Chapter I: Part 1

The Irish Ecclesiastical Record

Volume 1

July 1865

CONTENTS

Judge Keogh And Catholic Doctrines. The See Of Killaloe In The Sixteenth Century. The Sacrament Of Penance In The Early Irish Church. Richard Fitz-Ralph, Archbishop Of Armagh. Purgatory Of St. Patrick In Lough Derg. Liturgical Questions. Notices Of Books. Footnotes

JUDGE KEOGH AND CATHOLIC DOCTRINES.

We have read the address of Mr. Justice Keogh(1) with feelings of surprise and sorrow. It is un-Catholic in its language, it is un-Catholic in its spirit, it is un-Catholic in its principles. If it had come from a member of a hostile sect, we could well afford to let it pass unnoticed; to let it live its short life, and die a natural death. But when the calumnies, the sneers, the sarcasms of our enemies are turned against us by one who is enrolled under the banner of Catholic faith, we can no longer remain silent in safety. The weapons which are powerless in the hands of a declared enemy, are dangerous indeed when they are wielded by a traitor in the camp.

Mr. Justice Keogh is no ordinary man. His mind is adorned with talents well fitted to amuse, to delight, to instruct an audience. In his short but brilliant career as an orator and a statesman, he won for himself a great name at the bar and in the senate. And now he is lifted up above his fellows, and placed in a position of high trust and extensive influence. When such a man comes forward, with forethought and preparation, as one of the instructors of the age, he is a conspicuous object of interest and attraction. He is looked upon, by those who are not acquainted with his antecedents, as the exponent of Catholic views, the representative of Catholic intelligence and education. We are therefore compelled, in self-defence, to declare that the opinions he has expressed are not the opinions of the Catholic Church, and the language he has thought fit to use cannot be regarded, by the Catholic people of Ireland, but as offensive and insulting.

His lecture contains little originality of thought or novelty of argument. It does but reflect the spirit of the age in which we live. The opinions and the views which it sets forth have long been familiar to our ears: they pervade the shallow current literature of England, of Germany, of Italy, of France. Intellectual freedom, unbounded, unrestrained; freedom of thought in the search after truth, without any regard to authority; freedom of speech in the circulation of every view and opinion; freedom to pull down old theories, freedom to build up new theories; freedom to roam at large without any guide over the vast fields of speculation, adopting that which private judgment commends, rejecting that which human reason disapproves; these are the popular dogmas of the present day; and these are the topics which Mr. Justice Keogh proposes to illustrate and to enforce by the life and writings of our great English poet.

Now, we are not the enemies of freedom. The Catholic Church is not the enemy of freedom. But we should expect that one who comes forward to enlighten the world on this important subject, would tell us _how far_ human reason is to be left without restraint in the search after truth. It is easy to talk of intolerance, persecution, narrow-minded bigotry; but these words have no meaning unless we first clearly understand what that freedom is—in thought, in word, in action—which is the natural right of all men; which it is intolerance to deny, which it is tyranny to extinguish. First of all, if the fact of a Divine Revelation be once admitted, it is clear that human reason is not exempt from _all restraint_: it must be controlled at least by the Word of God. We are surely bound to believe what God has taught: and when reason would lead us to conclusions contrary to His teaching, as may sometimes happen, we are bound to check our reason and to abandon those conclusions. For, reason _may_ be deceived, but God can _not_. This is what we understand by the words of St. Paul when he speaks of “bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ”—II. _Cor._, x. 5.

With this preliminary remark we shall now submit to our readers the opinions of Mr. Justice Keogh:—

“Could words of mine prevail to induce you to devote a small
portion of your leisure hours, stolen though it be from the
pleasure paths of sensational or periodical literature, to those
great productions of John Milton, in which the staunchest friend
of freedom and of truth that ever lived has made the most
successful war against tyranny and falsehood—in which he has
proclaimed in tones not unworthy of the Apostle of the
Gentiles,(2) that education really free is the only source of
political and individual liberty, the only true safeguard of
states and bulwark of their renown—in which he has for ever
‘justified the ways of God to man’, by asserting the right of all
men to exercise unrestrained their intellectual faculties upon all
the gifts of God—to determine for themselves what is truth and
what is falsehood—to circulate their thoughts from one to another,
from land to land, from tribe to tribe, from nation to nation,
free as ‘the winds that from four quarters blow’—to raise their
thoughts and to pour forth their words above the level of vulgar
superstition, unrestricted by any illiberal or illiterate
licenser—then you will find that he has risen, as mortal man never
did before, to the height of greatest argument, and proclaimed in
language which is affecting the fate of millions, even at this
hour, on the banks of the Mississippi, and in the remote forests
of the far west, that He who has made ’of one blood all nations of
men to dwell on all the face of the earth, willeth not that men
shall any longer hold in bondage as a property the bodies or the
souls of men, but that all alike shall have, unobstructed by any
ordinance, a free book, a free press, a free conscience’. If any
words of mine shall tempt you to approach these considerations, to
ponder upon them as they are to be found in the tractates of
Milton, in a tranquil, in a large and comprehensive spirit, and
when you have done so, to make their fit application not only at
home but abroad, not only abroad but at home, then we shall not
have met in vain in this assembly”.

We do not propose to offer any remarks on the subject of political liberty. But the principles here enunciated are of universal application. Milton waged the “successful war” of freedom not less in matters of religion than in matters of state. And Mr. Justice Keogh adopts his principles without any limitation. He asserts with Milton “the right of all men to exercise _unrestrained their intellectual faculties upon all the gifts of God_—to determine for themselves what is truth and what is falsehood”. If we take these words literally as they stand, they are inconsistent not with the Catholic religion only, but with every system of Christianity that has ever existed. Luther, the great champion of intellectual freedom, though he shook off the yoke of church authority, set up in its stead the authority of the Bible. Even he was willing to admit that the wanderings of the human mind should be restricted by the teaching of the Word of God. It is clearly contrary to the common principles of Christianity to assert that in metaphysics, in ethics, in psychology, in any human science, the mind is at liberty to embrace opinions incompatible with the truths which God has revealed. And if it be not at liberty to do so, then it is not “unrestrained”.

It may be said, however, that the author of this address does not really intend to assert what his words seem to convey. How then are we to guess at his meaning? He insists upon “the right of all men to exercise _unrestrained_ their intellectual faculties” in the pursuit of truth. If he does not mean this, what _does_ he mean? If he does not wish to exclude _all restraint_ on the “intellectual faculties” of men, what restraint is he willing to admit? Upon this point there seem to be just two opinions between which he has to choose: the one is the common doctrine of all Catholics; the other is the fundamental principle of the Protestant Church. Let us pause for a moment to examine these two systems.

According to Catholic faith, our Divine Lord has established in His Church an infallible tribunal, to pronounce, in matters of religion, what is true and what is false. Hence, it is never lawful, whether there be question of religious belief or of human science, to adopt opinions at variance with the teaching of this infallible tribunal. Here indeed is a check upon intellectual freedom, but a check which must, of necessity, be admitted by all who belong to the Catholic Church. And surely it is no great sacrifice to submit our finite understanding, so frail and erring, to the authority of God’s Word, explained by a tribunal which He has Himself established, and to which He has promised His never-failing help.

Protestants, on the other hand, maintain the right of each one to interpret for himself, according to the best of his private judgment, the Revelation which God has given to man. The liberty of the human mind is therefore unfettered by any human authority. In this all sects are agreed. Some, indeed, believe that the Church has authority to teach, and some reject this opinion; but all maintain that there is no obligation in conscience to accept her teaching. She has not the gift of infallibility. Just as individuals may fall into error, so too may the Church herself fall into error. Her teaching may be true, or it may be false; each one is to judge for himself. The only check upon the freedom of thought is the Divine Message sent to us from on High, and recorded in the pages of Holy Writ.

We maintain, of course, that the Catholic system which we have just explained is true, and the Protestant system false. If we were engaged in controversy with a Protestant, it would be our duty at once to establish and to defend our doctrine; to demonstrate that the Church of Christ is infallible, and that the right of private judgment is contrary alike to the teaching of Scripture and to the dictates of common sense. But in the case before us, there is no call for proof: Mr. Justice Keogh is a Catholic. It remains then only to examine if the language of his address is not calculated to convey an opinion quite inconsistent with the faith which he professes.

The question we wish to raise is simply this: “Does the address before us admit that the human mind in the pursuit of truth should be restrained by the authoritative definitions of the Catholic Church, or does it rather exclude this restraint?” Now, in the first place, it is to be remembered that this restriction of intellectual freedom is denied by all Protestants in this country, and maintained by all Catholics. When a lecturer, then, addressing a mixed audience, in a written discourse, tells them that “all men have a right to exercise their intellectual faculties _unrestrained_”, do not the circumstances of the case fix upon his words a Protestant signification? Will not his hearers naturally say that he has chosen the Protestant side of the controversy, and not the Catholic? Again, according to the Protestant doctrine, each one is at liberty to construct a system of religious belief for himself: according to the Catholic doctrine, every one should accept the tenets of his faith on the authority of the Church. Now we are told in the address, that all men have “_a right to determine for themselves_ what is truth and what is falsehood”. Has this phraseology a Catholic or a Protestant complexion? Lastly, the lecturer exhorts his hearers to go themselves to the pages of Milton, there to learn the doctrine of intellectual freedom. It will, therefore, naturally be supposed, that the doctrine is defended by the lecturer in the same sense in which it is defended by the poet. Now Milton denied again and again, not in his writings only, but also by his acts, that the Church has any right to interfere with the speculations of the human mind. It is evident, therefore, that the language of Mr. Justice Keogh, whether considered in itself, or understood by the light of the context, is incompatible with the principles of the Catholic Religion.

Freedom of thought is not enough: freedom of speech is also an essential dogma of the new philosophy. We are assured that all men have a right “to circulate their thoughts from one to another, from land to land, from tribe to tribe, from nation to nation, free as ‘the winds that from four quarters blow’; to raise their thoughts, and to pour forth their words above the level of vulgar superstition, unrestricted by any illiberal or illiterate licenser”. Accordingly, amongst the various prose works of Milton, there is one which our lecturer selects for especial commendation. It is entitled: _Areopagitica, a Speech for the Liberty of Unlicensed Printing_. This little tract is distinguished, no doubt, for its learning, wit, and eloquence; but these high qualities are devoted to the defence of opinions which we cannot accept. The book and its principles are thus introduced to his audience by Mr. Justice Keogh:

“If all the works he produced were cancelled and forgotten ... yet
give one in hand, the treatise for the liberty of unlicensed
printing, the _Areopagitica_, and I would boldly maintain, not
only that he had satisfied every call which his country could make
on the most devoted of her sons, but that he had vindicated their
rights and sustained his own reputation in the greatest pen
writing in the English language. He wished, as he tells us in this
treatise, to deliver the press from the restraints with which it
was incumbered, that the power of determining what ought to be
published and what suppressed, might no longer be entrusted to
captious lawyers or knavish priests, or even grave chancellors and
venerable chief justices.... I shall give you, even at the risk of
trying your patience, some extracts from this treatise; but first
let me tell you, that it establishes in the clearest way, not only
that Milton was the fast friend of toleration, but that the
charges of being an enemy of all order and of all monarchy, so
industriously made against him, are without foundation.... And
then he gives expression to this noble sentiment, fit to be
engraven in letters of gold. Let statesmen hear it, and tyrants,
civil and ecclesiastical, dwell upon it: ‘Although I dispraise not
the defence of just immunities, yet love my peace better, if that
were all, give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue
freely, according to conscience, above all liberties’. I cannot
bring myself to hurry over this noble tract. I have read it over
again and again; I read it years and years ago, and often since,
and now again, for the purpose of addressing you; and the oftener
I read it, the more I take it to my heart. If such be its effect
upon me, as I fondly hope it may be upon many of you”, etc.

Notwithstanding this ardent and enthusiastic declaration, we yet think it would be unfair to impute to the learned lecturer every casual expression or even every deliberate opinion set forth in the speech he so much admires. It is, however, clear that he adopts as his own at least the main features of the doctrine enunciated, and the general character of the argument by which it is defended. This doctrine may be explained in two words: unbounded liberty, on the one hand, to publish and to circulate all manner of opinions; unbounded liberty, on the other, to read all manner of books. The State, it is contended, has no right to forbid, or to repress, those publications which are dangerous to the welfare of society; neither has the Church a right to forbid or to repress those publications which are hostile to the spiritual interests of the faithful. These views we believe to be false and pernicious both as regards the power of the State and the power of the Church. It is, however, under the latter aspect alone that we propose to consider the subject.

The pastors of the Church have received a divine command to guard the integrity of faith and to watch over the purity of morals. Therefore have they also received from God that authority which is necessary for the due fulfilment of this high charge. And such is the authority to prohibit and, as far as may be, to repress those publications of which the only tendency is to introduce error and to disseminate vice. For it is impossible to preserve truth incorrupt in a community, if error may be circulated without restriction, dressed up in the delusive garb of sophistry; it is impossible to preserve morals pure, if vice may be freely exhibited in the most seductive and alluring forms. A great writer and a wise philosopher, Samuel Johnson, even though a Protestant, had the vigour of mind to seize this important principle, which he has expressed with a singular felicity of diction and an epigrammatic power peculiarly his own: “If every murmurer at government”, he says, “may diffuse discontent, there can be no peace; and if every sceptic in theology may teach his follies, there can be no religion”.(3)

We confess indeed that this is a question full of difficulty to members of the Protestant Church. They believe that each one has a right to judge for himself what is true and what is false: and it is not easy to see how this right can be exercised, unless each one be free to examine every form of belief, every variety of error. But we are at a loss to understand how a Catholic should go astray on a subject so plain. From the earliest ages the Catholic Church has ever claimed and exercised the right to condemn and prohibit those books which are contrary to faith and dangerous to morals. Now it would be an error in doctrine to suppose that the Catholic Church could claim such a right if she had not received it from her Divine Founder.

If we pass from the doctrine of Milton to his arguments, we shall have much greater reason to wonder how it should have come to pass that we are asked, by a Catholic lecturer, to accept his views. He does not defend the circulation of bad books as a necessary evil, which it is inexpedient or impossible to check. On the contrary, he maintains it is a positive good, which ought to be encouraged. According to his notion, the promiscuous reading of bad books is the furnace in which our love for truth and virtue is to be tried. There can be no merit in truth, he argues, for him who is not acquainted with error; there can be no merit in virtue for him who is not familiar with vice. These are sentiments so utterly repugnant to the common instincts of our nature, that we could not believe they came from our illustrious poet, if his own words did not bear witness against him:—

“As, therefore, the state of man now is, what wisdom can there he
to choose, what continence to forbear, without the knowledge of
evil? He that can apprehend and consider vice with all her baits
and seeming pleasures, and yet abstain, and yet distinguish, and
yet prefer that which is truly better, he is the true wayfaring
Christian. I cannot praise a fugitive and cloistered virtue,
unexercised and unbreathed, that never sallies out and seeks her
adversary, but slinks out of the race, where that immortal garland
is to be run for notwithstanding dust and heat. Assuredly we bring
not innocence into the world; we bring impurity much rather: that
which purifies us is trial, and trial is by what is contrary. That
virtue, therefore, which is but a youngling in the contemplation
of evil, and knows not the utmost that vice promises to her
followers, and rejects it, is but a blank virtue, not a pure....
Since therefore the knowledge and survey of vice is in this world
so necessary to the constituting of human virtue, and the scanning
of error to the confirmation of truth, how can we more safely and
with less danger scout into the regions of sin and falsity, than
by reading all manner of tractates, and hearing all manner of
reason? And this is the benefit which may be had of books
promiscuously read”.(4)

We shall offer no commentary on this passage. Principles like these carry with them their own condemnation. And yet such are the principles advanced in a tract, which has made so favourable an impression on Mr. Justice Keogh, that the _oftener he reads it, the more he takes it to his heart_, and which he _fondly hopes_ may make a like impression on the minds of his audience.

When we are assured by Mr. Justice Keogh that Milton was “the fast friend of toleration”, we can scarcely believe that he is serious. Lest, however, our readers should be led astray, we shall briefly tell them what Milton _really thought_ and _said_ on the subject of religious toleration. Towards the close of his life, he wrote a very important treatise(5) in which he discusses the question, and explains his views with his usual clearness and force. He maintains in this treatise that all religious sects are to be tolerated, with _one exception_; and that exception is the _Roman Catholic Church_. Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, Socinians, Arminians, in a word, _all Protestants_, whatever their religious opinions may be, should have liberty to preach, to discuss, to worship, unmolested: but Catholics must not be tolerated; they must not be permitted to defend their doctrines; they must not be permitted to worship either in public or in private.(6) This, he contends, is one of the _best means to prevent the growth of Popery_.(7) Here is the champion of intellectual liberty that Mr. Justice Keogh would hold up to the admiration of his audience! Here is “the fast friend of toleration”, “the staunchest friend of freedom and truth that ever lived”, the man who “has made the most successful war against tyranny and falsehood”! We must charitably suppose that the learned lecturer has formed his opinion of Milton without reading his works.

We are told by the biographers of Milton that his father, who was the son of a zealous Roman Catholic, abandoned the religion of his ancestors, and was on that account deprived of his inheritance. The act of apostasy is one that the Catholic Church can never contemplate without the deepest sorrow and abhorrence. According to the principles of our faith, he who separates himself from the one True Church transgresses the command of God and forfeits his claim to everlasting happiness. Yet, it would seem, Mr. Justice Keogh finds in this act nothing to deplore, but much to admire. Speaking of the poet, he says:—

“He was in early youth instructed by a father who had sacrificed
for conscience’ sake a fair inheritance, with all scriptural lore,
of which he drank with a thirst which was never satisfied”.

If we understand these words aright, our author regards with complacency the conduct of one who renounced the true faith, to embrace a religion which, in the eyes of all Catholics, is false and heretical. To his mind the act of apostasy is _a sacrifice for conscience’ sake_. This is liberality of sentiment indeed! But it is a liberality of sentiment which we cannot reconcile with the maxims of sacred Scripture. Not so did the great apostle speak of those who had “made shipwreck concerning the faith”. “Of whom”, he said, “is Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme”—I. _Tim._, i. 19. 20. And again: “And their speech spreadeth like a canker; of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have erred from the truth, saying that the resurrection is past already”—II. _Tim._, ii. 17, 18.

Our readers, perhaps, will not be unwilling to know what was the effect of this training on the religious principles of Milton. His rich and vigorous mind was, indeed, a fertile soil. The seed which was sown in the spring time of youth, did not fail to grow up into a luxuriant tree, and to bring forth fruit in due season, according to its kind. In the maturity of life he constructed a system of theology which he professed to derive from Scripture alone. It is recorded by his own pen in his treatise _De Doctrina Christiana_, which, having been lost for a hundred and fifty years, has come to light within the present century. The peculiar tenets which he sets forth in this remarkable book may be briefly told. He defends the lawfulness of polygamy and divorce; he maintains that matter exists from eternity; he denies the doctrine of the Trinity; the Son is inferior to the Father, and produced in time; the Holy Ghost is inferior to the Father and the Son. An able writer has described “the result of the whole work” as “a system of theology not merely in discordance with the Church of England, but with every sect by which we are divided; an incoherent and conflicting theory, which combines Arianism, Anabaptism, Latitudinarianism, Quakerism, and we know not what to add, on account of his opinions on polygamy, but Mahometanism”.(8) These results are the ripe fruit of that early instruction in “all Scriptural lore” which Milton received, and for which Mr. Justice Keogh would seek our sympathy and approval.

After what we have seen, we cannot be surprised that our learned lecturer should point the finger of scorn and ridicule at the Roman Inquisition. Speaking of Milton’s travels in Italy, he says: “There it was his fortune to visit Gallileo, confined in the prison of the Inquisition for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican believers”. We do not propose here to defend the Inquisition: neither shall we attempt to disprove the charge, which Mr. Justice Keogh would fain convey, that the Catholic Church is the enemy of scientific truth. We shall wait for an adversary who deals in arguments and not in sneers. We cannot, however, forbear to notice a gross inaccuracy in the statement of fact. It is asserted that it was the fortune of Milton “to visit Gallileo _confined in the prison of the Inquisition_”. This assertion is simply false. Milton’s visit must have occurred about the year 1638, and it is well known to all who are acquainted with the subject, that Gallileo was then living at home in his own house at Arcetri, quietly pursuing his astronomical studies. In point of law, indeed, he was still technically a prisoner of the Inquisition, but this is widely different from being _confined in the prison of the Inquisition_. It is only fair to observe that the words of Milton himself, from whom the lecturer has taken his statement, are, on this point, strictly correct. “There it was that I found and visited the famous Gallileo, grown old, _a prisoner to the Inquisition_, for thinking in astronomy otherwise than the Franciscan and Dominican licensers thought”.(9) Our lecturer, therefore, in borrowing the language of the poet, has not only contrived to introduce an error, but he has taken care that this error shall be on the side most unfavourable to the Catholic Church.

We shall not trouble the reader with our own views or arguments on the hackneyed controversy of Gallileo’s persecution. We shall be content to contrast the opinion of Mr. Justice Keogh with that of a learned and able Protestant writer, who has devoted much study to the life and times of the great astronomer, and who is himself honourably distinguished in kindred fields of science. Sir David Brewster, with all his strong anti-Catholic prejudices, distinctly maintains that the trials of Gallileo, such as they were, are not to be ascribed to his opinions in matters of astronomy, but rather to his “personal imprudence” and to his “irreligious sentiments”.(10) The character of the persecution which he had to endure at the hands of the Catholic Church may be gathered from the testimony of the same eminent writer. In the year 1623, long after he had been tried before the tribunal of the Inquisition, having occasion to come to Rome, he met with a noble and generous reception from the Father of the faithful. “The kindness of his Holiness”, says Sir David Brewster, “was of the most marked description. He not only loaded Gallileo with presents, and promised him a pension for his son Vincenzo, but wrote a letter to Ferdinand II., who had just succeeded Cosmo as Grand Duke of Tuscany, recommending Gallileo to his particular patronage”.(11) And again he says:

“Thus honoured by the head of the Church, and befriended by its
dignitaries, Gallileo must have felt himself secure against the
indignities of its lesser functionaries.... But Gallileo was bound
to the Romish hierarchy by even stronger ties. His son and himself
were pensioners of the Church; and having accepted of its alms,
they owed it at least a decent and respectful allegiance. The
pension thus given by Urban was not a remuneration which
sovereigns sometimes award to the services of their subjects.
Gallileo was a foreigner at Rome. The sovereign of the Papal state
owed him no obligation; and hence we must regard the pension of
Gallileo as _a donation from the Roman Pontiff to science itself_,
and as a declaration to the Christian world that _religion was not
jealous of philosophy_, and that the Church of Rome was willing to
_respect and foster even the genius of its enemies_”.(12)

There are many other blots in the address of Mr. Justice Keogh, which a severe critic would not pass by without censure. He would ask, perhaps, how comes it that the lecturer takes his Scriptural quotations from the Protestant and not from the Catholic Bible? Is it that the Protestant Bible is the only one with which he is familiar? Can it be that the Protestant Bible is the source from which he derives his views in philosophy and in theology? We fully recognize the literary merits of the English Authorized Version; but there can be no doubt that the religious prejudices of its authors have led them into many serious errors. At all events it is not usual for a Catholic to quote from its pages without some apology or some explanation. Again, why does he tell his audience that the names of Spenser, of Shakespeare, of Scott, are to be found on the _Index Expurgatorius_? Did he consult the _Index_ himself and find these names upon it? It cannot be: they are not there. Was he induced to make the assertion on the authority of some trustworthy witness? We can scarcely believe it was so: no writer who cares for his reputation would commit himself to a statement so easily disproved. Was it, then, that he wished to cast unfounded aspersions on the Catholic Church, and to bring her institutions into discredit with all who cherish the names of those illustrious writers? Once more: Mr. Justice Keogh, forgetting, for the moment, his country as well as his religion, introduces to the favourable notice of his audience “our glorious deliverer, William III.”! What a startling phrase to hear from the lips of an Irishman and a Catholic! William III. possessed many eminent qualities: he was a brave soldier and an able statesmen. But in the annals of Ireland his name must be for ever associated with persecution and with perfidy.(13)

Our limited space is now drawing to a close; and, in good truth, we are weary of passing censure. It is time that we lift up our eyes from the right honourable lecturer to fix them for a few moments on the more noble and majestic proportions of the great poet himself. When we contemplate that venerable figure, as it stands forth to view on the canvas of history, if we speak in the language of censure, it must be blended with the language of genuine love and veneration. His errors we cannot defend; his faults we do not wish to extenuate; we are obliged to protest against his principles, and those who eulogise them. But amidst the varied fortunes of his chequered career he displayed many great qualities, which cannot fail to win the admiration of every generous heart.

Of his public conduct as a statesman we cannot indeed speak with approval. It seems to us that all the arguments advanced in his defence carry with them also his condemnation. He sided with the parliament against the king, because, it is said, he wished to uphold the constitution of his country; and yet he defended the trial and execution of the king, which were conducted in defiance of that same constitution. He abandoned his lawful sovereign to support the fortunes of Cromwell, because he believed that Charles was a despot; and yet he clung to the cause of Cromwell when Cromwell was not only a despot but an usurper. If the constitution was to be upheld, then the execution of the king was indefensible. If a tyrant should forfeit the allegiance of his subjects, then Cromwell had no claim to be obeyed. Yet however much he erred, it must be ever borne in mind that those who took a part in the turbulent events of the great rebellion, had not the same opportunities to form a calm and impartial judgment which we now possess. Men distinguished by great vigour of mind and great public spirit, were to be found on opposite sides in the senate and in the camp. None could have told, when the breach first appeared between Charles and his parliament, that it would lead to civil war and end in the crime of regicide. It was necessary to make a choice; and the choice once made, it required more than ordinary virtue, more than ordinary courage, to recede; virtue and courage with which Milton was not endowed.

Those, however, who would form a just estimate of Milton’s character must seek him far away from the din of war and the strife of parties. He had borne a conspicuous part in a memorable political struggle; his fame had been carried abroad to distant lands; and yet he retires without regret from public life, to commune with his own mind in the obscurity of an humble lodging. The world admires the magnanimity of the old Roman who, having saved his country from destruction, returned again to his plough and to the simple pleasures of his rustic home. But there is far more to admire in the closing period of Milton’s career. The hour of his prosperity had passed away; the vigour of youth was gone. Disappointed in his hopes, neglected by an age unworthy of his genius, poor, and blind, and old, his splendid mind rose superior to all these calamities, which would have crushed a less noble spirit. As if now, at length, released from the captivity of earthly bonds, he soars aloft to higher thoughts, and pours forth from an overflowing soul the lofty strains of his unrivalled poem, the glory of English literature, the wonder and delight of every succeeding age. Not often does the history of the world present to us a spectacle so sublime.

Yet how little does genius avail in the one great and important affair of religion, unless guided and controlled by that infallible authority which God has established in His Church! The great doctrinal errors of Milton cannot be imputed to any want of intellectual power; for, in the natural gifts of intellect, he was eminently conspicuous. Much rather must they be ascribed to the erroneous system he employed in the search of Revealed truth. Starting from false principles, the more boldly he advanced, the more deeply did he plunge into error. In common with other Protestants, he accepted the doctrine of private judgment; but he was distinguished from others by the logical consistency and inflexible resolution with which he ever clung to this fundamental principle. Having been taught not to subject his reason to the authority of a Church which claimed to be infallible, he refused to submit to the teaching of a Church which had renounced that claim. His errors were more extravagant than those of other Protestant writers, only because he was more fearless in his speculations, more consistent in his principles, more honest in his speech. Others are often saved from error because they hesitate to follow the light of reason, when reason would lead them too far from the beaten track of received opinions. But such timidity and inconsistency were little in harmony with the spirit of Milton. He had learned in early youth, as a first principle, that, in the matter of religion, Scripture should be his only authority, reason his only guide; and in after life he was ever prepared to follow that guide whithersoever it might conduct.

The religious career of Milton appears to us, therefore, in a remarkable manner, at once to illustrate and to disprove the Protestant _Rule of Faith_. In him it was fairly tried, and it was found wanting. It would be difficult, we believe, to select from the whole range of Protestant writers any one who possessed in a higher degree, those qualities which are favourable to the exercise of private judgment. His distinguished biographer, Mr. Mitford, who was himself a Protestant clergyman, has spoken on this subject with great candour and ability. Referring to the treatise _De Doctrina Christiana_, he says:—

“It is acknowledged by all that it is written with a calm and
conscientious desire for truth, like that of a man who had
forgotten or dismissed the favourite animosities of his youth, and
who had retired within himself, in the dignity of age, to employ
the unimpaired energies of his intellect on the most important and
awful subject of inquiry. The haughtiness of his temper, the
defiance of his manner, his severe and stoical pride, are no
longer seen. He approaches the book of God with an humble and
reverential feeling, and with such a disposition of piety, united
to so powerful an intellect, and such immense stores of learning,
who would not have expected to have seen the ‘star-bright form’ of
truth appear from out the cloud; but wherever we look, the pride
of man’s heart is lowered, and the weakness of humanity displayed.
With all his great qualifications for the removal of error and the
discovery of truth, _he failed_”.(14)

He not only failed, but he seems to have been a perfect type of that unsteadiness in error which St. Paul describes in his Epistle to the Ephesians: he was as a little child “tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine”. He wandered, we are told, “from Puritanism to Calvinism, from Calvinism to an esteem for Arminius, and finally, from an accordance with the Independents and Anabaptists to a dereliction of every denomination of Protestants”.(15) When this was the fate of his gigantic intellect, how can humbler minds hope to attain success if they employ the same means?

It seems to us, therefore, that we can find some excuse for the errors of Milton in the false principles which he had imbibed in his youth. And, with all his faults, we cannot but revere the magnanimity of his spirit, the splendour of his genius. But we have no sympathy with those who, having the rich inheritance of an infallible authority for their guide in matters of religion, would yet claim for themselves the right to launch forth into the boundless sea of thought without restriction or restraint; who blindly embrace the conclusions of Milton, while they reject his premises; and who imitate him in his wanderings, while they cannot imitate that nobility of sentiment and that loftiness of eloquence which shed a lustre even around his errors.

THE SEE OF KILLALOE IN THE SIXTEENTH CENTURY.

In the year 1463, _Matthew_ or _Mahoun O’Griffa_ was appointed by Pope Pius II., Bishop of Killaloe. He had hitherto held the canonry and prebend of Teampul-monin, in the diocese of Limerick, the annual revenue of which amounted to twenty marks, and the _Monumenta Vaticana_ preserve an interesting fragment, which records the appointment of Donald Magillapadrig as his successor in that dignity: “Confertur ipsi canonicatus et prebenda de Tampolmonin in Ecclesia Limericensi quorum fructus viginti marcharum sterlingorum non excedunt et quos Mattheus electus Laonensis tempore suae promotionis obtinebat” (17 Decemb., 1463; pag. 455).

Dr. O’Griffa died in 1482, and was succeeded the same year by Terence O’Brien, who ruled the see for forty-three years, and, as Ware informs us, “was a prelate of great account among his people for his liberality and hospitality”.

Richard Hogan, a Franciscan, was chosen his successor in 1525, and after an episcopate of fourteen years, was translated to Clonmacnoise by Pope Paul III., on 16th June, 1539. He, however, enjoyed this new dignity only for a little while, as, a few days after his translation, he was summoned to his eternal reward.

It is remarkable that the episcopate of his successor in the see of Killaloe was equally short; for, _Tirlogh_, in Latin _Theodoricus O’Brien_, appointed its bishop in June, 1539, died before December the same year. Both sees being thus vacant at the same time, _Dr. Florence O’Gerawan_, _i.e._ Kirwan, was appointed bishop of Clonmacnoise and Killaloe on 15th December, 1539, the union of these sees being at the same time limited to the lifetime of this bishop. The following is the consistorial entry:—

“Anno 1539, 15 Decembris: Sua Sanctitas providit Ecclesiis
Claonensi et Laonensi in Hibernia vacantibus per obitum Richardi
et Theodorici de persona fratris Florentii Igernam (sic) ord.
Fratrum Min. cum dispensatione ex defectu natalium et unione
duarum Ecclesiarum ad vitam dicti Florentii”.

We have already had occasion to speak of this bishop when treating of the see of Clonmacnoise (_Record_, part 1., pag. 157); his episcopate was marked by many signal events, and his zeal in the defence of the Catholic faith merited for him the hatred of the enemies of our holy Church. He died in 1554, and had for his successor Terence O’Brien, who received his appointment in the beginning of Queen Mary’s reign, and continued to administer the see till his death, which is registered by the _Four Masters_ in 1569.

_Malachy O’Molony_ was next proclaimed in consistory on 10th January, 1571. He suffered much from the agents of the Protestant establishment: “Plurima ab haereticis mala et nonnunquam carceris acrumnas passus est” (Mooney, _MS. Hist. Francis._); and on 22nd of August, 1576, his translation to Kilmacduagh was solemnly promulgated in the Roman court.

His successor, _Cornelius O’Melrian_, O.S.F., was appointed the same month, viz., 26th August, 1576, and for forty-one years, till his death in 1617, he continued bishop of this ancient see. This prelate played an important part in the last great struggle of the Desmond chieftains; and we have intentionally passed rapidly over the preceding bishops, that space might remain for dwelling on the unpublished documents connected with his history. At the time of his appointment to the see of Killaloe, James Fitzmaurice was actively engaged on the Continent in enlisting the aid of the Catholic powers in favour of the Irish confederates. Before setting sail from Lisbon on 30th October, 1577, this chieftain wrote to Gaspar de Quiroza, Archbishop of Toledo, acquainting him with the disaster which had befallen our Bishop Cornelius, who, a little while before, having sailed from Rochelle for the Irish coast, was captured by pirates, and being despoiled of all he possessed, was obliged to return to the Continent. Fitzmaurice adds:—

“He (Dr. O’Melrian) is most devoted to us, and we confide to him
all the secrets which are to be communicated to you connected with
the succour which is to be sent to us; it would be most useful
that he should accompany the expedition of troops, to instruct
them as to the place for landing; as well as to conduct them to
our quarters”.

The letter terminates with the sweet old Irish invocation “_spes nostra Jesus et Maria_”.

When at length a considerable body of Spanish troops set sail for Ireland, under the command of the unfortunate colonel St. José, the bishop of Killaloe accompanied them, but soon quitted their ranks to join the Irish camp and assist the native Desmond princes by his sacred ministry and counsel. In 1582 he was instructed by the Earl of Desmond to proceed to Spain and Rome, and negotiate whatever measures might tend to the succour of Ireland. The following letters addressed by this Irish chieftain to the reigning pontiff Gregory XIII., will be read with interest by all who are acquainted with that sad period of our history; they are extracted from the Vatican archives:

“SANCTISSIME PATER,

“In vinca Domini exercituum laboramus expugnando luteranam istam
Angliae Reginam; toto enim hoc triennio elapso, prout jam bellum
gerimus, in armis sumus. Nostrum omnemque statum omniaque nostra
exposuimus periculo evidentissimo semper perdendi, bellumque istud
in Hibernia propter causas subsequentes his tribus annis elapsis
in manus libentissime assumpsimus, nimirum quod sanctae matris
Ecclesiae causa erat, ac quod Vestra Sanctitas jussit, atque
hortabatur ut rem inciperemus. Mihi meisque omnibus minime
peperci, oppida, villas et pagos, arces et castra cum fratribus
nostris Joanne et Jacobo de Geraldinis ac sexdecim aliis ex nostra
domo, in hoc bello perdidimus: nihilominus quamdiu vita comes
fuerit istud bellum prosequemur contra Angliae maledictam Reginam
donec S. Sanctitas ac sua majestas Catholica nos juverit ut
possimus haereticos propellere ex Hibernia totumque Regnum
subjicere legibus sanctae matris Ecclesiae. Et quia hactenus
praestolationem istius subsidii experimur, harum latorem Episcopum
Laonensem nostro et omnium nobilium hujus causae consensu
ambasciatorem et sollicitatorem universi negotii ad Suam
Sanctitatem et ad S. majestatem Catholicam mittimus cui V.
Sanctitas omnem fidem dabit, illumque ita auscultet non secus quam
nos si praesentes fuissemus auscultaret, rogantes obnixe V.
Sanctitatem (cui pedes humili animo exosculamur) ut nostram
inquietudinem et longam perturbationem animadvertat auxiliumque
cum hoc nostro ambasciatore mittatur quo poterimus confringere
audaciam adversariorum Christi Ecclesiae. Expediret denique ut V.
Sanctitas auctoritatem nuncii in negotiis ecclesiasticis mitteret
ad Laonensem Episcopum et potissimum ut ipsi liceat pontificalia
officia exercere ubicumque se invenerit cum licentia ordinarii;
vir enim spectatae vitae et virtutis magnaeque spei apud omnes
est, huicque causae addictissimus, ac fidelissimus.

“Datum in Castris Catholicorum in Hibernia,
die 1 Septembris, 1582.
"Sanctitatis Vae. addictissimus servus,
“GEROL DESMOND”.

Two months later the second letter was addressed to the same great pontiff:

“SANCTISSIME PATER,

“Accepimus a presbytero Hiberno Sanctitatis vestrae litteras per
Cardinalem Comensem datas Romae 6to Augusti, quibus nobis patuit
Sanctitatis Vestrae propensissimus animus, curaque vigilantissima
nedum erga nos sed etiam erga salutem totius Regni Hiberniae, adeo
ut ad ejus voluntatem in hoc nihil addi potest, quam pollicetur
nos reipsa experturos supernâ elementia opitulante. Quod vero
commissum erat latori qui tulerit litteras ut spem nobis augeat ac
ut in negotio hoc sancto persistamus pedefixo, suo muneri in hoc
satisfecit. Intelligat V. Sanctitas quod quamquam nos omnia pene
temporalia in hoc bello, fidei defensionis causa, amisimus, et
quod multo vehementius nos angit in conflictibus contra Anglos
Ecclesiae feroces hostes nostrum consobrinum D. Jacobum Geraldinum
cum nostris postremo fratribus D. Joanne et Jacobo ac nonnullis
aliis ex nostra domo qui successive in hoc bello occubuere,
nihilominus tamen in hac Dei et Sanctitatis Vestrae causa
immobilis permaneo, superni Dei optimi maximi ac Sanctitatis
vestrae praestolaturus auxilium quo possem severos Ecclesiae
hostes propellere ex Regno, illiusque integrum statum legibus
sanctae matris Ecclesiae subjicere; proinde V. Sanctitas
quemadmodum in ea omnem spem habemus non differat nos juvare et
quod reliquum erit cum Rege Catholico ferventissime et quam
citissime agere ut auxilium jam nobis mittatur plenum et
sufficiens quo finem huic rei intentae imponamus.

“Ad sollicitandum istud negotium, mense Septembri praeterito
misimus nostrum ambasciatorem Epum. Laonensem ad S. Vestram et ad
Regem Catholicum quem plurimi faciat V. Sanctitas omnem fidem illi
praebendo in omnibus rebus attinentibus ad nos et ad universum
statum illius belli; post cujus discessum ducentos Anglos in uno
conflictu interfecimus, ea enim quae Deus operatus est per nos
contra Anglos ante ejus discessum, autumo illum S. Sanctitati
aperuisse: expediret denique omnino ut cum hoc subsidio postulato
veniat aliquis Nuncii auctoritatem habens inter nos, qui judicio
omnium censendus esset Laonensis, ad quem S. Sanctitas dignetur
etiam harum responsum dirigere ut via sibi cognita nos mox
certiores reddat. Vivat V. Sanctitas nobis in multos annos.

“Ex Castris Catholicorum in Hibernia,
die 6to Novembris, 1582.
“GEROL DESMOND”.

A third letter, dated 18th June in the following year, repeats the same sentiments of devoted attachment to the Holy See, and petitions that the lands of the deceased James Geraldine should be granted to his son, Gerald. It thus concludes:

“Litteras vero super praedictas terras confectas, V. Sanctitas
dignetur mittere per Nuntium Apostolicum Hispaniarum ad nostrum
Ambasciatorem Cornelium Episcopum Laonensem cui cupimus ut V.
Sanctitas fidem in omnibus adhibeat, eumque fretum auctoritate
Nuntii cum subsidio mittendo ad nos dignetur mittere, quia aliis
palmam praeripit, quibus hoc esset concedendum. Valeat ac vivat V.
Sanctitas in Nestoreos annos.

“Ex Castris Catholicorum in Hybernia, 18 Junii.
“Stis. Vae. servus addictissimus prout opera ipsa comprobant
contra adversarios hostesque ecclesiae.
“DESMOND”.

In the Vatican archives is also preserved a series of letters of our bishop Cornelius, addressed to Rome in the years 1582, 1583, and 1584. They are all connected with the diplomatic mission which he received from the Geraldine princes, and some of them throw considerable light on the contemporary civil and ecclesiastical history of our island.

Before, however, we present them to the reader, we deem it necessary to remark that the relations of our bishops and of the Holy See with the native princes during the wars of Elizabeth’s reign have often been misconstrued, in the writings of those who were led away by the frenzy of political agitation. The Irish chieftains had at this period the title and privileges of independent princes; and as such they were entitled to defend with the sword those religious and civil rights which the government of Elizabeth attempted to destroy. Hence, their struggle merited the sympathy of the Holy See and the blessing of our martyr-clergy. But far more distant than heaven is from earth were the chivalry of James Fitzmaurice and the heroism of Hugh O’Neill from that accursed Fenian blight which, alas! has now-a-days fallen upon some of our benighted and deluded countrymen!

We give these letters in chronological order, and in their original language, that thus our readers may be the better able to appreciate the sentiments of this distinguished bishop of Killaloe.

1. The first letter is dated Lisbon, 22nd September, 1582, and was addressed to his Eminence Cardinal de Como:—

“ILLUSTRISSIME DOMINE,

“Litteras comitis Desmoniae Generalis Catholicorum in Hibernia cum
nostris litteris mittimus ad suam Sanctitatem ex quibus sua
Dignatio Illustrissima plenius intelligat negotium, operamque det,
quaeso, ut huic sanctissimae caussae jam tandem subveniatur:
alioquin actum erit de comite Desmoniae caeterisque Catholicis qui
arma elevarunt fidei defensionis causâ, patriaque illa Hibernia
impiâ potestate reginae maledictae Angliae omnino subjiciatur. Sua
Dignatis Illustrissima dignetur responsum illarum litterarum suae
Sanctitatis per Nuntium Apostolicum Hispaniarum ad nos mittere.
Caeterum talis clausula habetur in mea Bulla quod extra meum
episcopatum etiam cum licentia ordinarii non possem exercere
pontificalia. Proinde rogo suam Dominationem Illmam. ut dignetur
alloqui ea de re Suam Sanctitatem, mihique hinc oris oraculo vel
in scriptis impetrare ut possim cum licentia ordinarii exercere
pontificalia, multum enim hoc proderit. Valeat sua dominatio
Illustrissima in Christo Jesu.

“Ex Ulissipona 22 mensis Sept., 1582.

“Illustrissimae Dominationis vestrae,

“addictissimus servus,

“CORNELIUS LAONENSIS Episcopus”.

2. The second letter is addressed to Pope Gregory XIII., from Madrid, the 4th December, 1582:

“BEATISSIME PATER,