the days of his ' Transfigured Realism,' namely, 
assuming the validity of a metaphysical principle, which 
must have been received independently of experience, and 
whose validity can never be verified, because in every 
attempt to do so its validity is supposed. He thus begins 
with a certain assumption upon which all his arguments are 
based, and the logical conclusion he arrives at is that this 
assumption must be false ! If, on the other hand, this prin- 
ciple is only relatively true, as is, indeed, all human know- 
ledge, then why should he have spent himself in ' unifying 

1 Professor Clifford says of Spencer's Theory : ' And, accordingly, he 
considers that there is something different from our perceptions, the changes 
in which correspond in a certain way to the changes in the worlds we per- 
ceive . . . He attempts to make my feelings give me evidence of some- 
thing that is not included among them. A careful study of all his arguments 
has only convinced me over again that the attempt is hopeless.' (Atheism, bj 


philosophy,' and in issuing a myriad of learned treatises 
intended to force his conclusions on other men ? If human 
knowledge is only relative, then it may vary not alone for 
different individuals, but even for the different stages of 
development of the same individual ; so that, for all he can 
tell to the contrary, each intellect may be at each moment 
of its existence its own standard of truth, and what is 
true for one man and for one time may not be so for 
another. This is the logical conclusion of his system, 
if he only had the courage to push it to its conclusions ; 
and if it is, his days might have been more profitably 
spent than in a fruitless endeavour to force the world 
to accept as truth what were at best his own individual 
notions. Dr. Mivart may well be pardoned when he speaks 
of such philosophy as ' intellectual thimble-rigging intended 
to rob the human mind of its certainty.' 1 

Furthermore, if man can know nothing about the exter- 
nal world, how is it possible that Spencer can speak of the 
relations between the external agents, of the properties of 
bodies, of Matter and Force. No doubt, in his Psychology, 
he tells us that all these are but the manifestations of the 
' Eternal Energy,' but he should be consistent, and not 
write in other places as if he knew of the existence of different 
external agents having different powers and relations. Let 
him say that the friends who hang so anxiously on his words, 
and whom in private life he reveres, the species of animal 
life which, as a zoologist, he submits to examination, the 
chemical compounds which in his laboratory he reduces to 
their elements, or combines in still more complex masses 
let him say that all these, including himself, are but the 
various manifestations of an unknown agent, and he shall be 
consistent as a philosopher, but very much out of place as a 
scientist or as a man. Unless the humorous faculty was 
but indifferently evolved, the conclusions of Spencer, the 
philosopher, must have proved an inexhaustible source 
of amusement to Spencer, the physicist and biologist, 
during his weary years of labour. 

1 Truth (speaking of systems of Idealism). 


Again, Spencer indignantly denies to man any intuitive 
faculty, and has no confidence in the validity of inferences 
drawn from the phenomena, unless in so far as they can be 
verified by experiment. Yet, as Dr. Ward l so clearly 
proved against another adversary, his whole system presup- 
poses at least one such power, and the validity of at least one 
unverified inference. He tells us, for example, that the 
atmosphere has the property we call weight, and if we ask 
for a proof, he refers us to the numberless experiments which 
he has witnessed. If we inquire how he can be certain he 
ever witnessed such experiments, he can only answer that 
his memory is unfaltering in its testimony about them ; but, 
if we ask further, how does he know that the declarations of 
memory correspond with the past stages of consciousness, 
and are not rather the delusive constructions of the human 
brain, he can only reply, as Mill has done, that we cannot go 
behind memory we can offer no proof of the validity of its 
testimony, and we must be content to accept this or give 
up the pursuit of knowledge. If Spencer trusts his mind 
in this one department, why should he show himself so 
suspicious of all its other declarations ? 

Besides, ' the uniformity of nature ' the fixity of nature's 
laws is, according to Bain, 2 the most fundamental principle 
of human progress, and yet how is it perceived by man ? 
Spencer tells us that a knowledge of the relations of the 
phenomenal manifestations of the objective reality is 
sufficient for everyday life, but how are we certain that these 
relations will ever remain the same ? My memory tells me 
that on every occasion on which I saw fire applied to gun- 
powder an explosion followed, every time a vein was pierced 
blood freely flowed, that on the recurrence of the spring 
months all things seem suddenly endowed with a new life and 
energy ; but why should these phenomena necessarily suc- 
ceed one another, and all human progress supposes such 
succession ? We can arrive at such a conclusion only by 
arguing from what was to what must be, and if this process 

Philosophy of Theism. 


of inference be valid, why should it lead in all other cases 
only to error and contradictions ? 

But, perhaps, the greatest puzzle in Spencer's system is 
his doctrine about the unknowable ; for, ' if the momentum 
of thought carries us beyond the world of phenomena,' how 
can he assert that the objective reality is unknown ? Though 
our concept of it must necessarily be imperfect, yet it is ever 
present before our minds, and we are absolutely certain of 
its existence. But might not the same process which led 
Spencer thus far lead him with equal security a step further ? 
If the presence of his own mental phenomena forced him to 
admit the existence of an ultimate reality, why may not 
the presence of different * clusters ' of phenomena compel 
him to assert that the objective reality is modified in this or 
that particular way ? There is the same data for arriving at 
the mode of being as at the being itself, and if he does not 
hesitate to swallow the camel, why should he strain out 
the gnat ? If our concept of it as existing is not a mere 
fictitious symbol, neither can be our concept of it as existing 
in this or that particular way. To his credit, however, be 
it said, it is only in his Psychology he clings to such views. 

Nor does his acquaintance with the unknowable end 
here. It is not only the infinite, the absolute, the uncon- 
ditioned being, the ultimate reality, the first cause, that 
which underlies all phenomena, and which is manifested in 
all phenomena, but, he says, ' it is absolutely certain that we 
are in the presence of an Infinite Eternal Energy from which 
all things proceed,' 1 It is surely a consoling spectacle to find 
the philosopher of Agnosticism asserting that there is a Being 
which must remain for us unknowable, and telling us almost 
in the same sentence that it is infinite, that it is eternal, that 
it consists not of several energies but of one, that from it all 
things proceed, and, consequently, are distinguished. Surely 
Spencer is not consistent in calling the Being unknowable 
about which he has such reliable and definite information, 
unless, indeed, he meant to except himself from the 
common herd. 2 

1 Article, Nineteenth Century, January, 1884, p. 12. 

2 Ibid. 


These are only a few of the many interesting puzzles 
in Spencer's system, of which one would naturally desire 
a solution, but the limits of the present essay preclude 
a further discussion. Let us now briefly examine the 
foundation upon which the whole system is built, namely, 
the author's theory on the nature of human knowledge. 
Nor will it be thought strange that so much attention 
should be devoted to this portion of our subject, if his 
own boastful assertion be borne in mind, that the 
analysis of human knowledge must ever force a man into 
Agnosticism. 1 There is very little use in attempting to 
purify the stream unless we can remove the pollution 
from its source. Besides, by establishing that man is 
capable of intellectual acts, which are completely and 
essentially different from sense-perceptions, and all the com- 
binations of such, and which must, therefore, suppose a 
power that is far above the sensuous faculties, we shall have 
proved that there must be in man a substance in which these 
powers are rooted, which is itself different from matter and 
all its modifications a conclusion which, as will be evident 
later on, is all important in an argument with Spencer. 

In his desperate efforts at combining the Idealist with 
Materialistic Philosophy, he has fallen into the characteristic 
errors of both systems without the apparent consistency of 
either. According to his theory, since human knowledge is 
limited to the world of sensations, of the vivid order or of the 
faint, 2 man can have no knowledge of that which has never 
been so experienced as to make an impression on the human 
organism, and even the knowledge which he has, is not of 
the objective things as they are .in themselves, but only of 
subjective phenomena in other words, it is not absolute 
but only relative. 

As usual, there is so much truth underlying Spencer's 
main contentions, that one is forced to bewail the intellec- 
tual ' thimble-rigging * of the Kantian School of Philosophy, 

i Frederic Harrison on Spencer's ' Unknowable," Nineteenth Century, 
1884, apud Ward's Witnesses of the Unseen. 

1 Vivid sensations are these which are produced here and now by the 
external agent. Faint sensations are the reproductions of these sensations 
which have been previously experienced. 


as well as the defences of revelation founded upon them, 
which are equally responsible for driving him into the 
Agnostic ranks. 

Without doubt, it is the common teaching amongst 
the followers of Aristotle and St. Thomas, that all know- 
ledge is acquired through the senses, but they do not intend 
to convey by this that the senses are man's highest cognitive 
faculty, or that sensations are his most perfect intellectual 
product. It is true that there is nothing in the intellect 
which was not previously in the senses, except, as Leibniz 
puts it, the intellect itself. 1 The sensitive faculties merely 
supply the material upon which this higher power works, 
and any system which pretends to unfold the genesis of 
knowledge whilst ignoring its existence, is very aptly com- 
pared by Dr. Mivart to a production of the play of ' Hamlet' 
with the Prince of Denmark's part omitted. 2 

No doubt, too, since truth consists in the relation of con- 
formity between the intellect knowing and the object known, 
all human knowledge must be essentially relative, and, 
furthermore, since the perfection with which any power per- 
forms its specific operations depends largely on the disposi- 
tions, whether internal or external, by which it is well or in- 
differently fitted, it follows that the accuracy and minute- 
ness of this conformity will vary with different individuals, 
and at different periods of life, even for the same individual. 
But though thus relative and varying, it is in all cases a 
more or less perfect conformity with the objective thing ; 
it is not, as Spencer would have us believe, a mere symbolic 

Nor do we assert that men can know things as far as they 
can be known, that the human mind is like a two-edged 
sword, reaching unto the division of the soul and of the spirit, 
of the joints also, and of the marrow. We are not forgetful 
of the words of Ecclesiastes 3 : < As thou knowest not what 
is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones are joined to- 
gether in the womb of her that is with child, so thou knowest 

1 Tht Great Enigma (Lilly). 

2 Nature and Thought (Mivart). 
* Chap, ad., Terse 5. 


not the works of God.' But we do fearlessly assert that 
human knowledge is not confined to sensations, or the mere 
reproductions of sensations, and that truth is not measured 
by subjective and variable standards, but is the conformity 
of the intellect with the objective reality outside ; that 
crossing the boundary of the phenomenal world, man can 
apprehend the realities outside with their several qualities 
and forms, and powers and relations, and that by observing 
the operations and interplay of these different bodies, he 
can comprehend in some measure the nature of that which 
produces the subjective phenomena, and is itself hidden 
from the senses. 

Fortunately for us, Spencer supplies the weapons for his 
own refutation. The arguments which he so forcibly urges 
against the Idealist theories will lose little, if any, of their 
force when turned against himself. These theories, he 
asserts, irreconcilable as they are with the postulates of 
physical science, cannot be entertained by any reasonable 
man. But will the demands of science be a whit more satis- 
fied with the conclusions at which he arrives ? How the 
physicist would stare with wonder, were he told that the 
different substances with which he deals are but the varying 
manifestations of the same unknowable reality, and that 
4 the properties of matter, even down to weight and resist- 
ance, are but subjective affections produced by objective 
agencies which are unknown and unknowable.' Physical 
science, if it supposes anything, must suppose that there 
exist outside the mind objects numerically and substantially 
distinct, with certain well-defined forms and powers ; certain 
clearly marked properties, such as solidity, extension, resist- 
ance, and, though in a less degree, certain qualities, such as 
colour, taste, and smell. Can anyone maintain that when 
the physicist combines several simple substances to produce 
some chemical compound, he does not clearly perceive that 
he is dealing with bodies which are distinct and endowed 
with certain properties independently of his mind ? Does 
he not know, for example, that gold in its very nature differs 
from silver, oxygen from hydrogen, carbon from potassium ? 
Let him take two pieces of gold and iron, let him do with 
VOL. xix. u 


them what he will, * heat them to the liquid or even the 
gaseous state, colour them, mould them into innumerable 
shapes, and yet, through all these changes, one will remain 
gold and the other iron.' * Surely such persistence amidst 
such changes can only be explained, by asserting that there is 
in each some objective reality which is shown to be different, 
by the uniform difference of energy displayed under all these 
varying forms. Can he bring himself to believe that he must 
ever remain in ignorance of that which lies behind these 
various ' clusters ' of phenomena, that when Keppler dis- 
covered his laws of planetary motion, when Le Verrier suc- 
cessfully predicted for years the discovery of the planet 
Neptune, when Cuneus received the rude shock which was 
to revolutionize electricity, they knew nothing about the 
external world, but only their own subjective sensations ? 
Evolution, too, says Spencer, would be in the Idealist sys- 
tem but a dream. But let him, laying aside his phraseology 
about ' the rhythmical pulsations of myriads of suns and sys- 
tems,' ' the pulsations of molecules on the earth in harmony 
with molecules in the stars,' ' the thrilling of every point of 
space with an infinity of vibrations,' explain the doctrine of 
Evolution according to his own ideas and his own principles, 
and if we are not convinced we shall at least have one 
other proof the latest and most striking that the age of 
miracles is not long since gone. 

Such a conclusion, too, is forced upon us by the common 
sense of mankind. Despite the eccentricities of philoso- 
phers, the great body of men have believed, and will con- 
tinue to believe, that they know of the existence of bodies 
outside themselves, distinct and endowed with certain pro- 
perties. Until the mind has become warped by prejudice, 
or the miserable speculations of men who delight in destroy- 
ing rational certainty, a man would never dream of question- 
ing the testimony of his senses, and even the veriest sceptic 
shows himself to be in agreement with his fellows in all the 
practical affairs of life. Such a belief is natural to man and 
cannot be misleading, unless, indeed, we accept the hypo- 

i J. E. RBCORD, January, 1887. 


thesis of Huxley, * that some powerful and malicious demon 
may find his pleasure in deluding and in making us at every 
moment believe the thing which is not.' l 

Thus, to-day, my memory carries me back over the years 
that are gone. I recall with a vividness that is startling, 
the features, and looks, and words, and gestures of those 
who have long since passed away. The place where they 
lived, the scenes in which they figured, the kindly advices 
they have given, the circumstances under which the last 
farewells were said all these rise up before my mind with- 
out effort and almost against my will, and am I to believe 
as Spencer would teach, that all these friends of earlier days, 
are but the varying ' clusters ' of phenomena under which 
the same unknowable being manifested itself, and of which 
I, too, am but another manifestation; that the companions 
with whom I converse in everyday life, the words that they 
speak, the books which I consult, as well as the authors who 
compile them, are but for me so many subjective affections 
produced by some external agent which must ever remain 
unknown ? 

Looking across the scene before me, as I stand upon one 
of our Irish hills, can I persuade myself that all the objects 
that I see are but clusters of phenomena differing only 
because the one unknowable being energizes differently ? All 
the reality and half the poetry of life would have disap- 
peared were such philosophy true. Against such doctrines 
I have the testimony of my own nature, the common sense 
of mankind, from the earliest ages, even till to-day, the won- 
derful adaptation and suitability of the sensuous faculties, 
the conclusions of physical science the very admissions of 
the adversaries themselves, once they have laid aside the 
r6le of philosophers ; and backed by such reliable evidence, 
despite Huxley's imaginative possibility of a grinning demon, 
I shall continue to trust, as I have always trusted, the testi- 
mony of the senses in their own proper sphere. 

But is all human knowledge to be confined to mere sen- 
suous perceptions of the vivid order or of the faint ; is that 

1 Huxley's Lay Sermont, p. 356, apud Dr. Ward's Philosophy of Theism. 


which we call the concept of the universal, but a mere 
blurred symbolic representation, formed by combining the 
images of individuals of the same class ; are man's cognitive 
faculties so many instruments to be acted upon by 
things outside and receive impressions thereof, as does the 
photographer's plate ; is there no power of the soul which 
can survey the whole range of subjective sensations as the 
senses survey the external world, which can go behind the 
accidents and appearances of things, and apprehend in some 
way the reality by apprehending its operations, combining or 
dividing the concepts of the essence thus formed according 
as it perceives that some necessarily agree or disagree, and 
using these necessary judgments as principles through which 
by comparison it may arrive at other truths which are not 
at first sight evident ? 

We assert there is in man a cognitive faculty transcend- 
ing all the faculties of sensation, and however brilliantly 
Spencer may have argued against such conclusions, still 
the very brilliancy of his arguments tend to convince us 
the more that he was led by other guides than sense. Self- 
analysis will show that there are within us actions which 
essentially differ from sensation, and which must, therefore, 
suppose a power entirely transcending the powers by which 
sensations are produced. 

And, first, there is the idea or intellectual concept, which 
is clearly distinguishable from the image of the individual 
object impressed on the sensitive organism. No doubt, the 
idea cannot exist without some accompanying picture in the 
imagination, but though always co-existent their very co- 
existence proves them to be distinct. The concept pre- 
scinds altogether from the accidental and individualizing 
notes, and represents the essence of the thing perceived ; it 
is, therefore, common to all objects of this particular class, 
and is, in a certain sense, necessary and immutable. The 
image, on the contrary, represents only the concrete indivi- 
dual thing with a certain figure and extension and qualities 
it is in no way common to the class, but varies for the 
different individuals. The proof for this doctrine is not far 
to seek. 


Let each man analyse his own acts of cognition, and see 
whether or not he can distinguish in himself the intellectual 
concept from the sensible image of the imagination. When 
he says, for example, that ' money is a useful commodity/ 
* the dog is a useful animal,' that amongst plants ' the cryp- 
togramic differ completely from the phanerogamic,' he can- 
not have before his mind merely the sensitive image produced 
upon his organism by some individual, for he speaks not of 
the individual, but of what is common to the class. Even 
Spencer would admit words are but the external expressions 
of that which is within ; and, therefore, independently of and 
superior to the phantasm there must be another picture 
representing that which underlies the individualizing notes, 
and is common to the whole class. This picture, as is evi- 
dent, cannot have been directly produced by anything out- 
side, for it exists in nothing that was experienced. It can- 
not be the blurred symbolic representation produced by the 
superposition of like sensible images, for even such super- 
position would imply a power of self -reflection and classifica- 
tion utterly inconsistent with our notions of material force ; 
and, besides, even if such a generic picture were produced, 
it could never have, as Spencer would admit, any objective 
validity. Yet, that our mental concept faithfully repre- 
sents that which is common to members of the class inde- 
pendently of individualizing traits may be proved by our ex- 
periments whenever we choose. So universally admitted 
is this, that were one to deny the validity of such concepts, 
he would be forced to assert that nearly all human language 
is but a meaningless medley of sounds ; for in most cases, it 
is not concerned with the individual concrete thing, and, 
therefore, not representing the sensitive image, it would re- 
present nothing. There is, then, in the mind a picture for 
which only the materials have been supplied by the sensuous 
faculty, a picture which, representative of no concrete par- 
ticular object that could have been experienced, yet faith- 
fully represents that which must be found in every individual 
of the class wherever it exists. May we not fairly assert that 
such a concept is essentially different from the perceptions 
of sense, and therefore requires a different faculty ? 


Physical science, too, supposes such concepts and sup- 
poses them to have objective validity to represent some- 
thing which, individualized by certain accidental notes and 
traits, must be common to all the members of a class. Is 
it not because he has such a concept of the substances with 
which he deals, that the scientist can be absolutely certain 
of the effects which they will produce, and is it not upon 
the validity of such concepts that all his reasoning and 
prediction are based ? 

Again, if the idea is but a faint reproduction of that which 
has been once experienced, how do we arrive at our notions 
of these things which never could in any way affect our 
senses ? How, for example, has Spencer acquired his con- 
cepts of ' something ' or ' nothing,' for he must have had 
some picture before his mind when he tells us that it is im- 
possible to imagine ' nothing ever becoming something ' ? 
how has he arrived at his notions of ' existence,' ' similarity,' 
' disagreement,' which are so necessary in his system of 
knowledge ? what sensitive faculty could ever conjure up for 
him his ideas of * virtue/ ' morality,' * goodness,' ' beauty,* 
' religion,' about which he writes so learnedly ? and, lastly, 
how can he explain the fact that let us picture to ourselves 
man as we will, whether young or old, Negro or Mongolian, 
clean-shaven or bearded, yet behind these varying forms 
there is something in the mind that is common to all, and 
which itself remains unchanged ? Further proof of this doc- 
trine is needless, for its accuracy is formally admitted by such 
an opponent as G. H. Lewes, 1 and substantially, at least, by 
Spencer himself. He would not deny that we can have a 
symbolic concept of ' the farmer,' for example, by recalling a 
few typical specimens, and remembering that they could be 
multiplied indefinitely, and that such a concept is reliable in 
so far as its validity can be testified by experience. Now, 
were there ever more contradictions involved in a single 
paragraph ? How could we ever get our notions of a 
* class,' if there was nothing in the mind but the impressions 
of the concrete thing ? How could we ever know that the 

1 Matter's Psychology. 


picture we conjure up represents a typical specimen, unless 
there be in the mind a concept of something behind the 
individualizing notes which is essential and common to all, 
and if such a representation be valid every time we test it 
by experiment, why may we not conclude that it is always 
trustworthy ? Thus, even Spencer is, in some way, forced 
to admit the existence of the intellectual concept differing 
essentially from sensations, and requiring, therefore, an 
essentially different faculty. 

When the intellect has thus formed from the individual 
objects its several concepts, it perceives immediately that 
some of them necessarily agree or disagree, so that to sepa- 
rate or combine them would imply a positive contradiction. 
It sees clearly that they must be combined or divided, and 
that anything else would be contradictory and absurd. 
Thus, when the several terms have been understood, the 
mind cannot help perceiving as true for all times and places 
' that a thing cannot be and not be at the same time ' (or in 
the concrete, * that a man cannot eat his cake and have it 
too '), ' that the whole must be greater than any of its parts,' 
* that things which are equal to the same thing are equal to 
one another,' * that three and two are five,' * that whatever 
begins to be must have had a cause.' The mind, by its very 
constitution, must affirm such judgments to do so is as 
natural to it as digestion is to the digestive organs, and unless 
we are prepared to run counter to our own very nature, how- 
ever we may have got it, unless we are resolved without 
reason or proof to distrust the certain testimony of our intel- 
lect, we must accept such judgments as true, independently 
of our mental state, of matter and all its modifications, 
of space and time and eternity, and by this very admission, 
we confess that all that is within us is not a mere material 
power to be acted upon by other material things outside. 

But, it may be said, does not Mill explain the necessity 
of such judgments as the result of the habitual association of 
two ideas, so that the mind cannot possibly conceive them 
as separated, and does not Spencer improve on the specula- 
tions of Mill, by substituting the experience and peculiarly 
modified organism of the race for those of the individual 


and, thus, accounting for our necessary judgments, by the 
peculiar bent which our mind has got during the ages in 
which we were being slowly evolved ? We join such concepts 
not because we positively see them agree, but because in 
our present state we cannot imagine them as separated. The 
necessity arises not from the objective evidence, but from 
the impotence of our mind, and hence, no conclusions based 
upon them can be objectively true. 

No doubt, such hypotheses are put forward, but let him 
believe them who can. It is obvious that Mill's theory cannot 
be a sufficient explanation, if the mind immediately, and 
without any previous association, recognizes the necessary 
agreement of certain concepts once they have been formed, 
and if, on the other hand, it can conceive as divisible and 
actually divided concepts which have been long and in- 
variably associated. Now, as soon as the terms have been 
explained the child at school, for example, will immediately 
affirm the necessary truth of certain judgments, 'that three 
and four are seven,' that ' the whole is greater than any of 
its parts,' that ' two straight lines cannot enclose a space,' 
and will declare that their contradictories would be posi- 
tively absurd ; whilst, on the other hand, though it knows 
well by experience that food, if not daily, at least at reason- 
able intervals, is an absolute necessity for life, yet it has no 
difficulty in accepting as truthful the Gospel narrative of the 
Redeemer's fast for forty days, and though it has often seen 
fire shrivel up and consume whatever came within its reach, 
it sees no contradiction in the inspired account of the pre- 
servation of the children in the fiery furnace. Nor is even 
Spencer's genius able to render the Associationist theory 
defensible. For if the necessity of our combining two 
concepts arises completely from the peculiar bent of our 
organism, produced by the habitual and simultaneous 
recurrence of certain phenomena, why was not a like effect 
produced in the case of other phenomena, which are con- 
nected together far more frequently ? And though, as far as 
we know, from the time when our progenitors first formally 
made their appearance upon the earth however they may 
have come there they were accustomed to see water always 


flowing with the incline, the leaves falling from the trees at 
the coming of the winter's wind, extended bodies possessing 
the attribute of impenetrability, yet we have no difficulty in 
believing on reliable testimony that the contrary may have 
occurred in a particular case. On the other hand, could 
anyone ever persuade us that the part may be at any time 
greater than the whole, or that the non-existent can begin 
to be existent without some extrinsic force ? 

Unlike Spencer's, our first principles are founded on 
their own objective evidence, forcing the assent of the mind, 
so that dissent is excluded ; and it is, we think, because his 
* ultimate postulate that whatever is unthinkable must be 
untrue ' is based not on the objective evidence, and 
hence for the intellect, objective truth, but on the impotence 
of the human mind to arrive at anything better, that his 
whole system is vitiated. Besides, how could that be 
' ultimate ' which itself evidently supposes the validity of 
the principle of contradiction ? That objective evidence is 
the ultimate criterion of truth, and that in the end we must 
accept as final the necessary ' avouchments ' of the intellect, 
is proved from the action of the adversaries themselves. 
When they loudly appeal to * experience ' as the only sure 
test, one may reasonably inquire how can this test avail un- 
less they are first certain they exist, that they are now ex- 
periencing certain sensations, that they have had in the past 
others with which the present ones are compared, and how 
can they be so certain unless by accepting what their intel- 
lect avers as evident ? 1 How can Spencer even be sure that 
the words which he spoke, the volumes which he has written, 
represent in any way what was in his mind, and not rather 
the contradictory, unless because he trusts the testimony 
of the intellect ? Thus, the conclusion stands that there 
are truths which are independent of the individual and 
the concrete of matter and all its modifications of this 
or that particular time or place or circumstance whose 
contradictory is seen to be absolutely impossible and the 

1 If Agnostics trust the testimonies of their intellect about these facts, 
why should they refuse to accept its necessary judgments, e.g., ' that what- 
ever begins to be must have had a cause ' ? 


apprehension of which, therefore, supposes a power higher 
than that of sense. 

When the mind is thus furnished with its intellectual con- 
cepts and first principles, it can then easily arrive by com- 
parison at other truths which are not at first sight evident. 
The power of reasoning is as natural to it as the power of self- 
reflection, of memory, of intuition, and if Spencer's is content 
to trust the testimonies of these, why object to the validity 
of the conclusions of reason ? In mathematics, for example, 
granted the validity of the primary axioms, the truth of the 
consequent deductions cannot be denied least of all by a 
man of Spencer's mathematical tastes. Does not the same 
hold good for every other department ? Once the scientist 
has got his intellectual concepts, which are representative of 
the essences of things, once he has got his first principles, 
upon which all knowledge must be based, once he is certain 
that his faculties may be trusted when they tell of the pre- 
sence of the concrete individual object outside does he not 
feel that he has, at least, a consistent and reasonable system 
of philosophy, and that he is standing on a secure founda- 
tion, instead of floating around in a world of sensations and 
of possibilities of sensation, as Huxley and Spencer would 
have him to believe ? If, again, our senses affirm that the 
fields which yesterday were green are to-day covered with a 
coat of snow are we unreasonable if we infer that this 
phenomenon must have had a cause, and if we proceed to 
inquire about its nature ? 

Thus, we have proved against Spencer unless the argu- 
ments were weakly stated that the theory of human know- 
ledge upon which Theists outside of the Kantian School 
base their convictions, is more intelligible, more consistent, 
more in accordance with the common sense of mankind, the 
requirements of our own nature, the postulates of physical 
science, and involves far less difficulties than the principles 
upon which scientific Agnosticism rests. We have proved 
that human knowledge is not confined to mere phenomena, 
or to the combinations of such ; that there is a power in man 
which can pierce the veil that hides the outer world from his 
gaze, and apprehend the realities that lie behind these 


relations, which passing from the individual, the concrete, the 
actual can rise to the abstract, the possible, the unchange- 
able a power which itself cannot be material, since it 
energizes as matter never could. And so, having firmly 
established the validity of his methods of argument, the 
Christian philosopher can proceed to discuss with his 
opponents the existence and the nature of the First Cause. 



SPEAKING at Carlow on January 3ist, Most Rev. 
Dr. Foley said : 

Lastly, there is the subject of education, and especially of 
primary education, which is the foundation from which must 
spring any effort that may be made to better and brighten the 
condition of the great body of the people. As long as the 
average attendance at the Primary Schools remains as low as 
it is in the schools of their county at present, and as long as the 
attendance in the higher standards is so poor, I do not see 
that much progress is possible towards the material improve- 
ment in the great mass of the people. The present average 
attendance of 64 per cent, in the rural schools was a disgrace 
to their model county. It should be at least 75 per cent. 

Some time ago, Most Rev. Dr. Healy, in the course of 
his official visitation of Clifden, urged the local authorities 
everywhere to put the compulsory clauses of the Education 
Act, 1902, into force. * What,' said he, ' is a paltry expen- 
diture of a few pounds on its working compared with its 
material uplifting of the country ? ' Perhaps in view of 
these two episcopal utterances on compulsory education, 
the I. E. RECORD may devote a few pages to some 
consideration of the subject. 

In the past history of our people it is painfully evident 
that though they had an ardent love of knowledge, yet their 
condition precluded them from giving education that pro- 
minence in their social programme that it demanded. They 
were engaged in a struggle for their very being, not only 
as Catholics, but even as Irishmen. In such circumstances 
it would be foolish to expect that a mode of existence 
would trouble them when their very existence itself was 
threatened. It is little wonder to-day that, as a con- 
sequence, we find them behind other nations in many 
matters. Prolonged peace has given others an opportunity 
of rilling in their social programme and providing them- 
selves with these advantages that distinguish life from 
mere existence. One of the ways in which the Irish mind 


remains undeveloped and the Irish character crippled is 
the current popular view as regards education. Their 
best friends see that they are behindhand, and yet the 
bulk of the people does not seem to realize the fact. 
What is worse, deprived as they have been themselves of 
a good education, the parents seem reckless of the injury 
they are doing their children, by either keeping them 
from school or allowing or forcing them to attend 
irregularly. From the returns of the National Board we 
find that there are nearly 400,000 children of school 
age in Ireland who either do not attend school, or do so 
in such an unsatisfactory manner that their attendance 
is useless from an educational standpoint. 

The average Irishman may attend a meeting in favour 
of University Education, but it is mainly his implicit faith 
in the leadership of his bishop or priest that makes him do 
so, not from a genuine perception of all the good that lies 
in such a high training for the leaders of the people. As 
for Technical Education, it is making, if not a bloody, at 
least a difficult entrance, and those who see and make use 
of its advantages are not five per cent, of the available 
population. We are a long way as yet from the spectacle 
to be seen in some of the continental towns, where the 
artisans come in their hundreds to the local technical school 
to learn what would seem so remote from their daily crafts 
as drawing and mathematics. What hope would there be 
amongst us at present for those winter schools of Grund- 
twig, that have been working in Denmark since 1844 ? 
Even amongst the pupils who attend our technical schools 
I think I see the result of what I alluded to in the com- 
mencement. The proportion of Protestants who attend is 
far in excess of the figure given by the religious census. 
This is due to the fact that they, so long dominant, have 
the instinct and traditions that teach them the value of 
education. With regard to Primary education, the bulk of 
the people, under the expressive name of ' schoolin',' still 
look on that as an end, instead of a means to an end. 
My readers know that with regard to this whole subject the 
progressive nations of to-day look on education in a far 


different light. They regard it as the breath of a nation's 
nostrils. They freely tax themselves to bring its full 
advantages within their reach, they make any sacrifice 
to enable their children to avail of it and they point with 
pride to the results achieved. 

As we have so much leeway to make up we should not 
lose time in commencing, and in the hope of making an easy 
and natural beginning I ask for a consideration of the 
claims of compulsory education. I say easy, because the 
law is there to our hands, it needs but the enforcement. 
Perhaps a consideration of our leeway may awaken some 
interest in the means of covering it. Taking the usual 
standard of a nation's advancement or otherwise, illiteracy, 
we find that we stand thus, compared to the nations that 
are worth copying, the year giving date of returns : 


1901 German Empire . . . . 0-05 

1900 Sweden and Norway .. 0*08 

1900 Denmark .. .. O'2O 

1901 Switzerland . . . . 0-13 

1902 Belgium .. .. .. 9*39 

1901 Netherlands .. .. 2-30 


1901 Scotland .. .. .. 2*46 

1901 England .. .. .. 3*00 

1901 Ireland .. .. .. 7-90 

The only nation of this class that has anything nearly 
as high in illiteracy as Ireland is Belgium, and here they 
have been playing fast and loose with compulsory educa- 
tion. Moreover, the ignorance in the mining districts goes 
far to swell the percentage of illiterates. If a separate re- 
turn could be taken of the non-mining localities the result 
would be similar to that of other countries. Everyone 
knows that we cannot make absolute comparison between 
countries, because there is not the same standard in use, 
but anyhow we can see the value of the above tests. The 
4 army recruit ' seems to furnish an excellent guide in 
these lands where conscription prevails, and the figures 
furnished in this manner show us what marvellous spread of 


elementary education must obtain in nearly all the conti- 
nental States given above. The signing of the marriage 
certificate, used as a standard of comparison, puts Ireland 
very far below England and Scotland, and I am inclined to 
think that because of the relative lowness of the marriage 
rate in Ireland, the figures mean even more than 
they imply at first glance. Again, we have yet another 
way of applying a test. The voters for a general election 
are supposed to be of some social status, and we find that 
about one-sixth of the population of these countries are 
electors. In 1895, the total voters who polled in England 
were 3,190,826, and the illiterates (whose papers were read 
to them and signed for them) were 28,521. In Scotland, 
the numbers were 447,591, and the illiterates were 4,062, 
whilst in Ireland we have the surprising figures of a 
total of 220,506, with 40,357 illiterates ! The proportions 
here are simply alarming, and at the same time distressing 
to the last degree. One-fifth of those men, who are supposed 
to decide on questions of the greatest political import, 
are unable to read or write ! 

There are some conclusions that I think can be 
drawn from these figures. The first is, all true Irishmen 
should be ashamed of the fact that at the commencement 
of the twentieth century our country should be so low in the 
scale of educated lands. But there are other and more 
serious considerations. How can a country move evenly 
towards any goal of educational, political, or religious char- 
acter, whose people are divided into strata so widely diver- 
gent? Taking the highest object, the spiritual welfare, in 
the first place, what part can intellect play in the religion 
of a land, when we know that one-tenth of our people are 
devoid of the elements of education? What impression 
can be made on the minds of such people by the discourses 
from the pulpit ? To twenty per cent, of such a congrega- 
tion a sermon is but a stream of language on which a few 
tokens are floating that the untutored mind feebly recog- 
nizes here and there. What a small modicum of religious 
truth remains in the mind of a man of forty who has never 
been able to read about his faith, can poorly understand a 


sermon, and has scarcely ever refreshed his mind on what 
he was taught in the Catechism class so many years 
ago ? Cardinal Manning said that if a priest neglected 
his studies for three years, he should require to begin over 
again. What a poor residue of the catechism must remain 
in the mind of one who never read it, who learned it by rote, 
and who never refreshed an idea of it. I think that the 
illiteracy of our people can account for a great deal of the 
leakage in England and America. Their religion being 
principally of an emotional nature, without a backing of 
intelligence, perishes by a natural law when the surround- 
ings become frigidly Protestant in character. It would seem 
then that even from the point of view of the spiritual well- 
being the priests should lay to heart this abnormal illiteracy 
of our people. 

Again, there can be no steady and uniform social im- 
provement in a people of whom twenty per cent, are thus 
stunted in their mind's growth. This is clear from a 
contrast between our people and others. In a land like 
Switzerland, or Denmark, or Bavaria, any project for the 
well-being of the people, if it have reason to recommend it, 
is taken up generally in a brief space of time. The experi- 
ments of the laboratory of to-day are the property of the 
people to-morrow. Economic theories that are proved to 
be true speedily become the current principles of everyday 
life. There is not that heart-breaking distrust of methods 
simply because they are new or savour of science, nor that 
self-satisfied acceptance of childish reasons against change. 
Anyone who compares the rapid growth of scientific prin- 
ciples in every department, as shown in these well-educated 
countries, and the slow movement of similar principles 
amongst our people, will realize how handicapped we are 
by the uneven education that prevails amongst us. A very 
recent example may be adduced. The officials of the 
Society for the Prevention of Consumption report that the 
ravages of this dreadful plague have fallen fifty per cent, 
in England during the last few years, and this beneficial 
result is attributed to the education effected through 
the schools. In Ireland the consumption record is going 
up. The people are as reckless to-day with regard to 


ordinary precautions as they were twenty years ago. This 
must be put down to ignorance as the principal cause. To 
show how the ground-work of a good education affects 
movements of this kind, I may quote the London Times 
in reference to the people's winter schools in Denmark : 

Between 1870 and 1880, when Danish agriculture was on 
the brink of ruin, and it became necessary to turn from corn 
growing to dairy work, and again, in 1880, when co-operative 
dairies were required, it was the bright, ready intelligence of 
the old high school pupils (winter school pupils) that enabled 
the requisite changes to be made with rapidity and success. 1 

These words must be pondered on if we wish to seize 
their full meaning. To change from cultivation to dairying 
meant to this people to break with the traditions of cen- 
turies, to look at this life and the markets of the world 
from a totally opposite view. It meant a shifting of the 
value of their land and of their labour, a changing of their 
methods, even to the smallest routine of daily life. Even 
the labour of the sexes had to assume a changed value. 
Yet all this was accomplished, and most successfully, in a 
few years ! The revolution was made easy by its being 
accomplished amongst an educated people. The very same 
process had to be gone through to enable Germany to 
become an industrial land from being a purely agricultural 
one. Yet using the same leverage of popular education, 
the change has been effected, and with phenomenal success. 
How long would it take such a movement in Ireland, as at 
present educated ? With how many broken hearts and 
shattered frames and disappointed lives would the road 
be strewn, before the mass of the people would take courage 
to tread it. 

Lastly, we must consider the case of the teacher and 
the interests of the pupils that attend regularly. There 
is nothing so discouraging to a teacher as irregular, inter- 
mittent attendance of a pupil. No real, abiding impression 
can be made on such a mind. The actual knowledge 
imparted is forgotten as rapidly as it is taught. From a 
psychological standpoint, matters are even worse. The 

1 American Educ. Report, 1897, vol. i., p. 86. 


formation of character depends on the acquisition of habits. 
What habits can a child acquire whose only permanent 
habit seems to be that of coming spasmodically to school ? 
As regards the children who attend regularly, their progress 
is also hampered by the irregulars. The master has to 
give the latter special attention in order to help them to 
cover the ground which has been lost, and all this time is 
taken from the general work of the class. 

To listen to the ' cry of the teacher ' as regards attend- 
ance in school is very painful. From returns I got recently 
I can lay before my readers some proofs of the awful 
apathy that exists in parents' minds where the education of 
the children is concerned. Out of a very large number of 
representative schools, where there was little difficulty in 
getting the children to and fro, I learned that in no in- 
stance was the attendance satisfactory from the teacher's 
standpoint. Mondays and Fridays are practically dies 
non. The excuse for not sending the child on Monday is 
because it is tired after Sunday ! Often it is the father 
or mother that is ' tired,' or both keeping St. Monday. 
The invariable reason for not sending the children on 
Friday is that, * it being the last day's school, it is not 
worth while ' ! Thus the school-week is reduced to three 
days. According to some returns Thursday is now be- 
ginning to show a noticeable decrease and the able teacher 
who called attention to this said that ' the mothers now 
think they are conferring a wonderful favour on you when 
they send their children to school.' One teacher very 
enthusiastic, but disheartened writes : * During my twenty- 
two years as teacher, I never knew of the same set of pupils 
being in attendance on two successive days. This applies 
to Cork, Dublin, Deny, Armagh, and Down, where I 
taught.' There is no hope whatsoever of dealing with 
people who neglect the most sacred duty to their children 
in this way, save by having a Compulsory Attendance Act 
applied to the whole country, and very vigorously enforced. 
It may encourage us in our efforts in this direction 
if we reflect that the verdict of the civilized world is in 
favour of compulsory attendance. Through a mistaken 


notion of liberty the English legislator is to-day the one 
exception to the rule. He will muzzle dogs, force the 
motorist to observe a maximum speed, he will tax the 
window panes and the man-servants, and yet all this 
hampers liberty. But he will allow ignorant and un- 
natural parents to pour out a horde of semi-brutal off- 
spring on society every year, because, forsooth, the liberty 
of the parent must not be interfered with 

If we turn to the pages of the Statesman's Year Book, 
we find that in every country in the world that is making 
any progress, primary education is stamped as having 
two characteristics, * compulsory ' and * gratuitous.* In 
Germany, the leader of the educational world, not alone 
are parents compelled to send their children to school up 
to a certain year, but the children are compelled to attend 
continuation schools until eighteen years of age. In France, 
attendance is compulsory, and not alone that, but an 
employer who should accept of the service of a boy or 
girl without demanding the school leaving certificate, 
would expose himself to a heavy fine. Even little States 
like Montenegro, and Bosnia, and Herzegovina, tax them- 
selves to give gratuitous and compulsory education to the 
child. Turkey, with all her effete traditions, is ahead of 
England in this respect, because she has compulsory edu- 
cation. We cannot do better in Ireland than follow such 
conspicuous examples as are given us by the enlightened 
peoples that have adopted this law. 

It is to be hoped, therefore, that the managers of the 
schools, from the standpoint of religion, of patriotism, of 
consideration for the teachers and pupils, will take the 
matter into their earnest consideration. Any excuse that 
may be urged might be put forward with equal force in 
any country where compulsory education prevails. I fear 
that some of the racial characteristics of our people incline 
them to take a thoughtless view of the matter, and hence 
on the enlightened action of the managers we must rely 
for such measures in regard to the matter as will bring us 
up to the level of the progressive countries of Europe. 


[ 324 1 


NO sooner had the Vatican edition of the Kyriale appeared 
when, to the surprise of many, it was met with im- 
mediate and stormy opposition. This has had the 
effect of disturbing the minds of many as to the authority of 
this edition ; and, although the official acts of the Holy See 
stand in no need of defence before the Catholic faithful, it 
seems, however, advisable that some reply should be made 
and the real worth of all this opposition be carefully weighed. 
In Italy and Germany the outcry has perhaps been the 
loudest ; and it has now spread to our islands. Father 
Bewerunge, in his article, * The Vatican Edition of Plain 
Chant ' (whose inspiration was sought at Appuldurcombe), 
published in the I. E. RECORD, January, 1906, has now 
ranged himself among the opponents of the Vaticana. As 
far as I can judge, his criticisms are the most detailed and 
searching that have yet appeared ; and I should like to pay 
him the compliment of saying that if we can offer a satis- 
factory answer to his objections, we have answered all. 

Before entering upon the main argument, it may be as 
well to correct a few errors of fact. On page 44, Mr. G. Bas 
is described as ' one of the Consultors of the Commission.' 
This is not the case, and the statement has caused a good 
deal of amusement among those who took special pains that 
this gentleman should be kept out of the business. If Mr. 
Bas states that ' the cases in which the Vatican differs from 
" the authentic " (that is, the Appuldurcombe) version, 
number 135,' he is rendering a very dubious service to his 
friends, for this information could only be obtained by a 
violation of the Pontifical secret. But a much more serious 
error, and one which underlies the whole article, is the 
statement that Dom Pothier was made ' the sole judge of 
the version of the new edition' (page 47), and the assumption 
throughout that Dom Pothier is responsible for all variants 
and corrections. Thus, we read that ' Dom Pothier shows 


a strange predilection for the German tradition of the Chant ; 
another correction is supposed to bear ' testimony to his 
amiability, but what about his critical judgment ?' (page 51). 
In another part * Pom Pothier changes the c. . . . Could 
anything be more discreditable to an editor ?' Another 
passage is due to ' his whim * (page 61), and finally the 
official edition is termed ' his edition ' (page 62). There is 
not a single passage, as far as I can see, in which the 
Pontifical Commission is mentioned, the whole brunt of 
the attack falls upon Dom Pothier, and on him alone. 

Now, this is a serious and fundamental error on the part 
of the critic, which vitiates the whole of his contention. 
Dom Pothier was not 'sole judge, 1 was not solely responsible 
for the changes. By the direction of the Holy Father, Dom 
Pothier was ' entrusted with the delicate mission of revising 
and correcting the edition, and in this work he will seek the 
assistance of the other members of the Commission'; 1 and 
with that * amiability ' which distinguishes him, we may be 
sure that Dom Pothier did seek and accept the aid and 
suggestions of the other members of the Commission. There 
is not a single correction, not a single one of the versions that 
Father Bewerunge condemns, that has not been fully dis- 
cussed and approved, by the major pars in many cases, and 
in every case by the sanior pars, of the Commission. When 
we find such men as Dr. Wagner, Dom Janssens, members 
of the Pontifical Commission ; M. Moissenet, Canon Gros- 
pellier, M. Gastoue, Consultors, publicly extolling and de- 
fending the versions of the Vaticana, it is not difficult to 
gather that they have thrown in their lot with Dom Pothier, 
and accept the responsibility for the character of the edition. 
Against such a weight of authority and learning, we have 
but one opponent, the Archaeological School of Appuldur- 
combe, from whom all the attacks, directly or indirectly, 

This attribution by the critic of the whole of the revision 
of the Kyriale to Dom Pothier alone gives rise to some 
unpleasant reflections. Did Father Bewerunge learn this at 

1 Letter of Cardinal Merry del Yal, June 24, 1905. 


Appuldurcombe, where he repaired for the material of his 
article ? But at Appuldurcombe, if anywhere, the true facts 
of the case were well known, and the share of the other 
members of the Commission in the corrections well under- 
stood. If, then, they gave their champion this false impres- 
sion, and allowed him to hold up Dom Pothier alone to the 
scorn and derision of the public, it gives rise, I say, to many 
unpleasant reflections. But the whole statement is inaccu- 
rate, and the other members of the Commission are not at 
all grateful to Father Bewerunge for the manner in which 
he completely ignores their share of the work. 

What, then, is the fundamental position that Father 
Bewerunge has taken up in his criticisms ? It is that the 
Pontifical Commission has not followed in every minute 
detail the reading of the majority and of the oldest MSSj 
I need not cite passages from the article, for I fancy the 
author will not object to this statement of his position^ 
Now, if we can show that this principle is unscientific, 
inartistic, and at variance with the terms of reference of 
the Commission, the whole of his objections must fall to 
the ground. 

Father Bewerunge, in his article, the material of which 
he declares were gathered at Appuldurcombe, has enrolled 
himself as a disciple of that school, whose cry is Archae- 
ology, and nothing but Archaeology, in the Chant. Perhaps 
we can put the position more clearly in the form of 
question and answer. 

' Is there not such a thing as art in the Gregorian ? ' 
' No,' is the reply, ' archaeology is the only art.' ' But is 
there no possibility of an improvement in details ? ' 'No ; 
such a statement is an archaeological absurdity.' ' Is 
there no place for a development in tonality and music 
in general ? ' ' Absolutely none.' ' Still the universal 
practice has surely some title to recognition ? ' ' None 

This little dialogue will give us some idea of the 
uncompromising position taken up by the School of 

And what is this archaeology that embraces the whole 


truth, and nothing but the truth, of the Gregorian ? Dom 
Mocquereau describes it for us in the article, ' L'Ecole Gre"- 
gorienne de Solesmes.' 1 You must first obtain, at very heavy 
cost, a large number of copies of the ancient MSS. ; only 
those who can afford the expense of obtaining these repro- 
ductions are entitled to enter upon the study. After 
obtaining a sufficient number of copies, you proceed to take 
a given piece of chant and number its groups and neums. 
Write underneath in horizontal columns all the versions of 
each group. Count up the agreements and the differences, 
which are further sub-divided according to the age of the 
MSS. Tabulate these and the votes of the oldest MSS. carry 
the day. If, however, the votes are equal, you may toss up 
for it, or, as Dom Mocquereau euphemistically puts it, 
* follow the proceeding in the election of Matthias.' All this 
is excellent and valuable work, and I am far from any wish 
to disparage it. But, we may ask, is this science ? On such a 
system as this anyone could undertake to restore the Grego- 
rian. It is unnecessary to have any artistic gifts ; an array 
of statistical tables would be all the equipment neccesary 
for determining the text of the music. Nay, a man might 
not have a note of music in his composition, be unable to 
sing the most common interval, and yet might, on this 
theory, claim the right to reconstruct the Gregorian with his 
arithmetic against the most artistic and learned master of 
Plain-song. Surely this argument alone should be a reductio 
ad absurdum of the claim of the Archaeological School to 
have the sole voice in the correction of the Chant. Such 
mechanical proceedings are very useful and meritorious, 
but they cannot be raised to the dignity of a science. 

It is an assumption to say that the true Gregorian Chant 
is contained in the oldest codices alone. Our oldest MSS. 
are certainly not older than the ninth century. A good two 
hundred years yawns between them and the work of the 
great Pontiff. Are we sure that our MSS. faithfully repre- 
sent the reform of St. Gregory ? Some very eminent his- 
torians are strongly of the opposite opinion. In any case, 

1 Rassegna Gregoriana, April, 1904. 


there is no proof for the assertion of our archaeologists ; it 
amounts to little more than a probable guess. Is this a 
scientific basis on which to claim the right to reform Church 
music in the name of archaeology ? It is still possible that 
some day the libraries of Europe may disclose a MS. of the 
seventh or eighth centuries, and then what would happen ? 
The whole of the statistical tables, the whole of the conclu- 
sions hitherto come to, would have to be revised and 
brought into conformity with each new discovery. Is this 
a scientific basis to rest a claim so proud that archaeology 
puts forth ? And must the music of the Church be 
dependent upon every fresh discovery of archaeology ? 

But there is something more. Is it quite certain that 
the tradition of the Chant flowed with pure and undefiled 
stream from the days of St. Gregory to the ninth century ? 
The archaeologists affirm it. But this is far from certain. 
Dr. Wagner, in his recent work, Neumenkunde, was the 
first to point out that in the centuries immediately after 
St. Gregory some very decided attempts were made 
to make the Chant learned and accurate, by bending 
its forms to the prosody of classic times, or the Chronos 
of the Greeks. Different kinds of ornaments and fioriture 
were also introduced about this time, and, under Greek 
influence, not only half-tones, but even quarter-tones, began 
to be cultivated. All this, of course, was exceedingly dis- 
tasteful to the ordinary singer of the Latin Church, and a 
struggle ensued, which ended finally in the Latinization of 
the Chant, not only in the melody, but also in the execution. 
Had it not been for this successful resistance against the 
designs of the experts and theorists, the cantus planus would 
have disappeared from the Church by the twelfth century. 

Until these doubts relating to the composition and exe- 
cution of the melodies by the masters of the ninth century 
can be dispelled, we must be allowed to suspend our judg- 
ment as to perfection of the ancient MSS. in their smallest 
details. A scientific basis for the reform of the Chant can 
hardly be erected on such unsteady foundations. 1 

1 One of the most eminent historians of France thus expresses himself 
on this question : 'If historical research is directed solely to the discovery 


The claims of archaeology seem to ignore the point of 
view with which the Church regards the Chant, which, after 
all, is a collection of compositions of all times and countries, 
of all degrees of art ; but all distinguished by one particular 
style. Thus, we have productions of the later Middle Ages, 
those of the Renaissance, the compositions for modern and 
new offices, all forming the body of song that passes under 
the name of the Gregorian Chant, and all receiving the stamp 
of the Church's authority, as ' possessing in the highest 
degree those qualities which are proper to the liturgy of the 
Church.' 1 But the archaeologists would have us believe that 
there is a certain aristocracy in the Church, that the MSS. of 
the ninth century are alone of pure blood, all the rest of low 
degree, with no claim to associate with those who can trace 
back their descent to Charlemagne. We often wonder how 
the archaeologists can resign themselves to the chanting of 
these later barbarisms, which they are compelled so fre- 
quently to meet with in the course of the Divine Office. But 
the Church has to deal not with savants, but with the large 
body of the faithful, to whom all such questions are a matter 
of supreme indifference, and she will continue to add to, to 
revise, to complete, choral books, and to give to modern 
melodies a place of honour in her liturgy equal to that of the 
oldest chant. For the Plain Chant is a living energy, not a 
musty old parchment, an energy that, like the coral insect, 
is ever battling with the demands of the day and ever 
building upon the old foundations. 

What does all the indignation, all the pother of the arch- 
aeologists really amount too ? That perhaps one note in 
three hundred has been corrected ! It really comes to little 
more. And even this is an exaggerated estimate, if we con- 
fine ourselves to the oldest MSS. of all. For the Kyriale, as 
is well known, is quite in a different condition from that of 
the Proper of the Time of the old Offices. The Kyriale chants, 
on the whole, are of very much later composition. In fact, 

of the ancient documents of the past just as they were ; the traditional 
practice is not bound meekly to assimilate the results of this investigation ; 
it ought to show in a certain measure due respect for the work of time.' 
Gevaert, M&lopbe antique, p. an. 
1 Motu Propriot 


the triple invocation of the Agnus Dei was not introduced 
into the liturgy until after the ninth century. Many of the 
melodies are compositions of the thirteenth and fourteenth 
centuries. And still, although these compositions are 
acknowledged to be distinctly inferior to those of the earlier 
centuries, yet we are invited to draw up statistical tables, to 
count up the number of agreements, and to adopt towards 
the corrupt precisely the same methods to be employed with 
the incorrupt, under penalty of being branded as arbitrary, 
whimsical, and unscientific, if we disagree. As if any amount 
of concordances of a corrupt version could establish a cor- 
rect reading ! This, I maintain, is an unscientific method 
of dealing with the revision of the Chant. 

But if this claim to reform music by archaeology alone be 
unscientific, it is also inartistic. To judge from the writings 
of the archaeologists, one would conclude that there is 
no art in the Gregorian. But, in turning again to 
Dom Mocquereau's article above mentioned, ' L'Ecole 
Grgorienne de Solesmes,' we come across a delightful 
passage on Gregorian art, which quite made our mouths 
water at the prospect of the interesting discoveries that 
the archaeological process seemed to offer. 

Sometimes [he says], and not uncommonly, we may come 
across some very curious secrets of the old notation, notably 
certain equivalences, which, far from contradicting some teach- 
ing, go far to strengthen it. Above all, we may discover the 
laws of adaptation of the same melody to different texts, and 
we recognize how often these rules have been ignored in the 
adaptations made in modern times. 

It is here that we can probe to the quick the methods of 
composition of the ancient Gregorian artists, we can admire the 
delicacy of their taste, the variety of the resources at their com- 
mand, the deftness with which they know how to expand or 
contract a melody in order to clothe the text with grace. The 
art which they display in these circumstances is inimitable, and 
the aesthetic rules which they obey are lost to those who have 
not the means that our statistical tables offer of analysing 
patiently and curiously their methods. 

Nothing could be more fascinating than these prospects 
of unfolding the art of the Gregorian. The secrets of the 
neums, the methods of composition,] the. art of equiva- 


lences, of adornment and development of melodies, are 
precisely the points on which the musical world is most 
anxious to have a systematic expose, for the chapter has 
not yet been written. The articles regularly contributed 
by Dom Pothier for a number of years to the Revue du 
Chant Gregorien have also revealed to us many of the 
secrets of the art of the Chant, the laws of cadences, the 
characteristics of the different kinds of Gregorian melodies, 
the combinations and formulas of the different modes, 
the relation of accent to text, the evolution of tonality, 
its relations with evolution of the accent and rhythm of 
the language, these have been unfolded to us with rare 
skill and insight by Dom Pothier. We feel here that we 
are being admitted into the arcana of the Chant, that an 
order and beauty here reigns which excludes all question of 
arbitrary proceeding. Surely, if there is any criterion by 
which we should proceed to the editing of the correct text, it 
should be that which applies these delicate and subtle laws, 
that can only be grasped by those who are equipped with 
rare musical gifts and knowledge. 

After Dom Mocquereau's happy indication of the 
discoveries that had followed the compilation of the 
statistical tables, one naturally looked to see some of 
these principles applied to the elucidation of a Gregorian 
text. In this we were disappointed. Dom Beyssac, of 
Appuldurcombe, in his study of the Kyrie, Fons bonitatis 
(which Father Bewerunge terms ' masterly '), proposes 
to restore to us the best reading of this melody. Is there 
any application of the principles of art, so charmingly 
sketched by Dom Mocquereau, bestowed upon this task ? 
Absolutely none. It is nothing but a counting of MSS., the 
number of agreements, the determination of the majority of 
the votes ; but as far as the writer of the article is concerned, 
the art of the Gregorian might be non-existent. The same 
remarks will apply to the whole of Father Bewerunge's 
criticism; it is again merely a question of enumerating MSS., 
of pitting one nation against another, while of the principles 
of Gregorian art, of its claims in any recension of a text, 
not a word ! If Dom Mocquereau has made the important 


discoveries of the principles of Gregorian art, which he pro- 
fesses to have made from his statistical tables, he seems to 
have taken great pains to lock the secret up in his own 
breast. In any case the Archaeological School have let 
it be clearly understood that they recognize no claims of 
the voice of art of the Gregorian in the preparation of 
the critical edition. 

Now, having endeavoured to show that the methods 
favoured by the Archaeological School are neither scientific 
nor artistic, let us examine how far they are in harmony 
with the wishes and commands of the Holy See. It has 
long been recognized as a dictate of practical wisdom that, 
when a Commission is appointed, terms of reference must 
be imposed, otherwise there would be great danger of the 
members wandering off at their own sweet will into the 
most opposite directions. Nor did the Holy Father neglect 
to take this precaution when he appointed the Commission 
for the Restoration of the Gregorian Chant, on April 25, 
1904. The terms of reference of the Pontifical document 
are : ' The melodies of the Church, so-called Gregorian, 
shall be restored in their integrity and purity, according 
to the testimony of the more ancient codices, but in such 
a manner that particular account shall be taken of the 
legitimate tradition contained in the later codices and of 
the practical use of modern liturgy.' 

The three points which the Commissioners are directed to 
observe in their recension are : (i) The more ancient codices ; 
(2) the legitimate tradition contained in later codices ; (3) the 
practice of the modern liturgy. These terms of reference 
indicate a perfectly intelligible line of procedure, but they 
completely exclude the platform of the archaeologists. The 
latter admit no ' legitimate tradition,' beyond the ninth 
century; in their eyes 'later codices' have no more value 
than the evolution of the Gregorian art which they represent. 
It is clear that those who, holding such views, entered the 
Commission, would find themselves bound to struggle 
against the terms of reference imposed by the Holy Father. 
If the archaeologists could not see their way to accept the 
Papal instructions, an impasse was bound to result. And 


so it happened, in point of fact. The history of the dead- 
lock is too well known to require re-telling. 

It was hardly to be expected that the Holy Father would 
yield. Nothing then remained for him but to override the 
objections of the opponents and give Dom Pothier, who was 
loyally carrying out his wishes, the supreme direction of the 
work. It was hoped that after the Head of the Church had 
given such a decided mark of his disapproval of the views of 
the archaeologists, the latter would have had the good grace 
to yield to such authoritative decisions. It is disappointing 
to have to state that this is far from the case. Discomfited 
in the Commission, they have now transferred their opposi- 
tion to the Vaticana to the public Press, and the numerous 
attacks on the typical edition all proceed from one source, 
the School of Appuldurcombe. There is no use in mincing 
matters ; by their attitude they have placed themselves in 
direct antagonism to the Holy Father and to ecclesiastical 
authority. It is true they claim the right to hold their views 
on a theoretical question ; but the public will note that all 
the same they are attacking principles which the Holy 
Father and the Sacred Congregation hold very strongly, and 
that the archaeologists are striving their utmost to discredit 
these principles in the eyes of the Church. 

Let us put the question fairly : Is the Plain Chant to be 
restored for the sake of its antiquity, or because it is an 
admirable vehicle for the expression of the faith and piety 
of the people ? Or, in other words : Is the Plain Chant made 
for man or man made for the Chant ? To most minds the 
framing of this question brings its own answer. And yet 
the archaeologists do not hesitate to state that man was made 
for the Chant, and not vice versa. Dom Mocquereau main- 
tains l that the Chant ' must be taken just as it is with 
its good and bad points.' Even if it is a question of restora- 
tion, it must not be an adaptation or improvement, but the 
restoration of the original.' No consideration is to be shown 
to the feelings or needs of the singers. If the old forms are 

11 L'evolution dans 1'esthetique et la tradition Gr6gorienne,' Rassegna 
Gregotiana, 1904. 


harsh and uncouth, so much the worse for the singers. They 
must leave the Plain Chant alone. The same writer says : 
' Let us hope we have done for ever with mutilations in 
order to make the Chant easier to sing everywhere and 
by everyone. Nobody is obliged to sing the Gregorian 
melodies.' l 

It is unmistakably the case of * man for the Chant,' and 
not ' the Chant for man.' We seem to see a reproduction 
of the old Pharasaism that jealously guarded the forms and 
overlooked the spirit which had given these forms their life 
and being. 

In any case, this is not the object of the Holy Father. In 
his Motu Proprio, he has given public and official expression 
to his wish that ' this Chant (Gregorian) should especially 
be restored for the use of the people, so that they may 
take a more active part in the services, as they did in former 
times.' 2 This is again a case where the Holy See lays down 
the principle that the Chant is meant for the people, to 
which the archaeologists reply that they see no reason why 
attempts should be made ' to make the Chant easier to sing 
by everyone and everywhere.' 

I might here bring my article to an end, as I have ad- 
duced abundant proof that the principles upon which the 
archaeologists have founded their objections to the Vaticana 
are supported by neither science, art, nor authority. How- 
ever, it may be as well, in order to avoid all suspicions of 
shirking the question, to follow the critic in his patient 

1 This is one of the stock objections to the Vaticana. Another critic 
says : ' Dom Ppthier has evidently been inspired by the wish to come to 
the aid of choirs whose artistic aspirations are very limited, and whose 
means of execution restricted.' It is rather amusing to note the incon- 
sistency of the archaeologists on this point. These lovers of antiquity 
have invented certain rhythmic signs, with which their editions are 
' adorned,' in order to meet the wishes of these very singers of aspirations 
and execution so limited. Not that there can be any objection to such a 
proceeding, but it is curiously inconsistent with those sneers at Dom 
Pothier playing, so to speak, to the gallery. The amusing part is, that 
these rhythmic signs have absolutely no claim whatever to antiquity. 
No author of medieval times can be quoted in support of their theories 
of binary and ternary rhythms. And yet these sticklers for antiquity 
do not hesitate to introduce into their notation all sorts of hybrid modern 
signs precisely in order ' to make the Chant easier to be sung everywhere 
and by everyone.' 

a Motu Proprio, ii. 3. 


enumeration of the examples which he finds so faulty. On 
page 49, the critic offers two general reflections. The first is 
that ' Dom Pothier shows a strange predilection for the Ger- 
man tradition of the Chant.' I need not again enter into 
the persistent misrepresentation which makes Dom Pothier 
the * sole judge ' of the revision. If the critic had been 
better informed, he would have discovered, with some sur- 
prise, that the so-called German readings of the Kyriale are 
met with in MSS. of very different origin. The editors 
would be the last to admit that they have shown ' predilec- 
tion ' for any special group of MSS. ; they have carefully 
weighed the claims of any notable portion of the Gregorian 

If Dom Pothier had ' Germanized ' the Kyriale, many 
more e's and Us would have disappeared to make 
place for /'s and c's. But if the editors weigh the claims of 
the general voice of tradition, as expressed in German, 
French, Italian, and English MSS., it then becomes a ques- 
tion of making a selection. Our critic dreads such an idea 
and sounds a note of alarm. ' On what principle, then, is 
this selection to be made ? The aesthetic taste of an indi- 
vidual ?* And he quotes Dom Gaisser to point out the 
danger and instability of such a criterion. He is ever recur- 
ring to this point of ' the taste of one individual,' meaning, 
of course, Dom Pothier, until we shall begin to believe he is 
as much haunted with Dom Pothier as Mr. Dick was with 
King Charles' head. This perpetual fear of anyone ven- 
turing to make a selection, this marked distrust of the 
ability and science of any person whatsoever to form a 
critical judgment is characteristic of the School of Archae- 
ology. It is fortunate that the Holy Father believes that 
there are still artists and erudite men in the world to carry 
out the reform he has so much at heart. 

One of the examples over which the critic waxes merry 
is No. 7. Referring to the change of the reciting note from 
b to c, he says : 

As the change was almost universal, I could understand the 
position of those who claim that it should be maintained. But 
what does the Vatican edition do ? It evidently goes on the 


principle of ' pleasing both parties,' and gives half the recitation 


to c, half to b, thus : g- fl * {5 

et om-nes ad quos per-ve-nit 

Three syllables on c, three on b, nothing could be fairer, and 
nobody has any right to complain ! The procedure is a great 
testimony to Dom Pothier's amiability, but what about his 
critical judgment ? (page 51). 

We can hardly expect the archaeologists to enter into 
the niceties of Gregorian art that are displayed in the 
disposition of the notes over ad quos and pervenit. The 
first accentuate and determine the reciting note, while 
the two &'.> in pervenit, the ancient reading, constitute 
a modulation properly so-called ; the second serves as 
a binding to the following note. It is thus an improvement 
of the old reading of the Liber Graduate 
1 a 

C 3 

quos per-ve-nit 

which gave, so to speak, a jolt to the melody, perhaps not 
a very grave fault, but certainly not very perfect. The 
editors thus combine the vigour and clearness of the reciting 
note c, which was an improvement of the medievalists, with 
the smoothness of the ancient version. It is, therefore, 
a test, not of ' Dom Pothier's amiability, but rather of his 
critical judgment.' We can hardly expect those who are 
pledged to the archaeological party to appreciate such 
matters of art, but others will gain therefrom renewed 
confidence in the skill and taste of the revisers. 

The critic never tires of repeating that the different 
corrections are not found in any MSS. To this I can 
only reply that in not a single case has any correction 
been adopted which is not justified by one or more MSS. 
I will, however, take one of the critic's own examples, 
and show the method he adopts to prove that the Vatican 
version * is not found in any single one / ' In order to still 


further impress the reader with this charge, he makes a 
special appeal to his eyes by printing the last words in 
italics. Turn to example 8, on page 50, he says : ' In the 
Vidi aquam we find the following : 

tern - plo 

* The"MSS.,' he says, ' are divided as to the figure on the 
last syllable of tempio ; some have 

tern - plo 

etc. The'version of the Vatican is not found in any single 
one ! ' The reader will see at once that the only difference 
between the two versions is the liquescent note la ! Now, it 
is well known, both by the teaching of the ancient masters 
and from the MSS. themselves, that there was a good deal of 
latitude allowed in the use of liquescent notes. As Guy of 
Arezzo lays down : ' Si autem eum vis plenius proferre non 
liquefaciens, nihil nocet.' 1 In the example 9 (a), the lique- 
scent is omitted, in the Vaticana it is inserted. For this 
grave tampering with the MSS. the editors are accused of 
introducing a version not found in a single MSS. ! I feel sure 
this is quite an oversight on the part of the critic, other- 
wise such an accusation might give rise to unpleasant 

Example 10 of the Kyrie (Fons bonitatis) has, as I have 

remarked above, been the subject of a special study by the 

archaeologists, and the Vatican version differs in one or two 

points from that favoured by Appuldurcombe. The Vatican 


version is 

8 -1 Vt a- 


1 % 





1 Gerbert, Scriptores, t. ii. 


The recension favoured by Dom Beyssac (supra) and Father 
Bewerunge omits the two a's marked with asterisk, and 
changes the e into d. The reasons which induced the editors 
to change the d into e seem to have been somewhat of this 
nature : In the primitive version the d would be followed 
by b, tristropha. When the b was early changed to c, to give 
more precision and vigour to the melody, certain copyists 
felt the necessity of changing the d into a clivis, e d, with 
stress on the e and not on the d. The d then became super- 
fluous, and the editors of the Vatican suppressed it, thus 
restoring to the ancient phrase the freedom of the primitive 
attack. This same phrase has long been under considera- 
tion, and Dom Pothier in discussing it some years back held 
that the d was still possible. The Commission, however, 
voted its suppression. These views will not commend them- 
selves to the archaeologists, but they will show the impartial 
reader the scrupulous care and art that the editors lavished 
over every phrase of the Chant. 

i In examples 12 and 13, Dom Pothier is reproached with 
changing the melody of all the MSS. 




glo - ri-am 


into =^-i 


glo - ri-am 

But the critic has omitted to place before his readers the 
whole of the passage, or they would quickly see the reason 
why the editors changed it. The oldest MSS. have 

ma- gnam glo - ri- am 

This is a case where the * variety of resources at the 


command of the ancient Gregorian artists ' were evidently 
exhausted. The editors very cleverly corrected this to 

ma-gnam glo-ri-am 

a correction to which none but those with archaeological 
' bees in their bonnets ' could object. 

In example 14, the critic complains that the Sanctus of 
Mass III. does not follow any MSS. 

y ll 


5 j 


San - ctus 

The older version put a b instead of a c for the third note, 
and inserted another b after the third note. The editors, he 
complains, have omitted both Vs. The reason is a most 
obvious one. If the first b was changed into c, according to 
the traditional demand for a more decided note, it must not 
be left behind, but suppressed. The second b would induce 
that position of the tritone against which nearly eight 
centuries of musicians have protested. 

This will lead us to the discussion of the views of the 
critic on the nature of the ' tritone.' On page 54, after 
citing the above example, he goes on to say : 

The reason for this change is easy to guess. It is to avoid 
that diabolus in musica of the medieval theorists, the tritone. 
I admit that the tritone sometimes causes a little difficulty to 
modern ears. But if we are to eliminate all the tritones from 
the Gregorian melodies what is to become of them ? . . . I think 
that the full tone under the tonic causes far more difficulty to 
the modern musician than a few tritones. 

Let us take this last statement first. It is strange that 
Father Bewerunge should maintain this with the Irish 
melodies ringing around him. One of their great charms is 
the presence of the flattened seventh, and the humblest son 
and daughter of Erin in England and Ireland is not known to 
experience any special difficulty in singing * a full tone below 


the tonic.' But with the tritone it is different. For cen- 
turies the European ear has developed a decided objection 
to certain positions of the tritone. This is one of those cases 
of ' legitimate tradition ' which the Holy Father has directed 
the editors to respect. In the Vatican edition some of these 
repulsive intervals have accordingly been removed. It is 
somewhat surprising that Father Bewerunge has not called 
attention to these departures from the most ancient MSS. 
in his eagerness to establish their monopoly. It was, 
perhaps, more prudent to pass them by, or he would have 
badly damaged his case before the impartial reader. I 
will, however, supply the omission. In some old MSS. we 

15 ; 

find the following : -* 

gratias agi-mus tibi 

Had the archaeologists had their way, we should have had 
this forced down our throats : 
16 ? 


Hosan-na in ex-celsis 

Again in the Agnus of Mass IV. (Cunctipotens genitor 

Deus) the archaeologists tried actually to impose on us these 

17 ? 

C . .. 

horrors : 

Ag-nus De - i 
18 ? 

mi-se-re-re no-bis 

We must remember that these melodies are intended to be 
sung by the ordinary singer whose ear is almost^entirely 
educated by modern tonality. To propose such things to 
modern singers is only to implant in them a deep hatred of 
the Chant. 


It is quite intelligible that these archaic intervals could 
be rendered more or less familiar to a community of reli- 
gious who are accustomed to no other style of music. But 
the Chant is intended, not for the chosen few who can give 
to it an undivided attention, but for the ordinary singer 
nurtured in modern tonality, in order to induce him to ' take 
a more active part in the services of the Church.' Here, 
again, we see that archaeology, in crying ' Hands off ' to the 
average chorister, is opposing the wishes and directions of 
the Sovereign Pontiff. 

Are these objectionable intervals, however, really primi- 
tive ? It is allowable to doubt it. It is not at all unlikely 
that in these instances the fa was sharpened. But what is 
certain is that in some MSS. the Agnus is found written a 
tone lower, showing that in the Middle Ages it was felt 
that, with the traditional method of execution, the 
notation was faulty. It was therefore written thus : 



Ag-nus De - i 

And Dom Pothier, yielding to the strong feeling on the 
point, expressed by many members of the Commission, 
agreed to write it in the sixth mode in the Vaticana, whereby 
the objectionable interval is avoided. In the face of these 
examples, we recognize the prudence, and are grateful for 
the intervention, of the Holy Father, who has delivered us 
from the * Chamber of Horrors ' of the archaeologists. This 
is not the only passage where the rendering seems to be at 
variance with the notation. It gives rise to a well-founded 
suspicion that some of the old MSS. did not correctly give 
the intervals that were actually sung. We know that the 
most ancient MSS. were written in neums-accents, which 
gave no idea whatever of the intervals. It was only by 
degrees that the intervals came to be represented in 
diastemmatic notation, first with one line then with two 
or more. But for a long time the outlines of the melody 
were, so to speak, in a very nebulous state, and it was 


impossible that under these circumstances errors] and 
variations in small matters should not creep in. And yet 
we are asked by the archaeologists to believe, that in 
these long periods of tentative gropings after diastemmatic 
perfection, not a secret was lost, not a note misplaced. 

The critic produces nearly fifty more passages for repro- 
bation, and it is surely unnecessary to enter into a detailed 
discussion on each, to say nothing of the expense of furnish- 
ing musical examples, a very pressing difficulty. Of these 
fifty, eleven are distinctly erroneous. The critic complains 
that in the Gloria of Mass VII. the editors omit the b\> and 
sharpen the leading note. As a matter of fact, there are only 
two Vs in the piece and both of them are flattened. In the 
Cantus ad libitum, Kyrie II., he says there are only two 
Christe. I have examined three editions, and in all I find 
three Christe. In Gloria III., the MSS. give a double d at 7> 
in Laudamus Te\ the critic declares 'Dom Pothier' only gives 
one. As a matter of fact, the editors have given the double 
d. Seven other statements are erroneous in their assertion 
that ' Dom Pothier's ' version is unsupported by any MSS. 
This, as I have shown above, is altogether inaccurate, and 
an imputation on the venerable Abbot's honesty of purpose. 
Nearly forty out of the incriminated passages are con- 
demned for the guilt of not following the statistical tables of 
Appuldurcombe. I have at length, in the previous part of 
the article, discussed the value of this archaeological criterion. 
While giving it all due importance, I have endeavoured to 
prove that it has not the right to claim to be ' the sole judge ' 
of revision of Gregorian melodies. Moreover, every one of 
the changes are such manifest improvements from a practical 
and artistic point of view that I wonder the critic's well- 
known musical taste did not rise in judgment against his 
archaeological prejudices. I cannot resist the temptation to 
give an extreme example of this. He complains (page 55) 

that while the MSS. give ' SJ ~S" 

tol-lis pecca-ta 



the editors write I H" 

tol-lis pecca-ta 

4 It is hard,' he says, ' to suppress one's indignation at this.' 
What it is that has so stirred the critic's bile we cannot 
understand. For years he has probably sung the Vatican 
version without a qualm, and even with pleasure. But 
now that the version of the MSS. appears (and what a 
clumsy one, too), he is filled with holy indignation against 
those who have hidden from him such a pearl of melody ! 

I think that I have now trespassed quite enough upon 
my readers' patience, but I have some confidence that they 
will admit that we have good and solid reasons for support- 
ing the Vatican edition against the attacks directed against 
it. These attacks, we hold, are bound to fail, for on the scien- 
tific side their principles are so feeble, and still more from 
the point of view of authority, in that they are in direct 
antagonism to the directions of the Holy See. It is grati- 
fying to be able to record that the new Kyriale is spreading 
at a most extraordinary rate throughout the world, and it 
will soon be a question of the ancient dictum : ' Securus 
judicat orbis terramm.' 

The critic indulges in some melancholy reflections on the 
4 procession of " reformers," as they pass through the 
centuries, although they are headed by a St. Bernard.' Is 
not the critic at fault here ? Has he not been guilty of a 
most important omission ? Most people are under the im- 
pression that the procession of reformers was ' headed ' by 
St. Gregory the Great. Such a procession was far from a 
melancholy sight in the Church, as the centenary celebrations 
in honour of St. Gregory, held in Rome in 1904, can testify. 
St. Bernard hardly deserves to be included in the same cate- 
gory as the Medicean reformers, as his reform was chiefly 
confined to his own Congregation, a very small body in the 

There is, however, one aspect of the critic's case, which 
has caused a good deal of pain in his readers, and that is the 


style in which he has allowed himself to speak of the official 
acts of the Holy See. Certainly the authorities at Rome 
would be the last in the world to attempt to stifle discussion 
on theoretical and scientific questions of the Chant ; but the 
antagonists should surely refrain from dragging in the 
official acts of the Sacred Congregation. I am sure that the 
critic hardly realizes how distressing it is to a loyal son of the 
Church to come across such passages as these : ' One thing is 
certain to me, the Vaticana cannot stand. Dom Pothier has, 
indeed, already got a considerable number of authoritative 
pronouncements in favour of his edition ' l (page 62). 

How has Dom Pothier got these pronouncements ? Are 
we invited to believe that the Abbot has only to walk into 
Cardinal Tripepi's office, and go forth with the documents 
desired, much in the same way as we get passports from the 
Foreign Office, just for the asking ? The whole situation 
would be too amusing to those who know something of Dom 
Pothier's retiring and humble ways, were it not that the re- 
spect and authority of the Sacred Congregation are at stake. 
It is neither correct nor respectful to insinuate that Cardinal 
Tripepi issues decrees for the whole world on a most far- 
reaching matter, simply at the dictate of another, without 
any sense of responsibility of his exalted position. Had the 
critic known something of the personal holiness and integrity 
of this Prince of the Church, he would have realized how 
singularly unhappy are the suggestions that anyone could 
* get ' at him. 

But this is not all. The critic goes on to say : ' No, this 
question cannot be settled by decrees. If the Vaticana can- 
not stand on the strength of its intrinsic excellence, no arti- 
ficial propping up by decrees will prevent it from tumbling 
down ' (page 62). This is really going too far. If the direc- 
tion of the Chant of the Church is not to be determined 
by official decrees of the Holy See, by what is it then to 
be determined ? By archaeology ? God forbid ! There is 
always danger that controversialists, in their eagerness to 
score points, lose a sense of the proportion of things. Surely 

J ' His edition.' This is, perhaps, one ofjthe,most offensive forms of 
this persistent misrepresentation. 


if there is one thing clear, as the Holy Father has declared 
more than once, it is that the Gregorian Chant is ' the patri- 
mony of the Church,' and it belongs to the Sovereign Pontiff, 
and to him alone, to settle all questions relating to the Chant by 
his decrees. If another Pope thought fit some day to cut 
down and shorten the melodies of the Gradual (an act which 
some people would gladly welcome), the Church would not 
hesitate to obey. It is surely a startling proposition to put 
before the faithful, that the settlement of the Plain Chant 
must be dependent upon the studies and decisions of a school 
of archaeologists, and not upon Rome. Even if, by supposi- 
tion, the archaeologists were to succeed in impressing upon 
the Holy See their views and contentions (quod Deus 
avertat /) how would the ' question then be settled ' for the 
Church except by the issue of * official decrees ' ? As well 
might we expect the Atlantic to retire before the labours of 
Mrs. Partington, as to expect that the faithful of the Church 
will disregard ' official decrees,' in favour of an unscientific, 
inartistic school of archaeology. This is the only distress- 
ing part of a study that is distinguished by most careful re- 
search and a thorough grasp of all the details of the edition, 
and our regret is all the keener that these reflections should 
have proceeded from a Professor of Maynooth, a College 
always distinguished for its almost exuberant loyalty to 
the Holy See. 

Who but must laugh, if such a man there be ? 
Who would not weep, if Atticus were he ? 

T. A. BURGE, O.S.B. 

[ 346 ] 


THE primary school question has been engaging for 
a considerable time and still continues to engage 
the most serious attention and consideration of 
thoughtful men of all shades of religious and political belief 
in these countries. Yet, it is not the improvement of the 
programme of secular education, nor the greater adapta- 
bility of the school course to modern conditions and present- 
day requirements, that is the subject of all this anxious 
pre-occupation. No ; it is rather the problem of the sepa- 
ration or union and mode of union of religious and secular 
instruction in tax- and rate-aided schools in England. It 
is the question, whether secular instruction alone shall be 
given in these schools, or secular and religious education 
combined ; and in the latter hypothesis what form of reli- 
gion shall be taught, and how it shall be taught, in a 
country where the tax-payers and the rate-payers belong 
to so many different religious denominations. 

I have already described, 1 in a previous number of this 
journal, 2 the law of the Church relative to the union of re- 
ligious and secular instruction in private and State schools 
in Catholic countries. And I now proceed to fulfil the pro- 
mise then given of explaining, in a later number, the prin- 
ciples which guide and shape the educational policy of the 
Church in countries where Catholics live side by side with 
fellow-citizens of a different or of various different religious 
denominations. But to prevent misconception of the ques- 
tion now at issue, and to have before our eyes the guidance 
of the Catholic ideal for Catholic States, I will begin by 
briefly re-stating the law of the Church relative to combined 

i Following Cardinal Cavagnis' Institutiones Juris Publici Ecclesiastici, 
1. iv., c. i., a. iii. (edit, tertia) 

I. E. RECORD, January, 1906. 


religious and secular education in the State schools of 
Catholic countries. 

According then to the Catholic rule children can be 
educated in their parents' home by tutors and governesses : 
private persons too can open and conduct schools for pri- 
mary and higher education : the Church can establish her 
own schools for general education, for the State has no right 
to a monopoly even in secular education : and, finally, the 
State, of course, can establish and endow schools and col- 
leges for a "complete course of civic education : but in all 
Catholic primary and intermediate schools, where a full 
course of education is given, whether they be established by 
private persons by the State or by the Church, ecclesiastical 
law requires that the system of instruction shall be the 
system of combined religious and secular instruction. This 
implies that in Catholic schools religion shall be included 
in the programme of obligatory subjects to be taught in the 
schools ; that the teachers shall be Catholic and imbued 
with the Catholic spirit ; that religious instruction shall 
be given some time during the obligatory school hours, 
for if religion be an obligatory school subject the time 
during which it is taught should be reckoned obligatory 
school time, whether it be taught in the school or in the 
church, by the teacher or by the priests of the parish ; and 
finally that, though the right of appointing the teachers 
belongs to the State or municipal or rural authority, the 
representatives of ecclesiastical authority shall have the 
right of visiting the schools, of exercising vigilance to see 
that unworthy teachers be not appointed or continued in 
office and that the moral and religious formation of the 
children be diligently and zealously attended to, not merely 
by teaching the words of the catechism, which canonists 
call instruction, but also by good example, by application 
of the truths taught to the cultivation of the character, of 
the will, of the whole man as a Christian and as a citizen, 
which canonists call education. 

Hence the claim for religious teaching in State-aided 
schools in Catholic countries and the same may be said of 
non-Catholic countries is not a question of the ecclesi- 


astical ownership of the schools or right of managing the 
schools and appointing the teachers, of bureaucratic con- 
trol whether civil or ecclesiastical versus popular control ; 
nor a question of sacrificing, or neglecting, or undervaluing 
the secular side of education in deference to an antiquated 
method of religious education ; nor a question of fighting 
or curbing Democracy in the interest of Aristocracies. In 
Catholic countries, according to Catholic canonists, the 
State schools and municipal and rural schools and the 
appointment of teachers are vested by right in the State or 
municipal or rural authority and can be under popular 
control as much as similar schools in America or Australia, 
and the programme and method of instruction can be made 
as perfect and modern and suitable to the future avocations 
of the children and to the economic conditions of the coun- 
try as it is possible for them to be ; only, the local authority, 
whether aristocratic or democratic, being itself Catholic 
and the parents and children being Catholic, would and 
should according to Catholic law appoint Catholic teachers, 
the programme of obligatory school teaching should in- 
clude Christian doctrine, religious instruction should be 
given some time during school hours and the local piiests 
should have access to the schools and the right of exercising 
vigilance over the teaching of Christian doctrine and the 
general moral atmosphere of the schools. 

The conditions however of the school system can be 
such in a particular country, as when primary education 
is administered not by local bodies representative of the 
parents of the children, but by a Board half Catholic 
and half Protestant, that the Church can demand, as 
a condition for accepting the State schools, that they 
be placed under clerical managership, if this be necessary 
to prevent danger or suspicion of attempts at proselytism, 
to secure that Catholic teachers be appointed to schools 
frequented exclusively or mainly by Catholics and that 
the children be instructed in the faith of their parents. 
But this is due to the special circumstances of a 
particular country and of a particular educational system 
and is not an essential part, in all circumstances, of 


the Catholic theory of combined religious and secular 
instruction ; and it is for the Church to pronounce authori- 
tatively, according to the circumstances of place and 
educational system, on the necessity of establishing and 
continuing ecclesiastical control if the schools are to be 
freely availed of by Catholic parents for the education of 
their children. 

Such in substance is the Catholic law respecting the 
union of religious and secular instruction in primary and 
intermediate schools in Catholic countries. I will now pro- 
ceed to examine the principles that determine the educa- 
tional policy of the Church in non-Catholic countries and 
I might add in Catholic countries too, when the law of the 
Church in regard to combined religious and secular instruc- 
tion is disregarded. I will examine first, generally, the 
different lines of policy that are open to the Church ; and 
secondly what the actual policy of the Church is in regard 
to different circumstances and educational systems. 


There is no one inflexible rule of Church educational 
policy applicable to all the varying circumstances in which 
individual Catholics may be placed in non-Catholic coun- 
tries. The difficulty that arises when the State schools are 
not conducted on lines acceptable to Catholics is not a dog- 
matic difficulty that might be solved once for all by an 
authoritative decision of the Church, but a moral difficulty 
which must be solved or coped with in a different way in 
different times and places and conditions of government 
and school systems. The Church is the mother of the faith- 
ful, and her anxiety and solicitude for her children and her 
direction of them in their moral difficulties are like the 
anxiety and solicitude and provident care of the human 
parent. There are places of amusement and spheres of 
human activity and forms of worldly careers which parents 
would absolutely forbid to their children. There are others 
which they can positively and heartily approve. There are 
others again which they permit and recommend because, 
though they do not fully satisfy the parental ideal, they can 


be made harmless and even highly advantageous by a good 
will and effective protective measures. And I suppose there 
are cases where rare and exceptional prospects, a noble 
career, a brilliant alliance, appear on the horizon, but the 
avenue to them is beset with most serious perils and the 
parents cannot bring themselves to give a formal and ex- 
plicit approval or recommendation, or deliver a formal pro- 
hibition, but content themselves with a serious and solemn 
warning of the dangers of such a career or of such an alli- 
ance. And so it is with the Church. There are educational 
systems which she absolutely condemns and prohibits ; 
others she declares intrinsically dangerous to faith and 
morals without adding a further ecclesiastical prohibition ; 
others again she tolerates ; and others she formally approves. 

1. It is absolutely forbidden to attend schools or col- 
leges which Catholics cannot enter without conforming to 
non-Catholic worship and renouncing their faith, or where 
attendance at lectures on false doctrine and acceptance, even 
if it be only external, of this doctrine form an obligatory 
part of the course. Attendance at such schools is forbidden 
by divine law independently of any ecclesiastical prohibition. 

2. The Church declares certain schools and colleges, ' to 
be intrinsically dangerous to faith and morals.' What is 
the import of such a condemnation ? It is of course per 
se unlawful, by the natural law, to frequent institutions 
that have been authoritatively declared intrinsically dan- 
gerous to faith and morals. If to this be added a special 
ecclesiastical prohibition, it binds all to whom the prohi- 
bition is addressed without exception ; for ecclesiastical 
prohibitions which are motived by and founded on the 
presumption of general danger are understood to bind all 
to whom they are addressed without exception, even though 
the reason of the law be not found to exist in particular 
cases. But in the absence of an ecclesiastical prohibition, 
formal or virtual, the prohibition of the natural law notified 
by the declaration that certain schools or colleges are in- 
trinsically dangerous to faith and morals is not necessarily 
of universal application. For there may be a very grave 
cause or necessity for attending such schools or colleges, 


and there may be no danger in a particular case, or means 
may be taken to counteract the danger to faith and morals 
and to make it remote ; but one should not trust his own 
judgment about the likelihood and means of escaping 
danger in schools which have been declared by the Church 
to be intrinsically dangerous to faith and morals. 

3. Other schools there are concerning which the Church 
declares, ' that they can be tolerated.' The constitution 
of these schools may be somewhat different in different 
countries, but in general we may take it that, though they 
fall short of the Catholic ideal of obligatory combined 
religious and secular instruction, they contain no special 
danger to faith or morals and tolerable provision is made 
for the religious instruction of the children attending the 
schools ; and these schools may be freely availed of by 

4. Finally the Church positively approves the school 
system and the schools which are constituted according to 
the provisions of canon law ; where Christian doctrine is an 
obligatory school subject, where the teachers are Catholics, 
and where religious instruction is given as a part of the 
obligatory school work during the school hours. 

These are the usual forms of ecclesiastical policy in 
regard to schools. Before proceeding to consider the atti- 
tude of the Church towards particular educational systems 
I will here notice an argument that is sometimes advanced 
to prove that the Church is inconsistent and unfaithful to 
her fundamental principles in the matter of education. It 
is said : * When pleading the cause of Catholic schools and 
negotiating with governments, ecclesiastical authorities lay 
stress on the sacredness and inviolability of parental rights 
and argue that the education to be given in the schools 
should be such as the parents desire for their children ; but 
when it is a question not with governments but with the 
parents themselves, if the parents wish to send their chil- 
dren to such institutions as Trinity College, the Queen's 
Colleges, etc., the ecclesiastical authorities quickly make it 
evident that it is not the wishes of the parents but the 
wishes of the Church that have to be consulted in the 


matter of education. Hence Catholic apologists should 
abandon the argument from the sacred and inviolable 
rights of parents, or the Church should discontinue her 
interference with Catholic parents in the matter of education 
and refrain from these forms of condemnation of educa- 
tional systems which have just been described.' 

This, I submit, is not a fair presentment of the Catholic 
position. The Catholic Church has the right and the duty, 
which her lay subjects no less than ecclesiastics claim and 
vindicate for her, of denning the rights and obligations of 
parents in regard to the education of their children. And 
the Church position is this, both before parents and govern- 
ments : parents have a right that the constitution of State- 
aided schools shall be such that they can send their children 
to be educated in them without violence to their religious 
convictions or opposition to the discipline of their Church ; 
the wish of the parent acting according to the rule of his 
Church and religion is the proper criterium of the kind of 
education his children should receive. If she were treat- 
ing with Catholic governments the Church could interpose 
immediately her own authority as well as the argument of 
parental claims ; but dealing with non-Catholic governments, 
if they refuse to recognize her own authority, she defines 
for Catholic parents their duties in regard to education, 
and they demand a Catholic education for their children on 
the ground that State-aided education should be such that 
Catholic parents can accept it for their children without 
violence to their religious convictions or infidelity to the 
discipline of their Church. 


I will now deal with the attitude of the Church towards 
particular systems of education. It is unnecessary to speak 
of those systems of education which are forbidden by divine 
law, irrespective of the laws of the Church, such as a system 
that would demand of Catholics conformity to Protestant 
worship. Besides these we can consider the following sys- 
tems of education : absolute secularism, modified secularism, 
secular instruction combined with undenominational re- 


ligion, secular and denominational religious instruction, 


What is absolute or pure secularism ? I understand by 
it the political and educational theory which teaches that 
secular instruction alone should be given in State-aided 
schools and that there should be no religious tests for 
teachers. Secularists then distinguish between moral 
training and religious instruction, and while excluding 
dogmatic religion they seem to admit generally that 
moral training should form a part of the obligatory 
work in State schools. But what system of morality 
should be taught ? * Lay morality,' which is atheistic 
or positivist or agnostic ? or deistic ? or Christian ? 
There's the rub. All accept in some sense the formulae, 
* Thou shalt not kill,' ' Thou shalt not steal,' ' Thou 
shalt not bear false testimony ' ; but what shall be 
taught about the sanction or motive of these Command- 
ments ? It is not permitted in purely secularist schools to 
speak of God or the God-Man, Jesus Christ, of the immor- 
tality of the soul or of a future life, of heaven or hell ; and 
to be consistent nothing should be taught about the sanc- 
tion or motive of the Commandments, lest in schools that 
are accessible to all and are paid for by all offence should 
be given to Christians or to deists or to agnostics or to 

It sounds plausible to say that the State is bound to 
give only a secular education. The expression, secular 
education, is ambiguous and misleading. The Church view 
and the correct view would be stated by saying that 
State schools, even in pagan countries, should give a 
good ' civic education' and aim at forming good citizens. 
What then does a good civic education imply ? Is 
it enough that reading, writing and arithmetic be taught 
and a good technical or professional training be given ? 
No ; a good civic education requires that children shall 
be taught the relations of subjects to their rulers and 
their country, the duties of various classes of mankind 
VOL. xix. z 


to one another, the positive duties and prohibitions of the 
Commandments, the nobility of virtue and of labour and 
of the many modest avocations of the humble and lowly 
in the world. And what sanction and motive shall civic 
education invoke and advance for the observance of the 
Commandments ? Shall the children be taught that in 
the distant past a gregarious mode of existence appeared 
suddenly, by innate variability, amongst our brute pro- 
genitors ; that it was found useful in the struggle for 
existence and survived ; that gregarious existence depends 
on the * tribal virtues ' opposed to dishonour, disloyalty, 
murder, injustice, and lying ; that these virtues have 
descended to us, improved and developed, by heredity ; 
that they should be respected and observed as beneficial 
to ourselves and to the human race in the struggle for 
existence ? Is it supposed that this theory is true, or that, 
if Christianity disappeared, it could restrain and keep 
within the bounds of civic order the passions of the 
multitude without faith in a Supreme Ruler or a future 
life, without hope of reward or fear of punishment ? Nor 
let it be said that the Church can supply moral training ; 
for surely the State itself should establish a complete 
system of civic education in its schools. 

Then Catholics want a Christian, a Catholic education 
for their children. They want them to be instructed in 
supernatural religion, in the doctrine of the Redemption, in 
prayer, in the sacraments, in the worship of the Church, in 
the nature and existence and beauty and advantages of 
Church life, in which, unlike individualism, all the faithful 
profess the same doctrine, partake of the same sacraments, 
assist at the same sacrifice, and are governed, taught and 
ministered to by the pastors of the Church. They object 
to separate the cultivation of the intellect from the culti- 
vation of the will, or secular from moral and religious edu- 
cation. Experience too proves that when secular education 
alone is given by the public authority of the school religion 
is in danger of being neglected. This is realized by the 
friends and foes of religion ; and thus while the Church, for 
the protection of religion, insists on the union of religion 


and secular instruction in the school, continental free- 
thinkers are always striving for the exclusion of religion 
from the schools for the express purpose of destroying 

The Church then declares secularist or neutral schools, 
such as the State schools of America, our Model Schools, 
the Queen's Colleges, etc., to be ' intrinsically dangerous 
to faith and morals.' It is Per se unlawful for Catholics 
to frequent such schools. If they are prohibited specially 
by ecclesiastical law no one can lawfully send his children 
to them. But in the absence of ecclesiastical prohibition 
the circumstances can be such that, notwithstanding the 
declaration that they are dangerous to faith and morals, 
it would be lawful to avail of such schools ; for example, 
if there be no other schools, if the danger to faith 
and morals be made remote and if satisfactory provision is 
made elsewhere for the religious education of the children. 

There is nothing positively wrong in reading or writing 
or arithmetic, etc., even when separated from religion : 
secular schools are condemned not for anything positively 
immoral, but for their incomplete and therefore dangerous 
curriculum, just as a system of dietary may be condemned 
as well for its insufficiency as for its poisonous character. 
And Catholics who through necessity lawfully attend secular 
schools are not violating ecclesiastical law, nor are they 
under the ban of the Church, but they are supposed to be 
the objects of the special vigilance and zeal of their 
spiritual pastors. 


Modified secularism can assume a multiplicity of forms ; 
but I shall speak only of two. The National School System 
in Ireland is a secular system. It makes no provision for, 
but rather excludes religious instruction from the obligatory 
work of the legal school hours. But religious instruction 
can be given in the schools outside the hours of secular 
instruction. The managers are generally priests or minis- 
ters of other religious denominations. Though there are 
no tests the teachers are of the same religion as the 


generality of their pupils. And hence the schools, though 
theoretically undenominational, have become practically 
denominational ; and such schools are said to be tolerated 
by the Church. 

Another interesting form of modified secularism occurred 
in the diocese of St. Paul, U.S.A. Archbishop Ireland, on 
account of the peculiar circumstances of the parishes of 
Faribault and Stillwater, came to an agreement with the 
municipal authorities by which Religious were appointed 
teachers in these schools, but religious instruction was not 
to be given in the schools. The Religious of course recog- 
nized the Archbishop's authority in the matter of school 
books, there was no danger of false or immoral teaching in 
the schools, and provision was made for the religious 
instruction of the Catholic children outside of school. 
Propaganda decided that ' conventio inita a R.P.D. Joanne 
Ireland relate ad scholas de Faribault et Stillwater, 
perpensis omnibus circumstantiis, tolerari posse.' 


Many people in England, including Churchmen and 
Nonconformists, alarmed at the prospect for the State of 
a number of children growing up without any religious in- 
struction and unable or unwilling to suggest a scheme for 
denominational religious teaching in State schools advo- 
cate the inclusion of undenominational or fundamental re- 
ligion in the programme of obligatory teaching in the schools; 
but still there should be no religious tests for teachers. But 
what is undenominational religion ? If the schools are to 
be available for agnostics it can include only the religion of 
the great Unknowable and of ' lay morality.' If they are 
to be available for deists and Unitarians the programme of 
religious instruction must exclude all the distinctive truths 
of the Christian religion. And if the prescribed religion be 
an undenominational Christian religion, the fundamental 
religious truths about which all Christians agree, what shall 
we say that it includes in modern times ? It is difficult to 
define it. It does not include the divinity of Christ, nor the 


existence of supernatural religion, nor our redemption, nor 
the sacraments, nor the inspiration and divine authorship 
of^the Holy Scriptures, nor the divine origin of and 
necessity of membership with the Church. It would 
seem then to be reduced to the reading of the Bible or 
of simple Bible lessons and truths and to natural morality ; 
and even for these no reasonable sanction or motive can be 
alleged, they may be disbelieved by the teacher who is 
charged with religious instruction, they have only the 
sanction of Parliament or of the Board of Education. Such 
a scheme of education scarcely differs in theory from abso- 
lute secularism. 

This system of secular and undenominational religious 
instruction combined is considered by the Church ' intrin- 
sically dangerous to faith and morals '; and the same 
principles apply to it that apply to the system of absolute 
secularism : (i) Generally speaking parents cannot with a 
safe conscience send their children to these undenominational 
schools. (2) Wherever the State schools combine secular 
and undenominational religious instruction the Church ex- 
horts Catholics to establish voluntary Catholic schools, and 
everywhere Catholics respond to this exhortation of the 
Church in a spirit of wonderful docility and sacrifice. 
(3) Where efficient Catholic schools are available, if a Bishop 
forbids parents to send their children to these State schools, 
no one can lawfully send his children to them. (4) But in 
the absence of a special prohibition, circumstances may arise 
when it would not be unlawful to send Catholic children to 
such schools, for example, if voluntary Catholic schools 
cannot be established, if it becomes a choice between no 
education and education that includes undenominational 
religion, if provision is made elsewhere for the denomina- 
tional religious instruction of the children, and if the danger 
to faith and morals can be made remote. For undenomina- 
tional religious teaching, like simple Bible lessons and moral 
instructions, does not contain anything positively wrong. 
Still some Prelates have a grave objection to subjecting young 
children to such teaching, and the Church prefers that 
secular subjects alone be taught in mixed schools rather than 


that the common articles of faith should be taught in the 
schools and denominational religion afterwards in the homes. 
'Tutius multo esse [judicavit] ut literarum tantummodo 
humanarum magisterium fiat in scholis promiscuis, quam 
ut fundamentales, ut aiunt, et communes Religionis Chris- 
tianae articuli restricte tradantur, reservata singulis sectia 
peculiar! seorsum eruditione. Ita enim cum pueris agere 
periculosum valde videtur.'i 


We find different forms of this system according as re- 
ligious instruction is given only at the request of the parents 
or by the absolute rule of the school, in mixed schools or in 
separate schools for the children of different religious 

1. In Italy the primary schools are under the control of 
the local authorities. Priests are sometimes appointed 
teachers and, generally speaking, the local authorities have 
religious instruction given in the schools if the parents re- 
quest it ; so much so that to exclude the catechism from 
the schools the Freemasons and Socialists are anxious to 
transfer the control of the primary schools to the central 
government. This system does not come up to the Catholic 
ideal, as religion should be an obligatory school subject for 
all Catholics ; but these schools are said to be tolerated. 

2. The other two forms of combined secular and de- 
nominational religious instruction exist side by side in 

Germany has long worked on that principle (that every 
child must be educated in the faith of its parents), and the 
German system shows us how easily we can supply it. There, 
if there are in any place enough Jewish, Roman Catholic and 
Protestant children, to fill, or nearly fill, three schools each 
large enough to do good work a school for each denomination 
is erected, each with teachers of one denomination ; and all 
the rate-payers pay towards the cost of the three schools. 

1 ' Istruzioni sulle scuole miste emanate dalla S. Congregazione di 
Propaganda pel Viscovi Irlandesi ' (Acta et Decreta, Synodi Plenariae 
Eporum. Hiberniae habitae apud Maynutiam, p. 329). 


If there are not enough children to fill three schools of 
adequate size, one school receives children of two faiths, the 
head master being chosen from among members of the Church 
to which the majority of the parents of the children belong, 
and the second teacher from the members of the other Church. 
This second kind of school, called a Simultanschule, is regarded 
in most parts of Germany as a temporary expedient to be used 
only till there are enough children of the two Churches to fill 
two schools. 1 

In the simultan schools as in the schools for one denomi- 
nation every child must be educated in the faith of its 
parents unless exempted under the * conscience clause,' 
but children are not exempted unless the head master is 
assured that they will receive religious instruction elsewhere 
from a person of the faith they profess, or of the faith which 
they are supposed to profess. 

It is scarcely necessary to add that, of these, the Church 
' positively approves ' for Catholics the separate denomi- 
national school and ' tolerates,* where they are necessary, 
the simultan schools. 


Finally a few words about the English school question. 
At this moment the sympathy of all Catholic Irishmen goes 
out to the Bishops, priests and Catholic people of England 
in their anxiety about the future of their Catholic schools. 

Since 1870 the Voluntary Schools have been receiving 
aid from the parliamentary grants, but before the Bill of 
1902 they were not entitled to aid from the rates. The 
schools during this period were thoroughly Catholic : the 
managers and teachers were Catholic, religious instruction 
was an obligatory part of the school course, the atmosphere 
of the schools was Catholic. But the expenses of providing 
and maintaining well-equipped schools, and of paying such 
salaries as would command the service of good teachers were 
pressing heavily on the managers of the Catholic schools. 
Then came the Bill of 1902, admitting the Voluntary Schools 

1 The Amendment of the Education Act of 1902 : by Passive Resistance 
or by a more Excellent Way? By T. C. Horsfall (Sherratt A Hughes, 
Manchester and London). 


to a share of the rates. But in place of the existing man- 
agers the Bill provided that the managers should consist of 
foundation managers not exceeding four, and two represent- 
ing the local authorities. It was further enacted that 
religious instruction should be under the control of the 
managers. However, the schools still remained sub- 
stantially Catholic. 

But the Nonconformists objected that in the present 
system there are religious tests for teachers, that rate-payers 
have to pay for teaching doctrines which they very strongly 
condemn, that the rate-payers are not fairly represented on 
the Board of Managers of Voluntary Schools, that these 
schools are an impediment to a truly National system of 
education ; and it is generally supposed that Mr. Birrell's 
Bill will propose that tests shall be abolished and that tax- 
and rate-aided schools shall be placed completely under 
local control. 

But Catholic and Anglican defenders of denominational- 
ism fairly reply that the justice or injustice of religious tests 
for teachers cannot be regarded as a self-evident truth or as 
a decisive principle in this controversy * We must determine 
the duties of an office, like the office of teacher, before we 
can determine the qualifications to be required in those who 
seek the office. If children are to be educated in the faith 
of their parents, then it is necessary to adopt some means, 
whether it be by religious tests or otherwise, to appoint 
Catholics to instruct Catholic children, Anglicans to instruct 
Anglican children, Nonconformists to instruct Noncon- 
formist children, etc. This is the fundamental question 
upon which the appointment of denominational teachers 

And if Nonconformists have recourse to passive resist- 
ance as a protest against paying for Catholic education, 
may not Catholics complain of paying taxes and rates for 
a secular or undenominational system which they condemn ? 
Nonconformists undoubtedly have grievances under the law 
as it stands ; but it is to be hoped that their grievances are 
not going to be removed by creating grievances for Catho- 
lics. In a country of various religious denominations 


there must be give and take, without sacrificing principle. 
Individual claims and burdens cannot be regulated with 
mathematical precision. It is not necessary that the same 
number of questions in grammar, geography, natural his- 
tory, etc., be taught in all the schools, or that the views put 
forward be acceptable to all the rate-payers. And why 
should it be objected that Catholics teach more dogmatic 
truths than Nonconformists, or that their doctrines are not 
acceptable to the rate-payers ? Parents of all religious 
denominations pay rates and taxes to receive for their 
children a full civic education, and therefore a religious educa- 
tion. In a country of so many religious denominations the 
State cannot satisfactorily decide on a system of religious 
education except by educating children in the faith of their 
parents. It is to be hoped that in the legislation which is to 
be proposed Catholic schools can remain organically united 
with the National system of education. It is for the English 
Bishops to decide, when legislation is proposed, whether 
they can accept the Liberal proposals. But neither in 
England nor anywhere else can there be a truly National 
system of education, except on paper, unless the just claims 
of Catholics and other denominationalists for religious 
education are respected. 





THE whole world was interested last summer when the news 
went forth that a professor in Cambridge University, Mr. J. 
Butler Burke, had discovered, by experiments made on steri- 
lized gelatine bouillon, acted on by radium, that organic life 
had been developed from what had hitherto been regarded as 
dead matter. In his volume just published, on The Origin of 
Life, Mr. Burke has reduced his discovery to more modest pro- 
portions. In this volume he has described with great care and 
minuteness the interesting experiments which he and others 
have made in their efforts to reach the solution of a problem 
which nature has not hitherto revealed. He holds that there 
is no such thing as dead matter in the strict sense of the word ; 
that all matter is endowed with certain properties which, if they 
do not constitute life in the strict sense of the word, do not at 
least imply absolute inactivity. He takes life in a large sense, 
and anything that acts upon other substances and induces 
chemical change, he regards as in the broad sense living. In 
the borderland between living matter in the wide and the strict 
sense, he places mind-stuff or bioplasm (as distinct from proto- 
plasm) which is indeed inorganic, but contains ' the germ and 
mode of motion of vitality.' It is not a seed that grows on 
every soil, but only flourishes in the chosen environment of 
beef-jelly. It is indeed in the inorganic body that the vital 
principle resides, and the vital flux of radium only enables it 
to manifest itself in the organic form. The blending of the 
organic and inorganic world has not, however, yet been reached. 
It is the goal : but evidence is still wanting to establish the 
complete connexion. 

The product of radium and bouillon which he has observed 
in his experiment, he does not now regard as having established 
the connexion, but ' as being the nearest approach hitherto 
observed between visibly living and apparently not living 
nature. In a word, on the borderline between what we call 
living and what we regard or have regarded as dead.' 

Thus, whilst Mr. Butler Burke does not adopt in the usual 
sense the theory of biogenesis, neither does he admit that of 


abiogenesis. His whole theory, worked out with great learning, 
great ability, and great wealth of illustration by experiments 
with radium and various other luminous and phosphorescent 
substances, is the most important contribution to biological 
science of recent times. 

From his theory of life or activity of some kind in all matter, 
Mr. Burke advances rather daringly to a general conception 
of the Universe, which does not seem to differ very much from 
that of Hegel and his followers. A conscious universe, of which 
we are conscious units ; and that conscious universe being the 
beginning and the end of all things, looks very like a pan- 
theistic vision. No doubt, Mr. Burke endeavours to rescue it 
from the commonplace materialistic theories by combining 
with it, in a tentative fashion, Berkeley's system of Idealism. 
He is not very positive, however, in his speculations. He does 
not appear to have reached finality on these questions, even in 
his own mind ; and there is a singular absence of dogmatism 
and self-sufficiency about his conclusions which in no way 
detracts from the fascination of his book, and from the value 
and interest of his experiments. 


MR. CHARLES S. DEVAS, the well known political economist, 
has just published a work of the highest interest and value 
It is something indeed refreshing and uplifting to get from a 
man of his vast experience of the world, of men and of 
books, a reasoned, enlightened, dispassionate judgment on the 
ground works of civilization which concludes with so precious 
a testimony as the following^: 

' Lovers gaze fondly on^the likeness of one they love ; and 
gladly, therefore, should we gaze on the authentic portrait of the 
Church, and dwell lovingly on the features of the never-failing 
friend of all the sons of men : this Church, who by her very 
nature is the loving mother of us all ; the mother of those whose 
fresh youth is not yet dimmed by sophistry nor made crafty 
by deception, nor soured by disappointment, nor hardened 
by iniquity ; the mother who may be thrust aside in the hour of 
prosperity, but is the ever ready refuge, to whom those can 
turn whose burdens are heavy, whose hopes are shattered, 
whose days are drawing to a close, whose hearts are aching with 
irremediable sorrow. Ah ! indeed in this dark world of illusion 


it is worth while to make her known ; for to know her is to love 
her.' 1 

In a series of succinct but luminous chapters, in every one 
of which the reader meets with something striking and im- 
pressive, the author deals with ' The Course of Civilization,' 
' The Course of Christianity,' ' The Church and Culture,' ' The 
Church and Prosperity,' ' Christian Morality,' ' The Church 
and the State,' ' The Social Question,' ' Scandals and Sanctity,' 
' Liberty of Conscience,' ' Heretics and Schismatics,' ' Develop- 
ment,' ' Defeat and Victory' ' Explanation of the Miraculous.' 
From the passage quoted above it will be evident that these 
subjects are dealt with in a thoroughly Christian and Catholic 
spirit. But what I should like to call attention to here is the 
great and varied learning of the author, and the singular beauty 
of the style in which each subject is treated. I should like to 
call particular attention to his treatment of the two objections 
most frequently made against the Church, viz., that she is 
international and independent (chap, iv., p. 124). 


AUDI Domini nostri Jesu Christi verba : Attendite ne corda 
vestra graventur crapula et ebrietate (Luc. xxi. 34). Paulus etiam 
Apostolus castigando suos discipulos ait : Nolite inebriari vino 
in quo est luxuria (Ephes. v. 18). Et Salomon : Luxuriosa res 
est vinum et tumultuosa ebrietas (Prov. xx. i). Ne intuearis 
vinum quando flavescit, nee cum splenduerit in vitro color ejus : 
Ingreditur enim blande, sed in novissimo mordebit ut coluber, et 
quasi serpens venenum effundit (Prov. xxiii. 31, 32). Nullum 
secretum est ubi ebrietas est. Multos exterminavit vinum et 
perduxit eos ad periculum corporum et animarum. Vinum in 
jucunditatem creatum est non in ebrietatem (Eccli. xxxi. 35). 
Ubicumque saturitas abundaverit ibi luxuria dominabitur. 
Ventrem distentum cibis et vini potationibus irrigatum voluptas 
luxuriae sequitur. Ebrietas corpus debilitat, animam illa- 
queat : ebrietas generat perturbationem mentis : ebrietas auget 
furorem cordis ; ebrietas nutrit flammam fornicationis ; ebrietas 
ita alienat mentem ut homo nesciat semetipsum ; homo ebrius 
est ita a semetipso alienus ut nesciat ubi sit. Plerisque laus 

1 Tht Key to the World's Progress. By Charles S. Devas, M.A. Oxon. 
Longmans, Green & Co., 1906. 


est multum bibere sed non inebriari ; quos propheta increpat 
dicens : Vae qui potentes estis ad bibendum vinum et viri fortes 
ad miscendam ebrietatem ; et iterum : Vae qui consurgitis mane 
ad ebrietatem sectandam et -potendum usque ad vesperam ut vino 
aestuetis (Isaias v. 22, n). Etiam Joel propheta clamat dicens : 
Expergiscimini, ebrii, et fiete, et ululate omnes qui bibitis vinum 
in dulcedine (Joel i. 5). Non dicet qui bibitis vinum in necessi- 
tate, sed qui bibitis vinum in dulcedine, hoc est in delectatione., 
Ebrietas mortale crimen est : ebrietas grave peccatum est : 
ebrietas inter homicidia et adulteria et fornicationes reputatur : 
ebrietas ejicit, hominem a regno Dei ; ebrietas expellit hominem 
a paradise : ebrietas demergit hominem in infernum. (De 
Modo bene Vivendi, c. xxv.) 

IT is unnecessary for me to call the attention of the clergy to 
the very important Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the 
Council (which I give at page 376) on ' Daily Communion.' All 
controversies as to the dispositions necessary for the privilege 
of being admitted to Daily Communion are by this Decree set 
at rest for ever. All Christians, no matter what their occupa- 
tion or condition, who are in the state of grace and firmly re- 
solved to avoid sin in the future, should be encouraged to receive 
the Holy Eucharist every day. The reasons of this decision 
will be found fully set forth in the Decree. 

J. F. HOGAN, D.D. 

Betes anb (Slueriee 



REV. DEAR SIR, I have been recently asked by a penitent 
whether the rules of the Index prohibiting the reading of con- 
demned books are binding in this country. Will you be so good 
as to reply in an early number of the I. E. RECORD to the 
following questions : (i) Do the rules of the Index bind in 
this country ? (2) If they do bind, who can grant a dispensation ? 


I. There seems to be no reasonable ground for denying 
that the rules of the Index, by which the reading of certain 
books is forbidden to the faithful, bind in these countries 
both in actu primo and in actu secundo. When the new 
rules were published in 1896 they were promulgated for the 
whole world and were declared binding everywhere. ' Ita- 
que matura deliberatione, adhibitisque S.R.E. Cardinalibus 
e sacro Consilio libris notandis, edere Decreta Generalia 
statuimus, quae infra scripta, unaque cum hac Constitu- 
tione conjunct a sunt : quibus idem sacrum Consilium 
posthac utatur unice, quibusque catholici homines toto orbe 
religiose pareant,' And again, ' Libri ab Apostolica Sede 
damnati, ubique gentium prohibit! censeantur, et in quod- 
cumque vertantur idioma* This proves that at least in actu 
Primo the rules of the Index are binding in these countries. 

That they are also binding in actu secundo seems clear. 
The Cardinal-Archbishop and Bishops of England asked the 
Holy See whether the new Constitution was or was not in- 
tended to supplant the status quo which had hitherto existed 
in their country. In reply the Propaganda sent most ample 
faculties for dispensation, so that owing to the special 
circumstances of the country they should be fully em- 


powered ' to modify the rigour of the law by their prudence 
and counsel, according as the case might demand.' 1 

That the Propaganda gave these ample faculties of dis- 
pensing, not as a practical way of getting rid of a difficulty, 
but because they were thought necessary, is clear from the 
subsequent decision of the Index, 23rd May, 1898, which 
replied in the affirmative to the question : * Utrum dicta 
Constitutio vim obligatoriam habeat etiam pro regionibus 
britannici idiomatis, quas tacita dispensatione frui quidam 
arbitrantur ?' The plain meaning of this affirmative response 
is that not merely in actu primo, but also in actu secundo, 
the rules of the Index are binding in these countries, since 
the question which was asked had reference to the binding 
force of the law in actu secundo, in face of the tacit dispen- 
sation which some thought to exist. 

II. The Congregations of the Inquisition, Index, and 
Propaganda for its own subjects, can give general permis- 
sion to read books prohibited by special or general decrees. 
Bishops and Prelates having quasi-episcopal jurisdiction 
can give permission to their subjects ' for single books and 
only in urgent cases ' (art. 25). The Vicar-General, having 
one court with the Bishop, enjoys this power, but Vicars 
Forane and Parish Priests have no such power, except in so 
far as they receive it from the Bishop by general or special 

Further powers are at times granted to Bishops, as 
witness the special faculties, already mentioned, granted 
to the English Bishops. In the Formula Sexta our Bishops 
receive powers in virtue of which they can grant 
permission to read books prohibited by the Index (with 
some exceptions mentioned in the Formula). It can, 
however, be granted only to priests who are known to 
be suitable subjects for the privilege, and only ad tempus. 
The latter phrase excludes permanent permission, but a 
dispensation once granted without limitation, probably 
lasts till it is revoked. 2 

iCf. Tablet, 1 8th Dec., 1897. 

a Putzer, pp. 54, 264, and Vermeersch, p, 120. 



REV. DEAR SIR, Theologians are, I believe, unanimous in 
teaching that when persons come to the age of sixty, they are 
exempt or excused from the law of fasting. But I find in reading 
the modern authors, that many of them and these of note 
are more benign in their teaching on this point with regard 
to the ' devout female sex.' They hold that when women 
come to the age of fifty, they are no longer obliged by the 
law of fasting. I have no opportunity of investigating or 
becoming acquainted with their various reasons for this view. 
I believe their principal one is : that women grow old and feeble 
more quickly than men, and therefore are less constitutionally 
fitted to bear up against the rigours of fast. If that be their 
sole reason for the opinion, I fear it can scarcely be sustained 
as solidly probable, since the fact itself cannot be maintained 
undeniable, according to the experience and judgment of some 
of the ablest of modern physiologists. For example, Eschbach 
says : ' Quando circa hanc aetatem (50) menstrus fluxus desinit 
saepe mulieres quasi novas vires acquirere videntur.' 

This being so, the reason on which their opinion depends 
is proved fallacious, and consequently the opinion itself is not 
probable or tenable, according to the recognized rules of pro- 
babilism, viz. : ' Supponitur tamen eorum auctoritatem non 
elidi, vel documento aliquo positive . . . vel etiam perspecta 
falsitate . . . erroneae doctrinae veterum physicorum' l 

Kindly, then, say if you consider the above-mentioned 
opinion of these modern authors safely and practically probable, 
and if it may be prudently and securely preached to the faith- 
ful ? I have known it to be so promulgated, but I should be 
chary in following the example, especially as I find no similar 
teaching or direction put forward in any of the Lenten 
Regulations of our Bishops. 


The opinion which holds that women, by reason of ad- 
vancing years, are free from the obligation of fasting at the 
age of fifty is maintained by many modern theologians, 2 but 
it can scarcely be called new, since Sanchez 3 held it in his 

1 Vide Genicot, vol. L, p. 6l, n. 66 2 9 . 

1 Gury-Ballerini, i., n. 509; Palmieri, ii., n. 1142; Bucceroni, i., 
p. 470 ; Noldin, n. 676; Sabetti, n. 337; Slater, p. 486; Genicot, i., 
n. 445, who, though not holding the opinion speculatively, still looks 
on it as probable in practice. 

ConsiL v., c. i, 4, n. 6. 


day and some of the older theologians with him. St. 
Alphonsus 1 did not reject it as improbable, though he 
did not vouch for its probability. The argument on 
which it rests is that mentioned by our correspondent ; 
women, it is said, feel the weight of years sooner than men, 
and should, in consequence, be excused from the fast at an 
earlier age. If it has been clearly established by physio- 
logists that this argument has no foundation in fact, then 
the view that has been built on it cannot be looked on as 
probable. But if the argument has not been disproved, 
the number and authority of the theologians who hold the 
opinion would seem to be sufficient to make it probable. 

Eschbach 2 maintains that women, as a rule, gain new 
strength about the age of fifty, and quotes Drs. Richard and 
Brachet in his favour. On the other hand, Dr. Capell- 
mann, 3 though he mentioned the opinion of Sanchez, did 
not reject it on physiological grounds, as he would have 
done had he thought the argument of Sanchez false. At the 
present time physiologists seem not to have definitely re- 
jected the argument on which the opinion is based. Black's 
Medical Dictionary, edited by Dr. Cormie (1906), makes 
the following statement : ' In women, at the grand climac- 
teric (about fifty), there is a special liability to bodily and 
mental weakness, although in those of a previously robust 
constitution any such change is generally merely temporary ' 
(page 159). Though a previously robust constitution will 
generally overcome this liability to weakness, its very exist- 
ence makes it more difficult for women to ward off the 
feebleness of old age ; so that it is hard to hold that the mild 
opinion is not probable. 

Seeing that Bishops have no power to settle questions 
disputed between approved theologians, it is not surprising 
that in their Lenten Regulations they do not refer to opinions 
which are at most probable, especially when the proba- 
bility arises, to a great extent, from extrinsic authority. 


AD. 1037. 

z Disp. Phys., p. 52. 
8 Med. Past., p. 95. 
VOL. XIX. 2 A 




REV. DEAR SIR, In the I. E. RECORD of November, 1883, 
under the heading, Liturgical Questions, the following Quaeritur 
and Decree are found : ' Utrum in Missis quotidianis de Requie^ 
quae in plerisque ecclesiis Parochialibus absque ministris a 
solo celebrante cantantur, dicendae sunt tres orationes ? an vero 
una ? ' S.R.C. resp. : ' Dicenda una oratio,' 13 July, 1883. 

I assume if I may that there is in this reply an a 
fortiori argument for saying only one prayer, ' in Missis de 
Requie quotidianis Solemnibus.' 

In the Or do, page xv., the substance of a Decree of 30th 
June, 1896, is given : ' In Missis quotidianis quibuscunque, 
sive lectis, sive cum cantu, plures sunt dicendae Orationes, . . 

Will you kindly say in next issue of the I. E. RECORD if 
the latter Decree annuls the former in either or both cases ? 


The General Decree of June, 1896, l has considerably 
changed and modified the legislation that hitherto prevailed, 
regarding various phases of Requiem Masses. To the points 
affected by the new Regulations belong the number and 
order of prayers to be said in these Masses. Formerly only 
one prayer was to be said in Masses de Requiem that were 
either solemnes aut cantatae. Now the number of prayers, 
whether in solemn or in private Masses for the Dead, is to be 
determined by the degree of intrinsic solemnity attached 
to their celebration, in virtue of which they assume an im- 
portance due to Offices and Masses of a double rite. The 
solemnity of which there is question here arises from the 
privileges accorded these Masses by which they can be cele- 
brated on days when the ordinary Requiem (Quotidiana) is 
forbidden, and even transferred, when the rite of the day 
prohibits them. This, we take it, is the meaning of the words 
of the Decree : ' Unam tantum dicendam esse orationem in 
Missis omnibus quae celebrantur in Commemoratione Omnium 
Defunctorum . . . necnon quandocumque pro defunctis Missa 

1 Vide I. E. RECORD. 


solemniter celebratur, nempe sub ritu qui duplici respondeat ; 
ufan Officio quod recilatur post acceptum nuntium de alicujus 
obitu, et in Anniversariis late sumptis.' The distinction, then 
between High and Low Requiem Masses is no longer a guide 
in determining the number of prayers which must be fixed 
rather by the nature of the occasion on which Mass is said 
except to this extent, that in Missae Quotidianae Cantatae 
the number of prayers must not exceed three, while in Missae 
Quotidianae Lectae there may be three, five, or seven. It 
may be well if under a few headings we indicate briefly 
the application of the new legislation, (a) in regard to the 
number and (b) in regard to the quality of the prayers to 
be said in the various classes of Requiem Masses. 


1. Only one prayer is to be said in Missae de Requiem 
whether solemnes, cantatae, or lectae (low or private) that 
are celebrated on the occasion of a death or interment. 

2. In Missis solemnibus et cantatis celebrated for a de- 
ceased person on the third, seventh, and thirtieth day from 
the death or burial, and on anniversaries, whether in the 
strict or the wide sense, only one prayer is to be said. 

3. Similarly only one prayer is to be said in the Mass, 
solemnis or cantata, celebrated for a person immediately on 
receipt of the news of his death. 

4. Outside all these privileged occasions, that is to say, 
in the ordinary Missae Quotidianae, if they are solemnes or 
cantatae three prayers and only three are to be said ; and if 
they are lectae then at least three must be, but five or seven 
may be, said, the last one being Fidelium. If on the occa- 
sions mentioned in (2) and (3) a Missa lecta is permitted, by 
the current rite, only one prayer is recited. 


i. In die obitus, the prayer in Masses offered for a de- 
ceased Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, or Priest, must correspond 
to the dignity of the person deceased, and is found among 
the orationes diver sae. For clerics inferior to a Priest, and 
for laymen, the second Mass with its proper oratio is taken. 


2. In diebus 3, 7, 30 : Mass for deceased Popes, Cardi- 
nals, Bishops, and Priests regulated as above ; for inferior 
clergy and lay persons second Mass is taken with the prayer 
Quaesumas Domine. 

3. In die anniversario, et anniversariis : as above for 
Priests and other clergy of higher dignity ; for inferior clergy 
and lay persons the third Mass is taken with prayer Deus 
Indulgentiarum, the necessary changes being made for 
gender and number. 

4. In Missa pro defuncto post acceptum de ejus obitu cele- 
brata ; for Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and Priests, the first 
Mass is taken with the prayer corresponding to the dignity 
of deceased ; for inferior clergy and lay persons the second 
Mass is taken, but the prayer will be suitably selected 
according as the Mass is celebrated either before the inter- 
ment or on some of the privileged days, or outside all these 
occasions. In the latter case an appropriate prayer from 
the Orationes diversae is to be taken. 1 

5. In Missis Quotidianis sive solemnibus sive cantatis : 
(a) If said pro defuncto vel defuncta, or pro certo designatis 
the first prayer must be appropriate to the intention of the 
celebrant and selected from the Orationes diversae : the 
second ad libitum : and the third, pro omnibus defunctis, 
scil. Fidelium. (b) If celebrated pro defunctis in genere or 
non certo designatis, whose quality, dignity, or number is 
not known, the prayers must be said in order given in the 
fourth Mass in Missal. 

6. In Missis Quotidianis Defunctorum lectis, if three are 
said they will be arranged as the circumstances already 
noted require : if more than three are said the first and 
second will be selected according to the principles already 
given. The last will be the Fidelium, and the intermediate 
ad libitum, but taken from those assigned in the Missal. 


\ I The Bishop can prescribe an or atio imperata pro Defunc- 
tis to be said in Masses for the living as well as in those for 

1 Cf. De Herdt, Prax. Lit., v. i., p. 72. 


the dead. The number of Missae pro Vivis, however, that 
admit such a commemoration according to present discipline 
is so limited that it is almost futile to order it. The Masses, 
not de Requiem, which admit it are those of simple rite, and 
even these do not always permit it. With regard to Re- 
quiem Masses the Cottecta pro Defunctis imperata (a) is not 
said in Masses admitting only one prayer ; (b) in Masses 
having three or more prayers, the oratio imperata must 
be put in the third place, the Fidelium being last. 1 


1 Cf. Van Der Stappen, De Mis. Rub., passim. 

[ 374 ] 



REV. DEAR SIR, In the September and October numbers 
of the I. E. RECORD, there appeared some correspondence 
about the establishment of a Home for Infirm Priests. I am 
disposed to think that many priests, and especially those who 
have got parochial houses built, would prefer to end their days 
amidst the scenes of their labours even if such a Home 

But to solve the existing difficulty about the appointment 
of a curate (or of an additional curate as the case may be) 
to the assistance of infirm parish priests in charge of parishes 
which are inadequate for the support of an additional priest, 
I would venture to suggest for the consideration of your readers 
an arrangement which seems to me both natural and feasible. 
It is this : that aged parish priests, as soon as their infirmities 
render necessary the appointment of another priest to their 
assistance, should, upon his being appointed, receive, or become 
entitled to receive, annually, a portion of the Diocesan Infirm 
Priests' Fund, except of course in a case where there would 
be some special reason to the contrary. 

If this arrangement existed in every diocese there would be 
no financial difficulty about appointing a curate even to a poor 
parish in charge of a parish priest, who, through age or in- 
firmity, would be unable to attend to the spiritual wants of 
the people. For the curate, on his appointment, could be 
assigned a congruous and adequate portion of the parochial 
revenues ; as the infirm parish priest's portion would be sub- 
sidized by an annual sum from the Diocesan Infirm Priests' 

By this arrangement it would not be necessary to ask an 
infirm parish priest to resign the parish : nor, on the other 
hand, would there be any reason to defer the appointment of an 
assistant priest until an aged parish priest would have become 
so infirm as to be unable to perform even the essential functions 
of the mission and until devotion and religion among his 
people would have flagged or decayed. 

With this arrangement existing, then, even though old 


and infirm parish priests might cling tenaciously to their 
parishes ' as they sometimes do/ according to a writer in 
the October number of the I. E. RECORD their presence would 
not be an obstacle, but perhaps in some cases rather an aid to 
the continuous efficient carrying on of the work of the mission. 
The arrangement suggested, it may be said, would necessi- 
tate the enlargement of the Infirm Priests' Fund, in order to 
meet the new demand that would come upon it. But should 
not a necessary fund be enlarged to the necessary dimensions 
by the untied contributions of the clergy and laity ? (Vide 
'Acta et Decreta Conciliorum Provinciae Tuamensis.' Deer. 
' Quum Episcoporum ' et ' Quum Justitia '). Faithfully yours, 

A C.C 

[ 376 ] 




Sacra Tridentina Synodus, perspectas habens ineffabiles quae 
Christifidelibus obveniunt gratiarum divitias, sanctissimam 
Eucharistiam sumentibus (Sess. 22, cap. 6) ait : Optaret quidem 
sacrosancta Synodus, ut in singulis Missis fideles adstantes non 
solum spirituali affectu, sed sacramentali etiam Eucharistiae 
perceptione communicarent. Quae verba satis aperte produnt 
Ecclesiae desiderium ut omnes Christifideles illo coelesti convivio 
quotidie reficiantur, et pleniores ex eo sanctificationis hauriant 

Huiusmodi vero vota cum illo cohaerent desiderio, quo 
Christus Dominus incensus hoc divinum Sacramentum instituit. 
Ipse enim nee semel nee obscure necessitatem innuit suae carnis 
crebro manducandae suique sanguinis bibendi, praesertim his 
verbis : Hie est panis de coelo descendens ; non sicut manduca- 
verunt patres vestri manna et mortui sunt : qui manducat hunc 
panem vivet in aeternum (loan. vi. 59). Ex qua comparatione 
cibi angelici cum pane et manna facile a discipulis intelligi 
poterat, quemadmodum pane corpus quotidie nutritur, et manna 
in deserto Hebraei quotidie refecti sunt, ita animam christianam 
caelesti pane vesci posse quotidie ac recreari. Insuper quod in 
oratione Dominica exposci iubet panem nostrum quotidianum, 
per id SS. Ecclesiae Patres fere unanimes decent, non tarn 
materialem panem, corporis escam, quam panem eucharisticum 
quotidie sumendum intelligi debere. 

Desiderium vero lesu Christi et Ecclesiae, ut omnes Christi- 
fideles quotidie ad sacrum convivium accedant, in eo potissimum 
est ut Christifideles, per sacramentum Deo coniuncti, robur inde 
capiant ad compescendam libidinem, ad leves culpas quae quo- 
tidie occurrunt abluendas, et ad graviora peccata, quibus humana 
fragilitas est obnoxia, praecavenda ; non autem praecipue ut 
Domini honori, ac venerationi consulatur, nee ut sumentibus id 
quasi merces aut praemium sit suarum virtutum (S. August 


Serm. $7 in Matth. De Orat. Dom., v. 7). Unde S. Tridentinum 
Concilium Eucharistiam vocat antidotum quo liberemur a culpis 
quotidianis el a peccatis mortalibus praeservemur (Sess. 13, cap. 2). 

Hanc Dei voluntatem priores Christifideles probe intelligen- 
tes, quotidie ad hanc vitae ac fortitudinis mensam accurrebant, 
Erant -per sever antes in doctrina Apostolorum et communications 
/ractionis panis (Act. II., 42). Quod saeculis posterioribus 
etiam factum esse, non sine magno perfectionis ac sanctitatis 
emolument, Sancti jPatres atque ecclesiastici Scrip tores 

Defervescente interim pietate, ac potissimum postea lan- 
seniana lue undequaque grassante, disputari coeptum est de 
dispositionibus, quibus ad frequentem et quotidianam Com- 
munionem accedere oporteat, atque alii prae aliis maiores ac 
difficiliores tamquam necessarias, expostularunt. Huiusmodi 
disceptationes id effecerunt, ut perpauci digni haberentur qui 
SS. EucharistianTquotidie sumerent, et ex tam salutifero sacra- 
mento pleniores effeetus haurirent ; contentis caeteris eo refici 
aut semel in anno, aut singulis mensibus, vel unaquaquead 
summum hebdomada. Quin etiam eo severitatis ventum est 
ut a frequentanda caelesti mensa integri coetus excluderentur, 
uti mercatorum, aut eorum qui essent matrimonio coniuncti. 

Nonnulli tamen in contrariam abierunt sententiam. Hi. 
arbitrati Communionem quotidianam iure divino esse praecep- 
tam, de dies ulla praeteriret a Communione vacua, praeter alia 
a probato Ecclesiae usu aliena, etiam feria VI in Parasceve 
Eucharistiam sumendam censebant, et ministrabant. 

Ad haec Sancta Sedes officio proprio non defuit. Nam per 
decretum huius Sacri Ordinis, quod incipit Cum ad aures, diei 
12 mensis Februarii anni 1679, Innocentio Pp. XI adprobante, 
errores huiusmodi damnavit et abusus compescuit, simul de- 
clarans omnes cuiusvis coetus, mercatoribus atque conjugatis 
minime exceptis, ad Communionis frequentiam admitti posse, 
iuxta singulorum pietatem et sui cuiusque Confessarii iudicium. 
Die vero 7 mensis Decembris a. 1690, per decretum Sanctissimus 
Dominus noster Alexandri Pp. VIII, propositio Baii, puris- 
simum Dei amorem absque ullius defectus mixtione requirens ab 
iis qui ad sacram mensam vellent accedere, proscripta fuit. 

Virus tamen iansenianum, quod bonorum etiam animos in- 
fecerat, sub specie honoris ac venerationis Eucharistiae debiti, 
haud penitus evanuit. Quaestio de dispositionibus ad freque'n- 


tandam recte ac legitime Communionem Sanctae Sedis declara- 
tionibus supervixit ; quo factum est ut nonnulli etiam boni 
nominis Theologi, raro et positis compluribus conditionibus, 
quotidianam Communionem fidelibus permitti posse censuerint. 

Non defuerunt aliunde viri doctrina ac pietate praediti, qui 
faciliorem aditum praeberent huic tarn salubri Deoque accepto 
usui, docentes, autoritate Patrum, nullum Ecclesiae praeceptum 
esse circa maiores dispositiones ad quotidianam, quam ad heb- 
domadariam ut menstruam Communionem ; fructus vero 
uberiores longe fore ex quotidiana Communione, quam ex 
hebdomadaria aut menstrua. 

Quaestiones super hac re diebus nostris adauctae sunt et 
non sine acrimonia exagitatae ; quibus Confessariorum mentes 
atque fidelium conscientiae perturbantur, cum christianae 
pietatis ac fervoris baud mediocri detrimento. A viris idcirco 
praeclarissimis ac animarum Pastoribus SSmo. Dno. Nostro 
Pio Pp. X enixae pieces porrectae sunt, ut surpema Sua auc- 
toritate quaestionem de dispositionibus ad Eucharistiam quotidie 
sumendam dirimere dignaretur ; ita ut haec saluberrima ac Deo 
acceptissima consuetude non modo non minuatur inter fideles, 
sed potius augeatur et ubique propagetur, hisce diebus potis- 
simum, quibus Religio ac fides catholica undequaque impetitur. 
ac vera Dei charitas et pietas baud parum desideratur. Sanctitas 
vero Sua, cum Ipsi maxime cordi sit, ea qua pollet sollicitudine 
ac studio, ut christianus populus ad Sacrum convivium perquam 
frequenter et etiam quotidie advocetur eiusque fructibus amplis- 
simis potiatur, quaestionem praedictam huic Sacro Ordini 
examinandam ac defmiendam commisit. 

Sacra igitur Concilii Congregatio in plenariis Comitiis diei 
16 mensis Dec. 1905 hanc rem ad examen accuratissimum 
revocavit, et rationibus hinc inde adductis sedula maturitate 
perpensis, ea quae sequuntur statuit ac declaravit : 

1. Communio frequens et quotidiana, utpote a Christo 
Domino et a Catholica Ecclesia optatissima, omnibus Christi- 
fidelibus cuiusvis ordinis aut conditionis pateat ; ita ut nemo, 
qui in statu gratiae sit et cum recta piaque mente ad S. Mensam 
accedat, prohiberi ab ea possit. 

2. Recta autem mens in eo est, ut qui ad S. Mensam accedit 
non usui, aut vanitati, aut humanis rationibus indulgeat, sed 
Dei placito satisfacere velit, ei arctius charitate coniungi, ac 
divino illo pharmaco suis infirmitatibus ac defectibus occurrere. 


3. Etsi quam maxime expediat ut frequent! et quotidiana 
Communione utentes venialibus peccatis, saltern plene deli- 
beratis, eorumque affectu sint expertes, sufficit nihilominus ut 
culpis mortalibus vacent, cum proposito, se nunquam in posterum 
peccaturos ; quo sincere animi proposito, fieri non potest quin 
quotidie communicantes a peccatis etiam venialibus, ab eorumque 
affectu sensim se expediant. 

4. Cum vero Sacramenta Novae Legis, etsi effectum suum 
ex opere operate sortiantur, maiorem tamen producant effectum 
quo maiores dispositiones in iis suscipiendis adhibeantur, idcirco 
curandum est ut sedula ad Sacram Communionem praeparatio 
antecedat, et congrua gratiarum actio inde sequatur, iuxta 
uniuscuiusque vires, conditionem ac officia. 

5. Ut frequens et quotidiana Communio maiori prudentia 
fiat uberiorique merito augeatur, oportet ut Confessarii con- 
silium intercedat. Caveant tamen Confessarii ne a frequent! 
seu quotidiana Communione quemquam avertant, qui in statu 
gratiae reperiatur et recta mente accedat. 

6. Cum autem perspicuum sit ex frequenti seu quotidiana 
S. Eucharistiae sumptione unionem cum Christo augeri, spiri- 
tualem vitam uberius ali, animam virtutibus effusius instrui, et 
aeternae felicitatis pignus vel firmius sumenti donari, idcirco 
Parochi, Confessarii et concionatores, iuxta probatam Cate- 
chismi Romani doctrinam (Part. II., n. 60), christianum populum 
ad hunc tarn pium ac tarn salutarem usum crebris admonitioni- 
bus multoque studio cohortentur. 

7. Communio frequens et quotidiana praesertim inreligiosis 
Institutis cuiusvis generis promoveatur ; pro quibus tamen 
firmum sit decretum Quemadmodum diei 17 mensis Decembris 
1890 a S. Congr. Episcoporum et Regularium latum. Quam 
maxime quoque promoveatur in clericorum Seminariis, quorum 
alumni altaris inhiant servitio ; item in aliis christianis omne 
genus ephebeis. 

8. Si quae sint Instituta, sive votorum solemnium sive 
simplic'um, quorum in regulis aut constitutionibus, vel etiam 
calendariis, Communiones aliquibus diebus affixae et in iis 
iussae reperiantur, hae normae tamquam mere directivae non 
tanquam praeceptivae putandae sunt. Praescriptus vero Com- 
munionum numerus haberi debet ut quid minimum pro Reli- 
giosorum pietate. Idcirco frequentior vel quotidianus accessus 
ad eucharisticam mensam libere eisdem patere semper debebit, 


iuxta normas superius in hoc decreto traditas. Ut autem 
omnes utriusque sexus relig osi huius decreti dispositiones rite 
cognoscere queant, singularum domorum moderatores curabunt, 
ut illud quotannis vernacula lingua in communi legatur intra 
Octavam festivitatis Corporis Christi. 

9. Denique post promulgatum hoc Decretum omnes ecc'ie- 
siastici scriptores a quavis contentiosa disputatione circa dis- 
positiones ad frequentem et quotidianam Communionem 

Relatis autem his omnibus ad SSmum. D. N. Pium PP. X 
per infrascriptum S. C. Secretarium audientia diei 17 mens. 
Dec. 1905, Sanctitas Sua hoc Emorum. Patrum decretunTratum 
habuit, confirmavit atque edi iussit contrariis quibuscumque 
minime obstantibus. Mandavit insuper ut mittantur ad omnes 
locorum Ordinaries et Praelatos Regulares, ad hoc ut illud 
cum suis Seminariis, Parochis, institutis religiosis et sacerdotibus 
respective communicent, et de executione eorum quae in eo 
statuta sunt S. Sedem edoceant in suis relationibus de dioecesis 
seu instituti statu. 

Datum Romae, die 20 Decembris 1905. 

3t VINCENTIUS Card. Episc. Praenest., Praef. 
C. DE LAI, Secretarius. 


riA bp'fieAti. Dublin : Browne & Nolan, Ltd, 
Size, 3^ x 2.\ x inches. Prices, bound in Leather, 
from 2S. to 43. 6d. 

THIS neat little book contains all the matter found in ordi- 
nary prayer-books, such as Morning and Evening Devotions, 
Prayers at Mass, Devotions for Confession and Communion, 
Rosary, Stations, and Benediction Service. It also gives an 
Irish ^Litany to ja the Blessed Virgin, indulgenced by Pius IX, 
some prayer-poems, and an Irish version of the Marriage rite. 
The compiler, who is anonymous, ought to have made use of 
the little prayer-book published by the Catholic Truth Society. 
His Act of Reparation to the Sacred Heart, and many of his 
prayers, are not so simple nor so beautiful as those in the book 
which we have just mentioned. Of the prayers in metrical 
form, one was sung at the consecration of Armagh Cathedral, 
the other does not appear to be old, at all events it has not the 
flavour of the old prayers. The successful composition of a 
prayer^depends on a very rare combination of gifts natural and 
divine. Most of our modern prayers are straggling or spiritless. 

The translation of the Ordinary of the Mass (Latin and 
Irish juxtaposed) is faithful and simple. In fact, if the com- 
piler will pardon me for saying so, the former of these epithets 
is a little too well earned. His anxiety to give an accurate 
version has led him here and there into the mistake of cleaving 
to the letter of the original. Irish, like French, seems to me to 
be intolerant of foreign idiom, whilst English, on the other 
hand, seems to permit of every liberty with its traditional 
forms, the result being that translations in that language are in 
great part unintelligible to the people. The compiler translates 
Gloria in excelsis Deo and Hosanna in excelsis by 5^6 1 |te t>o 
*6iA irf HA hAjAT>Ai1:> and tlofAnnA inf riA JiAfvoAib where, I 
think, he should have used ptAiceAf Aib or plxMci-p with ACA 
50 V)AJVO or ip A0ipx>e. Compare the French rendering 
which I have before me : Glorie d Dieu dans le del, and 
Hosanna d celui qui habite au plus haul des Cieux. I think 
the compiler, if he studies any French work, such as the 


Office Divin, which gives the translation of the Ordinary 
of the Mass and a translation of the Psalms, will lose a 
good deal of his timidity, and will feel himself at liberty 
to make free use of the scholarship and good taste which he 
manifestly possesses. It will be understood, that what I con- 
ceive to be blemishes are few in number, and do not detract 
seriously from the value of the book, which, from its neatness 
and convenient size, will be welcomed by many. 

tn. iu s. 

of Westminster Cathedral. London : Longmans, 
Green & Co. 1906. Price 6s. 6d. 

THE chapters of this book, as Mgr. Moyes reminds us in his 
preface, appeared substantially in the Tablet between 1890 
and 1899. They are now republished in book form in the 
conviction ' that certain principles of faith are more easily 
set forth in the light of concrete illustrations than by abstract 
statements, and that such concrete illustrations are most con- 
veniently sought in the facts and incidents of the religious 
world of our time.' 

The work is, therefore, a sort of doctrinal chronicle with a 
commentary by the author. It is a real mine of information, 
nothing of importance having escaped the intellectual scrutiny 
of Mgr. Moyes during those ten years in all the inner workings 
of a Church which is out of joint with the Bible, the world, 
and itself. The Lambeth Judgment ; Double-dealing in Worship ; 
the Ancient Church of England ; Anglicanism in America ; 
Anglicanism in Ireland ; Anglicanism and the Erastian 
Principle ; Anglicanism and the Easterns ; Relics and Relic 
Veneration ; Anglicanism and Purgatory ; Archbishop Plunkett's 
Ordination of Cabrera ; Anglican Appeal to Scripture ; Angli- 
canism and the Nestorians ; principles connected with all these 
subjects were involved in disputes or controversies that took 
place within the period specified. Mgr. Moyes picks out the 
essential parts from newspapers, and reviews and has some, 
thing very valuable of his own to say of each. We are very glad 
the papers have been collected ; for anyone wishing to have 



the substance of all the doctrinal controversies of a decade 
will find them here in a very convenient form. 

J. F. H. 

LE MAITRE ET L'ELfivE. Fra Angelico et Benozzo Gozzoli, 
par Gaston Sortais. Desclee, de Brower et Cie. Lille, 
Paris, Rome, Bruxelles. 10 frs. 

THIS is one of those beautiful books which we need not 
expect from the Catholic press of these countries for many years 
to come. It is an account of two great painters, the master 
and the pupil. Fra Angelico and Benozzo Gozzoli beautifully 
illustrated with engravings and chromo-lithographs of the 
masterpieces of the two great painters. In his account of Fra 
Angelico M. Sortais gives a very brilliant description of the 
struggle between the idealist and the naturalist schools in 
Italy, between the painters who aimed at a presentation of the 
beauties of the soul, and those who preferred to study and 
present the beauties of the body. The part taken in the the 
movement by Fra Angelico and his pupil is clearly shown. The 
frescoes of Benozzo at Montefalco, at San Gemignano, at 
Florence and Pisa are described with great skill, and some of 
them very well reproduced. For a gift book costing only 
10 francs a Catholic could not get a handsomer and more 
artistic book. 

J. F. H. 



The Tradition of Scripture. By Rev. William Barry, D.D. London : 
Longmans, Green & Co. 1906. 35. 6d. 

Theory and Practice of the Confessional. By Dr. Caspar E. Scheiler, 
Mayence. Edited by Rev. H. J. Heuser, D.D., Professor of Theology, 
Overbrook, Pa. New York, Cincinnati, and Chicago : Benziger Bros. 

The Priest in the Pulpit. By Rev. Ignaz Schnech, O.S.B. Translated 
from the German by Rev. Boniface Luebbermann, Cincinnati. New 
York, Cincinnati, and Chicago : Benziger Bros. 1905. 

Letters from the Beloved City. By Rev. Kenelm Digby Best. Re- 
issue. London : Longmans, Green & Co. 1905. is. 6d. 

L' Evangeliaire des Dimanches, par l'Abb6 C. Broussolle. Lycee 
Michelet, Paris. Paris : Lethielleux, Rue Cassette. 4 francs. 

CEuvres Oratoires du Pere Henri Chambellan, S.J. Tome premier. 
Paris : Gabriel Beauchesne et Cie, 117 Rue de Rennes. 4 francs. 

L' Enseignment de Jesus, par Pierre Battifol, Recteur de 1'Institut 
Catholique de Toulouse. Paris : Blond et Cie, 4 Rue Madonne. 3 frs. 50 c. 

The Eternal Sacrifice. By Charles de Condren. Translated from 
theJFrench by A. J. Monteith. London : Thomas Baker. 25. 6d. net. 

In the Brave Days of Old. By Dom Bede Camm, O.S.B. London : 
Burns & Gates. 2$. 6d. 

Stories of Grace. By Rev. Charles Isaacson. London : Elliot & 

The Teacher's Handbook of Bible History. By Rev. A. Urban. New 
York : Joseph F. Wagner. $1.50. 

The Ordinary of the Mass. By the Rev. Arthur Devine, Passionist. 
London : R. & T. Washbourne, 1-4 Paternoster-row. 1906. 

Short Spiritual Readings for Mary's Children. By Madame Cecilia. 
London : R. & T. Washbourne, 1-4 Paternoster-row. 

The Apocalypse, the Antichrist, and the End. ByJ. J. Elar. London: 
Burns & Oates. 55. 

Demain en Algerie, Par M. Ferreol, ex Captaine aux Zouaves. 
Paris : Lethielleux, Rue Cassette. 3 francs. 

La Providence et Le Miracle devant la Science Moderne. Paris : 
Beauchesne et Cie, Editeurs, 117 Rue de Rennes. 2 frs. 50 c. 

St. Francis of Assisi, Social Reformer. By Leo L. Dubois, S.M. 
New York : Benziger. 45. net. 

Irish Education as it should be. By Jacques. Dublin : Gill & Son. 
15. net. 

The Stations of the Cross. An Account of their History and Devotional 
Purpose. By Herbert Thurston. London : Burns & Oates. 35. 6d. 

" Ut Chrisiieni ti <t Komani sitis." " As you r children of Christ. o b you children of Rome,' 1 
Ex Dtctts S. Patncii. In f.ibro Armacano, fol. 9, 

The Irish 
Ecclesiastical Record 

a $lonthlt) Journal, un&rr Episcopal Sanction. 

i'Tttunintfj I9cat 1 TV/T A v A 

No. 461.' J MAY, IQOO. 

^ autt !i 
Vol XIX 

Thoughts on Philosophy and Religion. II. 

Rev. P. Coffey, D.Ph., M ay nooth College. 

Religion as a Credible Doctrine. II. 

Rw. J. O'Neill, Ph.D., Carloiu College 

The Vatican * Kyriale ' : a Rejoinder. 

Rev. H. Beivenmge, Maynooth College. 

Cardinal Logue at Bobbio. 

The Editor, Maynooth College. 

Notes and Queries. 

THEOLOGY. Rev, J. M. Harty> D.D., Maynooth College. 

Frequent Communion. Weekly Confession and Indulgences. Case of Restitution. 

LITURGY. Rev. Patrick Mom'sroc, Maynooth College. 

The Ceremonies to be observed _in Preaching-. The proper Oil for use in Sanctuary 
Lamps. Whether a Painting: of the Crucifixion may serve n* Altar Cross. 
Prayers in Mass 'Sub Unica Conclusione.' 


Pius X and the Catholic Institute of Paris. The Vicar Capitular and the Diocesan 
Throne and Crozier. Translation of Requiem Mass. Sacred Vestments *nd 
Pall of Chalice at Requiem Mass. Solution of Liturgical Questions. Questions 

on Indulgences. Decree granting Indulgences for Daily Communion without the 
onus ot Weekly Confession. 

Notices of Books. 

Out of Due Time. Antipriscilliana. My Queen and My Mother. Sketches in History. 
Catholic Ideals in Social Life. Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum. 
Last Letters of Aubrey Beardsley. The Suffering Man-God. 

Editorial Note. 

BROWNE & NOLAN, Limited 

Censor Dtt>. 

tSJotrst. Publishers and Printers, 24 & 25 




SVBSCRIFT1QX : Twfive ShiiliufS far Annum, Post Free, fiavublt in advmnct, 




A Speciality. 




Telephone No. 1. Telegraphic Address " CON&N, DUBLIN." 

Jdsb Catholic Cburcb^roperty ^ 
.=_ Jnsucance Company, %imiteb, 


19 & 20, Fleet St., DUBLIN. 


~ ..i 4?\f\(\ l\(\f\ ALDERMAN 7 WILLIAM McCORMICK. J.F. 

LiJpltai, d^JLwWtVf \SW JOHN MULLIGAN. Esq. 

VERY REV. JAMES ' f ! : 

This Company is prepared to receive proposals for Insurance at Ordinary Rates, of Churches, 
Convents, Colleges, Schools, Residences, and all other Institutions and Buildings devoted to 

Catholic purposes. 

Forms andjttll particulars on application to VALENTINE IRWIN, Secretary. 


AlUr V/4.X Gables, Shrine (iDdlej, & 

Best Tallow Crown Soi.p. 4 P oid-tanwm soap in 

I * 

11)6 FilVOUrite SO^P. APureFree-latheringSoaplnT;: 



Iron and Brass Bedsteads and Woven Wire Mattresses a Speciality. 

Mangles. Wringers, and Laundry Appliances. Kitchen Utensils and Brushes of every de>c- .i : 

Institutions supplied on Special Terrr 3. 
Kitchen Range, Stove, and Crate Warehouse, 

2 1 & 22, Christchurch Place, and 2, Werburgh St., 

TELEPHONE 261. ^Tla DC// 



TOWARDS the end of a previous article 1 I had 
occasion to refer to Philosophy in its relation to 
the Sciences, thus digressing somewhat from the 
main subject with which I was dealing: Philosophy 
in its relation to Religion, as an Apology for our Faith, 
and as forming a part of our larger ' Philosophy of Life.' 
Viewed under this aspect it is a study that is giving rise 
to controversies and discussions of very living interest. 

The ordinary method of Christian Apologetics what 
has been claimed to be the traditional method 2 is that 
which first establishes on grounds of historical evidence 
the Divinity of the Christian Religion, and the authority 
of its claims to be accepted as such by all ; and then takes 
up and examines the contents of the Christian Revelation, 
already accepted by faith on Divine Authority, and defends 
its truths and mysteries by the same sort of rational prin- 
ciples and arguments as we employ in Philosophy and in 
the other sciences. 

But those principles differ, at least in their applications, 
in different systems of Philosophy ; and it is a simple fact 

1 Cf. I. E. RECORD, March, pp. 193 sqq. 

2 Whether such claim is justifiable may perhaps be, and indeed has 
been, questioned amongst Catholics. Cf. Essais de philosophic religieuse, 
par le Pere Labert.honniere, de 1'Oratoire (Paris : Lethieleux, 2 edit., 
1903), p. 197. 



that the philosophical principles which have been actually 
applied for centuries to the interpretation of the Divine 
Deposit, are the principles of Scholastic Philosophy. Scho- 
lastic Philosophy, however, was not always fixed and finished; 
it grew and developed with time. St. Augustine was rather 
a Platonist, the medieval scholastics Aristotelians ; and 
generally the question might be debated whether there 
could not be many distinct (purely rational) philosophical 
systems all equally in harmony with Christian revelation 
or at least all orthodox, that is, in essential agreement with 
Revealed Truth. 

In attempting an answer to so important a question 
we must try to avoid excessive narrow-mindedness or 
attachment to system on the one hand, and excessive 
liberalism that would misinterpret Revelation or make 
Truth relative, on the other. The Truths of Revealed 
Religion are meant to be interpreted by men and to be 
applied to the conduct of their daily lives. God's message 
must be assimilated by them and not only by their minds, 
but by their hearts and wills before it becomes operative 
in them, or finds its individual expression in their words 
and works. 1 That being so, I can easily understand that 
the way in which the contents of Scripture and Tradition 
are accepted and interpreted may differ somewhat from 
one individual believer to another. One may have systema- 
tized the natural truths of Science and Philosophy in one 
way, another in a different way. And the mind of each 
will have its own corresponding bent, and use its own 
method of assimilation, and its own terminology in expres- 
sion. The Divine Gift will be received by each ad modum 
recipientis. To no one mode of conception, and to no one 
form of expression, must God's saving Truth be exclusively 
tied down. If the supernatural perfects the natural, as 
it does, it must respect existing natural and acquired varia- 
tions in mind and character, from one individual to another. 

Nor is it the scope of Divine Revelation to teach men 
purely natural truths, whether in Science or in Philosophy. 

1 Cf. op. cit., p. 221 : ' La v^rite revelee . . . nous est donn6e non 
pour 6tre subie, mais pour fitre vecue.' 


I would therefore go so far as to say that if by different 
philosophical systems are meant presentations and com- 
binations of the same general natural truths, looked at from 
different points of view, then you can have a number of 
such systems in accord with Revelation ; and its contents 
will harmonize, though differently, with each, to form a 
larger ' Philosophy of Life.' 1 

But then, on the other hand, the contents ot Revela- 
tion must find admittance in all their fulness into every 
such system. For if men differ individually their nature 
is one and the same, and their destiny the same ; and the 
meaning of God's message must be the same in substance 
to all. Not only so, but for precisely the same reason, 
Nature itself, the World, Reality, if rightly interpreted, 
whether in Science or in Philosophy, must be the same 
for all too. 

Hence the answer to the interesting question how far 
Catholics may adhere to different schools or systems of 
Philosophy will depend very largely on the view taken as 
to the meaning of a ' school ' or ' system.' In so far as these 
are merely different expressions or presentations of the 
same natural truths from different standpoints they are 
in necessary harmony with Revealed Truth, and a Catholic 
is free to choose. But in so far as they are contradictory 

1 That the vast majority of believers not being philosophers 
never think of troubling themselves with the harmony or want of harmony 
between Christianity and the world's varying philosophies, is of course 
very obvious. That I take to be the meaning of Pere Labejthonniere 
when he writes d propos of Pascal's Apologetics (in the work and place 
referred to in the preceding note) : ' Ce qui est vrai . . . c'est que, tout en 
cherchant et tout en trouvant dans le Chnstianisme la verite dont on avail 
besoin pour vivre on n'a pas en 1'idee de systematiser methodiquement la 
verit6 chretienne en se plafant deliberement a une point de vue plutfit 
qu'a 1'autre.' But the author in question would have even those who under- 
take the work of Christian Apologetics, who try to give themselves 
and others a deep and abiding conviction that Christianity is the only 
real Philosophy of Life, he would have those also regard Christianity 
independently of any special point of view peculiar to any philosophical 
system, though it may be doubted if this be at all psychologically 
possible. Defending M. Blondel from the charge of attempting to re- 
concile Kantian subjectivism with Catholicism (Op>, cit., p. 322), he 
reminds his opponents very explicitly : ' Qu'il n'est pas de maniere d'apo- 
logetique contre laquelle nous nous soyons elev6 plus energiquement que 
celle qui consiste a conciiier le Catholicisme avec une philosophic donn6e 
et accept6e d'avance. d'ou qu'elle vienne et queile qu'elle soit ' (Cf. also 
pp. 157, 201, 202, 210). 


of each other, some of them must be erroneous, and such 
error may be in logical opposition directly or indirectly 
to some revealed truth ; and if it be, just as no philosopher 
should adhere to it if he saw its erroneous character, so also 
no Catholic should adhere to it if he saw its opposition to 
Revelation. But a Catholic may see neither the error nor 
the opposition in question ; and, so long as he does not, 
may adhere to the system without seeing the logical incon- 
sistency of his position. All the more so as he may in good 
faith interpret Revelation in a sense which he regards as 
true, and which is de facto consistent with his philosophical 
views. But all that will not make these latter any less 
erroneous or any less opposed to the true meaning of the 
revealed truth in question. St. Augustine, Scotus Eriugena, 
Abelard, St. Thomas, Duns Scotus, William of Ockam, 
Nicholas of Cusa, Descartes, Gassendi, Malebranche, Pascal, 
Rosimini were all alike Catholics ; but is that any proof 
that their philosophical systems, which differed so widely, 
were all substantially true or substantially orthodox, or 
that^some of those mentioned did not remain Catholics 
rather in spite of their philosophy, so to speak, and through 
bona fide ignorance of the unsoundness of their systems ? l 
No ; however systems may differ there is only one true 
Philosophy of Life, varied and manifold as its expressions 
may be. Life has its departments of thought and of action ; 
but these, though distinct, are related. The true and the 
good are standards in all, in Nature as well as in Faith. If 
man's mind and heart conform to them fully, he is a philo- 
sopher and a Catholic. In so far as he deviates, he falls 
into error and evil. If his Philosophy is out of harmony 
with Revealed Truth, it stands convicted of error. The 
man who loves the Truth and seeks it will embrace a Philo- 
sophy that makes room for Revelation and recognizes on 
earth an Infallible Exponent of that Divine message to 
mankind. 2 

1 Cf. De Wulf, Introduction d la Philosophie Neo-Scolastique (Louvain, 
1904), pp. 100-105. 

2 I have already emphasized the fact that no philosophical system 
arrived at by the mere natural light of reason, can offer a final and com- 
plete explanation of man's nature and destiny. To do so it must be sup- 


We, who recognize all this, must, however, remember 
that the Church expects us to use our own reason in learning, 
teaching, and defending all truth. 1 It is our duty as well as 
our privilege to interpret God's word for ourselves and for 
others ; to examine the thought-systems of our day, and 
discern the true from the false in men's ever-varying specu- 
lations ; to seek and find out the fittest methods for putting 
the Christian Philosophy of Life in all its entirety, before 
the minds of unbelievers. It is just for this very purpose 
of gaining souls to Christ that we are told to be all things 
to all men. 

If we see, therefore, that a certain method of apologetics, 
hitherto effectual, is now no longer able to bring men to the 
Faith or even to defend it from their attacks, we are bound 
to look around for a method more in harmony with the 
tendencies of the times. If we feel, for example, that our 
traditional Scholastic Philosophy has its own intrinsic 
shortcomings, or that it is more an obstacle than a help to 
us in presenting Christianity to modern minds, just because 
these latter are so unacquainted with Scholasticism, if for 
no other reason ; and if we think, moreover, that there are 
modern systems of Philosophy with which numbers are 
already familiar, and which meet their wants and their 
tastes, and have not the defects of Scholasticism ; and that 
the Christian religion, interpreted after their principles, 
will have as full, as deep, and as true a meaning as Scholas- 
ticism has ever given it : then we should think seriously of 
changing both our Philosophy and our Apologetics. 2 

plemented by the Christian Revelation. It is only this same truth, I 
think, that is expressed from another point of view by Pere Laberthonniere, 
when he says : ' Le cas ne se presente done pas d'une philosophic, c'est a 
dire, d'une doctrine de la vie, que vous aurious a garder dans non integra- 
lite et avec laquelle nous serious obliges de concilier le Christianisine. Si 
le Christianisme contient la verite sur nous, c'est que le reste ne la contient 
pas' (Op. cit. p. 210). Elsewhere, explaining and defending the 'imma- 
nent ' method of apologetics, he writes : ' De cette fa^on on conceit qu'il 
puisse y avoir une philosophic Chretienne, ou plutot que la philosophic 
doive eter chretienne, sans cesser d'etre la philsophie et sans que le Chris- 
tianisme cesse d'etre surnaturel ' (p. 172 note). 

* Cf. Laberthonniere, op. cit., pp. 159, 219. 

2 Cf. op. cit., Tntrod. p. xxvii., also however pp. 188, 189. New York 
Review, June- July, 1905. (Vol. i., No. i), pp. 36, 46, ' Scotus Redivivus,' 
by James J. Fox, D.D. 


Now, these are just the things that some Catholics in 
recent years have been both thinking and doing. They 
say it is labour in vain to try to win over the modern mind 
to the Christian Religion by endeavouring first to establish 
its Divinity directly on strictly historical grounds, and to 
impose it by way of authority on all who are in search of 
it ; and then to pass on to examine its contents for them, 
after they have first believed it. Rather these apologists 
would endeavour to put its contents in the first place, before 
the modern world. They would show forth its beauty and 
truth and grandeur, and its perfect accord with all man's 
higher and nobler instincts : they would vindicate its power 
over man's whole nature, his emotions and affections and 
will and heart as well as his intelligence : they would present 
it to men as a ' Philosophy of Life and Action,' capable of 
attracting and fascinating and satisfying all honest and 
upright seekers after a meaning to attach to their lives. 1 
They would put it forward as the only means on earth of 
1 filling up the void ' that is felt in human nature, as the one 
mysterious something of which human nature feels the 
need. In the restless heart of man the inquietum cor there 
is a need for the supernatural : and this latter must be appro- 
priated and assimilated into the very life and activity of 
the hungering soul if it is to satisfy its craving. The super- 
natural is not something heterogeneous imposed as a burden 
from without ; were it so it would have no meaning and no 
message for the soul, and no influence upon it : it is contin- 
uous with nature and perfects it. It is no mere collection 
of speculative truths formulated in a definite manner and 
imposed on the intellect by mere external authority. It 
is, on the contrary, pre-eminently practical : the ethical 
aspect of its dogmas being the primary and all-important 
one. It is a living, fructifying principle in human life. 
It is, before all, a life that must be lived and acted : in that 
it finds its real meaning. The extrinsic element in it is in 
reality not extrinsic, for the teaching authority of the 
Church preserves, no doubt, and proposes the revealed 

1 Cf. op. cit., pp. 205 sqq. 


deposit to the individual's conscience, but it is within his 
own soul the Divine voice speaks ; for God is in the soul, 
and has given Himself to the soul, and so the soul hearing 
His voice hears its own, and assenting yields itself at one 
and the same time to its own natural craving after the 
Divinity and to the Divinity speaking within it. 

Such are a few of the main tendencies of this new school 
of Apologetics which is known as the Method of Immanence 
La M-ethode de V Immanence, and which attaches itself 
to a conception of Philosophy outlined not many years 
since in a book entitled U Action by a French writer, M. 
Blondel. As a method of Apologetics it has not been 
allowed to pass unchallenged. In fact it has been severely 
attacked by Catholics throughout France since it began to 
attract attention and to win over adherents. Pere Laber- 
thonniere, a French Oratorian, and editor of the Annales 
de la Philosophic Chretienne; M. Le Roy, in his now famous 
article, ' What is a Dogma ? ' in the Quinzaine of April 
last year, and in other articles on the same subject in more 
recent numbers of the Revue Biblique, of the Bulletin de 
Litterature Ecclesiastique (Toulouse), and of other periodicals; 
M. Blondel developing the Philosophy of Action in the 
Revue de Deux Mondes and elsewhere, these are a few of 
the leading advocates of the system. Mgr. Turinaz, Bishop 
of Nancy, M. Wehrle in the Revue Biblique, and a whole host 
of Catholic writers criticise the system and condemn its 
principles and tendencies more or less vehemently ; gene- 
rally more, for the controversy which has now found an 
echo in most of the Catholic reviews of Philosophy and 
Theology in France, and in many outside France also, has 
been carried on rather vigorously on both sides, and some- 
times in a tone and manner that cannot contribute very 
much to the advancement either of truth or of charity. 
But such feeling is not altogether inexcusable, for the 
issues involved are of the most far-reaching importance, 
and the propagation or error in regard to them would do 
an incalculable amount of mischief. 1 

1 Since the above was written Pere Laberthonniere's book has been placed 
upon the Index 


The gravest charges against their doctrines on theolo- 
gical grounds, are that they destroy the distinction between 
natural and supernatural, between Reason and Faith ; that 
they pervert the true teaching of the Church upon Faith 
and Dogma ; that they make Religious Truth relative and 
subjective, and ultimately reduce Religion to a matter of 
subjective feeling. These are charges of the most serious 
nature, and doubtless there are serious grounds for them ; 
but it is not so easy to bring them home against the de- 
fenders of the Method of Immanence and the Philosophy 
of Action. 

The fact is that those latter descriptive titles cover a 
wide and ill-defined group of tendencies rather than any 
definite doctrinal system. And those tendencies have 
partially found expression not in France only but also in 
Italy, as in the writings of Semeria and Mum in the 
Cultura Sociale ; in England, as in the writings of Father 
Tyrrell ; in the United States, as in the pages of the New 
York Review. 

In France, where those views have been most freely 
ventilated, their advocates disclaim any conscious intention 
or desire of forming a school apart. They protest that they 
are teaching no new doctrines and that is most probably 
the fact nor anything which has not been propounded by 
Catholic writers already and that too is most probably 
the case nor anything incompatible with the genuine 
Catholic Tradition, but this latter is at least open to 
serious doubt. They attach great importance to the idea 
of doctrinal development in Christianity, and claim to be 
largely inspired by the views of Cardinal Newman on the 
nature, growth, and motives of Religious Belief. And 
indeed there can be no doubt that Newman has received 
quite a special cult amongst French Catholics in recent 
times. His Theory of Assent which has been the object 
of such controversy in the past, and bids fair to provoke 
further controversy in the near future, if we can judge from 
the Dublin Review and the Tablet has been taken up and 
defended by the advocates of the New Apologetic. They 
insist upon the importance of the Will as a factor in Religious 


Belief. They contend that the traditional Scholastic 
Philosophy as applied to Religion by modern Catholic 
apologists is too exclusively intellectualist ; that it exag- 
gerates the influence of pure reason over life, and neglects 
to attach sufficient importance to the appetitive and emo- 
tional side of man ; that it makes him as it were a mere 
thinking machine, and sets up abstract thought alone as a 
standard for judging those concrete moral and religious 
facts which are meant for the whole man. 1 They insist 
that in the domain of moral and religious truths conviction 
is not the result of evidence alone, that the heart and the 
will have their share, and that it is the whole man that 
believes. Their Philosophy therefore is not intellectualist 
but voluntarist? Hence too, they call it a Philosophy of 
Action, a practical, concrete Philosophy of Life, in oppo- 
sition to the supposed speculative and abstract character 
of Scholasticism. 3 

1 Cf. op. cit., pp. 163, 186, 227. 

2 ' On dit souvent : la verite ne peut pas changer. Non assurement 
elle ne peut pas changer. Mais ce qui peut et ce qui doit changer, c'est 
la connaissance que nous en avons. Vivre c'est se mouvoir . . . ce qui 
importe c'est de ne pas aller a 1'aventure. La verite pour nous n'est pas 
dans le repos, elle est dans la fixite de 1'orientation. Et la fixite de 1'orien- 
tation c'est la bonne volunte qui nous la donne. On peut dire vraiment 
que c'est pour nous le criterium, criterium vivant et tpujours libre, mais 
toujours aussi a notre disposition. . . . C'etait un axiome dans 1'Ecole 
que le bien et le vrai sont une mfime chose. Cet axiome nous le transposons 
de 1'objet au sujet en disant que c'est aussi la m6me chose qu' Stre bon 
et avoir la verite. Mais tandis que du point de vue intellectualiste on 
devrait dire que c'est du vrai qu'on va au bien, et que c'est par la con- 
naissance de la verite qu'on est bon ainsi disait Socrate nous disons 
que c'est par la bonte qu'on possede la verite et que c'est le bien qui est 
vrai. Dieu est verite, mais il n'est pas verite que parce qu'il est bonte . . . 
Et ce n'est point en tant qu'il est vrai que nons le connaissons d'abord, 
mais en tant qu'il est bon : c'est en effet en tant qu'il est bon et par 
bonte qu'il est en nous ; et c'est dans la bonne volonte et par elle qu'il 
se revele a nous. 

' Mais puisque c'est par la bonte qu'on possede la vdrite et puisque 
c'est par la volonte qu'on est bon, c'est done du point de vue de la volonte 
qu'il faut envisager la verite, c'est a dire du point de vue subjectif et 
immanent.' (Op. cit., pp. 185-6. Cf. pp. 179 sqq.) 

3 Father Laberthonnidre says it could be shown that one cannot 
be an intellectualist and a Christian, except by the extraordinary com- 
promise of admitting contraries, and living en partie double with theory 
divorced from practice. The contraries referred to are : 

(1) ' Le surnaturel et le naturel sont heterogfcnes. Le surnaturel et 
le naturel doivent former un systime rationel et pouvoir Stre objet de la 
science ; 

(2) ' La foi est libre dans non principe et elle est toujours uue 
solution personelle et singuliere. La science amene a des conclusions qui 


Now, I venture to think that those indications of its 
general attitude and tendencies, brief and inadequate 
as they necessarily are, can hardly fail to suggest the 
suspicion of a more or less close connexion between this 
whole movement of ideas and another Philosophy, a 
Philosophy which has practically reigned supreme all over 
the Continent for the greater part of the last century. 
It is, in fact, the avowed aim and ambition of the 
New Apologetic to put forward the claims of Christianity 
in such a form as to be both intelligible and accept- 
able to what is called the ' Modern Mind.' Now, this 
* Modern Mind ' is largely the outcome of Kantism, and 
looks at everything through the medium of Kantian con- 
ceptions and theories. 

It will be remembered that the Philosopher of Koenigs- 
berg denied to the Pure Reason rightly or wrongly, as he 
understood it, we will not here enquire, but anyhow he 
denied to the Pure Reason the power of attaining to cer- 
tainty about the fundamental truths of natural religion : 
God, and Freedom, and Immortality ; and that he then 
proceeded, religious and upright and well-meaning man 
as he certainly was, to set up and establish on a new 

s'imposent necessairement selon un determinisme logique et rigoureux, 
et ses conclusions sont impersonelles et universelles ' (Op. cit., p. 186, note). 
He then goes on to give this summary of his method : 'En partant du 
christianisme, comme nous 1'avons fait, en nous demandant comment nous 
croyons et comment la verite surnaturelle devient notre verite, nous avons 
du reconnaltre que, bien qu'en un sens elle s'impose a nous du dehors, 
elle ne devient n6tre cependant, et nous ne la possedons, et nous ne la 
connaissons que parceque du dedans nous aliens vers elle. En conse- 
quence pour nous montrer comment la verite surnaturelle devient legi- 
timement notre verite ce qui est le but de 1'apologetique c'est done 
bien la methode de 1'immanence qu'il faut employer. Cette methode 
d'immanence implique, il est vrai, une philosophic de la volont6, une philo- 
sophic de la vie et de 1'action, mouvante comme la vie et 1'action elles 
mimes. Elle se trouve ainsi en opposition avec 1'intellectualisme que est 
une philosophic de 1'idee, et qui aspire, sans pouvoir aboutir du reste, 
4 la fixit6 et a I'immobilite qu'il prete artificiellement a "1'idee." ' Such 
intellectualism he calls an idolatry : ' II consiste en effet en ceci que 1' esprit 
humain, prenant ses conceptions pour la verite definitive et totale, veut 
e'y arreter et les adorer, sans s'appercevoir qu'elles sont un produit de 
son activite et une expression de sa vie. . . .' (p. 187). The intellectualism 
of which those things are true is not that of Scholastic Philosophy, which 
on the one hand sees in the object of the abstract idea far more than 
a product of mental activity, and on the other hand, nevertheless, recog- 
nizes fully that that abstract object is but a mere aspect, and a very 
inadequate aspect, of concrete -reality. 


basis, that of Practical Reason, or Will or Moral Conscience, 
the truths he had just pulled down. It is also a well- 
known fact that amongst Kant's followers themselves, as 
well as amongst his critics, there soon appeared two dif- 
ferent ways of interpreting both the intentions and the 
achievements of the master. Some held what we may 
briefly call the heterodox view of Kantism : that Kant's 
chief work is the Critique of Pure Reason, and that it was 
only as an afterthought, and in a sort of desperation at 
contemplating the ruin he had wrought in it, that he at- 
tempted to mend matters in the Critique of Practical Reason : 
that he failed to accomplish his purpose, and has left to 
posterity a legacy of subjectivism and scepticism. Others 
interpret their master's teaching in a more orthodox way. 
These give the primacy of importance to his second Critique. 
They maintain that he knew what he was about and saw 
the whole way before him from the beginning, and that 
in the Critique of Practical Reason he has placed Religion 
and Morality on their proper basis, where they will be for 
ever safe from the corroding influence of the faculty that 
merely doubts and criticizes. 

Most Catholics hold the view that Kant's first Critique 
is destructive of the very foundations of Faith ; and that 
whatever his intentions may have been, his subsequent 
efforts in the second Critique have utterly and hope- 
lessly failed to reconstruct the shattered edifice. There 
are some Catholics, however, especially in France, who 
adopt the second view, and who are prepared to hold that 
in that interpretation of Kantism there is nothing whatever 
incompatible with the Faith. The existence of this view 
is accounted for by the fact that French Kantism, or rather 
Neo-Kantism, as it is called, has always emphasized the 
primacy of the Practical over the Speculative Reason, 
thereby spreading the notion that Kantism is by no means 
opposed to Theism and Religion. But on the other side 
it is contended that the religion it allows is necessarily a 
subjective belief, not based upon reason but rather upon 
moral and religious instincts and feelings and devoid of 
any real or objective value. 


Those alternative tendencies to emphasize now the 
subjective and now the objective elements in Religious 
Belief, and indeed in all Truth, have not been born of 
Kantism or of any modern system ; they are of the same 
hoary antiquity as the earliest human speculations on the 
relation between Thought and Things. To emphasize 
unduly either aspect of Assent is to give a one-sided and 
erroneous account of it. The advocates of the Apologetic 
of Immanence blame the intellectualism and the exag- 
gerated objectivity of traditional Scholasticism : they feel 
the need of a reaction which would give their due share of 
importance to the personal, subjective factors in our Religious 
Belief. In dwelling on these factors they are looking in 
the same direction as Kant. But to Catholics generally the 
name of Kant is anathema with some, even to look in his 
direction is not quite safe ! Hence the new apologists 
prefer to have it said of them not that they are moving 
towards Kant, but rather that they are at one with 
Newman . . . Query : is it so very easy to distinguish 
Newman's doctrine on Notional and Real Assent from 
Kant's teaching on Speculative and Practical Certitude ? 

The new apologists complain of the cold and arid intel- 
lectualism of the traditional Catholic Philosophy. As 
against occasional exponents of Scholasticism the com- 
plaint is justifiable, but that there are any grounds for a 
general accusation I should be very slow to allow. 1 It is 
easy to set up a one-sided view for the sake of showing its 
shortcomings, and a great many views of that sort are set 
up and pulled down in their writings. But they are not 
the views of the great scholastics. Their own views they 
do not claim to be original : indeed what is best in them 
may be found in Scholasticism some place or other. 

That Scholasticism exaggerates the office and influence of 
Reason, those people would never, I believe, have alleged, 
did they understand the recognition it gives to the various 
kinds of evidence requisite for certainty in the various 
spheres of human research ; and did they but remember 

1 Cf. New York Review, vol. i., p. 38. 


that when all is said and done by man's other faculties, his 
reflecting reason alone must be always supreme judge and 
high court of appeal in deciding his Philosophy of Life. If 
the worth and sincerity of thought are often measured by 
action, it is no less true that the value of conduct itself 
must be finally measured by thought. 

No, I fear it is rather those philosophers themselves 
who commit the fatal error of which they accuse Scholas- 
ticism. It is they who really undermine the influence of 
the appetitive side of man's nature on his Philosophy of 
Life ; it is they who render useless the promptings of the 
moral instincts, and reduce the voice of conscience to a 
hollow, empty sound. All this they do by separating the 
pure from the practical reason, and by allotting to each 
* part ' a separate and independent domain. They allow 
the pure reason to run riot in a world of abstractions, and 
then proclaim it powerless to reach the world of the real 
and the concrete. Then they try to build up their concrete 
beliefs on the foundations of moral feelings and instincts. 
But those latter, being already divorced from reason proper, 
can never yield a basis for a reasonable faith. And 
reason will have its revenge, by pronouncing the last word 
on all such beliefs : that they are subjective and worthless. 
It is the new apologists and not the scholastics who make 
the mistake of forgetting that it is the whole man and 
the same man who reasons and believes ; of dividing him 
up into fractions and speculating on each apart. 

I do not say that all the writers who advocate the Method 
of Immanence or who favour the Philosophy of Action 
go to such extremes. There are many who employ the New 
Apologetic as supplementing and completing the objective, 
historical method and not at all as supplanting the latter. 
Such an attitude has everything to commend it. Likewise, 
there are many who insist that the role of the will and the 
feelings, and the whole personal element in our Religious 
Assents must not be lost sight of in any system of Philosophy. 
This too is just, provided the objective element be not 
sacrificed. But it cannot be denied that at least some of 
those writers expose that element to grave danger. And 


if they err in that respect they will vitiate their whole 
system, even although in other respects it may contain 
much that is good and true. And it cannot be denied that 
their writings contain much that is good and useful. But 
so, of course, does Kantism itself, and indeed so do most 
systems of Philosophy. And this is just the danger. If 
a system contained nothing true or good it would never 
do any harm, for it would attract nobody. 

Our own Scholastic Philosophy is capable of assimilating 
whatever of goodness and truth it finds in other systems : 
and our obvious aim should be to enrich it, to improve 
it, and to modernize it by the addition of everything valu- 
able to be found in modern systems. Its principles are 
tried and true, its method is judicious and fruitful, and its 
gradual assimilation of all the best products of modern 
scientific progress can have only the one desirable effect 
of infusing into its system an ever-increasing store of 
vigour and vitality. 


All those questionings and discussions which are stirring 
the minds of educated Catholics abroad, are the inevitable 
outcome of the contact of Christianity with the restless 
souls of men ; and they bear eloquent testimony to its 
living, active influence on the modern mind. They may 
from time to time be troublesome and disquieting, but 
only cowards will fly from the danger : without such 
conflicts Christianity will make few conquests, and perhaps 
even sometimes will not hold her own. For those to 
whom the guardianship of Ireland's Faith is entrusted, 
those modern movements and tendencies in thought should 
possess far more than a mere speculative interest : and 
this, even although there may be no manifestations amongst 
us of any great activity or interest in such questions. It 
would not be at all reassuring from the religious point of 
view were thought to revive and education to advance, 
and enlightenment to spread amongst our people, and all 
that secular progress to synchronize with intellectual 


indifference about religious questions of the weightiest 
moment. We should be at least as much afraid of stag- 
nation as of unrest. There is danger in both, but neither 
is an unmixed evil : though some simple Catholics seem 
to see no evil at all in the former and nothing but evil in 
the latter. The latter is with us anyhow, and is likely to 
remain. ^\nd while it would be a great mistake to ex- 
aggerate its dimensions, or to be alarmed about it, neither 
would it be the wisest policy to pretend not to see it at all. 

To try to persuade ourselves that there is no Unbelief 
in Ireland, that there are no doubts and questionings, that 
infidel ideas are unknown, that there are no pernicious 
social and ethical theories current, and no ' nominal ' 
Catholics amongst us, would be simply to close our eyes 
to the facts and live in a fool's paradise. With the means 
of communication that actually exist between all civilized 
countries ; with thought transmitted from end to end of the 
earth, and through all classes of society, in the novel and 
magazine and newspaper, it is simply childish to think that 
our Catholic people are going to live for ever in the immu- 
nity of a ' splendid isolation.' It is a simple fact that by 
means of imported literature, English and foreign thought- 
good, bad, and indifferent, such as it is is permeating our 
people's minds and hearts, and is influencing their lives. 
Education of a kind is increasing and will continue to in- 
crease. Intellectual activity of some kind, the dissemi- 
nation of some sort of ideas is bound to grow apace, 
quite independently of any University. Economic condi- 
tions will surely demand that Ireland be inhabited and its 
land and resources worked by a people able and willing to 
work them, and prospering by their industry. Whether 
these people of the future be the children of the Planter or 
of the native Gael, there is a possibility that such prosperity 
may bring in its train materialism and indifference to the 
higher things of life. 

It is beyond all question that Ireland is passing through 
changing conditions, and that her future will in many 
things differ from her past. The early Christian Church 
was attacked by false philosophies, when the weapons of 


flesh and blood had failed. The Irish Church has stood 
faithful through centuries of persecution ; perhaps the 
weapons of error and indifference are being forged in those 
days to do war against her. If that be so it behoves us 
to watch the enemies' tactics, and to attend to those special 
departments where their attacks are made. The Church 
in all countries at the present day needs three classes of 
scholars in particular to defend and propound her teaching : 
the historian to establish her divine institution and to 
interpret her tradition ; the Scripture-scholar to defend the 
Bible and interpret its contents ; and the Christian philo- 
sopher and apologist to show that faith is reasonable, and 
to hold up Christianity as the only true and satisfactory 
Philosophy of Life. 

Is it not all-important that we should be beforehand 
with that Christian Philosophy, that we should settle the 
doubts of enquiring people, and save the reading public 
from the poison of infidelity and error ? I have often 
thought that the Irish mind has a leaning towards the 
spiritual, a bent for speculation on the meaning and reasons 
of things. If that be so, it is doubly necessary to feed it 
with sound principles ; for the Irish, like the French, are 
logical and push things to extremes. They will be usually 
very good or very bad ; but rarely will they settle down, 
as people of neighbouring races can, in comfortable incon- 
sistency. They will, therefore, demand from us, what is 
already the great need of the day at home as well as abroad, 
a defence of the rational foundations of the Christian 
Faith against the attacks of modern Unbelief. It is the 
study of Philosophy in its widest sense that will prepare 
us for that work, and equip us with that knowledge which 
the lips of the priest are to guard. We should be eager 
and enthusiastic in garnering that knowledge : to acquire 
it should be the passion of every student's life ; and to 
possess and utilize it the life work of the priest. 

I will go even farther and say, that every educated 
Catholic, layman as well as priest, should live upon this 
Philosophy and make it part of his life. The uninstructed 
Catholic will rest in simple faith. But the educated Catholic 


must be at least so far a philosopher as to be able to answer 
the questionings of his own reflecting reason. His faith 
must be a rationabile obsequium, a reasonable service, 
and that it will not be unless his reasons for his faith are in 
proportion to the development of his mind. 

And if this be true of the layman how much more so 
for the priest ? The priest's daily life is spent in constant 
contact with the highest, deepest, most sacred truths in 
the Christian Philosophy of Life. He must needs be a 
philosopher, if he realizes those truths in his life and ministry. 
And if he does not realize them, what can there be of depth, 
or reality, or power in his preaching or priestly work ? 

That is the highest application of the great general 
truth, that Philosophy in its fullest sense must be in con- 
tinuity with every conceivable department of human 
thought and activity. No matter what problem we may 
face in any science or art of life, we have only to push the 
inquiry far enough and we shall soon find ourselves raising 
some one or other of those eternal questions around which 
all Philosophy centres. We may take up social, political, 
economic, educational, industrial work amongst the people : 
in no one department may we dispense with the sound 
rational and religious principles drawn from the Christian 
Philosophy of Life. That we may have occasion to ad- 
minister those principles as an antidote against the poison 
of passing errors, the circumstances which recently called 
forth a remarkable publication on Catholicity and Progress 

Ireland 1 will furnish us with ample proof. 

Nor, finally, must it be imagined that the study of this 
Philosophy can be approached only in the one way with 
which our college students are familiar. It can be cultivated 
everywhere : for it is so ubiquitous that it cannot well be 
avoided. In the wide world of literature where the Irish 
priest should make his influence felt far more than he does 
the need of a pure and wholesome and elevating Philo- 
sophy is very great indeed. If the genius of the Irish mind 
is speculative, it is also highly imaginative, and ought to 

1 Catholicity and Progress in Ireland. By the Rev. M. O'Riordan, 
D.Ph., D.D., D.C.L. London : Kegan Paul, 1905. 

VOL. XIX. 2 C 


be capable of fine literary work both in prose and poetry. 
But it is sometimes thought that the literary and philo- 
sophical casts of mind are somehow incompatible, and 
cannot be developed together. Nothing, I think, could be 
farther from the truth. I do not believe, for example, 
there was ever a great poet who was not a great philo- 
sopher as well. The great poets have held a place in pos- 
terity not alone or chiefly because they excelled in the art 
of elegant expression but also, and no less, because they 
had great thoughts, noble ideas, and inspiring messages 
to convey to their fellow-men. And where is there such a 
message as is to be found in the Philosophy of the Catholic 
Religion ? Then look at modern prose literature. See 
how every other Philosophy is preached and popularized, 
and put into the minds and hearts of the millions by means 
of the modern novel. Is there any reason why a Catholic 
should not or could not do for Catholicity what a host of 
non-Catholics have so ably done for their chosen beliefs ? 
Is there any reason why the future Irish priest with a liter- 
ary turn should not emulate the example of some few we 
know, to the best of his ability ? There is an urgent and 
an ever-growing need for a popular Catholic literature, 
both in Irish and in English : and who is to meet that need 
if the Irish priest does not set the example ? 

Let us, therefore, cultivate our gifts, literary or other- 
wise, with the greatest zeal and care. Be they as five 
talents, or as two, or only as one, the Irish Church has need 
of them, and the Master has given them to us to trade with 
them till He come. 1 But let us attend to Christian Philo- 
sophy if we want to write anything enduring. Else we are 
mere dabblers in literary conceits and empty forms, without 
a soul or a meaning. 


1 Luke xix. 13. 

[ 403 ] 



PASSING over Mr. Mallock's historical sketch of the 
free-will controversy, which contains nothing very 
interesting beyond the exposition of the conclusions 
he hopes to reach, let us consider his method of presenting 
the ' fundamental facts ' of the problem. 

Everyone admits that we will only those things which 
we think for some reason or other desirable. But does 
Mr. Mallock's illustration (pages 97, 98) prove and he has 
attempted no other proof that if only one object of desire 
is present, only one act of will is possible ; and that if 
several are present the will is determined by the most 
desirable. Let us take Mr. Mallock's example of the 
famished man in a boat, too weak, for want of food, to 
row, or hoist sail, or signal. He wishes to live, but can 
do nothing to save himself. He might do something if he 
could eat ; without food he is helpless. Suddenly a fairy 
or an angel puts down before him, an excellent meal, 
consisting of roast mutton and claret and the starving 
one devours the good things ! 

We submit the only conclusion is that action, following 
on wish, must be of that specific kind which, in the circum- 
stances, is the only possible means of fulfilling the wish. 
But the Deus ex machina is prodigal. Roast mutton and 
claret on the one hand, rotten blubber and bilge water on 
the other, and between them our solitary starving one, 
who, be it remembered, wishes to live, and cannot live 
without the food. Inevitably, says Mr. Mallock, the choice 
falls on the mutton, and, therefore, the theory that the 
will is determined by the most desirable objects present 
rests on facts. We are not so sure on this point as 

1 Space difficulties have led to a change in the original plan. We have 
been obliged to interweave text and criticism in the present article. It 
is to be hoped that the page references to Mr. Mallock's work will be an 
acceptable substitute for an independent summary of his views. 


Mr. Mallock, because we do not know the precise value of 
blubber in a struggle for existence ; and, further, because 
we do not know the ascetic capabilities of the individual 
in question. If rotten blubber and bilge water have no 
sustaining power, and if the starving one knows that, we 
admit the inevitability of his mutton choice for the precise 
reason that he wishes to live. In such a hypothesis, the 
only conclusion warranted by the facts is that already 
pointed out, for the second illustration adds nothing to the 
first. If, however, the solitary starving one is gifted with 
a stomach of Laplandic fibre, and if he believes that his 
wish of saving his life can be fulfilled by stuffing himself 
with blubber, we deny the inevitability of the mutton choice. 
In this case, we hold that the starving one may deliberately 
reject the roast mutton. A fool, then, rejoins Mr. Mallock. 
In certain circumstances yes, and we hold that men are 
capable of foolish, very foolish actions. A fool if his only 
outlook on life is that of the epicure, or if his only reason 
for choosing blubber be mere caprice. Not so very cer- 
tainly a fool, if he is accustomed to think of mutton and 
blubber from other standpoints than that of their epicurean 
desirability, or than that of their more pleasurable sensual 
sensations. A Benedict Joseph Labre, in such circum- 
stances as those of the solitary, starving one, might wish 
to live, and yet most rationally choose the blubber in the 
hypothesis that blubber would give him strength enough 
to row or signal. 

We have studied Mr. Mallock's illustration thus closely 
to show that it proves nothing in favour of determinism, 
except in so far as it seems to conceal a petitio principii. 
The first stage of the illustration, which proves that a man 
who wishes to live, and who has only one means of doing 
so, necessarily accepts that means, has nothing to say 
as we shall see to the free-will problem. As for the second 
stage, if Mr. Mallock means it to have any significance 
beyond that of the first, he must needs admit the staying 
power of blubber as well as abnormal digestive powers. 
If admitting these, he rejects our hypothesis of the dif- 
ferent modes of action which saint or fool might possibly 


follow in such circumstances, he slyly assumes without a 
particle of proof the most narrow-minded form of deter- 
minism, namely, that the will is necessarily determined 
by the most pleasurable present good. Should he give us 
more rope, and admitting the possibility of the different 
actions of fool or saint, maintain that both fool and saint, 
because influenced by motives, are therefore necessarily 
determined, the one to the act of caprice, the other to the 
act of self-denial, again he is assuming without proof the 
more modern form of determinism. 

Free-will and this is capital does not imply choice 
without motive. ' Nil eligitur nisi sub specie boni,' wrote 
St. Thomas. Free-will implies choice of motives, but of 
motives that are not determining. The point at issue is : 
' Is my voluntary act at every moment determined 
(i) by my character (a) partly inherited, (6) partly formed 
by past actions and feelings ; and (2) by my circumstances 
or the external influences acting on me at the moment ? 
or not ? ' Determinists answer Yes ; libertarians answer 
No. Mr. Mallock's illustrations certainly furnish no 
proof, except a skilfully cloaked petitio principal, and his 
conclusion from these illustrations that ' the bondage of 
our wills in every act of willing to the sole desire, or to the 
strongest desire of the moment, is absolute, necessary, 
invariable ' is in its deterministic interpretation the one 
clearly meant by Mr. Mallock wholly unproven. We are 
conscious that we have not yet furnished any proofs of 
free-will, and we merely characterise his conclusions as 

Let us see if he advances further on his way when he 
asks whether men can determine their desires. From 
Mr. Mallock's description of desire (pages 101,102) we gather 
that he intends by desire to indicate either a blind organic 
craving such as the desire for food, or the feeling of attrac- 
tion towards an agreeable object. And Mr. Mallock's 
language implies that libertarians must uphold that man 
has the power of imposing desires in the sense denned 
on himself. Otherwise, he argues, man is the puppet 
of his desires, not the master. This is a complete mis- 


representation of the libertarian position. The doctrine 
of free-will does not need to suppose man the creator of 
such desires, it does suppose that man can resist or permit 
the spontaneous movement of the appetite towards the 
desired object. That is to say, libertarians admit as fully 
as Mr. Mallock, that certain desires for instance, the 
organic craving for food, the animal attractions of sensuality, 
the higher attraction for knowledge are imposed on man 
by his nature, his circumstances, his general character, 
and by the qualities of the desired objects. They main- 
tain, however, that man can control this attraction in the 
sense that he can reject or assent to the spontaneous 
movement. Mr. Mallock, therefore, in proving that desire 
depends on factors over which we have no control proves 
nothing to his purpose, unless once more he assumes, with- 
out furnishing proof, that we are incapable of resisting 
these desires. If we are capable of resisting them, we are 
not the puppet of our desires, however these desires ma}' 
have been created. Whether we have this capacity or 
not, is the point to be proved, the point which Mr. Mallock 
has not even touched. Further, no apologist maintains 
that variety of desires is a necessary indication of freedom 
(page 103). And the statement that most apologists 
reduce the operation of free-will to those peculiar cases 
where dutiful desire is opposed to unlawful desire is mis- 
leading. Apologists hold that the most evident proofs of 
free-will are to be drawn from the mental phenomena 
observed in such moral crises, and hold, too, that a very 
large part of man's daily action is indeliberate ; but they 
hold that man possesses permanently the power of free 
choice, and may exert it when he pleases. 

At this juncture, Mr. Mallock really begins his criticism 
of the libertarian position, by singling out Dr. Ward. We 
shall cite the particular proof to which Mr. Mallock draws 
attention, and then review his criticism. Dr. Ward's 
proof runs thus : 

I am a keen sportsman, and one cloudy morning am 
looking forward with lively hope to my day's hunting. My 
post, however, comes in early ; and I receive a letter just as 


I have donned my red coat and am sitting down to breakfast. 
This letter announces that I must set off that very morning 
to London, if I am to be present at some occasion on which 
my presence will be vitally important. [Now continues Mr. 
Ward] there is one course of action which the determinist does 
not and consistently with his theory cannot admit to be a 
possible one ; but in regard to which we confidently maintain by 
appeal to experience, that it is abundantly possible, and by no 
means infrequent. It is most possible, we say, that I put forth on 
this occasion anti -impulsive effort ; that I act resolutely and 
consistently in opposition to my spontaneous impulse, in 
opposition to that which at the moment is my strongest desire. 
Thus on his side the spontaneous impulse of my will is quite 
decidedly in favour of staying to hunt ; or in other words, the 
motive which prompts me to stay is quite decidedly stronger 
at the moment than that which prompts me to go. On the 
other hand, my reason recognizes clearly how very important 
is the public interest at issue, and how plainly duty calls me 
in the direction of London. I resolutely, therefore, enter 
my carriage, and order it to the station. And now let us con- 
sider what takes place while I am on my four miles' transit. 
During the greater part, perhaps during the whole of this transit, 
there proceeds what we have called in our essays ' a compound 
phenomenon,' or in other words, there co-exist in my mind 
two naturally distinct phenomena. First phenomenon : My 
spontaneous impulse is strongly in the opposite direction. I 
remember that even now it is by no means too late to be 
present at the meet, and I am most urgently solicited by in- 
clination to order my coachman home again. So urgent, 
indeed, is this solicitation, so much stronger is the motive 
which prompts me to return than that which prompts me to 
continue my course, that unless I put forth unintermitting 
and energetic resistance to that motive, I should quite infallibly 
give the coachman such an order. Here is the first phenomenon 
to which we call attention my will's spontaneous impulse 
towards returning. A second, no less distinctly pronounced 
and strongly marked phenomenon is that unintermitting 
energetic resistance to the former motive of which we have 
been speaking. On the one side is that phenomenon, which 
may be called my will's spontaneous, direct, unforced impulse 
and preponderating desire ; on the other side that which may 
be called my firm, sustained active, antagonistic resolve. We 
allege as a fact obvious and undeniable on the very surface, 
that the phenomenon which we have called ' spontaneous 
impulse ' is as different in kind from that other which we have 
called ' anti -impulsive resolve ' as the desire of wealth is 
different in kind from the recognition of a mathematical axiom. 
On the one side is that impulse which results according to the 


laws of my mental condition, from my nature and the external 
circumstances taken in mutual connexion. On the other side 
is the resistance to such impulse, which I elicit by vigorous 
personal action. 

This statement of the case, declares Mr. Mallock (page 
109), comes to nothing. If our power of resolve is free, 
that means that we can, irrespective of circumstances, 
equally exercise it or leave it in abeyance. If we never 
exercised it, our spontaneous or necessarily determined 
impulses would direct life's conduct in ways which would 
be perfectly reasonable, and which would not be distinguish- 
able on the surface from what they would be if resolve 
operated. This, says Mr. Mallock, Dr. Ward grants, and 
then Mr. Mallock asks : Would any rational being, without 
any determining motive, incur the pain of resolve to set 
aside such spontaneous impulses ? 

Evidently Mr. Mallock's point is that resolve without 
determining motive, is impossible. Now, Dr. Ward does 
not admit that absolute submission to our spontaneous 
impulses induces as rational, as noble, a life as earnest 
efforts of resolve. On the contrary, he insists that devout 
theists and he eulogizes frequently devout theists in his 
articles on free-will are only devout theists because they 
unceasingly elicit acts of resolve. 1 And, again, Dr. Ward 
expressly states that resolve as opposed to simultaneous 
impulse may have one of two motives : ' (i) my resolve 
of doing what is right ; (2) my desire of promoting my 
permanent happiness in the next world, or even in this.' 
Dr. Ward, therefore, postulates motives for the act of re- 
solve but denies that they are determining. Mr. Mallock 
once more introduces ' determining motives,' and we shall 
soon see why. 

I am aware, replies Mr. Mallock, that you pretend you 
have a motive for resolve, but your very criticism for the 
existence of that phenomenon styled ' resolve ' proves that 
it is the same phenomenon as that desire you style spon- 
taneous impulse. The sense of struggle tells you of the 
* resolve,' but does not every spontaneous impulse imply 

1 Vol. i., pp. 252, 293 ; vol. ii., pp. 44, 323, etc. 



a similar sense of struggle ? ' Dr. Ward and his friends 
imagine that there is a difference between them (i.e., between 
spontaneous desire and resolve) only because whilst they 
have carefully analysed the one, they have instinctively 
refrained from any similar analysis of the other ' (page in). 

Again, admitting that resolve implies only the intensi- 
fication of an existing desire, whence comes the desire of 
intensifying the existing desire ? With no circumstances 
to produce it, how can it possibly be produced ? For 
instance, is not the pretended resolve of the hunting-man 
as dependent on his circumstances as his spontaneous 
resolve. Dr. Ward tells us that he resists his desire to 
hunt, because * his reason recognizes how very important 
is the public issue at stake.' But is not this act of reason 
part of the circumstances of the moment ? ' It is only 
because Dr. Ward arbitrarily neglects this fact that the 
opposition between the impulse, which is the necessary 
resultant of circumstances, and resolve, which he alleges 
to be independent of them, is invested with even a sem- 
blance of reality ' (page 115). 

To put this truth in a stronger light, Mr. Mallock con- 
siders the struggles of St. Antony in the desert, and here, 
too, there must come a moment when the love of Christ 
carries each struggling resolve to its completion, and 
therefore, a moment when St. Antony is no longer free. 
' Determinism has caught us up once more ' (page 118). 

What is to be thought of this criticism ? Does Mr. 
Mallock prove that Dr. Ward's distinction between spon- 
taneous desire and resolve is a fiction, and that resolve 
implies determining motive ? We think not. 

Dr. Ward does not admit that the sense of pain is the 
criterium of the presence of ' resolve,' and he would cer- 
tainly admit that, if I ' resolve ' to go to business despite 
my desire to hunt, the act of reason on which my resolve is 
contingent is as much part of my circumstances at the 
moment as the desire to hunt. Where, then, does 
Dr. Ward find a basis for his distinction ? 

We found [he writes] our whole argument on what we consider 
to be an unmistakable fact of immediate experience. That 


fact is, that very frequently my will's spontaneous impulse 
is in one direction at the very moment when my conduct is in a 
different often the very contrary direction. 

And, again : 

We allege as a fact obvious and undeniable on the very 
surface, that the phenomenon which we have called ' spontaneous 
impulse' is as different in kind from that which we have called 
' anti-impulsive resolve ' as the desire of wealth is different in 
kind from that of the recognition of a mathematical axiom. 
On the one side is that impulse which results according to the 
laws of my mental constitution from my nature, and the 
external circumstances taken in mutual connexion. On the 
other side, is the resistance to such impulse, which I elicit by 
vigorous personal action. 1 

Stripped of technicalities, this means that during acts 
of choice or decision or deliberation, every man is con- 
scious, unmistakably and incontrovertibly conscious, that 
he can elicit one of many alternative acts. At such times, 
a man feels that he can resist freely all that his former 
character and any accumulating present motives can 
achieve. If his act of resistance involves energetic effort 
as that of the politician in question, the fact of freedom 
is all the more evidenced. During that drive to the station, 
our politician's mind was busily engaged weighing the 
pros and cons ; at any moment he could freely have 
accepted the pro or the con ; he has accepted one alter- 
native, but he is overwhelmingly convinced that he can 
at any moment just as freely accept the other. Motives 
attract him to one course as to the other, but the assertion 
that the knowledge of the importance of the public business 
makes the fact of leaving the hunting field the pleasantest 
course, or necessarily constitutes a motive of such force 
as to draw our politician inevitably and inexorably to 
London is extravagantly untrue in the light of every man's 
personal experience. No amount of theorising or of balanc- 
ing of profit and loss motives can touch these, the funda- 
mental facts of consciousness. The great question is : 
Does introspection tell us that we are determined or neces- 
sitated by motives ? The libertarian answers, No. He 

l Philosophy of Theism, vol. ii., p. 52. 


admits that consciousness testifies that we are influenced 
by motives, but he denies that we are inexorably deter- 
mined thereby. That is his reading of the facts of his own 
internal life, and, therefore, he concludes that he himself 
is free. Are the rest of men free ? Yes, if their conscious- 
ness reveals the fact. Judging, then, from the facts of 
his own mental life, Dr. Ward put within the brain of the 
politician that ' compound phenomenon ' which he himself 
personally experienced in every act of choice, and he ap- 
pealed to the personal experience of his readers as to the 
possibility and actuality of such a case. Mr. Mallock 
seemed to have been partisan to the operation, but his 
subsequent deductions from the ' compound phenomenon ' 
prove his partisanship to have been only apparent. 

Mr. Mallock's identification of spontaneous desire and 
resolve on the ground that both imply determining motives 
demands special attention. This attempt to show that 
Dr. Ward contradicts himself must have arisen from for- 
getfulness of Dr. Ward's definitions. Dr. Ward distinctly 
describes spontaneous desire as the outcome of determining 
motives, and as distinctly ' resolve ' as the outcome of 
motives that are not determining. In spontaneous desire, 
writes Dr. Ward, the will is entirely passive, in resolve it 
is active. Dr. Ward's employment of technical terms may 
possibly lead to confusion of thought, but it does not imply 
contradiction in doctrine when fairly interpreted. Spon- 
taneous desire includes all the circumstances of the moment, 
and, proceeds Mr. Mallock, is not the act of reason on which 
resolve is based one of the circumstances of the moment ? 
Yes, but from every page of Dr. Ward's Essays it is lum- 
inously evident that this act of reason is essentially excluded 
from those ' circumstances of the moment ' which lead up 
to mere spontaneous desire, for these latter are determining, 
and it is writ large that this motive act of reason, basis of 
resolve, is non-determining. We think Dr. Ward's language 
unfortunate. His thought is clear, and Mr. Mallock has 
succeeded in making it seem self-contradictory only by 
completely changing it. 

Again, Mr. Mallock seeks to prove that spontaneous 


desire and resolve are really one and the same phenomenon, 
on the grounds of Dr. Ward's statement that resolve de- 
pends on an act of reason suggesting a motive. Evidently, 
there is no proof unless Mr. Mallock assumes that every 
motive, and therefore this particular motive, must be 
determining which is the whole point at issue. And, 
turning to that illustration which Mr. Mallock introduced 
to put the oneness of ' spontaneous desire ' and ' resolve ' 
in a stronger light, we find that St. Antony's * resolve ' is 
determined by circumstances, and is no longer free. Mr. 
Mallock, therefore, offers no proof of this, the basis of 
psychological determinism, beyond his own analysis of the 
act of choice, wherein he always assumes that motive is 
determining and irresistible. If this assumption implies 
that the motive which has been de facto accepted by the 
will was in every case incapable of being refused by the 
will, we reply that the assumption contradicts the ex- 
perience of men generally, as revealed in their accounts 
of their act of choice, and contradicts personal experience. 
Dr. Ward's analysis of the mentality of the politician, if 
true to life, proves determinism to be false. And the appeal 
as to the truth and actuality of such mental phenomena 
must ever be referred to each one's consciousness. That 
is the supreme tribunal. 

A brief consideration of the struggle of St. Antony 
endorses this conclusion. Men are continually experiencing 
such trials. The devil does not always come in visible form, 
but his suggestions are ever the same, ever an appeal to 
the lower part of our nature. What is the actual mental 
condition of the earnest Christian at such crises ? Is it 
true that he cannot entertain the impure thought ? No ; 
at every moment of the struggle he feels that he can only 
too easily yield to the temptation. A moment's pause, a 
moment's cessation of effort, and his soul is black as hell ? 
On the other hand, is the earnest Christian so inevitably 
and necessarily drawn to the side of virtue, that he cannot 
accept the impure thought, that he must needs reject it"? 
St. Antony loved Christ dearly, but if his nature was human 
nature, the assertion that during those painful struggles 


with violent and protracted temptations, his love for 
Christ made consent even to the foulest of impure actions 
an absolute impossibility, is in the light of all human ex- 
perience utterly false. Search out that soul on which God 
has poured His choicest graces, and tell it that its love 
for God makes sin an impossibility, that heaven is secure 
and the devil powerless, and you will hear the old answer 
with a new meaning Homo sum et nil humanum alienunt 

The same fallacy of ' every motive a determining 
motive ' runs through Mr. Mallock's references (page 119) 
to Christ's words, to the conversion of Paul and Augustine, 
and to the language of Christians in describing their own 
moral crises. Free-will does not exclude motives : it 
excludes only such motives as are determining, and its 
adherents appeal to the consciousness of each one in proof 
of their doctrine. That circumstances and character and 
motive influence our will is admitted on all hands : that 
they do not inexorably constrain men's wills on every 
occasion is the libertarian thesis. That men generally do 
not believe their fellow-man's deliberate action to be the 
inevitable outcome of his circumstances is proved by their 
allotment of praise and blame. ' The whole feeling of 
reality, the whole sting and excitement of our voluntary life, 
depends on our sense that in it things are really being 
decided from one moment to another, and that it is not 
the dull rattling of a chain that was forged innumerable 
years ago.' Yet these acts are never described as inde- 
pendent of circumstances and of motive, for the reason 
that they are not thus independent. To rush off to the 
conclusion that they are in all cases inevitably determined 
by circumstances, or by motives, is to make an inference 
not warranted by the data, and an assumption which 
contradicts all human experience. 

Mr. Mallock next seeks to explain how libertarians 
have succeeded in maintaining their thesis in spite of the 
fact that free-will is unthinkable (page 122). First of all, 
they have changed the proposition into its half-brother 
a truism, namely, ' That when not physically coerced we 


are free to act as we will, and that, at any given moment, 
out of two opposite courses we are free, if we will, to take 
one or the other.' How Mr. Mallock comes to regard this 
proposition as a truism, is made abundantly clear thus : 
' This simply amounts to saying that if I am thirsty and 
will to drink I am free to drink ; or, if I am hungry, and will 
to eat, I am equally free to eat.' But, adds Mr. Mallock, 
the real proposition to be defended by the libertarian is : 
That whether I am hungry or thirsty is a question I 
decide for myself that if, at a given moment, I am longing 
for a glass of water, I am able to make myself long for a 
dry biscuit instead.' This is simply not true. No liber- 
tarian supposes that such desires, as Mr. Mallock mentions, 
are free. The question is, can we reject or consent to those 
desires. What the libertarian denies is, that our acts of 
will are on every occasion necessitated by our desires. 

No libertarian puts forward as a proof of free-will the 
truism that the will is the cause of a man's doing whatever 
he ultimately does do. And no libertarian contests Mr. 
Mallock's sagacious analyses of the causes that give rise 
to the organic cravings of hunger and thirst. All that is 
wholly beside the point. Free-will has its basis in the will, 
and not in the stomach. Expressed in terms of stomach, 
the free-will thesis runs : Given the keenest of keen 
appetities in the healthiest of healthy men, and given the 
most savoury of savoury dishes, and all the other re- 
quisites for a hearty meal, except the act of willing to eat, 
does that act of willing to eat necessarily, inevitably, 
inexorably arise ? The libertarian boldly says, No ; and 
he appeals to the personal experience of each one in proof 
of all that is contained in that ' No,' namely, that in cases 
of deliberate choice, the mind is not wholly determined by 
phenomenal antecedents and external conditions, but that 
it itself, as active subject of these objective experiences, 
plays the part of determining cause. So far then as 
psychology carries us, the last word is not determinism ; 
and now we pass on to the physical sciences, triumphantly 
styled by Mr. Mallock the second Sinai of determinism. 
Mr. Mallock begins by declaring that physical science, by 


a wholly different route, reaches the same conclusion that 
physiology had reached before it the absolute necessity 
of our volitions. 

The doctrine of free-will, according to Mr. Mallock (page 
127), is a doctrine that energy can be annihilated and that 
new energy can be created, and, therefore, is in absolute 
and direct contradiction to the law of the conservation of 
energy. That we may grasp the utter falsity of this state- 
ment, it will be useful, first, to determine exactly what the 
law of the conservation of energy means, what are its 
claims on our acceptance, and secondly, how the doctrine 
of free-will fits in with this law. 

Here is the scientific expression of the law of the con- 
servation of energy : The sum of the kinetic and potential 
energies of any isolated system of bodies remains constant. 
Science claims no revelation for this law. Since 1842, 
scientists have verified it by accurate and painstaking obser- 
vation of innumerable isolated systems, and the demonstra- 
tions have been the more rigorous according as the 
experiences have been the more carefully conducted. Still, 
these observations have not proved with mathematical 
exactitude the law, and if anyone chooses to affirm that 
slight variations are possible, he cannot be refuted in the 
actual conditions of scientific research. Further, these 
experiments have all been conducted on the principle 
that every form of energy, whatever be its specific quality, 
possesses a determined mechanical equivalent. The law 
refers, therefore, to the Constance of the quantity of 
energy : it leaves untouched the question of qualitative 
variation. But scientists have enlarged their conclusions. 
Since, they argue, in all the cases observed, facts tend to 
confirm the principle of the conservation of energy, we may 
extend this principle to the whole cosmological system and 
declare : ' The sum total of energy in the universe always 
remains the same.' We do not contest the right of science 
to this generalization ; we wish to insist, however, that 
while facts tend to justify such generalization, no demon- 
stration of the truth of the principle as applied to the 
universe has been furnished. In its primary form, the 


principle leans on authenticated experiences, more or less 
exact : in its more sweeping form and only in this form 
can it be presented as a difficulty for the libertarian it 
leans on the probability of a host of convincing facts. 

What attitude shall the libertarian take up in face of 
this scientific principle ? Suppose that he found himself 
constrained to admit that the doctrine of free-will abso- 
lutely contradicts the principle of the conservation of 
energy, should he forthwith capitulate ? Evidently not, 
his liberty is a fact of direct and internal observation, and 
no theory, however ingenious, can rob him of the certainty 
that he is free. De facto, the principle of the conservation 
of energy, taken in its more sweeping form, is only a theory, 
though a very probable theory, and if logic commanded a 
sacrifice, this theory must cede to the certainty and the 
certitude of free-will. However, libertarians deny any 
such contradiction or conflict, and Mr. Mallock has cited two 
of many replies. We think that other solutions, more con- 
vincing, are forthcoming, but as our concern is with Mr. 
Mallock, we shall content ourselves in setting forth the full 
value of these two replies. 1 

Some apologists point out that vital phenomena differ 
from the phenomena of inorganic matter merely in this, 
that vital phenomena exhibit energy which, drawn from the 
common stock, is guided not increased or diminished 
by an influence absent elsewhere. Accordingly, we may 
conceive of free-will as a force which acts at right angles 
on the normally moving molecules of the brain, and so 
deflects them into non-natural courses without any viola- 
tion of the law of the conservation of energy, it being a 
principle of physical science that a force acting at right 
angles can produce deflection without expenditure of energy. 

Others hold that the operation of free-will, inextricably 
connected as it is with the movements of matter, cannot 
fail to involve a violation both of the laws of the conser- 

1 Among the most Remarkable solutions are : CouaUliac, La I.iberti 

; Mercier 
IB, 1884 


vation of energy and of the conservation of momentum. 
Science, however, can do nothing to exhibit these laws as 
absolute in the wider sense that they are valid in respect 
of the universe considered in its incalculable totality, and 
it is clearly scientifically demonstrable that the total 
energy of the universe might suffer minute subtractions or 
receive minute additions, without affecting the practical 
accuracy of the doctrine of the conservation of energy. 

It is evident from what we have said that even the risky 
solution which postulates slight variations of constancy is 
in our present state of scientific knowledge tenable. The 
second solution, based on scientific data, proves that to 
reject free-will on the grounds of conflict with the principle 
of the conservation of energy is wholly arbitrary. Since 
scientific data admit the possibility of reconciling the most 
rigorous constancy of energy with the most absolute liberty, 
what right has any scientist to maintain that the doctrine of 
free-will is inadmissible for him, that it implies creation and 
annihilation of energy ? 

Mr. Mallock next proceeds (page 132, etc.) to furnish 
facts which prove, in his opinion, that the brain dictates to 
the will, besides occasionally refusing to serve it, from which 
he concludes that brain and will are all one mechanism. We 
accept these facts fearlessly, we reject Mr. Mallock's con- 
clusion. Employing the illustration of Handel at the organ, 
Mr. Mallock tells us facts show that ' our organ, the brain, 
is not only capable of refusing to play the tunes which the 
will or mind would impose on it, but it is capable also in 
reference to purely physical stimuli of grinding out tunes, 
totally different, of its own.' If this means anything, it 
means that the material organ, the brain, is capable of 
' thought, emotion, purpose, will.' Now, the brain is but 
a mass of matter, so many countless atoms of hydrogen, 
oxygen, nitrogen, etc., combined in certain proportions, and 
we have proved at an early stage of our examination of Mrj 
Mallock's views, the absurdity of assuming for proof is 
never given that matter can be the source of intellectual 
activity. Yet it is this assumption that monists make 
everywhere, and that Mr. Mallock employs here to give a 



semblance of basis to his discussion of the determinism of 
matter. Reverting to Mr. Mallock's illustration, wherever 
the jigs and waltzes come from, proved they are jigs and 
waltzes, and differ only in degree from Handel's ' Israel in 
Egypt ' differ only as honest thought differs from dis- 
honest thought, and chaste thought from unchaste thought 
they cannot come from a mass of mere matter. The 
indubitable facts of self-consciousness and free-will as 
we have seen postulate a spiritual faculty, a spiritual 

Mr. Mallock's facts (pages 137-141) prove that in the 
cases cited, integrity of character, strength of memory, fear, 
courage, the sense of sin, honesty, chastity, were interfered 
with by certain changes in the brain-substance. Such 
cases prove indisputably the close union of soul and body. 
That, however, they prove that each modification of the 
mind is inexorably conditioned and determined by certain 
molecular changes in the substance of the organism is false. 
The doctrine that intellectual cognition and free volition 
involves self-action on the part of the mind, but that such 
self-action is conditioned by the impressions in the inferior 
recipient faculties, explains every fact that can be fur- 
nished by Mr. Mallock or anyone else, and at the same time 
agrees with the unmistakable testimony of each man's con- 
sciousness that he possesses a self-determining faculty, a 
will that is free. 

Changes of conduct owing to brain accidents point to the 
conclusion that the removal of, or the tampering with, 
cerebral matter influences the moral life, provided that the 
other conditions remained the same. Mr. Mallock has said 
nothing on this latter important point, but we may concede 
it and pursue our argument. Influence, we admit ; such 
influence as Mr. Mallock postulates, the influence of inex- 
orable necessity, excludirrgi^n free-will, we refuse to admit 
without proof. And where is the proof ? Post hoc, propter 
hoc a fallacy. Mark, we do not deny the possibility of 
such an arrangement of cerebral matter and of the other 
sensuous faculties as can destroy responsibility. The in- 
sane, the sleeping, the drunken, are evident proofs to the 


contrary. But we deny Mr. Mallock the right to conclude 
from an accident plus change of conduct straight off to 
determinism. Phineas Gage or the elderly Roman lady 
may have been perfectly free post factum to resist such in- 
fluences as their respective fates induced that is, Mr. Mal- 
lock has given no proof to the contrary. Should, however, 
the accident have resulted in such a change of material 
organization as to cause loss of liberty, this fact does not in 
the least invalidate our free-will thesis, no more than the 
undoubted existence of idiots invalidates the thesis of the 
existence of many people who are not idiots. 

To speak of the brain as investing human acts with a 
new moral quality is but a result of Mr. Mallock's previous 
confusion of thought. If the new influences are determin- 
ing, there is an end to responsibility, an end to morality of 
action. If the new influences are merely influences, 
however strong, and not determinants, the acts performed 
preserve their moral quality, because they originate 
in a will that is free. In this latter hypothesis, Handel 
has given us jigs and waltzes, when the audience, 
and rightly, asked for ' Israel in Egypt,' and Handel is to 
blame for the consequences. 

Mr. Mallock passes on to the problem of heredity. He 
ushers it in by some rhetorical periods on the origin of 
ideas, which do not concern us, for they contain no proof 
of anything (page 143). 

Idiosyncrasies of character are dependent primarily on 
heredity this is Mr. Mallock's thesis, and his proof is the 
recurrence through all the ages of the vagaries of amative 
desire. Numerous well-strung periods are subjoined. Can 
the Ethiopian change his skin ? Where does this child get 
his taste for music or sport ? That child his good or bad 
temper ? We interject the further question : Where is the 
proof of determinism in all this ? That generation after gene- 
ration experiences the vagaries of amative desire, that Ethi- 
opians are ever born black, that Patrick has inherited traits 
different from those of Michael, and Bridget tastes different 
from either these are everyday facts of experience, which 
all who believe in free-will accept. It is a far cry from that 


to determinism. No libertarian maintains that one man's 
free-will encounters the very same obstacles as another's. 
If I have inherited a bad temper, patience is therefore more 
difficult for me. But that such inherited dispositions for 
good or evil destroy the individual's liberty in every case- 
that is just the point for Mr. Mallock to prove, just the point 
he conveniently assumes, and just the point which men 
at all times and in all places have denied. Mankind has 
ever asserted its possession of free-will, has ever based its 
assertion on the unmistakable affirmations of consciousness. 
Determinism gathers together a number of facts which mark 
the influence of matter over mind, and then quietly assumes 
the further point, namely, that this influence is determining 
and inevitable in every case. Mr. Mallock has merely re- 
produced in eloquent language this petitio principii. 

He has consequently failed to supply the links of that 
chain by which determinism would bind man to the 
mechanism of the universe. Man is not a mere machine, 
his soul is not a fleeting phenomenon, appearing and 
disappearing with the body, and leaving nothing behind. 
He is immortal, he is free a being, which, if there be a 
God, has everything to hope from His love, and every- 
thing to^fear from His displeasure. 1 


1 While we hope we have vindicated against Mr. Mallock's attack 
the argument from consciousness, we would remind our readers that 
such vindication is not the last word in the free-will controversy. The 
fundamental point remains of how man, in accepting, as he usually does, 
the greatest motive at least subjectively considered is not thereto 
determined. Some think that Mr. Mallock raises the point. We doubt 
it, and even if he had raised the issue, we should have hesitated to dis- 
cuss it. It is a vital issue, and demands more fearless and more capable 
handling than the present writer could give it. And though it is an 
issue that must be frankly faced in view of the attacks of modern deter- 
minists, it is rarely treated by scholastic writers. This ' missing link ' 
is but one of the many lacunae in scholastic manuals that make earnest 
students of modern problems impatient with those who think that 
Aristotle and St. Thomas have settled centuries ago all the great questions. 

[ 421 ] 



IN the January number of the I. E. RECORD I endeavoured 
to show that while Pope Pius X had ordered the 
return to the melodies of the Church in their original 
purity, the Vatican Kyriale had, in a large number of cases, 
departed from the original version in spite of perfectly clear 
documentary evidence. Considering the haste in which I 
had to prepare this article, I should not have been sur- 
prised if it had been proved that in a few details I had 
made mistakes. As a matter of fact, however, nobody 
yet has publicly proved any error in the many statements 
I made. The attempts of Father Burge, in the April 
number of the I. E. RECORD, to prove some mistakes, are 
quite ineffective, as we shall see later on. Privately a 
friend pointed out to me what might be considered as two 
slight inaccuracies. On page 50 of my article (page 9 of 
the reprint in pamphlet form), I said about the ' Paschal 
Kyrie ' : * All the MSS., except the German ones, have 

Kf- ri- e 

In reality, a large number of MSS., not only German, have 
the second note on the final syllable of Kyrie as c, not as 
b. I did not mention this, because I was primarily con- 
cerned about the figure on the first syllable of Kyrie, and 
about the Pressus c b b g at the end of the example, and 
did not want to overburden my article. 

Page 55 (14), I said : * The Gloria (of Mass VII.) is found 
only in some English MSS. They all write it in c, and have 
a flat at the cadence of Deus Pater omnipotens.' One 
English MS., however, the one published by the Plainsong 
and Mediaeval Music Society with the Sarum Gradual 



(page 12*), has no flat at this cadence. My reply is, first, 
that this MS. is too late (fifteenth century) to be of account, 
when we have good MSS. of the beginning of the twelfth 
century. Secondly, the MS. still writes the melody in c, 
thus leaving it possible to sing b b. At Spiritu a later hand 
put in a flat, which proves that the flat there was sung, 
even after the date of the MS. If this later hand did 
not put in the flat in the other case, the reason was 
possibly that it was not thought necessary, the full tone 
at the cadence being generally understood. Still I admit 
that my statement was not literally correct. 

Incidentally Father Burge calls my attention to another 
inaccuracy. Page 52 (11) I quoted the * Christe ' of the 
Kyrie Fons bonitatis from the Rassegna Gregoriana thus : 

K^-ri- e Chri-ste K^- ri- e 

In doing this I overlooked the fact that the version sup- 
plied for the Vatican edition, although not adopted by the 
editor, differed from this in one detail. It should be ob- 
served in this connexion that the Solesmes monks turned 
their special attention to the Kyriale only lately, and got 
a large number of MSS. for this portion of the Gradual 
only within the last year or so. Some very old MSS., 
then, prove that the original version of the Christe was thus 



We have, therefore, an additional case in which the Vatican 
edition differs from the original version. We shall see 
below how badly Father Burge blunders over this Christe. 
Before entering on Father Burge's critical remarks (if 
they deserve that name), I must dispose of a few points 
he mentions by way of introduction. In his first para- 
graph he points out, with an object, no doubt, that the 


inspiration of my article was sought at Appuldurcombe. 
I should like to know where else I might have sought my 
information. There is no other single place anyhow in 
the world where I could have found it. I dare say Dom 
Pothier and his friends would have preferred if I had stayed 
at home, and left my article unwritten. But if Father 
Burge means to insinuate his remarks, page 333, point 
that way that a suggestion to write my article came from 
Appuldurcombe, I must protest. I claim the full credit 
for initiative in this matter. In fact, when I first wrote 
to Appuldurcombe asking for some information on the 
subject, my request was met by a blank refusal, which, 
indeed, was coupled with a polite invitaticn to come and 
study the matter in their library for myself. 

In his second paragraph Father Burge scores a great 
victory over me. He points out that Mr. Bas is not a 
consultor of the Commission ! Perhaps he is not. I really 
do not know, and I have not gone to the trouble of finding 
it out. It does not make the slightest difference. I 
happen to know that he was secretary to the meeting of 
the Commission held at Appuldurcombe, in August, 1904. 
As to a violation of the Pontifical secret, Father Burge 
himself shows such an intimate acquaintance with the 
doings of the Commission that one might think he was 
a member or consultor himself. How can he know, for 
instance, that the major pars in many cases, and the 
sanior pars in every case, was in favour of Dom Pothier's 
version (page 325) ? Or that ' the Commission voted the 
suppression ' of a note (page 338) ? Again (page 340), he 
quotes certain readings as proposed by the ' archaeologists.* 
How could he know these, or, knowing them, publish 
them, without a ' violation of the Pontifical secret ' ? Father 
Burge, you are altogether too innocent for controversy ! 

Next, Father Burge finds fault with my statement that 
Dom Pothier was made ' the sole judge of the version of 
the new edition.' To justify myself I need only quote 
from Father Burge himself. He says (page 333) : ' Nothing 
then remained . . . but to give Dom Pothier . . . the supreme 
direction of the work.' 


We come now to Father Burge's main argument. He 
holds that my fundamental position is wrong. He tries 
to prove that the principle on which I proceed is unscientific, 
inartistic, and at variance with the terms of reference of 
the Commission. This principle of mine, according to 
Father Burge, is ' the reading of the majority and of the 
oldest MSS.' He says : ' I need not cite passages from 
the article, for I fancy the author will not object to this 
statement of his position.' The author, however, objects 
very much. He would be very sorry, if he had laid down 
such a foolish principle. Of course, when a certain reading 
has for itself all the oldest MSS. and, in addition, the 
majority of all the MSS., there can be little doubt about it. 
But it is just the cases where these two conditions are not 
realized simultaneously, that cause the difficulty. No ; if 
I were to formulate my principle, I should say, ' The 
melodies of the Church in their original purity.' If Father 
Burge considers this principle unscientific and inartistic, 
he should address his remarks to the Pope. For, if I am 
not mistaken, it was Pius X who originated the phrase. 

Father Burge next defines my position by a series of 
questions and answers. These are really too silly to call 
for any reply. 

Again, he describes the principle by quoting from an 
article of Dom Mocquereau's in the Rassegna Gregoriana 
(April, 1904). He sums up Dom Mocquereau's plan thus : 
Count the number of the oldest MSS. for each version, 
and the majority carry the day. But if the votes are 
equal, you may toss up for it. This, indeed, does not sound 
very scientific. But let us see what Dom Mocquereau 
really says. He distinguishes three classes of melodies. 
The first class is formed by those for which the MSS. are 
practically unanimous ; the stream of the tradition flows 
down through the centuries in perfect uniformity. Here 
there is no difficulty in fixing the proper version of a 
melody. In a second class we are at first confronted by 
a bewildering number of variants. But if we examine 
more closely into the matter, we find that these variants 
group themselves into a small number of divisions, cor- 


responding to a similar number of families of MSS. By 
comparing these families, one with the other, we are then 
enabled to see which was the original version, and again 
we can fix a version definitely. But there is a third class 
in which even this procedure does not settle the question. 
The first thing the Solesmes School does in such a case 
is to try to get more MS. material. They get more photo- 
graphs, and write round to their friends to look out for 
additional information. If even this does not bring clear- 
ness, a definite decision cannot be made for the present, 
and if some version must be adopted for practical pur- 
poses, a provisional selection has to be made. For this 
provisional selection, then, they follow these rules. If 
there is among the various versions a Roman one, they take 
that in preference to the others. If there is no Roman 
one, they select the one which seems the more beautiful. 
But if, even on the ground of beauty, there is nothing to 
choose between various versions, they ' toss up.' I should 
like to know what other procedure Father Burge could 
suggest. But I leave it to the reader to decide whether he 
quoted Dom Mocquereau fairly. 

But Father Burge has greater difficulties against the 
archaeological principle. He doubts whether it is possible 
at all to restore the original version, whether our codices 
really contain the true Gregorian Chant. How foolish, then, 
of the Pope to order a return to the original form of the 
melodies ! Why did he not first ask Father Burge whether 
such a return was possible ? My critic points out (page 
327) that a good two hundred years yawns between our 
oldest codices and St. Gregory. ' Are we sure that our 
MSS. faithfully represent the reform of St. Gregory ? * In 
the next paragraph, he says : ' But there is something more. 
Is it quite certain that the tradition of the Chant flowed 
with pure and undefiled stream from the days of St. Gregory 
to the ninth century ? ' I do not quite see what is the differ- 
ence between these two interrogations. But let that pass. 
I must, however, before I take up the argument, dispose of 
a statement made on page 328 about Dr. Wagner's Neumen. 
kunde. I have read this book with great care, but found 


nothing like what Father Burge makes it say. Perhaps he 
could explain away the ' bending its forms,' but about the 
ornamental neumes (hook neumes), which, according to 
Wagner, implied quarter-tones, the latter says (page 59) : 
* At all events the hook neumes were adopted in Rome, 
not later than at the fixing of the Roman Chant about 
600 ' ; and (page 60) : ' The supposition that the orna- 
mental neumes were added to the accent neumes as late at 
the eighth or ninth century is an impossibility from the 
point of view of historical development.' To be charitable 
to Father Burge I must suppose that his knowledge of 
German is only slight, and that he has misread Wagner. 

The answer to Father Burge's difficulty, then, is simply 
that what we aim at restoring is the chant of the MSS. 
We hold that there is one definite form of melody under- 
lying all the readings of the different codices, notwithstand- 
ing their being at variance in certain details. This under- 
lying melody, then, we want to get at. Whether this 
melody is the melody of St. Gregory, is another question. 
The weight of historical evidence is in favour of the assump- 
tion that it is. At present Gevaert is the only man of note 
who is holding out against this conclusion. But if the 
Chant of St. Gregory is not contained in our MSS., then 
it is irreparably lost, and it would be Utopian to try to 
restore it. What we concern ourselves with directly, there- 
fore, is the chant of the MSS. That is what Pius X ordered. 
He speaks of the chant ' which the Church jealously guarded 
in her liturgical codices,' and he is careful enough to desig- 
nate it as the chant ' which is called the Gregorian.' 

But, can this chant be restored in its smallest details ? 
I may anticipate here another difficulty which Father 
Burge raises later on (page 341). He says that ' for a long 
time the outlines of the melody were, so to speak, in a 
nebulous state, and it was impossible that under these 
circumstances errors and variations in small matters should 
not creep in.' This is a very serious point. If the old 
scribes were so deficient musically that they did not know 
whether to write a tone or a semitone, our position is very 
precarious. One might imagine, therefore, that Father 


Burge would devote some space towards proving his asser- 
tion. But no. All he has to say is that a certain melodic 
passage ' gives rise to a well-founded suspicion.' I might 
satisfy myself with pointing out that Father Burge has 
given no proof. To prove positively that he is wrong, is 
impossible for me here. It would require a critical appa- 
ratus altogether beyond my reach. But let me assure the 
reader that there is no foundation whatsoever for the sus- 
picion that the old scribes were not sufficiently equipped 
for their task. They sometimes had difficulties, no doubt. 
But these difficulties arose not from their incompetency, 
but from a conflict between the traditional melodies and 
the prevailing theories. The prevailing theory included 
two things, the tone system and the mode theory. The 
tone system accepted only the natural scale with b'p as the 
only chromatic tone. The mode theory stated four modes, 
those of d, e, /, and g, on one of which notes any melody 
should end. But when the first attempts were being made 
to write down the traditional melodies in diastematic nota- 
tion in some places these first attempts were made in the 
tenth, in others as late as in the fourteenth century it 
was found that they showed semitones in places where 
they could not be expressed, above d and below g. 

To overcome this difficulty various expedients were 
adopted. The simplest was transposition. By transposing 
a melody a fifth up, an e\> could be expressed by b\> ; by 
transposing a fourth up, an / $ could be expressed by b ft. 
Thus we find the Introit, Exaudi Domine, of the Sunday 
after the Ascension transposed from d to a, the Communions, 
Surrexit Dominus, of Easter Monday, and De fructu, of the 
Twelfth Sunday after Pentecost transposed from / to c 
to express the eb (Dom Pothier's Liber Gradualis has all 
these in their untransposed form, omitting the b). Also 
the Gloria of Mass VII., as I mentioned before, was written 
in c instead of /, in order to express the full tone under the 
final note. Similarly, the Communion Beatus servus of a 
'Confessor non Pontiff' was transposed from e to a to express 
an /$. By thus setting aside to a certain extent the mode 
theory, things were adjusted pretty easily. A greater 


difficulty, however, would arise, if a melody required 
both an e \> and a b ft. Here a transposition a fifth up would 
convert the b $ into an / $. It seems that such cases did 
confront the scribes, though it is only by indirect means 
that we can now reconstruct such melodies. An inter- 
esting case is the Alleluia verse of the fourth Sunday of 
Advent. Here the Alleluia is in e, but the verse is trans- 
posed a tone lower, to d. If the verse were written in e, 
it would require /$ and c$. Some MSS. transpose both 
Alleluia and verse to a. The /$ of the verse, then, is ex- 
pressed by bft, but the c# must be sacrificed. As here the 
different parts of a composite piece are altered in their 
relation to each other, so also sometimes individual phrases 
of a melody are transposed a tone up or down to preserve 
a characteristic interval. Thus the Sarum Gradual writes 
the opening of the Introit, Exaudi Domine, mentioned 
above, which, in the normal position of the first mode, 
would read d e b c /, as e f d g, giving the rest of the melody 
in its proper form. An instructive example is the Alleluia 
verse of the Seventh Sunday after Pentecost, as given in 
the Liber Gradualis and the Liber Usualis. The latter 
writes it in a, thus having both a tone and a semitone 
above the final. Transposed down to d, the melody would 
have e in the Alleluia, e\> in the middle of the verse, and 
e again in the repetition of the neuma at the end of the 
verse. The Liber Gradualis has it in d, but from the be- 
ginning of the verse transposes the melody a tone up, thus 
representing the scale 

d e\> f g a b\> cd 
by efgabcde 

On the third syllable of the final word, exsultationis, 
however, it returns to the normal position. But here, as 
in the Alleluia, it has both b % and b b. In the transposition 
of the Liber Usualis this b % would require an / $, and has, 
therefore, to be sacrificed. 

Such cases, though fairly numerous, form only a small 
portion of the whole body of the chant. We could con- 


dude, a priori, that if the large majority of the melodies 
had not been in accordance with the theory, the theory 
could not have stood. Apart from these special cases, 
then, there is not the slightest indication in the codices 
that the scribes were ' in a nebulous state ' as to how they 
should represent the melodies in diastematic notation. 
The opposite statement is a mere excuse for the unwilling- 
ness to accept the clear testimony of the documents. 

Another source of discrepancies in the MSS. are the 
changes which took place in the tradition of singing during 
the course of the Middle Ages. Father Burge quotes in 
this connexion a remark of Gevaert, who holds modern 
practice should show respect for the work of time. Gevaert 
makes this observation with reference to the Antiphon 
type Benedicta, which he holds belonged originally to the 
yth tone and, after various vicissitudes, became a 4th tone 
melody with a chromatic /$ expressed by transposition a 
fourth up, as I explained above. In a foot-note he refers 
to the "change of the dominant of the 3rd tone. In a more 
general way we might speak of the tendency to substitute 
the upper note of a semitone interval for the lower one. 
I mentioned in my article, page 51 (10), that I can under- 
stand the position of those who claim that such a substitu- 
tion should be preserved wherever it became universal, or 
almost universal. I think that this is a debatable question. 
Personally, I advocate in all cases the return to the original 
version. I am influenced, in the first instance, by the fact 
that in a great many cases the older version is decidedly 
more beautiful than the later one. I mentioned the case 
of the passage et omnes, ad quos pervenit in the Vidi aquam. 
Similarly the Christe of the Kyrie Fons bonitatis given above 
seems to me much finer in its older form with the b. As 
another example in the eighth mode I mention the follow- 
ing from the Introit of the First Sunday of Lent : 


et e- o exau- di- am e- um 



Mark how emphatically the accented syllable of cx- 
audiam stands out after the short recitation on b. This 
effect is much weakened in the later version : 


et e- go ex-au- di- am e- um 

Compare under the same aspect the following examples 
of the 3rd tone, taken from the Introits of the Tenth 
(5), Twenty-second (6), and Twentieth (7) Sundays after 
Pentecost : 


Cum cla- ma-rem ad Do- mi-num, exaudi- vit 



Do- mi-num, exaudi- vit 

i a 


Si in- iqui-ta-tes observa- ve- ris 


Si in- i-quita-tes observa- ve- ris 

, _ ~ 


Omni- a quae fe-cisti no- bis 




- - 


Omni- a quae fe-cisti no- bis 

In example (6) I would also call attention to the figure 
on the third syllable of iniquitates. The gradual rise of 
the melody to c on the accented syllable is marred in (6b) 
by the anticipation of the c on qui. Corruptions like this 
are frequent in the later versions. 

The psalmody, too, of the 3rd tone seems to me much 
more beautiful with b as reciting note, thus : 


than what we have at present, and I hope sincerely it will 
be reintroduced. 

As in the 8th and 3rd tones c was substituted for 6, 
so we find in the 4th tone / often substituted for e. As 
an example of the bad effect of this I quote the beginning 
of the f$ Ecce quomodo moritur of Holy Saturday : 






EC- ce quomo-do mo-ri-tur 

SB fi-2 


EC- ce quomo-do mo-ri-tur 

Similarly the change of the reciting note at de an- 
gustia et de judicio in the ~f is to the detriment of the 
melody. Again, in the Introit of Easter Sunday 



mi-ra- bi- lis fa- eta 



is decidedly superior to 





8 . 



bi- lis fa- eta 



But even if the superiority of the older version were 
not so evident at the first glance, I should advocate the 
return to it. It is always a precarious thing to interfere 
with a work of art, and the presumption is always that the 
best form of it is that in which it left the hands of the 
composer. Moreover, I hold that I have Papal authority 
on my side. For I cannot see why Pius X's direction about 
the ' original purity ' of the melodies should not apply in 
these cases also. 

I need scarcely point out that even if this view of mine 
were not adopted, it would not weaken the case I made 
out against the Kyriale in the least. For the instances 
which I singled out for consideration in my former article 
were such as Dom Pothier had either no support for in 
the MSS. at all, or only the support of a few that have no 
special importance. 

In his next paragraph (page 329) Father Burge charges 
the ' archaeologists ' with ignoring the fact that the Church 
recognizes as Plain Chant also compositions of a later date. 
Seeing that the Solesmes monks supplied the reading for a 
large number of melodies of comparatively recent origin in 
the Kyriale, this is a most surprising statement. As I do 
not want to charge Father Burge with wilful misrepre- 
sentation, I must assume that his mind is ' in a nebulous 

Then the work of the archaeologists is made little of, 
because it amounts merely to one note in three hundred 
having been corrected. Supposing this were so, why 
should even I note in 300 be wrong ? And is I in 
300 so very little ? There are about 1,800 letters on a 
page of the I. E. RECORD. If there were six printing 
mistakes on every page, would it not be said that the 


I. E. RECORD was very badly edited ? But is it only a 
case of i in 300 ? I have made a rough calculation of the 
notes in the Kyriale, and estimate them at about 15,000. 
One hundred and thirty mistakes in these would be at the 
rate of i in 116, corresponding to about fifteen printing 
mistakes on a page of the I. E. RECORD ! So much for 

Having, a moment before, branded the archaeologists 
for not recognizing compositions of later origin, Father 
Burge next blames them for applying the same method 
to these as to the earlier ones, the same method to the 
corrupt as to the incorrupt ! I have only one remark to 
make. If these later melodies are corrupt, why should 
they, even with some patching up, be embodied in the 
Vatican edition ? Would it not be better to consign them 
to the dust-bin ? 

There is just one other objection under the ' scientific ' 
aspect. It is that of instability. On page 328 we read : 
* It is still possible that some day the libraries of Europe 
may disclose a MS. of the seventh or eighth centuries, and 
then what would happen ? . . . And must the music of the 
Church be dependent upon every fresh discovery of archae- 
ology ? ' Why should the music of the Church not take 
advantage of the discoveries of archaeology ? Pius X appa- 
rently sees nothing objectionable in that. For in the final 
paragraph of his Motu Proprio, of 25th April, 1904, after 
expressing the hope that the Vatican edition will restore 
the traditional chant as far as the state of modern studies 
allows, he reserves significantly to himself and his suc- 
cessors the right of making changes. There is no danger 
of changes being made so frequently as to create practical 
difficulties. There is no fear or perhaps I should rather 
say, no hope of archaeology making startling discoveries 
very soon. The chances of a MS. of the seventh or eighth 
century being found are remote in the extreme, and if one 
were found, it is highly improbable that it would be 
different from the MSS. of the ninth century. No, if the 
Vaticana had really represented the results of modern 
studies, it might perhaps have lasted for fifty years. As it 



is, it will not outlive Dom Pothier's personal influence in 

We now come to the second main point, the artistic 
quality of the archaeological principle. Father Burge has 
not much to say here. He complains that Dom Mocquereau 
has not published what he has discovered about the Art 
of the Gregorian melodies. I suppose Dom Mocquereau 
knows best himself how to employ his time most usefully, 
and he will publish more about these matters when the 
proper time comes. But I might point out to Father Burge 
that a wealth of information about the Gregorian art of 
composition is contained in the third and fourth volumes of 
the Paleogmphie Musicale. Again, Father Burge com- 
plains that Dom Beyssac and myself did not apply any of 
these art canons in our criticisms of Gregorian melodies. 
This betrays an altogether wrong point of view. If there 
is question of restoring a work of art, that method is the 
most artistic which makes us re-constitute the work of 
art in its original beauty with the greatest amount of cer- 
tainty. In our case the historical documents are the safest 
guides for this purpose. Then, having restored the work 
of art, we can derive from it the laws of its beauty. These 
laws, therefore, are dependent on the work of art, not the 
reverse. Only in case of doubt, when the^documents fail 
us in a particular instance, we might apply the rules that 
have been found to govern similar cases. It is really sur- 
prising that anybody should advocate an aesthetic prin- 
ciple as the main guide in restoring Plain Chant, seeing the 
enormous havoc that has been wrought with the chant 
during the last three centuries by the application of amateur 

The third point Father Burge raises is that the method 
I advocate is against the terms of reference of the Com- 
mission. Considering that I made my stand on the Pope's 
Motu Proprio of 25th April, 1904, I was naturally curious 
to see how Father Burge would prove that my position 
was opposed to the terms laid down in that same 
document. I was disappointed, however. Father Burge's 
trick is an old one, and shows no ingenuity. It is^the 


trick of fathering upon your adversary some absurd state- 
ment, which makes any further discussion needless. Father 
Burge says that we ' admit no " legitimate tradition " 
beyond the ninth century.' I wonder was ever a man so 
foolish as to hold such an opinion. The Solesmes monks 
or the present writer certainly never did. And this is the 
only thing Father Burge has to advance for showing that 
our principle is at variance with the Pope's terms of 

Father Burge, then, gives an account of what happened 
with the Commission, which I cannot let pass unchallenged. 
He says that because the archaeologists could not see their 
way to accept the Papal instructions, it was necessary to 
give Dom Pothier the supreme direction of the work. Why, 
if the majority of the Commission were on Dom Pothier's 
side, as Father Burge maintains, should it have been neces- 
sary to supersede the Commission ? Could not the Com- 
mission by majority vote have decided the question ? 

Before finishing the first part of his reply, Father Burge 
puts another silly question : Is Plain Chant made for man 
or man made for the Chant ? He quotes Dom Mocquereau 
as saying that the Chant must be taken as it is, with its 
good and bad points. As a matter of fact, Dom Moc- 
quereau does not say that at all. But let that pass. My 
article is growing too long in my attempts to deal with all 
the side-issues my opponent raises. But a word about the 
Pope's desire to see the use of the Chant restored to the 
people. Does the Pope say anywhere that the Chant 
should be changed so as to make it easier for the people ? 
If we must have congregational singing at any cost, why 
not take up the Salvation Army hymns ? 

The second part of Father Burge' s article is occupied 
with two attempts. First, he tries to show some reasons 
for the changes made in the Vatican Kyriale ; secondly, 
he tries to prove that some of my statements as to mistakes 
in the Kyriale are erroneous. To the first I might simply 
reply that I never doubted that Dom Pothier had reasons 
for his changes. All the reformers, from Guido of Cherlieu 
down to the editors of the Reims-Cambrai and Cologne 


editions, had reasons for their changes. But it will be 
instructive to look at some of these reasons. First, how- 
ever, I have to point out a very grave omission Father 
Burge makes himself guilty of. On page 335, referring to 
my statement of Dom Pothier's predilection for the German 
tradition, he says : ' If the critic had been better informed, 
he would have discovered, with some surprise, that the so- 
called German readings of the Kyriale are met with in MSS. 
of very different origin.' And, again, on page 336 : ' The 
critic never tires of repeating that the different corrections 
are not found in any MSS. To this I can only reply that 
in not any single case has any correction been adopted 
which is not justified by one or more MSS.' Why, then, 
does he not mention these MSS. ? When I challenged him 
in the Catholic Times to quote those MSS., he got out of 
it by saying : ' Neither the Editor nor the readers . . . have 
any desire to see these notes bristling with quotations that 
can be of interest to the erudite alone.' Now he has filled 
twenty-two pages of the I. E. RECORD, and still there is 
not a single quotation of the alleged codices. Hie Rhodus, 
hie salta. You must quote your codices, Father Burge, or 
stand convicted. 

Of course, the reason why he does not quote them is 
plain : he does not know any. Neither does the member 
of the Commission, who prompted him, know any. This 
confident assertion that they exist, is a mere game of 
bluff. But it will not deceive any intelligent person. 

We read on page 336 : ' We can hardly expect the 
archaeologists to enter into the niceties of Gregorian art 
that are displayed,' etc. Niceties of Gregorian art, indeed ! 
And it took exactly thirteen hundred and one years since 
the death of St. Gregory, to evolve this nicety of the Gre- 
gorian art ! Imagine a literary critic finding the genius 
of Shakespeare in some change a twentieth- century editor 
introduced in one of Shakespeare's plays ! Why, that 
literary critic would be laughed out of existence. 

Referring to my statement that Dom Pothier's version 
of templo is not found in a single MS., my critic remarks : 
' I feel sure this is quite an oversight on the part of the 


critic, otherwise such an accusation might give rise to un- 
pleasant rejoinders.' I do not understand the second part 
of this sentence, but I can assure Father Burge that there 
was no oversight on my part. His quotation from Guido 
of Arezzo is quite irrelevant. Applied to the text in 
question Guide's remark means that the a, which is printed 
as a Liquescent, might be sung either as a Liquescent or 
with fuller production. But whichever way you sing it, 
it remains an interpolated note, and I repeat, therefore, 
Dom Pothier's version is not found in any single MS. 

We now come to the Kyrie Fons bonitatis mentioned 
already. Father Burge objects to my calling Dom Beyssac's 
treatment of this melody ' masterly.' How masterly it is, 
becomes strikingly clear when we compare it with Father 
Burge's treatment. In dealing with a historical question 
Dom Beyssac relies on historical evidence. Father Burge 
relies on his imagination. He tells us the story of the 
development of the melody, as if he had been looking on 
through all the centuries, but his explanation has just the 
value of an idle moment's fancy. If we consult the MSS., 
we find that there is no necessary connexion between d 
and b on the one hand, and between e and c on the other. 
The German MSS., which have invariably c, have invari- 
ably d also. On the other hand the Aquitanian MSS. 
have e, even when they have b. Only very few MSS. 
(five out of about a hundred) have e d, and the fact 
that they are of widely different origin, proves the acci- 
dental character of the change, which, as Dom Beyssac 
suggests, is probably due to the false analogy of the e d 
on the first syllable of Christe. But a funny mishap befalls 
Father Burge, when he speaks of a Tristropha on b. Father 
Burge, did you ever see a Tristropha on b ? I never did, 
and I never heard of anybody else who did. Of course, 
there may be such a thing in one of the 2,500 codices that 
are estimated to contain Gregorian notation. But why do 
you keep away from the world the secret of such an in- 
teresting occurrence ? But anyhow, there is no Tristropha 
on b in this melody. Where, then, did Father Burge get 
this interesting idea ? Evidently he saw three c's in the 


Vatican version, and jumped at the conclusion that this 
must be a Tristropha. Then, having learned from his 
Roman correspondent that the original melody had b at 
this place, he transferred his Tristropha to b ! There is 
not even a Tristropha on c, however. There is a Pes 
stratus ace (replacing the original abb) followed by a 
Clivis c b, a slightly different thing. Father Burge's mis- 
take, by the way, shows the desirability of resuming the 
old, distinctive form of the Strophicus, as has been done 
in the Solesmes rhythmical editions of the Vatican Kyriale. 

Another ' reason ' is given for the change of gloriam 
(Ex. 12 and 13). Here, according to Father Burge and 
Dom Pothier, ' the variety of resources at the command 
of the ancient Gregorian artists were exhausted.* But is 
not the repetition of a melodic figure one of these resources, 
and have not all the greatest composers of all times made 
free use of this resource ? 

With regard to my example (14) Father Burge has mis- 
understood my remark. The original version had g a b a g f, 
thus giving a tritone with all its horrors. I shall presently 
say a little more about the tritone. I must insert a couple 
of other remarks. Father Burge says that b was changed 
into c, according to the traditional demand for a more 
decided note. On the preceding page he says similarly 
that b was changed into c to give more precision and vigour 
to the melody. Was this really the reason for the frequent 
changes made in the later Middle Ages ? Professor Wagner 
has a very different interpretation. He says : * It was the 
endeavour to remove or to obviate the difficulties that 
attach to the interval of the semitone.' I have not the 
slightest doubt that Wagner is right. Even in modern 
times untrained singers sing frequently a third a c for 
a b or a bh.. Such singers represent the musical develop- 
ment at the stage of the pentatonic scale, which has no 
semitone : a c d / g a. 

Again, Father Burge thinks it strange that I should 
speak of the difficulty presented to a modern musician 
by the full tone under the tonic, considering that Irish 
peasant singers are so fond of the ' flattened seventh.' I 


have very great respect for the Irish singers, but I did not 
know that they should be considered modern musicians. 
Moreover, the * flattened seventh ' is by no means identical 
with the full tone under the tonic. Practically all the 
melodies that have the 'flattened seventh' either avoid 
the tone under the tonic or sharpen it. If I were to chal- 
lenge Father Burge to quote a few Irish melodies of the 
' Soh ' mode, showing a full tone under the tonic at a 
cadence, he would have plenty of difficulty in finding 

Now to the tritone. Father Burge says : ' This [the 
objection to the tritone] is one of the cases of " legitimate 
tradition." ' Is it really ? As I have not yet stated 
directly what I consider as the meaning of ' legitimate 
tradition,' I will do it here. A legitimate tradition, I hold, 
is that tradition which preserves the original intact. Any 
tradition which changes the original is not a legitimate 
tradition, but a corruption. If this does not meet Father 
Burge's views, let him give a definition of his own. Simply 
to assert that a certain tradition is a legitimate tradition 
will not do. 

Father Burge suggests that it was * prudence ' which 
prevented me from calling attention to certain differences 
between the readings of the MSS. and the Vaticana. I 
stated distinctly, page 48 (7), of my former article, why 
I left aside certain cases. Father Burge might give me 
credit for truthfulness, anyhow. I shall show presently 
that I am not afraid to quote a few examples of tritones. 
But first let us glance at Father Burge's examples. He 
says his example (15) is found in some old MSS. I 
think I might with great safety deny this statement 4 
I should run very little risk of being refuted. But 
perhaps it is better for me not to run any risks, and 
so I will confine myself to challenging Father Burge to 
produce his authority for his example (15). 

Another mishap befell Father Burge in his example 
(18). The last five notes have dropped down one degree. 
Who is guilty of this gross carelessness in copying is 
it the member of the Commission who ' violated the 



Pontifical secret ' by communicating this reading to 
Father Burge, or is it Father Burge ? I leave it to 
him to explain. 

To the question of the tritone itself, I quote a few 
examples from books edited by Dom Pothier : 


* A 

" 5 

, r- 

Pa- rem pa-ternae glo-ri-ae 
(Christmas Hymn) 




alle-lu-ia, alle-lu- ia 
(Magn. Ant. of Low Sunday) 

Quae tu ere- asti pecto-ra 
(Veni Creator) 


In hymnis et canti-cis 
(Lauda Sion) 




Ver-bum su-pernum pro-di- ens 


gestaque forti-a 
(Vesper Hymn of Several Martyrs) 

. ! 

n. 3 

(16) _ 

o-rantem inve-nit 
(2nd Vesper Antiphon of St. Cecilia). 

Would Father Burge have all these changed ? I have 
confined myself to simple chants, such as might be ex- 
pected to be sung congregationally. If I had gone to the 
Schola or Solo chants, I could have quoted almost without 
end. But I have one more example : 

(17) 1s == * == zE-* ; 

Carnem vi- dens nee cavens laque- urn 

If the former examples were * horrors,' what will Father 
Burge call this ? And this is a chant published by Dom 
Pothier without any necessity it is not in our present 
Liturgy but merely as a specimen of fine medieval com- 
positions ! The example is taken from the Easter Sequence, 
Salve dies, in Dom Pothier's ' Variae Preces.' 

So far Father Burge has admitted that Dom Pothier 
did make changes, and only has tried to find some justi- 
fication for them. He now proceeds to show that some of 
my statements as to such changes are erroneous. He 
makes out eleven mistakes in these statements. Suppose 
for a moment he was right in this, what would it mean ? 
It would be pretty bad for me, but how would the Vatican 
Kyriale stand ? There would still be about seventy arbi- 
trary and evident changes in it bad enough for a little 
book of its size. But let us examine into my supposed 


1st Error. * The critic complains that in the Gloria 
of Mass VII. the editors omit the ifc and sharpen the leading 
note. As a matter of fact, there are only two 6's in the 
piece, and both of them are flattened? Well now, really, 
Father Burge, I have a grievance against you. To imagine 
that I could be guilty of such a transparent blunder ! 
Why, any school-boy could see that all the Vs of that piece 
in the Vatican edition are flattened, and you think it pos- 
sible that I did not see it ! Surely, when my supposed 
mistake was so terribly gross, you might have stopped for 
a moment to see whether there was not something amiss. 
It would have been better for you, too. For it is my 
painful duty to point out to you that, as I distinctly stated, 
the piece is written in c in the MSS. and transposed to / 
by Dom Pothier. The b of the original, therefore, has 
become e, and, needless to say, there is no flat before 

2nd Error. * In the Cantus ad libitum, Kyrie II., he 
says there are only two Christe. I have examined three 
editions, and in all I find three Christe.' A nice piece of 
logic : Three editions have three Christe, therefore the 
Vatican edition has three Christe ! I think I must recom- 
mend our Professor of Logic to give this to his students 
as a typical specimen of a bad inference. If Father Burge 
does not mind spending a few shillings, he might procure 
another half dozen, or even dozen, editions, all having 
three Christe, and still the fact remains that the Vatican 
edition, that is, the edition that issued from the Vatican 
printing establishment, has only two Christe. Or does 
Father Burge really believe that I cannot count three ? 
The explanation of the puzzle is so simple that Father 
Burge would have guessed it himself, if he had not been 
bent on finding fault with me : the reprints of the Vatican 
edition, with the exception of a few early ones, corrected 
the mistake. 

3rd Error. ' In Gloria III., the MSS. give a double d 
at Te in Laudamus Te ; the critic declares Dom Pothier 
only gives one. As a matter of fact, the editors have given 
the double d.' Very funny again ! There is a long neuma 


on this Te, and in the course of it two d's happen to come 
together. But what I wanted to convey, and what, I 
think, I conveyed with sufficient clearness to any unbiassed 
mind, was that the MSS. have two d's, where Dom Pothier 
has only one, that is, right at the beginning of the phrase. 

Next we get seven errors in a bundle. * Seven other 
statements are erroneous in their assertion that " Dom 
Pothier's" version is unsupported by any MSS. This, as 
I have shown above, is altogether inaccurate.' I beg your 
pardon, Father Burge, you showed nothing of the kind. 
You made a general assertion, but the proofs for your 
assertion are wanting still. 

And now I have to call attention to a nice piece of 
arithmetic. We had three ' errors ' dealt with singly, and 
then seven in a bundle, and these together make the eleven ! 
Perhaps, after all, I took Father Burge too seriously when 
I protested against his imputing to me gross carelessness. 
To a man who makes 3 + 7 = n it might appear a venial 
offence to say that there is no flat when there is a flat, or to 
say that there are only two Christe when there are three, 
or to say that there is only one d when there are two. 

We are nearing the end now. But before I take up 
Father Burge's final thrust, I have two other small points 
to deal with. My opponent holds me up to ridicule for 
growing indignant over a version of the Vaticana, which 
he quotes under No. 21. With his usual inaccuracy he 
misquotes the version of the MS. I stated distinctly that 
the MS. has a gag where Dom Pothier has a g a. Instead 
of that Father Burge changes the / on the second syllable 
of tottis into g. But apart from that, is there any reason 
for my showing special indignation at this example ? Not 
the slightest. It would be perfectly ridiculous for me to 
grow indignant over this case any more than over any of 
the other eighty or so. But neither did I. What roused 
my indignation was that Dom Pothier made five changes 
in a short little melody for which there are no variants in 
the MSS. at all. I feel sure Father Burge himself could 
have seen that, if he had wanted to do so. 

Then my critic complains that I left out St. Gregory 


in my list of reformers. I may modestly remark that I 
am not aware of any historic evidence that St. Gregory 
was a reformer in Church music. That he did several 
things for Church music is beyond reasonable doubt. But 
whether his work had in any way the character of reform 
is not proved as far as I know. 

Having failed to disprove any of my statements, Father 
Burge finally accuses me of disloyalty. Loyalty is a 
peculiar thing in these matters. I wonder was Father 
Burge loyal during the thirty years that the Ratisbon 
Chant was authentic ? Did he preach then from the house 
tops that the Ratisbon books ought to be introduced 
everywhere ? Did he do his best to influence his brethren, 
the English Benedictines, to lay aside the Mechlin Chant, 
and to adopt the authentic version ? Perhaps he did. 
I do not know. But one thing I know : Dom Pothier was 
not * loyal ' in those days. In spite of repeated declarations 
of the Roman authorities that the Ratisbon books contained 
the authentic Gregorian Chant, he published his Liber 
Gradualis, and did his best, too, to have it sung in as many 
places as possible. With these things fresh in our memories, 
is it not surprising to find people bragging about loyalty ? 
Or look at it in another way. Suppose the Pope changed 
his mind over night, and made those things which Father 
Burge tastefully likens to a ' chamber of horrors ' obligatory 
for the whole Church, what would Father Burge do then ? 
Would he become disloyal, or would he suddenly change 
his aesthetic convictions ? 

He grows hot over my statement that ' this question 
cannot be settled by decrees.' I do not see why he gets 
up this indignation, unless it be for mere histrionic display. 
I made it perfectly clear in what sense I understood these 
words. I pointed out that if this question were to be 
settled by decrees, it would have been settled long ago. 
Were there not enough decrees in favour of the Ratisbon 
edition ? And yet, as I said, with one stroke of the pen 
a Pope cancelled them all. And so it will be with the 
decrees that Dom Pothier got or obtained, or received, 
or any word that will please Father Burge for his edition. 


I am not disloyal. I have no fault to find with autho- 
rity. I am an ardent admirer of Pius X. I hailed with 
delight, and accept without reservation, his two Motu 
Proprios on Church Music. And as to the Congregation 
of Rites, surely we cannot expect them to examine the 
MSS. to see whether Dom Pothier carried out his task 
faithfully. My quarrel is with Dom Pothier alone, and 
if I feel rather angry with him, it is precisely because he 
has frustrated the intention of the Pope, and placed the 
Holy See in a very awkward position. 

Father Burge concludes his article with a quotation from 
Pope. So I may appropriately conclude with a quotation 
from Pius X : 

The melodies of the Church, which are called Gregorian, 
shall be restored in their integrity and purity. 


[ 446 ] 


ON the return journey from his recent visit to Rome 
His Eminence Cardinal Logue paid a visit to the 
far-famed town of Bobbio, the last home and resting 
place of St. Columbanus, and of many other Irish saints and 
scholars. His Eminence was received by the Bishop, 
clergy and people of Bobbio with every mark of reverence 
and respect not only as a Cardinal and Prince, but as the 
most illustrious living representative of the Church and 
country of St. Columbanus. On the 25th of March, a great 
ceremony was held in his honour, in the Cathedral of 
Bobbio, where the Vicar-General of the Diocese, Mgr. Bobbi, 
delivered an oration on the saint and on Ireland, which we 
find published in the local paper, La Trebbia, of the 6th 
of April. 

The occasion was so interesting, the memories recalled 
in this discourse so important, and the sympathy with 
Ireland so evident and so sincere, that we think it worth 
while to reproduce the principal passages in the oration. 
It should be noted that the distinguished orator had only 
a few hours' notice of the task imposed on him by the 
Bishop of Bobbio. 

f*^ I am obliged, in the circumstances pie said], to refer you to 
my two former conferences on ' The Footsteps of St. Columbanus 
from Leinster to Bobbio,' and ' The Ideals of St. Columbanus.' 
Here and now I need only recall how the gifted youth, who took 
refuge in the desert during the five most critical years of his 
life, and the student who burned with ardour for the culti- 
vation of science and letters in the monastery of Bangor, held 
hidden beneath the veil of modesty one of those superior minds 
which take in almost at a glance all the evils of the age in which 
they live, and one of those generous hearts that are moved to 
spend themselves in the effort to overcome them. Does it not 
look strange to us in these days that he, preceded only by the 
Cross, with the Gospel hung around his neck, fearing nothing 
and hoping nothing from men, should go forth to proclaim to 
rulers and subjects that if there is any code of reform in the 
world it is the Gospel, and that if there is any banner to be 


held aloft in the supreme moments of a nation's life it is the 
banner which bears inscribed upon it the holy Cross. Strange, 
too, it seems to us that in his journeys between the sixth and 
the seventh centuries he should have won over to his cause 
thousands of followers to send forth as angels of the Lord for 
the salvation of Europe. More strange still does it appear 
that the indomitable conqueror, as he has been called, should 
have raised his voice, with an eloquence worthy of St. Paul, 
in favour of the downtrodden and oppressed, and fought for their 
interests from the coasts of England to the crests of the Pyrenees, 
of the Vosges, of the Jura, of the Alps, resting only when he 
found here in Bobbio the peace of the grave. Now in all that, 
besides the divine impulse and the movement of grace, there 
was and on what more suitable occasion should it be pro- 
claimed the disposition and character of the nation to which 
he belonged. 

A simple glance at history is sufficient to convince us that 
the sympathetic branch of the Celtic family which flourishes in 
the Virgin Island of the Atlantic has an innate tendency to 
expand ; and wherever it carries its language and customs there 
also it brings with it the Cross of its faith and the evergreen 
trifolium of its banner. This national inclination reveals itself 
in the most striking fashion in our Apostle. Perhaps no man 
ever crossed through Europe with a more ardent desire of 
planting amongst the Prankish, German, and Latin races, the 
graceful forms of the true and the good, which in an epoch of 
universal desolation and decay were providentially preserved in 

Banished from France by King Theodoric through the evil 
influence of Brunehilde, after more than twenty years of aposto- 
late, the indomitable missionary wept like a child at the thought 
of being driven back by force to his native land, and by his 
prayers obtained from Heaven unfavourable winds that sent 
back to the coast of France the ship that bore him homewards. 
When we remember the bitter struggles he went through and 
the storms that broke over his head, owing to the fierce ardour 
with which he, in a strange land, endeavoured to maintain 
intact and intangible certain customs of his Irish brethren in 
the faith, we should also bear in mind the tender affection that 
he bore to the land of his youth and to the monasteries in which 
his ardent faith was nourished. Over that land the Roman eagle 
had never spread his wings, and yet the faith was planted there 
without martyrdom and without blood. Who can wonder that 
that far off land should be to him the centre and the summit 
of his earthly affections. This sacred love of country he in- 
voked as his supreme defence when writing with unwonted 
candour and frankness to the Fathers of the Synod of Macon, 
he said, ' Pardon me, O most holy Fathers, for if I speak it is 
my nation that speaks in me.' 


And if, as formerly at Luxeuil, at Annegray and Fontaine, 
in Gaul, and at St. Gall in Switzerland, a colony of Irish monks 
was established by the glorious Apostle, here, in this hidden corner 
of Italian soil it was planted with all the forms and graces of the 
far-famed Bangor, and became in this southern peninsula a regular 
constellation of saints and the greatest university of its age. 

How pleasant it is for us to return in thought to the day 
when the illustrious Irish exile appeared for the first time on 
the banks of the Trebbia, and became enamoured of our silent 
hills. Tradition tells us that the sun shone more brightly than 
usual on that memorable day, as the saint came up, up through 
the valley from Barberina, and, as was his custom, blessed the 
earth and the fields, and the waters of the river, the birds of 
the air, and the trees of the forest ; and having arrived at the 
spot where this beautiful church stands to-day, kissed the earth 
and planted the Cross, whilst the deep silence that reigned 
all round was broken only by his blessed words, Pax Tibi, 
and by the answer of his companions, In nomine Christi. That, 
indeed, O people of Bobbio, was the happiest moment of our 
history. Under her Irish banner, Bobbio became the Bangor 
of northern Italy, and the lighthouse of Christian civilization 
throughout the Middle Ages. When we recall the names of 
so many monks of Celtic and Anglo-Saxon origin, of so many 
saints who now sleep under the arches of the Basilica alongside 
their first Abbot, we are compelled to recognize that for many 
centuries Bobbio was the second home and the second father- 
land of many of Ireland's most honoured and glorious sons. 

Up to the end of the thirteenth century numerous pilgrimages 
were made here, not only from Ireland, but from France and 
from Germany, to pray at the tombs of the holy Abbot and his 
companions. Tradition tells us that amongst these pious pil- 
grims one of the most illustrious was Francis of Assisi. The 
humble lover of poverty came to kiss the earth made holy by 
the great rival of St. Benedict, a patriarch like him of the 
' Monks of the West.' How sweet a thought for us that the 
fioverello of Assisi should one day have penetrated unobserved 
to the crypt of the Basilica, and there, with outstretched arms, 
have prostrated himself before the sepulchre of our great patron 
and protector ! 

To these pilgrimages was due, in great measure, the excep- 
tional richness of the library of Bobbio. Books, paper, parch- 
ment, were often the most worthy gifts presented at his shrine. 
It is not without emotion that we read to-day the dedicatory 
lines in which Dungal of Pavia offered a present to his illustrious 
countryman : 

' Sancte Columba, tibi Scotto tuus incola Dungal , 

Tradidit hunc librum quo fratrum corda beentur. 
Qui legis ergo, Deus praetium sit muneris, ora.' 


Well may we lament the disappearance of that library, 
Good reason we have to curse the evil genius of Napoleon I 
who dispersed it. But on what better occasion than this, in 
the presence of His Eminence Cardinal Logue, could we recall 
the fact that these parchments and books still survive in many 
of the libraries of Europe to the glory of St. Columbanus, and 
of his learned monks ? 

Some people, indeed, have expressed a fear lest there may 
have lay hidden under the ardour of the monk an ambition 
directed to political ends, and to the destruction of thrones 
already shaken. Nothing is farther from the truth. If in the 
case of Brunehilde he uttered fiery words of censure against 
the unscrupulous voluptuousness of power ; if in the case of 
Theodoric he denounced vice under the shelter of a crown, he 
did so in defence of the sanctity of Christian law and of the rights 
of Christian liberty. As for himself hundreds of times he found 
glory at his feet and repelled it ; he found riches thrust upon him 
but treated them only to a malediction. Against ambition he 
inveighed with all the energy of his soul, keeping to the code 
he had drawn up for his monks, and which said, Ne exeat verbum 
grande de ore monachi. 

Others, like Alexander St. Priest and Michelet, were deluded 
by his frankness and independence into the belief that his 
attitude towards the Holy See was a distant symptom which 
heralded the Lutheran revolt. Again, nothing further from 
the truth. In his works and in his aspirations he was neither 
a Fra Martino nor a Fra Dolcino. He had, if you will, all the 
energy of an Arnold of Brescia, but all the ideals and manners 
of a St. Bernard. 

In his various contests for his Irish liturgy, for the celebra- 
tions of Easter and in the controversy on the ' Three Chapters,' 
he looked to Rome as his polar star. A glance at his letter to 
Boniface IV is enough to convince us that the Primacy of 
St. Peter had no more pronounced and devoted witness. In 
his old age he is said to have frequently looked out over the 
crests of the Appenines in the direction of Rome, and stretched 
out his hands to embrace the great St. Gregory. That judged 
by rigid criticism there may be in his works a few exaggerated 
sentences, I am not prepared to deny ; but remembering his 
enthusiastic character and his love of country and of liberty, 
it is a case, if ever, in which we may say, ' To him who has 
loved much, much shall be^forgiven.' ^ -, J 

The orator, then, goes into more minute details about 
the apostolic labours of Columbanus and his companions, 
and into the general spirit of his apostleship in France, 
Austria, Switzerland, and Italy, and then he continues : 

And, now, with all these memories fresh upon us, memories 



that bind us in Bobbio to the Irish nation represented here by 
its illustrious Cardinal Primate, I address to him a word of 
reverent salutation which will be at the same time a prayer. 

Your Eminence, in returning to your Primatial See of Armagh, 
will touch the soil of France, every inch of which has memories 
of him and of your countrymen. But, with the exception of 
Luxeuil, the grass grows on the scenes of his labours. Silence 
and gloom dwell around the walls of the monasteries that he 
founded there. The work of the great apostle of liberty has 
few to appreciate it in the so-called home of liberty : but when 
you tread once more the soil of your native land, tell your 
countrymen that in the distant valley of Bobbio, around the 
sepulchre of your saints, there is no desert, no silence, no 
gloom. Thirteen centuries have passed and their memory 
is ever fresh and young in the midst of us. You may say, 
indeed, that our ancient glory has passed away, that it is all over 
or at least under a sad eclipse, but that we still hope much 
from the relics that we possess. Our hopes are green as the 
hills of your native Ireland, as the banner of your countrymen. 
Say also that we love your country, the sister and in a sense 
the mother of our own, and that we hold in our hearts, with 
that of our great protector, the names of the O'Neills, O'Connors, 
O'Briens, and O'Connells, against the Cromwells of every age 
and clime, and that we wish your great Catholic island with 
unanimous voice, happiness, prosperity, and freedom. 

There is, we understand, a new Bishop in Bobbio, who 
has undertaken, as one of his first labours, to repair and 
restore the Shrine of Columbanus, much worn and 
damaged by the lapse of years, and to erect some 
memorial over the tombs of his principal companions. 
Upwards of twenty Irish Saints are buried there with 
little or nothing to mark their graves beyond the register 
faithfully kept in the Diocesan Archives. 

J. F. HOGAN, D.D. 

C 45i 1 

Botee anb Queries 



THE decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus 1 has put an end to 
controversies about the requisite dispositions for frequent and 
daily reception of Holy Communion. In the primitive Church 
the faithful, generally speaking, received Communion at 
every Mass ; but when the days of early fervour ceased 
this salutary custom was not followed, though at all times 
the Church showed her earnest desire that her children 
should often approach the Sacred Table. There were 
decrees of General Councils and Roman Congregations 
recommending frequent Communion, but theologians, to 
a great extent, annulled the wishes of the Church by de- 
manding, through an over-anxious reverence for the Real 
Presence, very exceptional dispositions. A brief state- 
ment of the provisions of the recent decree will show 
the dispositions which the Church deems necessary in those 
who frequent the sacred banquet of the Body and Blood 
of our Lord. 

1. Frequent, even daily, Communion is open to all 
the faithful who are in the state of grace, and who approach 
the Sacred Table with right intentions. 

2. This condition of mind implies that the Blessed 
Sacrament should be received not from habit, or vanity, 
or any worldly motives, but from a desire to please God, to 
be united to Him in the bonds of charity, and to provide 
against the various trials and tribulations to which flesh 
is heir. 

3. Though it is desirable that those who frequently 
receive the Blessed Sacrament should be free from deli- 
berate venial sins, still the absence of this perfection should 

i I. E. RECORD, April, p. 376. 


not prevent anyone from receiving Holy Communion daily, 
since the graces of the Eucharist supply the best means of 
acquiring perfection. 

4. Though the Sacrament of the Altar produces its 
effects ex opere operato, better dispositions gain more abun- 
dant fruit ; hence previous preparation and subsequent 
thanks to the Almighty, according to the faculties, con- 
dition, and duties of each one, are most desirable. 

5. That more abundant graces be obtained, the advice 
of a prudent confessor ought to be sought and followed ; 
but it is his duty to refuse Communion only to those who 
are not in the state of grace, or who have not right inten- 
tions in approaching the Altar. 

6. Parish Priests, Confessors, and Preachers are ex- 
pected to recommend the faithful to frequently receive 
Holy Communion in accordance with the doctrine of the 
Roman Catechism which, among many other useful things, 
says : 

It will, therefore, be the part of the pastor frequently to 
admonish the faithful, that, as they think it necessary every 
day to nurture the body, they should also not neglect every 
day to feed and nourish the soul with this sacrament ; for the 
soul, it is clear, stands not less in need of spiritual, than the 
body, of corporal, food. And here it will be most useful to 
recapitulate the inestimable and divine advantages, which, as 
we have already shown, flow from sacramental Communion. 
The pastor will also cite the figure of the Manna, which it was 
necessary to use every day, in order to repair the strength of 
the body ; and will add the authorities of the Fathers, which 
earnestly recommend the frequent participation of this sacra- 
ment ; for the words, ' Thou sinnest daily ; receive daily,' are 
not the sentiment of St. Augustine alone, but also, as diligent 
enquiry will easily discover, the sentiment of all the Fathers, 
who wrote on the subject. 1 

7. Frequent Communion ought to be encouraged especi- 
ally in Religious Institutions. At the same time the decree 
Quemadmodum, iyth December, 1890, remains in full force, 
the object of which was to repress certain abuses in regard 
to manifestation of conscience, and to reception of the 

i Catechism of the Council of Trent, Donovan, p. 238, 


Blessed Eucharist, which crept into certain Communities 
of nuns having simple or solemn vows, and into some lay 
Communities of men. The decree laid down that per- 
missions and prohibitions in regard to the reception of Holy 
Communion belong alone to the ordinary or extraordinary 
confessors of such institutions, no power remaining in the 
hands of Superiors, except in the case of subjects who, 
since their last confession, have given serious scandal to 
the community, or have been guilty of grave external 
faults ; in which cases the Superior may forbid Communion 
until the next confession. When this confession is made, 
the right of the Superior lapses, even though the confessor, 
for reasons which seem good to him, does not impose any 
public penance on the delinquent. 

The decree Sacra Tridentina Synodus also encourages 
frequent Communion in clerical seminaries and in Christian 
colleges of every kind. 

8. The rules, constitutions, or calendars of Religious 
Institutions, fixing certain days for Holy Communion, 
are directive and not preceptive. The prescribed number 
of Communions must be considered the minimum for 
religious life, more frequent Communion being recom- 
mended in accordance with the instructions of the present 
decree. The decree Quemadmodum, however, states that 
if subjects obtain permission from their confessor to receive 
Communion more frequently than is indicated in the rules, 
constitutions, or calendars of the Community, they shall 
tell their Superiors who, if they think that there are grave 
reasons to the contrary, shall explain these to the confessor 
whose judgment is final. 

Superiors are to see that this decree is read for their 
subjects each year, during the octave of the Feast of Corpus 

9. Finally, ecclesiastical writers are to cease in the 
future from all controversy concerning the dispositions 
which are necessary for frequent and daily reception of 
Holy Communion. 



An important decree appears in the present number of 
the I. E. RECORD I concerning the necessity of weekly con- 
fession for gaining Indulgences. Daily Communion even 
though one or two days of the week be omitted is declared 
sufficient, without weekly confession, for gaining indul- 
gences for which such confession was formerly necessary. 
Certain indulgences, such as those of Jubilees, will, as in 
the past, require special confession, notwithstanding this 
modification of previous legislation. 


REV. DEAR SIR, A penitent, who was bound to make res- 
titution, gave his confessor the money to be sent to the person 
to whom it was owed. The confessor lost the money. Was 
the penitent bound to make restitution again ? Some young 
theologians have been discussing this question. An answer 
will oblige them. 

P. D. 

The solution of this case depends on the position 
which the confessor holds. Is he agent of the penitent, or 
of the creditor to whom restitution must be made ? 
If of the penitent, then the creditor has not received his 
money either personally or by his representative, if it has 
been lost while in the hands of the confessor. If he is 
agent of the creditor, then the latter has been paid the 
debt and no further claim rests against the debtor. 

For our part, we believe that the confessor is agent, 
not of the creditor, but of the penitent, because the 
creditor has given no commission to the confessor to act in 
his name. This is undoubtedly the common opinion of 
theologians. It is said on the other side that confessors 
have received the necessary commission, because creditors, if 
consulted, would say that they prefer restitution to be made 
through a confessor than through other and less safe means. 
The evident reply to this argument is that an interpretative 

1 See page 469. 


agency is no agency. The question is not what would 
creditors do in certain circumstances, but what have they 
done ? Besides, how does it appear that creditors would 
select the confessor as their agent ? Why should creditors 
be interpretatively compelled to select, at their own risk, 
one way of having restitution made to them, while there 
are many safe means of making restitution at the risk of the 
debtor ? 

At the same time, seeing that some theologians of great 
authority, Lehmkuhl, 1 for instance, hold the view which is 
favourable to the penitent, he is not to be obliged to pay 
again if, without any fault on his part, the money has 
not passed from the confessor to the creditor. 




REV. DEAR SIR, In my part of the country there is a 
difference of opinion and a want of uniformity in practice among 
priests about the following points, (i) On which side of the 
altar the notices are to be published. (2) On which side the 
sermon or instruction is to be delivered. I refer to occasions 
when the priest does not go into the pulpit, and to places where 
they have no pulpit. If there is any rule on the above matters> 
myself and others here would be very glad to know. Yours 


We have not seen it stated anywhere that .the distinction 
implied in our correspondent's queries really exists, and we 
do not think there are any grounds for it. The notices 
may be published unless there is some reason to the con- 
trary immediately before the sermon, and, therefore, the 
same place will serve for both. At any rate, what applies 
to the delivery of the sermon will equally apply to the publi- 
cation of the notices. We shall then, going somewhat 
beyond the limits of the proposed questions, try to answer 

1 Theelogia Moralis, i., n, 1030, R. 3, 


the following : (i) What is the proper time for delivering 
the sermon in connexion with a Low Mass ? (2) Where 
should it be delivered ? and (3) What are the proper vest- 
ments to be worn on the occasion ? 

1. The most approved time for having the sermon at 
Mass is immediately after the reading of the first Gospel. 
' Concio,' says Wapelhorst, 1 'infra Missam habetur post 
Evangelium. Ita ab Apostolorum temporibus. At de con- 
sensu Ordinarii Sacerdos in Missa postquam se communicavit 
et priusquam Communionem distribuit adstantibus ad altari 
sermonem ad populum habere potest.' 2 While then it best 
accords with the spirit and letter of the Ceremonial to have 
the sermon immediately after the Gospel it may, with the 
Bishop's consent, be deferred until the Celebrant has com- 
municated himself, or until he has distributed Communion 
to those present. It is rare, we think, to have the sermon 
intervene between the Priest's Communion and that of the 
faithful, and the evident inconvenience attaching to this 
practice would make it most undesirable unless in very 
exceptional cases. One such case would be where the Priest 
wished to deliver a very short address, or ferverino, to those 
about to receive their First Communion. Priests gener- 
ally find it most convenient to preach after they have taken 
the Ablutions. Where the custom exists of preaching after 
the last Gospel, and has the tacit approval of the Ordinary, 
it may be continued, provided that the abuse of persons 
going away without waiting for the Instruction is effec- 
tively guarded against. 

2. The proper place for the delivery of the Sermon is 
the Pulpit, or Ambo. 3 Any reasonable cause, however, 
will justify the use of the Altar for the purpose, especially 
if the preacher be the Celebrant of the Mass. If the Blessed 
Sacrament is not reserved in the Tabernacle we think the 
preacher may stand in the centre of the Altar. Reverence 
for the Real Presence would recommend the propriety of 
not turning the back directly on the Tabernacle. In this 

1 Cotnp. Sac. Lit., p. 491. 

2 S.R.C. Deer. 3059, n. 10. 

3 Ceremonialc Episcoporum, 1. i., c. xxii., and authors generally. 


case the preacher should stand a little to one side, and the 
Gospel angle should be selected in preference to the Epistle. 
' Quod si concio fit ad ipso Celebrante, ipse sedebit in cornu 
Evangelii . . . n It seems congruous that the side prescribed 
for the singing and reading of the Gospel, should also be 
selected for the delivery of a sermon, the theme of which, 
generally speaking, is supposed to be founded on the lessons 
conveyed in the Gospel read in the Mass of the day. 2 The 
quotation just given has reference to a solemn Mass this 
is the reason why the officiant is directed to sit but analogy 
would suggest the selection of the same side in a Low Mass. 

3. With regard to the dress proper to the preacher, various 
distinctions must be made.' When the Celebrant himself 
preaches, and does so from the Altar, he may retain all the 
sacred vestments he wore during Mass. If he goes to the 
pulpit then he puts aside the chasuble and maniple on the 
bench or Altar at the Epistle side. Should a Priest other than 
the Celebrant of the Mass be the preacher, then Seculars 
must wear at least the soutane, surplice, and biretta, while 
Religious use the habit of their Order only. The wearing 
of the stole on these occasions is regulated outside Rome by 
immemorial custom. If used it should be of the colour of 
the Office of the day. In Rome no preacher uses the stole 
out of reverence for the Holy Father. 3 Neither is it 
worn by the preacher of a funeral oration. The rochet 
may be used instead of the surplice by inferior Prelates 
who are privileged to wear it when they preach in 
their own church. When the sermon is preached before 
a Bishop in his own church, his blessing should be requested 
with the usual formula, except on the occasion of a funeral 
oration. The preacher, in going from the sanctuary to the 
pulpit, should not fail to make all the necessary salutations 
to the Dignitaries that may be present. When he reaches 
the ambo he may recite on bended knees a short prayer 
such as the A ve Maria or Veni Sancte, then standing with 
his head uncovered, he reads the Gospel or announces his 

1 Meratus apud Appeltern, Manuale Liturgicum, v. i., p. 319. 

2 De Herdt, Prax. Lit., v. i., p. 424 ; Cerem. Epis., 1. i., c. xxii. 

3 Gardellini, Inst. Clem, xxxii., 5 and 6 ; item S.R.C. Deer. 


text, after which he signs himself with the sign of the 
Cross, assumes his