Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

[14] The death of Isaac must have taken place just ten years before the Descent into Egypt. Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (_Gen._, xxv. 26); and Jacob was 130 when he went down to Egypt (_Gen._, xlvii. 9): therefore Isaac, if then living, would have been 190. But we know that he died at the age of 180 (_Gen._, xxxv. 28); that is to say, ten years before.

RICHARD FITZ-RALPH, ARCHBISHOP OF ARMAGH.

Sec. VI. HIS NOMINATION TO THE SEE OF ARMAGH.

The see of Armagh became vacant by the death of David O'Hiraghty, which took place, according to the _Annales Nenaghtenses_, on the 16th May, 1346. Dr. O'Hiraghty had been Dean of Armagh, and was elected by the chapter of Armagh, _quasi per inspirationem divinam_, as John XXII. mentions in the bull by which, on July 4th, 1334, he ratified the election.[15] He was consecrated at Avignon, and having ruled his diocese for nearly twelve years, died in 1346. On the 31st July, 1346, Clement VI., _jure provisionis_, appointed to the vacant see Richard Fitz-Ralph, then Dean of Lichfield. The bull of nomination contains that the chapter of Armagh had already unanimously elected the same Richard, and that he had given his consent to the election.[16] The Four Masters place in the year 1356 the death of Farrell (son of Jeffrey) MacRannall, Primate of Armagh and representative of St. Patrick. This, as Dr. O'Donovan remarks, is evidently a mistake of the Four Masters, as Richard Fitz-Ralph was certainly not one of the Mac Rannalls. We may say that, besides the mistake in the names, there is also a mistake in the dates. It was precisely in 1356 that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph set out upon that visit to London which was the occasion of his controversy with the Franciscans. The mistake made by the Four Masters is all the more incomprehensible for this reason, that of all the primates who sat at Armagh since the days of St. Francis of Assisi, no one was more likely to be remembered by the Franciscans than Archbishop Fitz-Ralph.

Dr. Fitz-Ralph was consecrated at Exeter on the 8th of July, 1347, by John Grandison, Bishop of Exeter, and three other bishops.[17] If this date be correct, the Primate found himself engaged in the onerous duties of his new office even before his consecration. On the 10th of April, 1347, Clement VI. appointed him, together with the Archbishop of Cashel, to make inquiry on the part of the Holy See into some charges brought against the Archbishop of Dublin by the Bishop of Ossory.[18] On the 12th of July of the same year he received faculties from the Holy See to dispense in a case of invalid marriage, the parties belonging to the diocese of Armagh.[19] The bishops of Ardagh and Cloyne were appointed on the 29th August, 1347, to give him the pallium.[20]

Sec. VII. THE ACTS OF HIS EPISCOPATE.

One of the most striking characteristics of Archbishop Fitz-Ralph's pastoral life was his assiduity in preaching the word of God to his people. His sermons on the principal festivals, still extant in MS. in the university libraries of Dublin, Oxford, and Cambridge, and in the British Museum, would fill a large volume. Already as Dean of Lichfield he had been remarkable for his fervour in preaching, but as successor of St. Patrick in the see of Armagh, he seemed to have received a double spirit of zeal and diligence. A volume of his sermons, once in the possession of Ware, and lately purchased for the British Museum at the sale of the Tenison library, includes sermons preached at Avignon, London, Drogheda, Dundalk, Trim, and other places of the province of Armagh. The fame of his eloquence preceded him to the Holy See, and when at Avignon he was frequently admitted to the high honour of preaching before the Holy Father and the cardinals and prelates of his court. He loved to make our Blessed Lady's virtues the subject of his discourse. _De Laudibus S. Deiparae_ is the title of many of his sermons. There are also special sermons on her Conception, Visitation, and Assumption. His sermons are generally constructed on a uniform plan. After quoting his text, it was his custom to begin with some short prayer like the following, which occurs in a sermon preached at Avignon on the feast of All Saints, 1358: _Pro edificandi gratia impetranda, devote, si placet, matrem gratiae salutemus, dicentes Ave Maria._ And in a sermon preached before Innocent VI. on the feast of the Epiphany, after the text _Videntes stellam Magi_, he begins with the invocation, _O Maria stella Maris, Mater stellae solaris_. After the introductory prayer he repeats the text in the vernacular, and then proceeds with the division of the subject. In dividing his discourse he generally employs the rigour of the scholastic method; each member of the division being complete in itself, and forming as it stands a finished whole. Hence, the great feature of his style is its singular clearness; a clearness which, however, never becomes hard or cold, so tender is the unction that pervades the entire. He appears to have had a singular devotion to St. Catherine the Martyr and to St. Thomas of Canterbury, among the saints; three or four different sermons are to be found in the collection in honour of each. It is much to be regretted that those beautiful sermons have never been printed.

Anxious to secure efficient pastors for his flock, he took care that his clergy should have the benefit of the highest literary and ecclesiastical training it was within his power to procure. With this view he sent four of his priests to the University of Oxford, where he himself had spent so many happy years of profitable study. He also acquired for his diocese from the Benedictines of St. Mary of Lenley's in Normandy, the priory and houses of St. Andrew in the Ardes, belonging to that order. Besides this, he was diligent in visiting every portion of his province. Among the rolls of Edward III., there is a letter of 28th April, 1356,[21] addressed by that King to the Archbishop, at a moment that the latter has actually engaged in his visitation of the diocese of Meath. Edward calls upon the Primate to return with all speed to Dundalk to treat with Odo O'Neill, who was advancing upon that town with a considerable army of Irish. Nor was it the first time that the Archbishop's virtues enabled him to discharge the blessed office of peacemaker in the disturbed state of society in which his lot was cast. As far back as 1348 he had received from the King full powers to treat for peace between the English and Irish.[22]

While careful of the spiritual interests of his diocese, Archbishop Fitz-Ralph did not neglect to take care of its temporal concerns. He justified to the letter the description given of him in the bull which made him Archbishop: _in spiritualibus providum, in temporalibus circumspectum_.

On January 11th, 1351, he received from Clement VI. a favourable answer to his petition that he might be allowed to incorporate with the mensal funds of his see the income of four churches with care of souls, provided the ordinaries consented, and that the sum did not exceed the annual value of one hundred marks. The petition of the Archbishop set forth that the entire income of his see did not reach four hundred pounds sterling per annum. On the same day the Pontiff issued letters requiring the Abbot of St. Mary's in Dynelek (Duleek), the Prior of St. Leonard's in Dundalk, and the Archdeacon of Armagh, together with the chapter of the cathedral, to examine how far it would be useful to exchange certain church lands, rents, and other immovable property, for others, which the Primate judged more likely to be advantageous to the see of Armagh.

Two documents preserved by Rymer show how careful Dr. Fitz-Ralph was not to sanction by any act of his the claims made to the primacy by the Archbishop of Dublin, to the detriment of Armagh. The first is dated 8th December, 1350, and is an order from Edward III., that the Archbishop of Armagh should not have his cross carried before him within the limits of the province of Dublin. Archbishop Fitz-Ralph was unwilling to cause disturbance by refusing to obey this order, but on the other hand he felt that to comply with it fully would be to prejudice the legitimate claims of his see.

He resolved in consequence simply to absent himself from Dublin. He procured a royal license which excused him from personal attendance at the parliaments held at Dublin, on the ground, that within the province of Dublin he was not permitted to have his cross borne before him. In 1349 he was charged by the same king to plead in the royal name before the Sovereign Pontiff Clement VI. for the grace of a jubilee on behalf of the people subject to the English crown. In Oxford there is a MS. entitled _Propositio ejusden (Ric. Rad. sive Fitz-Ralph Archiepiscopi Armachani) ex parte Regis Angliae Edwardi III. in consistorio Domini Papae, Avinione pro gratia jubilaei ejus Domino Regis populo obtinenda, anno 1349_. A similar heading is prefixed to another _propositio_ of the same prelate, which, as we shall see, he urged in person at Avignon in 1357. Pope Clement VI. was engaged in anxious efforts to restore the oriental churches to union with Rome. The Armenians were in an especial manner the objects of his paternal solicitude. The remarkable series of questions which the Pope proposed to the bishops of that church are well known in ecclesiastical history. It was, probably, during this visit to the Holy See that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph became acquainted with the two Armenian prelates, Nerses or Narses of Manasgarda and John, Bishop elect of Clata, in Greater Armenia. These oriental bishops had long and earnest conferences with their Irish brother on the sad state of their once flourishing church, and at their earnest and oft-repeated requests, the Primate resolved to contribute his aid to the great work of bringing back the Armenians to unity. One circumstance connected with the occasion, though it narrowed his field of argument for the time, has given, nevertheless, to his writings a character which makes them valuable in modern controversy. In his _Questiones Armenorum_ he was forced to defend the Catholic doctrine almost exclusively from the Holy Scriptures, seeing that his adversaries did not admit the authority of the Roman Church. Hence his position as a controversial writer does not differ from that which the Reformation has imposed upon modern theologians since the time of Bellarmine.

Before the publication of Theiner's _Vetera Monumenta_, there was but a single writer, Raphael of Volterra,[23] to assert that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph had been created Cardinal. This solitary testimony, though positive, was not considered by Ware and others strong enough to counterbalance the negative argument drawn from the silence of all other writers on the subject, and especially from the fact that upon the elaborate catalogue of cardinals, drawn up by Panvinio and Ciacconio, the name of Fitz-Ralph is not to be found. Among the documents published by Theiner there is a consistorial process drawn up in 1517 on occasion of a vacancy in the see of Ardagh,[24] in which mention is made, among other glories of Ireland, of the Cardinal of Armagh, who flourished in the year 1353. This is no other than our Archbishop Fitz-Ralph. It is curious that the statement in this process is made in words almost identical with those used by Raphael of Volterra. So close is the likeness between the two statements that one is clearly copied from the other. It is also to be observed that in the Papal documents he is never styled Cardinal, and that even as late as October, 1358, Archbishop Fitz-Ralph is styled by Innocent VI. simply Archbishop of Armagh, although in the same letter the Pontiff makes mention of the Cardinals appointed to examine into the questions at issue between our prelate and the Mendicant Orders. However this may be explained, we have the weighty authority of an official document drawn up at Rome and accepted by the Holy Father himself, for believing that the see of Armagh was honoured by the Roman purple in the person of Richard Fitz-Ralph.

Sec. VIII. HIS CONTROVERSY WITH THE MENDICANT ORDERS.

We now approach the grave controversy which was carried on for years between our Archbishop and the Mendicant Religious Orders. Even if the space at our disposal permitted it, we would not be willing to enter here into a detailed account of the dispute.

Had it been given to Archbishop Fitz-Ralph to see as clearly as history has enabled us to see, the blessings which our Church owes to the heroism of the religious orders in the days of persecution, far from opposing, he would have been the first to enlarge their privileges in Ireland. But, as it was, it is quite clear that in his opposition to them he was influenced solely by motives of an elevated nature. The whole struggle was simply a domestic misunderstanding, and of such character as that one may and must feel deep respect for both parties. We cannot do better than lay before our readers the explanation of his object and motives offered by the Archbishop himself to Pope Innocent VI. in person, at Avignon, 8th November, 1357.[25]

"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost. Amen. 'Nolite judicare secundum faciem sed justum
judicium judicate' (_Joan._, cap. 7).

"Most Holy Father, I protest, at the very beginning of my
discourse, that I do not intend to assert or rashly to
affirm anything which may clash with Christian faith or
Catholic doctrine, and that it is not my intention to
solicit, or even to advise, the abolition or retrenchment of
the mendicant orders approved by the Church or confirmed by
the Sovereign Pontiffs. But rather, it is my desire that
these same orders be brought back to the purity of their
original institution, and in this, also, I am ever ready to
submit to the correction of your Holiness. And to approach
my subject without delay, coming to London, Most Holy
Father, about certain matters connected with my Church of
Armagh, I found a dispute going on between certain learned
doctors concerning the mendicant state and the mendicity of
Christ our Lord and Saviour. After repeated invitations to
preach to the people, I there delivered, in the vernacular,
seven or eight discourses, and, always under the above-made
protest, I defended in public nine conclusions, on account
of which, and for what else I then said, the friars have
appealed, though without reason, to this Holy See".

The visit to London here alluded to took place in 1356, and, as we have seen, in 1357, the case was already under judgment at Avignon. For three whole years the archbishop remained at the Holy See, while a congregation of Cardinals, specially appointed for the purpose, took cognizance of the dispute. No official decision was given, but as the privileges of the mendicant orders were confirmed, and a letter sent to the English bishops commanding them to not interfere with the friars, it may be said that the Archbishop failed to make good his cause.

Sec. IX. HIS DEATH.

On the 16th November, 1360, according to Henry of Malmesbury, Richard Fitz-Ralph slept in the Lord at Avignon. "Of whom", says Fox,[26] "a certain cardinal hearing of his death, openly protested that the same day a mighty pillar of the Church was fallen".

In Wadding's _Annals_, it is told that towards the end of his life, seeing it was not likely he could succeed in his struggle, he withdrew to Belgium, and there died in the mountains of Hannonia. The same account appears in the Camden Annals of Ireland. But Ware[27] tells us that the Armagh copy of these annals agrees with other histories in placing the death at Avignon. In 1370, his remains were removed by Stephanus de Valle (who from the see of Limerick was translated to that of Meath by Urban V. in 1369), and brought back to his native town of Dundalk, where they were desposited in the church of St. Nicholas. The memory of his extraordinary merits soon attracted to his tomb crowds of the faithful. The usage of styling him St. Richard of Dundalk became quite general, and many miracles were ascribed to his intercession. Moved by the report of these prodigies, Pope Boniface IX. appointed John Cotton, Archbishop of Armagh, Richard Young, Bishop-elect of Bangor, and the Abbot of Osney, near Oxford, as commissioners to institute a judicial examination of the miracles. The result of their labours is not known. Stewart, in his _History of Armagh_, mentions[28] that in a synod held at Drogheda in 1545, it was ordered that the feast of St. Richard of Dundalk should be celebrated in the diocese of Armagh with nine lessons, in _crastino Joannis et Pauli_.

Sec. X. THE WORKS OF ARCHBISHOP FITZ-RALPH.

(A.) Printed works:--

1. (_a_) _Richardi Archiepiscopi Armachani, Hyberniae Primalis, Defensorium Curatorum, adversus eos qui Privilegiatos se esse dicunt_, habitum Avinione in consistorio coram D. Papa Innocentio VJ. et D.D. Cardinalibus et Prelatis, anno Christi 1357, nunc recens excusum juxta vetus exemplar et ex fide codicis MS. diligentissime castigatum. Parisiis apud Joan. Libert, via D. Joan. Lateranens. e regione Auditorii Regii, MDCXXI. pagg. 1-136.

(_b_) The same is printed in the _Appendix ad Fasciculum Rerum expetendarum et fugiendarum_ opera et studio Ed. Brown Parochi Sandrigiae in agro Cantiano. London: Chiswell, MDCXC. vol. ii. pag. 466 to 486.

(_c_) The same in Goldast's _Monumenta S. Romani Imperii_, vol. ii. p. 1391 to 1410.

2. _Summa Domini Armachani in quaestionibus Armenorum_, noviter impressa et correcta a magistro nostro Joanne Sudoris, cum aliquibus sermonibus ejusdem de Christi Dominio. "Jehan Petit, venales habentur in vico Divi Jacobi sub lilio aureo ... quinsiene jour de Juillet mil cinq cens et douse., fol. clxxvii."

As this is the most important of all the writings of Dr. Fitz-Ralph, and as the printed book is very rare, it will please our readers to have a more detailed account of its object and contents. The work forms a real encyclopaedia of theological learning, and reveals the vast extent of the author's studies and acquirements. The introduction runs as follows:--

Reverendis in Christo patribus, Versi Manasgardensi, ac
fratri Joanni electo Clatensi Majoris Armeniae, Richardus
Radulphus Archiepiscopus Armachanus, Hiberniae Primas, per
gratiam sitire justitiam donec hauriatis aquas in gaudio de
fontibus Salvatoris. Ex revelatione Vestrae sanctae
devotionis accepi, ob defectum exercitii in Sacris
Scripturis antiquas quasdam hereses a Sanctis Patribus
reprobatas, et nonnullas contra S. Scripturas novellas
assertiones erroneas in vestris partibus pullulasse, propter
quas per doctores Latinos ex sacris Literis resecandas, eo
quia earum patroni auctoritatem Ecclesiae Romanae non
admittunt estimantes ejus auctoritatem ex Sacris Literis
probari non posse, ad Romanam curiam zelus domus Dei et
Christi charitas vos adduxit. Cum vero super ipsis erroribus
vobis cum ibidem aliquoties contulissem, meam exilitatem
devotius stimulastis ut super quaestionibus vestris illud
vobis scriberem quod mihi dignaretur Dominus aperire. Cui
Vestro tam accepto Deo desiderio resistere non audebam,
exactiones spiritualis usurae formidans, si de bonis a
Domino acceptis officium negligerem institoris, et juxta
ipsius promissa _qui evangelizantibus dat verba virtute
multa_ ardenter desideratis ampliora ob hoc recipite ut
abundem magis. Nec debent indignari mihi majores, ex quo
ipsi per quos melius perfici potuit illud penitus
neglexerunt, et ego cum vidua evangelica cupiam minuta, quae
habeo in Domini domum offerre, ipso teste confidens humilis
orationis suffragio amplius quam subtilitate ingenii
difficilia penetrare. Nec majorum correctionem renuo sed
affecto, et ipsum opus, (cujus titulem volui esse _De
quaestionibus Armenorum quod_ in xix. particulas sive libros
distinxi, singulis libris materiam fidei et ipsius causam
premittendo), approbationi et reprobationi nostri Papae
Patris Clementis VI. universalis Ecclesiae Summi Pontificis
in toto et in parte committo. In primis quinque libris illa
principalis quaestio Armenorum pertractabitur: numquid
Christus habuit in se duas plenas naturas, scilicet, divinam
et humanam ita quod propter unionen illarum duarum naturarum
in ipso fuit Dominus IESVS Christus veraciter suppositum,
persona, sive hypostasis in utraque natura verus Deus et
verus homo.

Primus itaque liber contra heresim Nestorianam, a quodam
Nestorio introductam, affirmantem in Christo naturam humanam
duntaxat, ita ut Christus homo fuerit et non Deus; quam
heresim secuti sunt Cherintus, Armerintus, Theodocio, et
etiam excaecati Judaei, et multae Orientalium nationum usque
in prasens, patefacto primitus quis sensus sit literalis
Sacrae Scripturae censendus, ex Scriptura N. T. juxta sensum
literalem ipsius ostendit Christum quem colimus esse Deum.
Secundus liber contra Judaeos specialiter ex V. T. juxta
literalem sensum ipsius, probat Christum sive Messiam in sua
Scriptura promissum Deum esse debere.

Tertius liber ex eadem V. Scriptura ostendit Christum
nostrum quem colimus esse sive fuisse illum qui erat Judaico
populo in ipsa Scriptura promissus.

In quarto libro tractantur objectus Judaici populi contra
ostensa in lib 2'o et 3'o et dantur et probantur in ipso
regulae certae istos objectus, et omnes alios objectus
Judaicos dissolvendi.

In quarto libro contra heresim Arii et Apollinarii
affirmantem quod in Christo anima humana non fuit,
divinitas loco animae in Christo erat: ad hoc, contra
heresim Manichaei dicentis Christum non verum corpus humanum
sed corpus fantasticum habuisse Scripturae testimonia
adducuntur, et consequenter contra heresim ponentem corpus
humanum in Christo fuisse et divinitas veluti indumentum ac
vestem sicut in angelis cum corpora humana assumuni; et
contra heresim Dioscori affirmantis naturam humanam in
Christo in divinam fuisse mutatam ex utroque Testamento
testimonia proferuntur.

Sextus liber ex Scripturis utriusque Testamenti ostendit
Spiritum Sanctum a Filio sicut a Patre procedere, quod a
Grecis et ab Armenis plerisque negatur.

Septimus liber probat ex Scriptura quod Romana Ecclesia sit
caput totius Ecclesiae Christianae.

Octavus liber de Sacramento baptismi et ejus forma plures
Armenorum quaestiones absolvit.

Nonus liber de Sacramentis Corporis Christi et Sanguinis,
Confirmationis et Unctionis plures quaestiones eorum
tractat.

Decimus liber de modis illicitis, conferendi et acquirendi
et detinendi dona Dei gratuita ac praeposituras Ecclesiae
quaestiones eorum pertractat, et an requiratur gratia Dei ad
habendum dominium.

Undecimus[29] liber de potestate absolvendi simplicis
sacerdotis, et de punitione animarum hominum impiorum ante
finale judicium quaestiones ipsorum dissolvit.

Duodecimus liber quaestiones Armenorum pertractat de
beatitudine animarum quorumdam justorum et de purgatione
aliquarum animarum ante finale judicium.

Liber decimus-tertius, quem propter Athanasium Graecum qui
negat Purgatorium adjeci, quatuor pertractat articulos, de
satisfactione, debita pro peccatis in vita et etiam post
hanc vitam.

Liber decimus-quartus tractat quaestiones Graecorum et
Armenorum de visione nuda atque clara divinae essentiae a
vere beatis quam negant plerique eorum.

Liber decimus-quintus objicit contra auctoritatem nostrae
Scripturae per contingentiam futurorum praenuntiatorum in
ipsa quae possint non fore, et occasione cujusdam novelli
erroris asserentis omnia futura ex necessitate sive
inevitabiliter evenire, quare offendit libertatem
contradictionis in voluntate humana tam ex physicis
scripturis quam ex divinis in multiplici ratione, et
contingentiam futurorum.

Liber decimus-sextus ponit tres de pretactis objectionibus
acceptis de infallibilitate scripturae divinae, a divina
praescientia immutabili, a voluntate divina omnipotente
invincibili et etiam efficaci; et solvit eosdem ex propriis
principiis evidenter ostendens contingentiam futurorum et
libertatem contradictionis voluntatis divinae et humanae.

Liber decimus-septimus residuos sex ponit objectus de Dei
cooeperatione speciali cum voluntate hominum operante; de
sustentatione rerum intrinseca ab omnipotenti divina
potentia; de divina cooeperatione generali eum omni agente
creato; de necessitate eventus actuum intrinsecorum
nostrorum, etc.

Liber decimus-octavus ostendit auctoritatem Legis Antiquae
et Novae, et probat utrumque Testamentum ex lege Saracenorum
firmari; et cum in multiplici ratione affirmat Legem nostram
traditam in suis majoribus articulis non fuisse aut esse
corruptam.

Liber decimus-nonus comparat Legem nostram quoad sacramenta
et ceremonias cum lege Judaeorum. Pertractat etiam de
miraculis Apostolorum, et ostendit Legem nostram robur
amplius habere quam ratio naturalis, aut aliqua secta
gentilium et hoc totum opus consummat.

Quia vero per interrogationem et responsionem modus tradendi
videtur multis facilior, licet sit aliquantulum prolixior,
unum de nostris, mihi discipulum predilectum, quasi mecum
disputantem accepi. Ita ut Joannes vicem gerere quaerentis,
et Richardus intelligatur vicem gerere docentis licet potius
respondentis. Vos igitur, Reverendi Patres, opus accipite
quod petistis, orationis si placet mercedem mihi pensantes
pro labore hoc.

(B.) Works in Manuscript:--

1. (_a_) _Summa contra Armenos_, lib. xx., fol. 126, xc. New College. Oxford.

(_b_) _Responsio de Armenorum Heresi_, fol. 218, xviii. Lincoln Coll., Oxford.

(_c_) _Armachanus de Questionibus Armenorum_, Cod. 250, n. 4. St. Benedict, Cambridge.

(_d_) _Scriptum Armachani de Questionibus Armenorum_, Cod. 224. Pembroke, Cambridge.

(_e_) _Richardi Armachani lib._ xix., _Questionum adversus Armenos_. Trin. College, Dublin.

2. _Ricardi Radulphi Armachani Opus in P. Lombardi sententias_ in questiones xxix. distributum, praevio sermone super idem. xv. Oriel College, Oxford.

3. (_a_) _Ricardi Rad. Armachani, Propositio facta in consistorio coram Domino Papa et Cardinalibus ac Prelatis super materia mendicitatis ac privilegiorum mendicantium contra Fratres de ordinibus quibuscunque, apud Avinion. die 8 mensis Novemb. Anno Domini MCCCLVIII._, _fol._ 54, xxxviii. Magdal. Coll. Oxford.

(_b_) _Propositio ejusdem facta in consistorio coram Papa, Cardinalibus et Prelatis, ad utilitatem cleri ac populi Christiani super materia mendicitatis ac privilegiorum contra fratres de ordinibus mendicantium quibuscunque apud Avinion. 8 Nov. 1357_, fol. 184. St. John Bapt., Oxford.

(_c_) _Ric. Filii Radulphi, Archiep. Cantuar._ (sic) _sermo habitus Avinionae viii. die mensis Novembris A.D. 1357, in istud Nolite judicare secundum faciem_, etc., fol. 53. Corpus Christi Coll., clxxxii., Oxford.

4. _Propositio Ric. Armachani ex parte Regis Angliae Edwardi III., in consistorio D. Papa Avinione pro gratia jubilaei ejus D. Regis populo obtinenda, anno 1349_, fol. 177. S. J. Bap., Oxford.

5. _Rich. Fil. Rad. Armachani de paupertate Christi_ libri septem, cum prologo ad Innocentium Papam VI. et titulo capitulorum cuique libro praevio, fol. 143. King's Coll. Oxford, cxviii.

6. _Objectiones ejusdem contra seipsum in Materia de Mendicitate et aliis cum suis solutionibus_, fol. 196, S. Q. B., lxv. Oxford.

7. _Responsio ad objectiones Mendicantium._ British Museum.

8. _Excerpta varia ex Ricardo Fitz-Rauf; a) excerpta ex testamento S. Francisci contra fratres Minores; b) excerpta notabilia ex quodam libro qui vocatur Summa Summarum; c) excerpta ex libro Copiosae charitatis._ Bodl.

9. _Rich. Radulphi Armachani Primatis Dialogus vel Disputatio de Rebus ad S. Scripturam pertinentibus._ Lincoln, 75.

10. (_a_) _Sermones Domini Richardi Dei gratia Archiep. Armach. Hiberniae, habiti Avinione et aliis locis quampluribus de diversis Sanctis et temporibus._ S. John B. lxv. Oxford.

(_b_) _Ric. Rad. sive Fitz-Ralph, Archiep. Armach. sermones de tempore et de sanctis, per totum annum._ New Coll., xc.

(_c_) _Sermones tam de tempore quam de sanctis._ Trin. Coll., Dub.

(_d_) _Sermones V. ad crucem Londinensem_, an 1356, et _alii de laudibus S. Deipariae_. Ibid.

(_e_) _Sermones Richardi filii Radulphi de Dundalk, Archiepiscop. Armachani._ _Ibid._

FOOTNOTES:

[15] Theiner's _Vetera Monumenta_, n. 517, p. 263.

[16] _Vet. Monum._, n. 270, p. 286.

[17] _Annal. MSS._, in Bibl. Cotton.

[18] _Vet. Mon._, n. 271, p. 286-7.

[19] _Ibid._, n. 272.

[20] _Ibid._, n. 273.

[21] _Claus. 29-30, Ed. III._

[22] _Pat. 29, Ed. III._

[23] _Commentar. Urbanor, lib. 3._

[24] _Vet. Mon., p. 521._

[25] _Defensorium Curatorum._

[26] _Acts and Monuments_, i. p. 465, seq.

[27] _De Scriptoribus_, lib. i. p. 10.

[28] _Dowdall Register._

[29] Cardinal Bellarmine warns his readers that our author is _caute legendus_ in the 4th cap. of the 10th, and the 4th cap. of the 11th books. The Cardinal does not approve of his doctrine, _de potestate presbyterorum_, nor of his teaching on the mendicant state.

MR. BUTT AND NATIONAL EDUCATION.[30]

No Irish Catholic can examine the system of National Education without being filled with alarm for the safety of our faith in Ireland.

The tendency of the national system is to give a full control over the education of the rising generations in Ireland to the English Government, thus affording them an opportunity of undermining true faith, and of effecting by favours, promises, gifts, and influence, what they sought in vain to obtain by penal laws, by confiscation of property, and by fire and sword. The system also tends to weaken pastoral authority, to deprive the successors of the apostles, who were sent by Christ to teach all nations, of their lawful influence, and to separate priest and people. Such consequences necessarily follow from the operation of model and training schools, and from the vast powers given in all educational matters to a body of commissioners appointed by the government, and dependent on it--commissioners, many of whom are openly hostile to the religion of the people of Ireland, whilst others have given proof that they are either unable or unwilling to defend it or support its rights and interests. But even if the commissioners were most anxious to do justice to Catholics, the nature of the system which they have bound themselves to carry out would frustrate their good intentions. The mixed system proposes to collect into the same school teachers and pupils of every religious denomination, Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Jews, and to do nothing and to teach nothing in the school, and to publish nothing in the schoolbooks, offensive to any of them. Hence all prayers, the catechism, all teaching of the special doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church, must be banished from the school during the hours of teaching, and the books placed in the hands of children which are calculated to exercise great influence on their after life, must be compiled in a style of indifference to every religion. Indeed we could not expect to find anything good or religious in books composed by a Protestant archbishop of rationalistic and latitudinarian views, who does not appear to have believed in the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ, who raised himself to the episcopal dignity by publishing the _Errors of Romanism_, and who terminated his career by admitting that his object in compiling some of the books introduced into the national schools was to dissipate the darkness in which the Irish people are sitting, or, in other words, to spread among them his own dangerous principles, and to undermine their faith.

Whilst the national system is beset by so many dangers, we cannot but be anxious that its character and tendencies should be accurately examined, and the objections to which it is liable fairly stated to the public. We are now happy to be able to say that all this has been done by a Protestant barrister, Mr. Isaac Butt, late M.P. for Youghal. This learned and eloquent gentleman has just published a treatise entitled _The Liberty of Teaching Vindicated_, in which he gives the history of the system of National Education, and discusses its merit. The writer appears to have studied the subject with the greatest care, and to have made himself acquainted with all its bearings. His treatise is written with great clearness and moderation; his views upon education are liberal and accurate; and his arguments against allowing the education of Ireland to pass into the hands of a hostile government, are most powerful and unanswerable. Mr. Butt has rendered us an immense service by publishing so valuable a treatise. We recommend all our friends to provide themselves with it, and to peruse it most carefully.

We shall now give some few extracts from it to show the spirit in which it is written. The treatise is dedicated to Mr. Gladstone, and in the dedication Mr. Butt calls on that great statesman to apply to Ireland the principles of justice and liberality, which he had so often advocated in the case of other nations, principles unhappily ignored in the management of Irish affairs by those who have the reins of power in their hands.

"Most of our departments are managed as if the chief art of
Irish government consisted in a dexterous thwarting, or, at
least, ignoring of all local and national wishes, as they
are represented by the class with whom the department has to
deal. In no country in the world, not even in the Austrian
provinces of Venetia, are national feeling and sentiment so
completely excluded from any control over the management of
national affairs"--(p. viii.)

Applying what he had stated to the question of national education, he adds:--

"The House of Commons, with an almost prodigal, but a wise
liberality, has placed at the disposal of the Irish
Government large and ample funds for the purposes of
national education. These funds are administered on a plan
opposed to the feelings of all creeds and all classes of the
Irish nation. Ninety-nine out of every hundred Irishmen
condemn it. There is not an Irish constituency from Bandon
to Derry in which any man could be returned as an advocate
of the national system, if the question were purely one of
its approval or disapproval. There is not a parish in
Ireland in which the inhabitants, if they had their choice,
would adopt it as the system of their parish school. Right
or wrong, the present system is one forced, by official
coercion, on the Irish people. It is a national system,
maintained and supported in defiance of the sentiment of the
nation"--(p. viii.)

Looking at the national system in a religious point of view, Mr. Butt adds, that it is in antagonism with the wishes and feelings of all classes of the Irish people.

"There is no nation on earth who cherish religious feelings
with a more deep and enthusiastic devotion than do the
Irish. They are the very last people among whom the
experiment of an education, which excludes the fulness of
religious teaching, should be tried. The result of the
experiment has been, that by all creeds and classes of
Irishmen, the 'national' system is condemned. All who avail
themselves of it do so grudgingly and of necessity. It is a
system forced upon the people by their rulers.... It is for
the Irish nation themselves to judge of the education which
is suited to the wants of the Irish poor. The system which
is condemned by the universal suffrage of the Irish nation,
is unfit for Ireland, because it is so condemned--(p. ix.)

"If we are driven to justify our opinions, we have only to
refer to the example of England. In England, every school
that receives aid from the funds of the State, is a school
avowedly teaching the doctrines of some religious body. Full
and unrestricted religious instruction is made an essential
part of national education in England. In Ireland, a school
which adopts that instruction as its rule, is consequently
placed under a ban, and denied all assistance from the
national funds. It matters not whether the instruction be
Protestant or Catholic, it equally condemns the school in
the eyes of our rulers"--p. x.

Treating of the difference between the systems prevailing in England and Ireland, Mr. Butt adds:--

"In point of principle, no reason can be assigned for the
difference between England and Ireland. If it be wrong in
Ireland to endow and aid a purely Roman Catholic school, it
is equally so in England. The difference established between
the two countries can neither be justified nor accounted for
upon any rational principle. It fosters the belief in the
mind of every Irishman that his country is treated as an
inferior. In many Irishmen it promotes the belief that
religious instruction, which is free in English schools, is
placed under restriction in Ireland, because the faith of
the majority of the Irish people is proscribed"--(p. xi.)

And may we not ask has not the Irish Catholic sufficient grounds for adopting this opinion? Has not all the legislation of the country for centuries been directed to the destruction of Catholicity?

The question is next referred to of the tendency of the national system to throw the whole education of the country into the hands of the government.

"I do not shrink from inviting your consideration to the
complaint--that the Irish national system, as now
constituted, is one gigantic contrivance for bringing the
whole education of Ireland under government control. I
appeal with confidence to you, as an English statesman,
against the attempt to 'Anglicise' the education of the
Irish people--against the project of bringing up, in
government academies, an army of schoolmasters, who, in
school, and still more out of school, are to form for
government a moral and intellectual police--against the
system of lavish bribery by which it is plainly proposed to
attract all talent in the humbler classes of Irishmen into
the service of an anti-Irish Board--against the institution
in our country of a great system of universal education,
subject to influences that are not Irish, and administered
in a spirit of distrust of the whole Irish people, their
national prejudices, and their religion"--(p. xii.)

In the course of the work, proofs are given of the way in which it was sought to establish government influence. In the beginning, according to the letter of Lord Stanley, only one model school was to be erected in Ireland, and the minor schools through the country were to remain quite independent. In 1835, the commissioners began to manifest more extensive designs, and in a report to Lord Mulgrave, it was proposed to establish a model school in each county, to take the training of all the teachers of the kingdom into the hands of the Board, and, at the same time, the plan was adopted to introduce books treating of common Christianity, and compiled by Dr. Whateley, and, in fact, to make the authority of the commissioners paramount in everything connected with the education of the future generations in Ireland. On this Mr. Butt observes:--

"In no country ought such a system to be tolerated--least of
all in Ireland, where--it ought not, it cannot be
disguised--there still exists the antagonism between the
English government and the thoughts and feelings and
sentiments of the nation. I would not write the truth if I
did not say, that any one who knows Irish affairs must
expect the administration of such a system to be
anti-national. He would be informed, without surprise, that
from the lessons of history there was carefully excluded all
that would remind Irishmen of their distinctive
nationality--that the whole tone and tendency of the
literature were English--and that, in drawing up the
lesson-books in which Irish children are to be taught,
Englishmen and Scotchmen were the only persons worthy of the
confidence of the Irish National Board.

"I am content to be accounted of narrow and provincial
feelings when I thus point to the anti-national character of
the system. From the invasion of Henry II. to the present
time, English rulers have been engaged in one device or
another to destroy the distinctive nationality of Irishmen.
The attempt is as unwise as it is unjust. It can only be
effected by the destruction of public spirit and the
demoralization of the country. The empire in which we are
associated gains no more by the destruction of the
individual nationality of its component parts, than society
would gain by the destruction of all distinctive character
in those who compose it. If even the Irish people are to be
taught to love England, they must be taught to love Ireland
first, and to feel that there is no inconsistency between
the most intense Irish feeling and attachment to the empire
of which Ireland forms a part. There is a waste of energy in
every attempt to extirpate national prejudices and feelings,
which makes the attempt a blunder as well as a crime. Russia
has not yet Russianized Poland, and the Irish are as far
from being West Britons as they were in the days of James I.

"It must be remembered that the effect of such a proposal
was to substitute for the varying forms of individual energy
and local exertion one great uniform system. While the
education of the people was eked out by the sacrifices of
the people themselves, or supplied by the desultory efforts
of individuals, there was always room for the play of
national and local feelings. So far as a plan like that
propounded in this report was successful, it destroyed all
other industrial energies among the lower orders. The old
hedge schoolmaster could no longer make out his bread. The
poor scholar could no longer wander from house to house,
teaching the old history of Ireland in return for the food
and lodging he received. All the lower orders of the people
were to be taught by masters trained in a government
college, and drilled in a system from which all national
feeling was excluded--masters, of whom it was put forward as
their chief merit that they would be political and moral
agents of the government, inculcating order on a lawless,
and teaching civilization to a barbarous, people.

"The report of 1835 suggested, of necessity, the question of
religion. The masters, according to its proposal, were
plainly to be indoctrinated in matters from which religion
could not be separated. They were to be instructed in mental
philosophy by a professor, specially appointed for that
purpose. This training must be given them that they may be
qualified to direct 'the thoughts and inclinations of Irish
children in a right direction'. Would it have been
unreasonable, is it unreasonable now, that the guardians of
the faith of any portion of the Irish people should feel
anxious to have some security for the character of the
'mental philosophy' in which the teachers of the people were
trained?

"Comparing the plan announced in Lord Stanley's published
letter with that which was carried into effect, under the
joint operation of the interpolated passage and the report
of 1835, it is obvious that those who might be perfectly
satisfied with the arrangements of the first, either as to
religious or national feeling, might yet be wholly
dissatisfied upon the very same points with the second.

"Under the covert and guarded language of the report of
1835, we can clearly trace the inauguration of a new
system--a system wholly unlike anything that had preceded it
or had ever been recommended--a system which was to
establish in every parish a government agent, under the name
of a national schoolmaster, and which was also to become a
great government university for the teaching of the middle
classes.

"This last was to be accomplished by the medium of the model
schools. One of these was to be established in each county.
The master was to be a person of superior attainments, with
a salary very far above that of any curate of the
Established Church, and in these schools a superior
education was to be conveyed. We shall see how steadily the
plan, first broached in the annual report of 1835, has been
carried out.

"In 1837, the report tells us that 'they had added to their
normal establishment in Dublin a scientific department and a
school of industry, in the immediate neighbourhood of
Dublin, with work-rooms and a farm of from forty to fifty
acres attached to it'. In the same report they propose to
appoint a superintendent for each of twenty-five
districts--residing at the model school, and having L125
a-year, with apartments and allowances. The head master of
each model school was '_to be authorised to receive a
limited number of boarders at such charge to their parents
and friends as the commissioners might think proper, having
regard to local circumstances'_.

"At the same time, they stated their intention to establish,
generally, schools termed secondary, in which 'scientific
instruction' and 'instruction in manual occupation' should
be given;--a portion of land for garden husbandry to be an
indispensable adjunct to each secondary school.

"In 1839 they modestly announce a model farm, near Dublin,
as only in its infancy, with twelve agricultural pupils,
'deriving much benefit from the judicious system of farming
which they see practised there'.

"In 1840 they determine to establish twenty-five
agricultural model schools--each of them in connection with
an elementary national school. They subsequently establish
twelve pupil-teacherships in their central agricultural
institution--scholarships, in fact, which are competed for
by the most promising students in their rural agricultural
schools.

"I have referred to these establishments in proof of the
assertion that the national system has been gradually
expanded into a vast educational institution, absorbing and
controlling the education of the poorer classes, and, to a
great extent, that of the middle classes of the country.

"The extent to which this has proceeded will be understood
by a reference to the last report of the Commissioners, that
for the year 1864.

"It appears by this report that there are at present in
operation twenty-six model schools (classing the three
metropolitan schools as one establishment). The expenditure
within the year upon these model schools amounts to nearly
L25,000.

"In addition to the Albert Model Farm at Glasnevin, near
Dublin, there are in connection with the Board thirty-six
agricultural schools; nineteen of these are under the
exclusive management of the Board--seventeen partly under
local control.

"The sums expended on this agricultural department amount in
the year to more than L10,000. It will complete this
statement to add that in the same year, 1864, the training
institution of Dublin was maintained at a cost, in its
several branches, of L4,500.

"The cost of the inspection department of the institution
amounts to no less a sum than L23,000.

"The cost of the official establishment in Marlborough
Street is L15,457.

"In addition to this, a very considerable sum, amounting,
probably, to nearly L10,000, appears to be annually
distributed, at the discretion of the Board and its
inspectors, in the shape of gratuities of one kind or other
to the persons engaged in the teaching of the national
schools.

"It appears from this report (excluding the item last
mentioned), that upon the official staff of this great
educational institute there is annually expended a sum of
L49,000; and upon model and agricultural schools, wholly
foreign from the original objects, a further sum of L33,000,
making an expenditure of L82,000, one shilling of which does
not reach one of the schools, to support which the grant for
Irish education was originally made.

"The whole of this immense sum, amounting to nearly
one-third of the grant, is really spent upon a machinery
for bringing the education of the people under the entire
and absolute control of the Board.

"I do not stop to argue whether L15,000 be not an
extravagant expenditure for official expenses. That which is
of importance to observe is, that the tendency and effect of
the costly, but most effective, system of inspection is, in
reality, to convert inspection into superintendence, and to
extend the direct influence of the Board over all the
schools in connection with them. The training or normal
establishment is instituted for the express purpose of
indoctrinating the masters in the views prescribed by the
Board. But the influence does not end here. By a system of
examinations, conducted in connection with the inspection,
the Board contrives to direct the studies and mould the
train of thought of the masters. Their salaries are
increased at the pleasure of the Board. A graduated system
of promotion and a scale of rewards are established,
dependent entirely on their recommending themselves to the
inspectors. Under such a system the power nominally left to
the local patrons of selecting the schoolmaster, in reality
does not give to these patrons any substantial control.
Every national schoolmaster adopts, or professes to adopt,
the opinions of his real masters, and learns to reflect the
opinions which he knows to be in favour with the Board.

"The model schools are established partly to complete the
training of the masters, and partly to force upon the
country the entire system of the Board. Of these schools the
commissioners themselves are the patrons, and in these they
have full power of enforcing their own views. What they
'earnestly recommend' to others, they are able to adopt in
their own schools. Money is lavished upon these model
schools, so as to make them establishments of a superior
order. The model school in Marlborough Street is maintained
at an expense of L3,500. One in Belfast costs very nearly
the same sum. Most of this money is expended in the salaries
and maintenance of pupil teachers, so that these model
schools are, in effect, colleges, with their exhibitions to
attract students. Over these model schools the commissioners
have absolute control, and through them, and by means of
them, they exercise an almost absolute influence over the
whole system of education in connection with the Board. This
is, in effect, the carrying out of the plan indicated in the
report of 1835. Centralization is secured by an array of
schoolmasters, trained under the Commissioners. No man can
attain the rank of a first-class national schoolmaster who
has not gone through a training in an establishment
conducted after the most approved fashion of the Board--a
training by which he becomes thoroughly indoctrinated in all
the maxims of that fashion. He is not sent to a model school
merely to see the best mode of arranging classes or
maintaining the discipline of the school. He is sent there
to reside as the student of a college, to learn various
departments of knowledge. He is taught, in his training,
history, political economy, mental philosophy, and
scriptural history--and he learns them all in lesson books
prepared to order for the Commissioners, and by catechetical
instruction, in which he is drilled by professors and
inspectors appointed at their sole nomination.

"I pass, for the present, from this part of the subject,
with this one observation--that this sum of L80,000 is
annually expended upon a portion of the system with which
local exertion or local influence has nothing whatever to
do. It is wholly, absolutely, and unreservedly under the
direction and control of the central authority.

"In England, I may observe, the state assumes no such power.
The training institutions for schoolmasters are left
entirely under the control of the authorities of the
respective denominations. In Ireland, the rule is that the
masters should be trained by government, and accept at once
their theology, their morals, and their science of teaching
at the hands of the officials of the state. It is only the
resolute opposition of the Catholic prelates that has
prevented this project from being completely carried into
effect"--(p. 87-96.)

We regret that our space will not allow us to give more copious extracts from the book now before us. But again we recommend our readers to read and study the whole treatise. It will open their eyes to the dangers with which mixed education, falsely called _national_, menaces our Church and our country.

FOOTNOTES:

[30] Mr. Butt's work is entitled _The Liberty of Teaching Vindicated, Reflections and Proposals on the subject of National Education_. Dublin. Kelly, Grafton Street, 1865.

LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.

The few questions which were answered in the last number of the _Record_ have given occasion to other questions of a practical nature in connection with the Office and Mass for the Dead. There is a variety of practice in some points--for instance, 1st, at the end of the absolution, if the office and mass be celebrated for one person, should _requiescat in pace_, or _requiescant_, be said?

2nd, Should the _Anima ejus et animae omnium_, etc., be said, and is there any definite rule about it?

3rd, When is the _De profundis_ to be said, and when is it to be omitted?

With regard to the first question we beg to quote the following decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, which settles the question.

"Dec. 2709. An dicendum sit in fine absolutionis mortuorum
requiescat vel requiescant?

"Resp. Quando absolutio est pro uno defuncto, in singulari;
pro pluribus, in plurali. In missa vero semper
_requiescant_. Die 22 Januarii, 1678".

In reply to the second question, it appears to us that the Rubrics of the Ritual will lead us to a safe conclusion. The Ritual clearly lays down that, if the remains for any reason are not carried to the cemetery immediately after the office, the Benedictus, and the prayer, etc., having been said, the _Anima ejus et animae_, etc., is also to be said. In such a case there is no doubt, inasmuch as the Ritual lays down the entire order of the ceremony, and ends with the words _Anima ejus_, etc., in full without any comment. If the remains are brought to the cemetery the same practice is to be observed, for at the sepulchre the same prayers are prescribed by the Rubrics, and there is no change mentioned. Hence, we consider we are correct in stating that the _Anima ejus_, etc., is to be said at the end of the prayers for burial, praesente corpore, whether these are recited in the church or in the cemetery. But is the verse _Anima ejus_ to be said at the end, after the _Requiescant in pace_, if the remains are not present? There is no mention of this in the Ritual nor in the Missal, and it is certain that on All Souls' Day, when the remains, as a rule, are not supposed to be present, the _Anima ejus_ is not to be said. There is a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites referring to this subject.

"Dec. 2924. An post absolutionem quae fit super cadaver in
die obitus, vel supra tumulum in die anniversario aut super
lecticam seu castrum doloris in die commemorationis omnium
fidelium defunctorum, dicto versiculo requiescant in pace,
subjungi debeat Anima ejus et animae omnium, etc.

"Resp. Servetur Rituale: et in commemoratione omnium
fidelium defunctorum nihil superaddendum. Die 2 Decembris,
1684".

We do not mean to say that this decree decides the point clearly in our favour, but the Ritual certainly does not prescribe it. We have before us an excellent ceremonial published in Bologna by a missionary priest of St. Vincent, and he is clearly of opinion that the _Anima ejus_ absente cadavere ought not to be said, and adduces the decree above quoted referring to the office on All Souls' Day.