Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

Irish Ecclesiastical Record

Volume 1

May 1865

CONTENTS

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

THE SEE OF DERRY.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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