Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

Mr. Barlow "_cannot conceive_ any finite Sin deserving such a doom!" Mr. Barlow "_cannot conceive_" eternal punishment proceeding from a merciful being! That is to say, one of the "incomprehensible decrees" of God exceeds the limits of Mr. Barlow's conception, and this is a sufficient reason "to strike it from the popular creed" (p. 144), and to reform the venerable symbols of Christian faith.[13] He adds, indeed, that "the sentence appears to be clearly repugnant not only to mercy, but to justice". But when we look for a proof of this daring assertion, we are told that the _onus probandi_ rests upon us. Now, this is a simple issue. Does the _onus probandi_ rest with us or with Mr. Barlow? Let our readers judge for themselves. Mr. Barlow professes to believe in the Bible. We urge upon him the solemn declaration, so often repeated by Christ and His Apostles, that the wicked "shall go into everlasting punishment". True, he replies, I cannot gainsay these words; but "I believe that the doctrine is untenable" (_Preface_, p. iv.), because it is repugnant to the attributes of God. Surely it devolves upon him to prove this alleged contradiction between the attributes of God and the words of Christ. As for us, we have nothing to prove. We cling fast to the words of eternal truth, with a firm confidence that they cannot be shaken by the arguments of human wisdom, nor even by the boasted civilization of the nineteenth century.

The ingenious sophistry by which our author seeks to shift the burthen of proof from his own shoulders, may be exposed more clearly by the following illustration: God alone exists from eternity. This world, therefore, which we inhabit must have been created by Him _out of nothing_. This is an obvious and a certain conclusion. But some one might object: "This opinion is untenable if creation out of nothing is an impossibility; and 'I cannot conceive' that it is possible. How do you prove that it is consistent with the Divine attributes?" Mr. Barlow, we think, would give little quarter to such an objector. And yet this is the very course of reasoning he has himself pursued. The answer in each case is exactly the same. We _know_ that creation is possible, because it has actually taken place. And so, too, we _know_ that the doctrine of eternal punishment is in harmony with the attributes of God, because He that cannot deceive has told us that the doctrine is true. If we cannot _see_ that harmony, it is because the judgments of God are incomprehensible, His ways unsearchable to our finite understanding.

But we must do justice to Mr. Barlow. Though he maintains that the burthen of proof rests with his adversaries, yet he does set himself to demonstrate that the doctrine of eternal punishment contradicts the attributes of God. Now, in this part of his task, we freely admit that much of his reasoning is cogent and indeed conclusive: but it falls very short of the conclusion which he labours to establish. Thus, for example, in the case of a little child that "cries about taking its medicine", Mr. Barlow cannot bear the idea that this trivial fault will be punished with eternal flames (pp. 19, 20). Or, "you fall asleep for a minute or two in church, at afternoon service on a hot day: of course you have not been attending to the service; but, honestly and truly, do you clearly see and feel that those two minutes' sleep _deserves at the hand of Infinite Justice_ everlasting agony?" (p. 38, _note_). Again, "a quick little child of two years old, or even younger, knows very well that it is naughty to get into a passion and strike his mother or his nurse: his elders, however, do not think a great deal of this little ebullition of temper, and consider it amply expiated by sending him to bed. But the child may suddenly die in his sin. Will the 'All Merciful' consign him to everlasting tortures?" (p. 44). In another place (chap. v.) he adduces several texts to prove that "punishment after death, finite in duration, as the lot of _some_, is the unambiguous doctrine of Holy Scripture" (p. 116). There is nothing in all this to which we can object. But we maintain that such arguments are worthless in the cause of which Mr. Barlow is the advocate. He proves, indeed, that there are many sins which do not deserve eternal punishment. He proves too from the Inspired Writings, that, beyond the grave there is a state of expiation, in which many souls must needs be purged from such minor transgressions before they can appear in those mansions of heavenly purity where "nothing defiled shall enter".[14]

Our readers will here recognize without difficulty the Catholic doctrine of venial sin, and the Catholic doctrine of purgatory. Unconsciously Mr. Barlow has become for a time the champion of Catholic faith. But the question at issue has not to do with the innocent little babe that beats its nurse, nor the wayward child that refuses its medicine, nor yet with the just man that, through human frailty, "shall fall seven times, and shall rise again".[15] The controversy in which Mr. Barlow has engaged regards the future lot of the _wicked_--of those who, _with full deliberation_, have committed _grievous_ sin; of whom St. Paul has said that they "shall not possess the kingdom of God";[16] in a word, of that unhappy band to whom the Great Judge will one day speak those dreadful words: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire". It yet remains for Mr. Barlow to demonstrate that this fire will _not_ last for ever, that it will one day be extinguished, and that the torments of the _wicked_ will cease.

We may pass on, then, to other proofs. "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, that bring glad tidings of good things".[17] This is the sentiment of St. Paul and of the Prophet Isaias. But, argues Mr. Barlow, if the gospel of eternal punishment be true, he that goes forth to preach the gospel to the heathen is a curse and not a blessing. Now what are the practical results of our missions to the heathen? "Is not the testimony of all unbiassed witnesses who have travelled among them uniform? Success is infinitesimal, failure all but universal. What impression has been made by our associations on the hundred and fifty millions of India? Taking the estimates of the missionaries themselves, who are not unnaturally disposed to magnify the good results of their work, the nominal converts are barely one in two thousand, while the number of _bona fide_ native Christians, 'possessed of saving faith', may be regarded as practically evanescent. Remembering, then, these facts, and assuming as a not improbable proportion, that a zealous missionary preaches the Gospel to a thousand who reject it for one whom he converts to Christ--God help him--the load of human misery which that man has brought about must surely weigh heavy on his soul.... Has any tyrant, a recognized scourge of the human race, brought down such storms of misery on his species as must be ascribed to the active missionary who has failed? And they have all failed--failed a thousand times over for once they have been successful" (p. 14, 15).

On reading this very remarkable passage we are struck with the ingenuous candour of the writer. It is nothing new for us to learn that Protestant missions in pagan countries have been all but absolutely barren. But it is something new to find a distinguished Protestant Divine, who frankly admits this inconvenient fact. Mr. Barlow must, indeed, find it difficult to persuade himself that the Church which sends forth such missions, is the same as that which Isaias addressed in those well known words: "Enlarge the place of thy tent, and stretch out the skins of thy tabernacles; spare not; lengthen thy cords and strengthen thy stakes. For thou shalt pass on to the right hand, and to the left, and thy seed shall inherit the gentiles".[18] "And the gentiles shall walk in thy light, and kings in the brightness of thy rising. Lift up thy eyes round about and see: all these are gathered together, they are come to thee: thy sons shall come from afar, and thy daughters shall rise up at thy side. Then shalt thou see, and abound, and thy heart shall wonder and be enlarged, when the multitude of the sea shall be converted to thee, the strength of the gentiles shall come to thee". This magnificent prophecy, Mr. Barlow must confess, has no fulfilment in the Protestant Church.

But let that pass. It is not with the _fact_ but with the _argument_ that we purpose to deal. And first, it occurs to us that the argument, if valid, would prove not only against the doctrine which Mr. Barlow impugns, but also against that which he defends. He certainly will admit that a grievous sin against God is a dreadful crime; that it far transcends every other evil which exists or can be conceived. He maintains, moreover, that each one will receive, in the world to come, rewards and punishment "_according to his works_". Therefore, the punishment reserved for the sinner, even though it were not eternal, must yet be something dreadful to contemplate. And the missionary, the number of whose real converts, "'possessed of saving faith', may be regarded as practically evanescent", brings down this dreadful punishment on all to whom he preaches the gospel. Hence, if we accept Mr. Barlow's argument, even on his own doctrine of finite punishment, the missionary will be a curse to heathen nations; not indeed _so great_ a curse as if the punishment of sin were eternal, but still a _curse_ and _not_ a blessing. He must therefore answer his own argument, or else he will be forced to maintain that there is no punishment for sin in the world to come.

To us his reasoning offers little difficulty. If the heathen, when he rejects the Christian faith, commits a deliberate grievous sin, he will certainly be punished accordingly. But this punishment must surely be ascribed to his own wickedness, and not to the labours of the missionary. The work of the missionary is a blessed work; it is the heathen himself that has changed it into a curse. We may illustrate this explanation from the pages of Sacred Scripture. The wicked servant in the gospel, if he had not received the one talent from his master, could not have buried that talent in the earth. And yet, for this fault he is "cast into exterior darkness", and condemned to "weeping and gnashing of teeth".[19] Will Mr. Barlow say that the gift of his master was not a blessing but a curse? If so, he arraigns the conduct of God Himself, whom this master represents. Again, if our Divine Lord had not selected Judea for the scene of His public mission, the Jews would never have been guilty of the frightful crime of Deicide, nor would they have incurred the terrible chastisement with which that crime was punished. Yet who will deny that the presence of the Incarnate Word amongst them was a special favour--the last and greatest--vouchsafed by a loving Father to that unhappy people? We need only add that the words of holy Simeon, addressed to the Virgin Mother on the presentation of her Infant Son in the Temple, are still applicable to every zealous missionary: "Behold, He is set up for the fall and for the resurrection of many in Israel";[20] for the resurrection of those who hearken to the glad tidings, and eagerly accept the grace which He brings; for the fall of those who spurn the one, and trample the other under foot.

The next argument to which we shall invite the attention of our readers, is founded on the condition of the blessed in Heaven. "But the terrible difficulty arising from the relations of the saved to the lost cannot even be mitigated" (p. 22). This "terrible difficulty" is presented to us in two different forms. First, Mr. Barlow implicitly appeals to the divine precept of fraternal charity. Every one is bound to love his neighbour as himself. Now, if the blessed in Heaven fulfil this precept, they must be intensely miserable. For the proof of true charity is that we feel for our neighbour's sufferings, the same grief as if they were our own. Therefore the saints must experience the same internal anguish for the torments of the damned as if they endured these torments themselves.[21] This argument may be dismissed in a few words. The precept of fraternal charity does not extend to the future life. The blessed inhabitants of Heaven _cannot_ love the wicked in Hell; much less are they _bound_ to love them. They see God face to face, and they love Him with a resistless impulse. Whatever else is good and pleasing to Him, that they love for His sake; whatever is bad and offensive in His sight, they _cannot_ love, because they _see_ that it is unworthy of their love. A divine precept to love the devil and his unhappy companions in misery, is an idea peculiar to Mr. Barlow.

The second form in which this "terrible difficulty" appears is more plausible than the first. Many a saint in Heaven will miss from the mansions of the blessed the friend of his bosom. Many a fond sister will look in vain for her gay and dissipated, but yet warm-hearted and affectionate brother. Many a loving mother will behold afar off the undying torments of her darling son. Are we to suppose that the generous affections of the human heart are extinguished in Heaven? If so, then man must be morally worse in Heaven than he was upon earth. And if not, it cannot be true that "mourning and sorrow shall be no more"[22] in the City of God. Here is the argument as it is put by Mr. Barlow. "I firmly believe that if, in the fruition of the Heavenly Kingdom, a time should come when I shall be capable of forgetting that one who truly loved me in this world ... is alive in hopeless torment--scorched by the everlasting flame--gnawed by the undying worm--I must have sunk down lower in the moral scale before this came to pass. I must have become more deeply immersed in heartless selfishness than I am now. And this, which I believe of myself, I believe of every one else. There is only one explanation of this frightful difficulty. We must assume that the redeemed are morally worse in Heaven than they were on Earth" (p. 24).

This difficulty, which appeals more strongly to the feelings than to the judgment, is by no means peculiar to the doctrine of _eternal_ punishment. It must be explained as well by those who say the torments of the damned will come to an end, as by those who say they will not. If the saints must grieve at the _eternal_ punishment of their friends, they must certainly grieve at the _temporal_ punishment of their friends. The latter grief will be less poignant, it is true; but it will still be inconsistent with _perfect_ happiness. Let Mr. Barlow explain how the inhabitants of Heaven will be free from _all_ sorrow, if the punishment of Hell be limited in duration, and it will be easy to show they will be equally free if the punishment be eternal.

As for us, we see no necessity for any explanation. God has promised to make His saints happy. Surely He is able to do it. Mr. Barlow thinks they will be weeping for their friends. But is it not written that "God will wipe away all tears from their eyes"?[23] In what manner this will be done it is not necessary for us to explain. Yet we may be allowed to offer a conjecture, which, as it seems to us, is supported alike by reason and by revelation. We would say that, in the saints every affection that has not for its object what is good and pleasing to God, will be utterly extinguished; and therefore they will _cease to love_ those unhappy souls that have been condemned to Hell. The reason is clear. The saints in Heaven see things as they are; and hence they _cannot_ love that which is wicked and hateful in the sight of God. In Mr. Barlow's mind this severance of earthly ties must come from an increase of "heartless selfishness". To us it seems to flow from perfect love of God. Neither does it follow, as he supposes, that the saints have "sunk down lower in the moral scale". On the contrary, it is manifest they have been raised up immeasurably higher. On Earth their affections were often guided by mere human motives, and, at best, were governed by an erring human judgment; in Heaven, they are moulded with the most perfect fidelity after a Divine model.

With these remarks, we take leave of Mr. Barlow and his book. We cannot, however, close this brief paper without directing the attention of our readers to a very serious consideration which this book suggests. The Reverend Mr. Barlow is a Fellow of Trinity College. And there are many who would ask Catholic parents to entrust the education of their children to him and his colleagues. We have seen a specimen of his principles; in particular we have seen that, according to his views, "the civilization of the nineteenth century jars" with a doctrine which every Catholic is bound to believe. Is it safe, then, for a Catholic youth to gather his ideas of modern civilization from the lips of such a teacher as Mr. Barlow? We are told, indeed, it is for _secular education_ alone that a Catholic student should go to Trinity College: that he may learn his religion from other sources. But, if we understand the words aright, secular education must surely include modern civilization, and modern civilization, as taught by Mr. Barlow, is contrary to Catholic faith. These are simple facts. Our readers may draw their own conclusion.

FOOTNOTES:

[2] II. _Cor._, x. 5.

[3] II. _Cor._, xii. 2-4.

[4] _Rom._, xi. 33.

[5] See Mr. Barlow's book, pp. 37 (note), 38, 39.

[6] _Matth._, xxv. 41-46.

[7] _Matth._, xviii. 8.

[8] _Mark_, ix. 42, 43, 44, 45, 47.

[9] _Matth._, iii. 12.

[10] _Is._, lxvi. 24.

[11] _Apoc._, xx. 9, 10, 15.

[12] Pp. 38-39. The words in italics are so printed in Mr. Barlow's book.

[13] See pp. 7-8, where this principle is advanced in a still more confident tone, and with even less regard for the maxims of the Gospel. We extract the following passage: "I do truly believe that if every man, before repeating the Athanasian Creed, would sit down quietly, and--say for five minutes--steadily endeavour to realize in his imagination, as far as he is capable of doing it, what the contents of the notion 'Eternal Torments' are, we should find an enormous increase of so-called heresy with respect to these portions [the "damnatory clauses"] of the Creed. The responses, 'Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly', would be nearly confined to the clerk". Five minutes' reflection is quite enough, in the estimate of Mr. Barlow, to convince every man that he ought to abandon the faith of ages.

[14] _Apoc._, xxi. 27.

[15] _Prov._, xxiv. 16.

[16] I. _Cor._, vi. 9, 10; _Gal._, v. 21.

[17] _Rom._, x. 15; _Isaias_, lii. 7.

[18] _Isaias_, liv 2, 3.

[19] _Matth._, xxxv. 30

[20] _Luke_, ii. 34.

[21] See Mr. Barlow's book, p. 22; also p. 17.

[22] _Apoc._, xxi. 4.

[23] _Apoc._, xxi. 4.

CATHOLIC EDUCATION--DISENDOWMENT OF THE PROTESTANT ESTABLISHMENT.

The last year terminated with the establishment in Dublin of an association, which, we trust, whilst protecting the material interests of the country, will contribute to put an end to religious oppression and intolerance, and to spread the blessings of Catholic education through all Ireland. Undertaking a task so meritorious in itself, and so much in accordance with the objects of the _Record_, the association will have our best wishes and co-operation. Its first meeting was held in the Rotundo on the 29th of December last, and a vast number of influential and respectable laymen, from city and country, many clergymen, and several archbishops and bishops attended. Its proceedings were most impressive, and the speakers all displayed great moderation accompanied with energy and firmness in their addresses. We may add that the speeches of the Archbishop of Cashel and the Bishop of Cloyne, on the claims of tenants for compensation for beneficial improvements, were most eloquent and convincing; that the Bishop of Elphin made an excellent and learned defence of the rights of Catholics to a Catholic system of education; and that the Archbishop of Dublin, supported by Mr. O'Neill Daunt, proved to the satisfaction of all present that the Protestant Establishment in Ireland is a nuisance and an insult, and ought to be abolished. We regret that the limits of this periodical will not allow us to enter fully into the various questions discussed at the meeting: we must restrict ourselves to a brief article on the topics most closely connected with the objects of the _Record_--we mean the question of education and of the Church. We cannot, however, but recommend our readers to assist the association by their influence, their counsels, and contributions, being full of hope that Ireland will derive great advantages, temporal and spiritual, from its labours.

The Lord Mayor, by whose influence and authority the meeting had been convened, having taken the chair, the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Cullen, was called on to propose the first resolution. Before doing so he explained the objects of the association, and showed that they were so moderate, so reasonable, and so necessary, that no liberal minded man could refuse to support them.

"It is proposed", said he, "to protect liberty of religion
by relieving the great majority of the inhabitants of this
country from an oppressive and degrading burden, forced on
them for the maintenance of the Protestant Establishment,
which they look on as a galling and permanent insult; it is
proposed to encourage the growth of learning, by holding out
equal hopes to every class, and putting on a footing of
equality all who engage in the career of letters and
science; and finally it is proposed to restore prosperity to
this country, by giving inducements to the people to invest
their capital in useful and permanent improvements".

Having thus stated the reasons for founding the new association, the Archbishop briefly alluded to the necessity of a good education, to the services of the Catholic Church in promoting science and letters, and to the glorious mission of carrying the light of the gospel and true civilization to pagan nations, which was given to Ireland for centuries after her conversion. That mission was interrupted by Danish and Anglo-Saxon invasions. Continued attempts to force the Reformation on our forefathers, the prohibition of Catholic schools, and a most galling system of penal laws, afterwards reduced our country to a state of misery and degradation, in which it was impossible for the masses of the people to approach the fountains of knowledge, or to render services to other countries. As soon, however, as liberty began to dawn, active efforts were made by the Catholic laity and clergy to repair the ruins of past times, and within the present century innumerable schools, colleges, convents, and other educational establishments, have been called into existence, which are rendering great services to the country, and preparing to make it again what it once was--a land of sages and saints. The exertions and sacrifices made in this holy cause are a proof of the zeal of the Catholics of Ireland for education, and reflect the greatest honour on their charity and generosity.

Let us now look to what government has done in regard to Catholic education. In the first place, our rulers in past times prohibited all Catholic schools under the severest penalties, determined, it would appear, to sink the people into the degrading depths of ignorance, or to compel them when acquiring knowledge to imbibe at the same time Protestant doctrines. Secondly, a Protestant university and Protestant schools were founded and richly endowed with the confiscated property of Catholic schools or monasteries, and all possible privileges and honours were lavishly conferred on them by the state, in order to give them weight and influence, and to render them more powerful in their assaults on the ancient creed of Ireland. Thirdly, these institutions are still preserved, and possess immense property, nearly all derived from public grants. Besides other vast sources of income, Trinity College holds about two hundred thousand acres of land, and the several endowed schools are worth seventy or eighty thousand a year and own a great deal of landed property. Fourthly, it is to be observed that the management of these schools is altogether in Protestant hands, the teaching Protestant, and their atmosphere thoroughly impregnated with Protestantism. If any Catholic be admitted into those institutions, his faith is exposed to great danger, and unhappily it is too true that many who ventured to run the risk, perished therein, so that we find it recorded that several Catholics, when passing through the ordeal of Protestant education, lost their faith and became ministers and preachers of error. At present there are Protestant bishops and archdeacons, and other dignitaries, now enemies of the ancient faith, who commenced their career in Trinity College as very humble members of the Catholic Church. I say nothing of the many Catholics who, in consequence of the training received in Trinity College, never frequent any sacrament of their Church, and neglect all religious duties. The parents who expose their children to such dangers cannot be excused from a grievous breach of the trust committed to them by God. Can they be admitted to sacraments?

Keeping in mind the facts just stated, may we not ask, were not Protestants provided with everything they could desire for educational purposes? was it necessary to adopt other measures in their favour?

Now such being the case, had not we a right to expect that when new educational arrangements were to be made, the past sufferings of Catholics, the spoliation of their property, and their actual wants, should be taken into account? Was it to be supposed that _their_ claims should be overlooked in order to give further advantage to Protestantism? Reason and sound policy would have prohibited such suppositions. But "aliter superis visum". Instead of repairing past injustice and making some compensation for the confiscations of times gone by, the government, in all new measures for promoting education, seemed to forget the Catholics, and to think only of Protestant interests, just as if they were not abundantly provided for already. Thus, when the Queen's Colleges were projected, it was determined to establish them, and to endow them at the expense of the Catholics of the country, and on principles so hostile to Catholicity, that the Sovereign Pontiff and Irish bishops were obliged to condemn them as dangerous to faith and morals, whilst a Protestant statesman admitted that they were a gigantic scheme of godless education. Hence, no Catholic parent, though taxed for their support, unless he be ready to immolate his children to Baal, can send them to institutions thus anathematised. Have not Catholics great ground to complain upon this head?

The national system was also founded on bad principles, and to protect the consciences of Protestant children, even in schools where they never attend, Catholic instruction was prohibited in them during the common hours of class.

To illustrate the effects of this prohibition, the Archbishop refers to part of his own diocese--the county Dublin--in which there are 145 so-called National Schools, frequented by 36,826 Catholic children, without the intermixture of one single Protestant, and asks is it not most unjust and insulting to banish Catholic books, Catholic practices, the history of the Catholic Church, from such schools, and to treat them as if they were mixed or filled with Protestants? If the case were reversed--if there were so large a number of Protestant children in schools without any mixture of Catholics, would Protestants tolerate any regulation by which every mention of their religion would be banished from such schools? Why apply one rule to Catholics and another to Protestants? The Archbishop then adds:

"Let me repeat it: Catholic children in purely Catholic
schools must pass the greater part of the day without any
act or word of religion, lest they should offend Protestants
who are present only in imagination. No crucifix, no image
of the Blessed Mother of God, no sacred pictures, no
religious emblems, though experience teaches that such
objects make excellent impressions on the youthful mind, are
tolerated in National schools, even when no Protestant
frequents them. No Catholic book can be used, and even the
works of such men as Bossuet, Massillon, Fenelon, the most
eloquent writers of modern times, must be excluded because
they were Catholics and inculcate Catholic doctrines. The
only books used by Catholics in these schools have been
compiled by the late rationalistic Archbishop of Dublin, by
Dr. Carlisle, a Presbyterian, and other Protestants, and are
tinged with an anti-Catholic spirit. It is to be added, that
the history of our Irish saints and missionaries and of the
ancient Church of Ireland and its doctrines, as well as the
sad narrative of our sufferings and persecutions, is
completely ignored. Were it necessary to throw still greater
light on the spirit of the mixed system, we could show that
the late Dr. Whately, one of its great patrons, declared in
his last pastoral charge to the clergy of Kildare, that his
object in introducing certain Scripture lessons into the
schools was to shake the religious convictions of the
people, and to dispel what he is pleased to call their
_scriptural darkness_. When things are thus conducted, have
we not here again great reason to complain?"

The Archbishop also urges against the national system, its tendency to throw the education of this Catholic country into the hands of a Protestant government, whose past history proves that it has been always hostile to Catholic interests. Model and training and agricultural schools, which are completely withdrawn from Catholic control, have this tendency. Are not inspectors and other managers of the system altogether government nominees? When books were to be selected, was not the same object promoted by deputing to compile them Protestant archbishops, Presbyterian ministers, and other Protestants, who banished from them everything Catholic and national, and made them breathe a spirit of English supremacy and anti-Catholic prejudice? May not the experience of past ages be appealed to to prove that education under such government control becomes hostile to true religion, tends to introduce a spirit of despotism, and to rob the subject of his liberty? This was the tendency of all government enactments on education in Ireland for centuries. The Archbishop observes:

"Robespierre and other French despots fully understood all
this, when they proclaimed that all children were the
property of the state, to be educated under its care, at the
public expense. When the instruction of the rising
generations and the direction of schools falls under the
absolute control of the ruling powers of the Earth, that
sort of wisdom which Saint Paul calls earthly, sensual,
diabolical, soon begins to prevail; the wisdom from above
falls away, and neither religion nor true Christian liberty
can be safe".

Having examined in this way the present defects and shortcomings of education in Ireland, as far as it receives aid from the state, the Archbishop insisted that Catholics have a decided claim to a Catholic university, with every privilege and right conferred upon Protestant universities, to Catholic training and model schools, and to a system of education under which the faith and morals of Catholic children would be safe from all danger. In England[24] the schools for the people supported by government are denominational, and the Catholics, though only a fraction of the population, have all the advantages of a Catholic system of education. Why should Ireland be deprived of rights which are freely granted to every class of people not only in England and Scotland, but in all the British colonies? Are the Catholics of this country to be degraded and insulted on account of their religion? Would such a mode of acting be in conformity with the liberality of the present age?

Since the Archbishop made the foregoing observations, the Holy Father, our supreme guide in matters of religion, has published a series of propositions which he had condemned and reprobated on various occasions. We insert three of those propositions which bear upon education:

The forty-fifth is as follows:

"XLV. The entire government of public schools in which the
youth of any Christian state is educated, except (to a
certain extent) in the case of episcopal seminaries, may and
ought to appertain to the civil power, and belong to it so
far that no other authority whatsoever shall be recognized
as having any right to interfere in the discipline of the
schools, the arrangement of the studies, the conferring of
degrees, in the choice or approval of the teachers".

The forty-seventh adds:

"XLVII. The best theory of civil society requires that
popular schools open to the children of every class of the
people, and, generally, all public institutes intended for
instruction in letters and philosophical sciences, and for
carrying on the education of youth, should be freed from all
ecclesiastical authority, control, and interference, and
should be fully subjected to the civil and political power,
at the pleasure of the rulers and according to the standard
of the prevalent opinions of the age".

The forty-eighth bears on the same subject:

"XLVIII. Catholics may approve of a system of educating
youth, unconnected with Catholic faith and the power of the
Church, and which regards the knowledge of merely natural
things, and only, or at least primarily, the ends of earthly
social life".

Let our readers attentively consider these propositions. They undoubtedly reprobate what is called mixed education, or the system which endeavours to separate education from religion, as the Queen's Colleges profess to do. They appear to us also most distinctly to condemn the principles on which the National Schools are founded. In many of those schools all religious education is excluded, and in those which are under Presbyterian and other similar patrons, as well as in model and training schools, the rights of the bishops of the Catholic Church, to whom Christ gave the power of teaching all nations, are completely ignored. In every National School the teaching and practice of religion are strictly prohibited during the hours of class. Such a system appears to fall under the condemnation of the Holy See. We shall return to this matter again on some future occasion. In the mean time, we shall merely add, that if we wish to be true children of the Church, we must receive with humility, and in a spirit of obedience, the decisions of Christ's vicar on Earth, and reprobate and condemn from the inmost of our hearts the propositions which he, using the power given to him by the Eternal Shepherd of our souls, reprobates and condemns. The only view his Holiness proposed to himself in censuring the propositions we refer to was, to secure for the rising generations the greatest blessing that can be conferred on them--a good religious education, and the preservation of their faith from danger. As dutiful members of the true Church we ought to act on the lessons of wisdom that have been given to us.

Having treated at some length of the education question, the Archbishop next directed the attention of the meeting to the condition of the agricultural and manufacturing interests of Ireland, showing that it is the duty of those in power to apply immediate remedies to the evils of the country, which menace us with universal ruin, and then proceeded to examine the proposed disendowment of the Protestant Establishment. History informs us that the Irish Protestant Church had its origin in an act declaring Henry VIII. head of the Church, which was passed by the Irish parliament in 1536, and in another act of the same parliament by which a similar dignity was conferred on Queen Elizabeth. A statement on this subject made by Dr. Gregg, Protestant Bishop of Cork, in a late pastoral charge, is altogether at variance with history. His Lordship's words are:

"She (the Protestant Church) sprang from the truth, was
nurtured in truth, laden with truth, in truth she delights,
to the truth she appeals, and by God's gracious blessing, in
mighty truth shall she stand".

These are emphatic words; but, if he wished to speak correctly, the writer should have said that the Church he eulogises sprang from the passions and despotism of Henry VIII.; was nurtured by the avarice, hypocrisy, ambition, and corruption of Elizabeth; derived spiritual powers from a body of men who had no such powers themselves; that to the sword, the gibbet, and penal laws she owes her propagation; that her existence still depends upon brute force; and that, so little does she stand on or uphold truth, that she is not able to defend the Gospel any longer, or to support the doctrines and ordinances of religion. She could not restrain the late Protestant Archbishop of Dublin from explaining away the fundamental mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, nor Dr. Colenso from denying the inspiration of the Sacred Scriptures, nor Rev. Mr. Barlow, a Fellow of Trinity College, from impugning the eternity of punishment in another world. She affords so little light to her children, that, according to a report of the Church Pastoral Aid Society, signed by several dignitaries of the Establishment, millions of those children are pining away _in worse than pagan vice and ignorance_. Finally, so far from resting on truth, her only support is the arm of the State, whose creature she is, and at whose nod she may cease to exist.

Having obtained spiritual authority by an act of the temporal power, much in the same way as the Roman emperors obtained divine honours by decrees of the senate, Henry VIII. and Elizabeth set about their new functions, and determined to show themselves worthy leaders of the Reformation. There were many richly endowed monasteries in Ireland at the time of Henry, and several continued to exist even till the days of Elizabeth. The inmates of those institutions passed their time in prayer and study; they had rendered great services to literature by copying and preserving the works of classical antiquity, whilst their labours for religion and the poor were worthy of the highest praise. There were also many convents of religious ladies, who devoted their lives to the service of God and their neighbour, to the education of youth, and who edified the world by the sweet odour of their virtues. By the new heads of the Church, and the new patrons of the Gospel, those merits were looked on as crimes, and all religious orders were suppressed.

In Ireland there was an ancient institution founded by St. Patrick, which for more than a thousand years had maintained its connection with the Apostolic See, the true rock on which Christ built His Church, and had always preserved the integrity and purity of the Catholic faith. The existence of that venerable Irish Church was not consistent with the supremacy of the crown in spiritual matters, and its destruction was decreed.

At the same time, a religion, with new doctrines, a new ceremonial, new liturgical books, and forms of prayer in the English language, then almost unknown in Ireland, was proclaimed, and all the sanction was given to it that could be derived from an act of parliament or a royal decree. It was pretended that this religion was to restore liberty of conscience to the world; but history shows that it enforced its teaching by penal laws, by fire and sword, and by every sort of violence.

The monasteries of men, the convents of nuns, the episcopal sees, and the parochial churches, were possessed, at that time, of considerable revenues. This property was not the gift of the English government. In great part it was of ancient origin, as we may conclude from the fact that in the year 1179, shortly after the English invasion, Pope Alexander III. confirmed to St. Laurence O'Toole nearly the same possessions which are still held by the see of Dublin, and which he had inherited from his predecessors who lived before English rule began in Ireland. It was also private property, belonging to monasteries and convents, and to the Church, so that neither king nor parliament had any claim on it. But ancient rights and justice and prescription were no longer to be respected; the reforming monarchs did not hesitate to change the law of God and of nature, and to ignore the maxim that every one should have his own. Hence, all ecclesiastical property was confiscated. A large portion was given to the agents and minions of royal despotism, and another portion was devoted to the support of bishops and ministers of a new creed and religion, and turned away altogether from the purposes for which it had been destined by the donors; so that what was originally given for the support of the Catholic Church was now handed over to an establishment just called into existence, whose principal aim has always been to decry and misrepresent the ancient Church, to persecute its ministers, and to uproot it, if possible, from the soil.

The heads of the Irish Protestant Establishment, Henry and Elizabeth, having commenced their spiritual rule by an act of robbery and spoliation, continued to propagate their new religion by intimidation, by violence, and penal enactments. The old nobility of Ireland, both of Norman and Irish descent, were persecuted and robbed of their possessions in order to convince them of that Gospel truth which first beamed from Boleyn's eyes; for the same purpose whole provinces were laid desolate, and torrents of blood inhumanly shed. In such proceedings we find a great deal to remind us of the persecutions inflicted on the early Christians by the Roman emperors and a singular resemblance to the system adopted by Mahomet for the propagation of the impure doctrines of the Koran; and as that impostor spread desolation through the most flourishing regions of the East, so did the founders of the Protestant establishment reduce the blooming fields of Erin to the condition of a howling wilderness, and like him they became the votaries of ignorance, and carried on a long and destructive war against Catholic schools and education.

There was, however, something worse in the mode of propagating the doctrines of the Reformation than in that which was adopted for the maintenance or introduction of Paganism and Mahometanism. Those forms of worship openly avowed their designs, and publicly professed their enmity to the Christian religion. The proceedings of those who promoted and supported the Church Establishment were, on the contrary, marked by the vilest and most degrading hypocrisy. They pretended and professed to be the sincere friends of liberty of conscience, and of the progress of education and enlightenment, whilst at the same time they were the most dangerous enemies of every kind of freedom and progress, and endeavoured to establish the most galling despotism, and to spread ignorance through Ireland.

Innumerable proofs are at hand of the despotic tendencies of the Establishment. We merely give one instance, related by Mant in his _Ecclesiastical History_ at the year 1636, in which the Protestant bishops, with Usher at their head, made the following declaration:--that

"The religion of the Papists is superstitious and
idolatrous; their faith and doctrine erroneous and
heretical; their Church, in respect to both, apostatical. To
give them, therefore, a toleration, or to consent that they
may freely exercise their religion and profess their faith
and doctrine, is a grievous sin."--_Mant_, vol. i. p. 510.

And recollect that this declaration was made against the ancient religion of the country, a religion established in it for more than one thousand years, and that it was made for the purpose of excluding millions of the people from every office of trust and emolument. Nothing worse can be found in the annals of Paganism or Mahometanism. The Archbishop continues:

"But, passing over a remoter period, have we not to regret
that the spirit which then prevailed still continues to
manifest itself in our own days? And, indeed, were not the
heads of the Protestant establishment the most active
opponents of Catholic Emancipation? Who were the great
promoters of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill? Was not the
head of the Establishment, in this city, most anxious, a few
years ago, to put convents and monasteries under police
control, and to give every annoyance to the holy and pious
virgins who devote themselves to the service of God and the
poor? And are not the principles acted on by the
Establishment still embodied in Protestant oaths? and can we
be surprised that dissensions exist in this country, and
that it is reduced to so deplorable a state as it is now in,
when we reflect that by such oaths and declarations discord
is excited in the country, rulers and subjects placed in a
state of hostility, and the people divided into factions and
parties?"

As to education, we shall merely observe that the supporters of the Establishment left no means untried to banish it altogether from among the masses of the people in Ireland. Catholic schools were suppressed, and their property confiscated; the erection of new schools prohibited; no Catholic parent allowed to give a Catholic education to his children at home, and he was subjected to the severest penalties if he sent them to foreign schools. What more could be done to suppress the knowledge of the Christian religion by a Julian or a Mahomet? Yet, those who acted in that way cry out that they alone are the friends of progress and enlightenment, and that Catholics seek for nothing but darkness. Was there ever a more decided manifestation of recklessness and hypocrisy?

Having given in detail some other instances of the violent and persecuting measures which were used for the propagation of Protestantism, the Archbishop proceeds to examine the results obtained by them:--

"Let us now ask", says he, "what have been the fruits of so
much bigotry, of so much violence, and of so many penal
laws? The late census tells us that every effort to
introduce Protestantism has been a complete failure, and
that notwithstanding so many persecutions and sufferings,
the old Catholic faith is still the religion of the land,
deeply rooted in the affections of the people. Without
entering into details which would occasion too much delay, I
shall merely state that all the members of the Establishment
in this kingdom are under seven hundred thousand; that out
of the two thousand four hundred and twenty-eight parishes
into which Ireland is divided, there were, in 1861, one
hundred and ninety-nine parishes containing no members of
the Establishment, five hundred and seventy-five parishes
containing not more than twenty, four hundred and sixteen
containing between twenty and fifty, three hundred and
forty-nine containing between fifty and one hundred--in all,
one thousand five hundred and thirty-nine parishes, each
with fewer than one hundred parishioners. I will add that,
according to the same census, the parish of St. Peter's, in
Dublin, contains more Catholics than the eleven dioceses of
Kilmacduagh, Kilfenora, Killala, Achonry, Ossory, Cashel,
Emly, Waterford, Lismore, Ross, and Clonfert contain
Protestants: and that the Catholics of the diocese of Dublin
exceed by thirty-five thousand all the Protestants of the
Established Church in twenty-eight dioceses of Ireland;
indeed, in all the dioceses of Ireland, excepting those of
Armagh, Clogher, Down, and Dublin. Whilst such figures show
that all the protection of the State, the persecution of
Catholics, the confiscation of their property, the
suppression of Catholic schools, the lavish endowment of
Protestant schools, and innumerable penal laws, have not
been able to establish Protestantism in Ireland, they must
convince us at the same time, that it is most unreasonable,
and contrary to the interests of the people and to a sound
policy, to keep up a vast and expensive ecclesiastical
establishment for the sake of so small a minority, and in
opposition to the wishes of the great mass of the
population".

The Archbishop next quoted several authorities from Protestant writers condemnatory of the Anglican establishment, and among others, that of Lord Brougham, who, confirming his own views by those of the celebrated Edmund Burke, says:

"I well remember a phrase used by one not a foe of Church
Establishments--I mean Mr. Burke. 'Don't talk of its being a
church! It is a wholesale robbery!'... I have, my lords,
heard it called an anomaly, and I say that it is an anomaly
of so gross a kind, that it outrages every principle of
common sense, and every one endowed with common reason must
feel that it is the most gross outrage to that common sense
as it is also to justice. Such an establishment, kept up for
such a purpose, kept up by such means, and upheld by such a
system, is a thing wholly peculiar to Ireland, and could be
tolerated nowhere else. That such a system should go on in
the nineteenth century; that such a thing should go on while
all the arts are in a forward and onward course, while all
the sciences are progressing, while all morals and religion
too--for, my lords, there never was more of religion and
morality than is now presented in all parts of the
country,--that this gross abuse, the most outrageous of all,
should be allowed to continue, is really astonishing. It
cannot be upheld, unless the tide of knowledge shall turn
back, unless we return to the state in which things were a
couple of centuries ago".

After quoting several other authorities similar to that of Lord Brougham, the Archbishop called on his hearers to unite with him in calling for the abolition of the Establishment.

"When you consider", said he, "the reasons and the weight of
authority which I have alleged, I trust you all will admit
that an establishment which traces back its origin to the
lust, the avarice, and the despotism of Henry VIII. and his
daughter; an establishment introduced by force and violence,
and that has no support save in the protection of the state,
of which it is the creature and the slave; an establishment
that has been the persevering enemy of civil and religious
liberty; that has called for penal laws in every century
from the days of Elizabeth to the passing of the
Ecclesiastical Titles Act; that has never failed to oppose
every proposal for the relaxation of such laws, not only in
the days of Strafford and Clarendon, but even when there was
question of emancipation in the midst of the liberality of
the present century; an establishment that has inflicted
great evils on Ireland by depriving the mass of the people
of all the means of education, by persecuting schoolmasters,
and seizing on and confiscating schools, and that has been
always the fruitful source of dissensions in the
country--when you consider all these things, you will
undoubtedly agree with me, that such an establishment ought
not to be any longer tolerated in this country--that it
ought to be disendowed, and its revenues applied to purposes
of public utility".

FOOTNOTES:

[24] In the report of the Endowed Schools Commission of 1858, p. 284, there is an excellent letter of Baron Hughes on mixed education. Having observed that in England Protestant bishops and noblemen are opposed to it, he says: "I am convinced that the mixed system is wrong in principle, and cannot, even if right, be carried out in Ireland. I believe that the separate system is sound in principle; and if that is doubted, I think it is worthy of being submitted to a fair trial, as the only alternative the state can adopt".

LITURGICAL QUESTIONS.

In answer to the request made in our last number, some of our reverend friends have addressed to us several most interesting questions on Liturgical points. Owing to the great pressure this month on our limited space, and to the necessity of completing the series of decrees on the Holy Mass, we are not able to attend to them for this month. In our next issue we hope to be in a position to satisfy our respected correspondents.

DECREES ON THE HOLY MASS.

[Concluded from page 190.]

Ad Sec.. IX. _Post Consecrationem usque ad Orationem Dominicam._

1. Dum Sacerdos dicit orationem "Supplices te rogamus", et orationes ante Communionem, _servandae sunt rubricae, quae jubent manus ponendas esse super altare, non intra corporale_. 7. Sept. 1816 in u. Tuden, ad 35.

2. Qui in Canone Missae post consecrationem, in oratione "Nobis quoque peccatoribus", nominatur Joannes, est s. Joannes Baptista, et ideo caput est ad hoc nomen inclinandum, dum Missa dicitur aut commemoratio fit de s. Joanne Baptista; _non_ vero quando Missa dicitur aut commemoratio fit de s. Joanne apostolo et evangelista. 27. Mart. 1824. in u. Panormit. ad 2.

Ad Sec.. X. _De Oratione Dominica usque ad factam Communionem._