Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

</pre>

Produced by Bryan Ness, David Garcia and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)

THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

JUNE, 1865.

BLESSED THADDEUS, BISHOP OF CORK AND CLOYNE.

A.D. 1492.

The interesting and very learned article which appeared in the last number of the _Record_[1] has contributed much to illustrate the life of the Blessed Thaddeus, and to make known to the Irish Church a distinguished prelate whose virtues and sanctity adorned our island towards the close of the fifteenth century, which is precisely one of the darkest eras of our history. As, however, some of the writer's conclusions can scarcely be reconciled with the statement which we made in a preceding article on the Bishops of Cork and Cloyne (_Record_, p. 312), viz., that this holy Bishop's name was '_Thaddeus Machar or Maher_', we take the liberty of laying before the reader the reasons on which our opinion was based, and which compel us, however unwilling, to exclude from the princely family of the M'Carthys the saintly prelate whose relics now enrich the cathedral of Ivrea.

1. The town of Ivrea, to use the learned writer's words, is the capital of the Piedmontese province of the same name, and we may add that it is most picturesquely situated at the foot of the Alps, and is one of the first Italian towns which the traveller meets when, having crossed Mount St. Bernard, he wends his way towards Vercelli or Novara. In medieval documents Ivrea receives the Latin names of _Eporedia_, _Iporegia_, and _Hipporegia_, as may be seen in Ughelli's _Italia Sacra_, or in the later work of Cappalletti, '_Le Chiese d'Italia_' (Venice, 1858, vol. xiv., pag. 177), and at the time of which we speak, the see was held by Nicholas Garigliati, who was appointed its bishop in 1483, and died in 1499.

2. That the Blessed Thaddeus, who by his sanctity and miracles merited to be numbered amongst the patrons of Ivrea, was Bishop of Cork and Cloyne, is beyond all controversy. To the arguments advanced by the writer in the last _Record_ we may add an extract from the _Todd MSS._ given by Brady in his _Records of Cork_ (vol. iii. pag. 44), in which Bishop Thaddeus, who was appointed to the see of Cork in 1490, is said to have "died at the town of _Eporedia_ in Piedmont in 1492". The date 4th October, is indeed added, but this is probably a mere misprint for the 24th October, the true date of the demise of our holy bishop.

3. Ware informs us that this Thaddeus was _by some called Mechar_ (pag. 563), and the documents of Ivrea place beyond doubt that such was his true name. Thus the Bishop of Ivrea writes, "_Thaddaeum Machar_,[2] Episcopum Hib. illum esse innotuit ex chartis quas deferebat", and the old parchment record to which the same bishop refers, apparently quoting from the inscription on his tomb, describes our Blessed Thaddeus as,

"Regia progenies alto de sanguine Machar".

Now the learned editors of the Martyrology of Donegal inform us that the name _Mechar_ is the same as the _O'Meachair_ which appears so often in the ancient monuments of our history (see _Martyr. of Donegal_, published by I. A. S. 1864, pag. 517), and which at the present day has assumed the Anglicized forms of _Meagher_ and _Maher_.

4. The ancient Latin verses published in the _Record_,[3] present two important data for determining the family to which this bishop belonged. One is his native district, which is called _Solum Cariense_: the other is the royal ancestry to which his family had a just and ancient claim: "_Regia progenies alto de sanguine Machar_". Now are these data verified in the family of the O'Meachair? if not, it must be admitted that it can have no claim to our holy bishop; but if, on the other hand, those data accurately agree with what the ancient monuments of our island attest regarding the sept of the O'Meachairs, we must conclude that no link is wanting in the chain of evidence, and that the Blessed Thaddeus has justly been referred to that distinguished family.

5. Nothing now remains but to cite some few passages from our early writers which serve to illustrate these points in the history of the O'Meachairs.

In the first place, the topographical poem of O'Huidhrin (who died in 1420) has one important passage which not only throws some light on the family name, but moreover points to the territory of _Ui-Cairin_ as the chief abode of the O'Mahers, precisely as the name _Carinum_ in the Latin poem cited above marks the native district of our holy Bishop Thaddeus. The translation of this poem of O'Huidhrin was the last work achieved by our illustrious O'Donovan, and was published by the I. A. S. in 1862. At page 133 we find the following verse:--

"Mightily have they filled the land
The O'Meachairs--the territory of Ui-Cairin
A tribe at the foot of Bearnan Eile;
It is no shame to celebrate their triumph".

To which lines O'Donovan adds the following notes:

"_The O'Meachairs._ The name of this family is now Anglicized
O'Meagher, but more generally Meagher or Maher, without the
prefix O'. Their territory of Ui-Cairin is now called Ikerrin,
and is a barony in the present county of Tipperary.

"_Bearnan Eile_, i.e. the gapped mountain of Ely, now called in
English the Devil's-Bit Mountain"--(Notes, page lxxxv., n. 71
and 72.)

6. In the _Leabhar na-Ceart_, edited by the same distinguished Irish antiquary, for the Celtic Society, in 1847, we find some additional evidence not only for the connexion of the _O'Meachars_ with the territory of _Ui-Cairin_, but also for the royal descent to which they laid claim. It is thus that _Leabhar-na-Ceart_ commemorates the tributes which were due to the king of Eile:--

"Eight steeds to the king of Eile, of the gold
Eight shields, eight swords are due,
Eight drinking-horns to be used at the feast,
Eight coats of mail in the day of bravery"--(pag. 79.)

To which verse O'Donovan adds the following note:--

"_Eile._ This was the name of a tribe and an extensive territory,
all in the ancient Mumha or Munster. They derived the name
from Eile, the seventh in descent from Cian, the son of
Oilioll-Ollum ... The ancient _Eile_ comprised the whole of
Eile Ui-Chearbhail, which is now included in the King's County
... and also the baronies of _Ikerrin_ and Elyogarty in the
county of Tipperary.... Ikerrin and Elyogarty were detached from
O'Chearbhail shortly after the English invasion, and added to
Ormond, but _the native chieftains O'Meachair_, i.e. _O'Meagher_,
and O'Fogartaigh, i.e. O'Fogarty, were left in possession".

7. We will not fatigue the reader by citing a long series of authorities in which similar statements recur. Two will suffice for all, and we shall take them from the works of the late lamented professor of our Catholic University, Eugene O'Curry. One is a genealogical extract, in which Michael O'Clery, the chief of the 'Four Masters', commemorates some of the most illustrious families of the Milesian race. From Heber, he says, the Son of Milesius, were descended thirty of the kings of Ireland, and sixty-one saints. Amongst these royal chieftains must be reckoned _Teadgh_ (_i.e._ Thaddeus), grandson of Oiliol Ollum, and he adds:

"The descendants of this _Teadgh_ branched out and inhabited
various parts throughout Ireland, namely, the race of _Cormac
Gaileng_, in Luighne Connacht, the two Ui-Eaghra in Connacht,
the O'Eaghra of the Ruta, O'Chearbhaill of Eile.--_O'Meachara
in Ui-Cairin_, and O'Conor, etc". (_Curry's Lectures_, etc.,
pag. 147).

The other extract to which we wish to refer is published in the Appendix to the 'Battle of Magh Rath', which was translated and edited for the Celtic Society by the same great Irish scholar in 1855. The eighth genealogical Table (pag. 175) in this work, extracted "from O'Clery's _Pedigrees_, and Mac Firbis", tells us that "_Mechair_, from whom O'Meachair or Meagher", was fourteenth in descent from Oiliol Ollum, and the following note of O'Clery is added to his name:--

"There is a steed and a suit of clothes from each new chief of
them to the Comharba of St. Cronan of Roscrea, together with
Innisnambeo; and he (the Comharba) is to go around the chief
to proclaim him chief; and the Comharba is entitled to sit at
his shoulder, and the chief should stand up at his approach:
and this _Meachair was King of Eile_".

From all this we are surely justified in concluding that the historic date of _solum Cariense_ and _regia progenies_ are precisely those which we should expect to find in a commemoration of an illustrious member of the family of the O'Mahers.[4]

8. Our holy bishop, though thus descended from the first monarch of our island, wished, when journeying from Rome, to enter as a pilgrim the public hospital of St. Anthony in Ivrea, and there, in the true evangelical spirit, rejoiced in being reckoned the poorest of the poor. Heaven, however, has decreed that the humble shall be exalted; and no sooner had the unknown traveller closed his eyes to this world, than a divine light filled the room in which he lay; several prodigies awakened the devotion of the faithful, and proclaimed his sanctity; and the clergy and laity in solemn procession bore his hallowed remains to the cathedral church, and numbered him amongst the patrons of that ancient see. Thus, again, was Dr. Thaddeus true to the traditions of his family; for, besides his royal descent, he could boast of the higher and nobler lineage of sanctity. In the Martyrology of Donegal we find the names of two members of the family whose festivals were celebrated on January 16th and September 6th. Colgan, too, speaks of a _Saint Mecharius_, whose life he had prepared for publication, and whose feast was marked for the 13th of November (_AA. SS._, pag. 756).

Dr. Reeves also informs us that a St. _Machar_, better known by the Irish appellation of Mochonna, was sent by St. Columba with twelve companions to preach the Gospel to the Picts, and subsequently became the patron saint of Aberdeen (_Adamman's Columba_, pag. 246, 289, 299, etc.). On a fly-leaf of the original MS. of the Martyrology of Donegal, in the handwriting of O'Clery or Colgan, a Saint _Murro_ is commemorated, with the addition, "_id est, Machare, seu Meacharius_", and the interesting fact is further commemorated: "quod feras bestias subjugavit et triduo defunctum ad vitam revocavit" (_Martyr. Doneg._, I. A. S., xlvi.).

We do not wish, however, to leave unanswered the difficulty which the words of Ware present against our interpretation of this holy bishop's name. He expressly styles this bishop "_Thady M'Carthy_, by some called _Mechar_". Here then we must remark that Ware does not identify these names; and the name _Mechar_, which, as Ware acknowledges, was by some authorities given to this bishop, is proved by the monuments of Ivrea to have been his _true name_. What then was the origin of Ware's mistake? We learn from the _Monumenta Vaticana_ (pag. 503), that there was about this time a Thaddeus Mac Carryg "_iniquitatis filius_", who endeavoured to intrude himself into the see of Ross, and who is erroneously ranked by Ware amongst the bishops of that see (see _Record_, No. iii., December, 1864). As that name resembles _Mac Carrha_ or _Mac Carthaigh_, the Irish forms of _Mac Carthy_, it seems not improbable that Ware, by one of his so-frequent errors, confounded our holy Bishop Thaddeus with that iniquitous usurper (see _Dublin Review_, April, 1865, p. 384).

10. Perhaps we have here again a clue to the difficulties which compelled Bishop Thaddeus to abandon his see for a while, and seek a refuge in Rome. When appointed in 1490, several retainers of the Desmond family refused to admit him to the possession of the temporalities of his see (see _Record_, pag. 312). Now it was precisely in 1488 or 1489 that Thady M'Carthy had been compelled by the repeated censures of Rome to surrender the temporalities of Ross to the canonically appointed Bishop Odo; and what more natural than that the same genius of evil should, on the vacancy of the adjoining diocese in the following year, stir up again the embers of discord, and endeavour through his kinsmen to obtain possession of this see at least? And as the Protestant historian reckoned the usurper of the temporalities of Ross amongst the canonical successors of St. Fachinan, so, by a somewhat similar mistake, he may have easily confounded the same Thaddeus M'Carryg with the holy bishop who canonically ruled the united sees of Cloyne and Cork.

11. It now remains to make a few other remarks on the interesting paper published in the last _Record_.

In the first place, there are some incidental errors which seem to be inadvertently introduced. At pag. 379, Richard Wolsey is commemorated as successor of Thady, Bishop of Down, who died in 1486, which opinion has long since been set aside by De Burgo and Dr. Reeves (_Eccles. Antiquities_, Dublin, 1847, pag. 257). Thady, Bishop of Ross, is also said to have died soon after his appointment in 1488, and to have had for his successor Bishop Odo in 1489. All this has been sufficiently refuted in a former number of the _Record_ (pag. 106) and in the _Dublin Review_ for April, pag. 384.

At pag. 380-1, our Blessed Thaddeus is identified with a distinguished member of the Augustinian order, named _Thaddeus de Hipporegia_, who is eulogized as "a man distinguished for learning, religious observance, preaching, holiness of life, and experience, a man of great zeal, and a sedulous promoter of the interests of his order". We should be glad, indeed, to be able to number amongst our countrymen this great ornament of the Augustinian body. Unfortunately, however, the historians of that order represent this Thaddeus, not as an _Irishman_, but as an _Italian_, whose surname points to the town or province of Ivrea (see above No. 1) as the place of his nativity. The article in the _Record_ adds: "True, Elsius gives 1502 for the date of the friar's demise; but Elsius is never to be trusted in dates, and the printer may easily take MCCCCXCII. (the true date) for MCCCCCII". This is very plausible; but unfortunately here again there is no foundation for such reasoning, and hence the whole fabric falls to the ground. Elsius does not assign 1502, as the date of the friar's death; he merely writes "_floruit usque ad annum 1502_" (_Encom. Augustin._, Brussels, 1654, pag. 645). He, however, refers to Herrera for further information; turning to whose work we find thus explained the last formula of Elsius: "Durat ejus memoria usque ad an. 1502 in quo, habita Ferrariae synodo, Vicarius Congregationis acclamatus est. Nulla ultra illius in actis consistorialibus mentio", (_Alphab. Augustin._, vol. ii. pag. 450): and in a later Spanish compendium of this work, made by Herrera himself, it is said that this Thaddeus _probably died in 1503_, no mention being made of him in the acts of the order subsequent to the synod of Ferrara, held in the preceding year. There is also another circumstance equally fatal to the above theory. The illustrious Augustinian held many high offices in his order, and the historians Elsius and Herrera give the minutest details concerning them: "He was seven times definitor, (they write), thirteen times visitator, four times president of their congregations, nine times vicarius-generalis", etc, but both are careful to _exclude him_ from the list of bishops of the order. There is, therefore, no one point of contact between the distinguished Augustinian friar Thaddeus, and our holy Bishop of Cloyne.

12. To prove that the _Solum Cariense_ might justly be referred to in the eulogy or epitaph of a Bishop M'Carthy, it is interpreted as referring to _Kerry, the burial place of that family_. However, neither the Irish form of the name of that territory, i.e. _Chiarr_ (as we learn from the _Record_, page 380) nor the only Latin name by which we have seen it designated in mediaeval records, i.e. _Cherrium_, can be said to have much affinity with the _Cariense_ of the ancient document of Ivrea. We may also add that, were reference made to the burial place of the princely family of the M'Carthys, we should rather expect to find commemorated Muckross or Innisfallen, than the generic name of the vast territory of Kerry.

13. As regards the name _Machara_ or _Mechar_, it is said that the Irish name MacCarthy, is pronounced _Maccaura_, with the last syllable short, as in Ardmagha, and numberless like words. Hence, Wadding, in speaking of the foundation of Muckross Abbey, Killarney, by Domnall M'Carthy, Prince of Desmond, quotes to this effect a bull of Paul II. in 1468, in which Domnall's name is spelled "_Machar_" (p. 379). This example from the bull of Pope Paul II. is evidently a mere typographical error. In the edition of Wadding's Annals to which the writer refers (Roman edit., tom. xiii., p. 558, _seq._), that error stands side by side with _Desimonia_ and _Aertferten_, and what is still worse, Wadding in his text, citing this passage, is made to say: "Refert in hoc diplomate pontifex, inchoatum fuisse a _Donaldo Mac-Lare_" (p. 432). The origin of these errors is, that the transcripts of the Pontifical letters were made by strangers to our language, and the Roman edition of Wadding did not appear until sixty years after his death. In the original edition of the work, however, which was printed under the revision of Bonaventure Baron and other Irish Franciscans, Wadding's text gives us the true Latin form of the name: "Refert in hoc diplomate pontifex inchoatum fuisse a _Donaldo Mac-Care_" (1st edit. Lugduni, 1648, tom. vi. p. 693), and elsewhere speaking of the same convent of Muckross, he says its founder was "_Magnus Carthagus_", Prince of Desmond. Indeed, the Latin form of the name M'Carthy is not one about which we should have much dispute; it occurs a thousand times in the works of O'Sullivan Beare, Dr. Roothe, and other Irish writers, and yet nowhere is it found expressed under that form which the name of the Blessed Thaddeus presents to us.

Whilst, however, we thus dissent from some of the conclusions of the learned writer in the _Record_ for May, we wish to convey to him our sincere acknowledgments for having so prominently brought before the Irish public the name, too long forgotten, of one of our sainted Bishops, under whose protection we may hope that our holy faith will ever prosper, not only in our own island, but also in that now suffering province where his relics are enshrined.

THE HISTORY OF A CONVERSION.

The department of religious literature, which is made up of histories of individual conversions to the faith, has received of late years many remarkable additions. This class of literature is regulated in its growth by very peculiar conditions, and must be judged according to exceptional laws. Its subject--the mysterious workings of grace in the soul--is such as rather to impose a reverent silence than to invite fulness of description; and so well do elevated souls appreciate the sacredness of such silence, that, except for interests of religion or justice, they are unwilling to bring before men those inner secrets of their hearts. But when the interests of religion or justice have convinced them that silence is no longer a duty, the history they consent to unfold can rarely be other than attractive and profitable, seeing that it describes a human soul's toilsome journey from error to truth. The very minuteness of personal detail, which in any other composition would be a blot, in this becomes a merit and a charm. Among the religious motives that not unfrequently dictate such a history, a spirit of thankfulness for the blessing of faith has its fitting place. The favoured soul looks out from the shelter of its Father's house upon the perilous path it has just traversed, and gratefully traces the Providence by which its wayward feet were guided where so many strayed to their ruin; just as the rescued mariner hangs up _ex voto_ a sketch of his frail bark in the moment of her peril, when, but for heaven's help, she would have foundered in the raging waves. Fruit of this pious gratitude is the narrative[5] we are now engaged upon; a narrative which will interest every Catholic, not only because it is the history of a remarkable conversion, but because of the light it incidentally throws on the present condition and future prospects of German Protestantism. But before we set ourselves to trace the steps of the process which led Dr. Laemmer from a many-faced Protestantism to the Catholic Church, it will be useful to make a few preliminary remarks.

In Dr. Laemmer we have a witness who has had rare opportunities of becoming acquainted with the very highest and best forms which Protestantism has been enabled to assume in the country of its birth. He is, above all things, the child of the German Protestant universities. Of the twenty-six universities of which the learned nation is so proud, six or eight are Catholic,[6] four are mixed,[7] and the remaining fourteen are exclusively Protestant.[8]

Now, Dr. Laemmer was student successively at Koenigsberg, Leipsic, and Berlin universities, that is to say, at the very universities which at the present time are the chief seats of Protestant thought, both in philosophy and in theology. The leading Protestant schools in Germany are at present three in number, called respectively the neo-Lutheran, the Mediation, and the Tuebingen, or historico-critical school; of these[9] the neo-Lutheran, or Lutheran reaction school, has specially existed in Berlin and Leipsic; the so called Mediation theology at Berlin; and the Tuebingen school (now almost extinct in its native home, and renewed by Hilgenfeld at Jena) has made its influence felt throughout. Besides, at Koenigsberg, he came, as we shall see, under the influence of one of the ablest defenders of Hegelianism. We should exceed our limits, were we to enter upon a statement of the principles of these schools. Be it enough to say, that the first-named school, by defending the authority and credibility of the Scriptures, aims at re-constructing the historical basis of Christianity, and insists on a return to the Lutheran Confessions of the sixteenth century. Since the political troubles of 1848, an ultra-conservative party, called the Hyper-Lutheran, has arisen within this school, which goes back beyond the Reformation, and insists on the principle of a visible authoritative church, a rigid sacramental theory, and the doctrine of consubstantiation. Stahl, and Leo of Halle, to whom Dr. Laemmer makes an important allusion, to be hereafter quoted, belong to the most advanced of this party. Among the representatives of this school with whom Dr. Laemmer was brought into direct contact, were Hengstenberg and Kahnis.[10]

The Mediation school takes its stand between the Lutheran party on the one hand, and the school of criticism on the other, and without going back to the principle of authority, or forward to that of discovery, proposes to unite the use of reason with belief in Scripture, and to understand what it believes. Of the members of this very numerous school Dr. Laemmer had intercourse with Twesten and Nitzch. The Tuebingen school had for its leader Christian Baur, and starting from the principle that the only portions of the New Testament undoubtedly genuine are four of St. Paul's Epistles, viz.: to the Romans, to the Galatians, and the two to the Corinthians, it comes to the conclusion that Christianity in its present form is the result of the controversy between the Jewish, or Petrine, and the Pauline Christianity of the apostolic and following ages. All the other books of the New Testament it attributes to some one or other of the contending schools. That this school, extravagant as its conclusions may appear to us, is every day gaining ground in France with a very numerous party, we have been lately assured by competent authority.[11] That it has many advocates in England is well known.[12] A critic in the _Home and Foreign Review_[13] speaks of "the importance of those inquiries of Dr. Baur and his followers into primitive Christianity, which have in some way modified the views of almost every one who has become acquainted with them."

These are thy gods, O Israel! These are the shapes of Protestantism that wander to and fro in the various universities of Germany. Dr. Laemmer, speaking with full knowledge of the subject, sums up in one word the result of all this unhealthy movement, and that word is--_chaos_. And what heightens the confusion is, that, although the systems which form this chaos are in absolute and perpetual conflict with each other, yet does each professor claim for himself the exclusive possession of truth, as if he and he alone had been gifted with infallibility.

The special feature of Dr. Laemmer's conversion appears to us to consist in this, under the grace of God, that he approached faith through its historic side. Sound and conscientious historical research has been the means of his deliverance from bondage. His mind from boyhood inclined towards things grave; the details he communicates concerning his choice of authors reveal that sobriety of judgment which is the first quality of a student of history. The bent of his mind in this direction was strengthened by study of the fathers, of the history of the Papacy, and of the Catholic theology of the Reformation period. We invite special attention to the happy result of historical studies in his case, because we see in it a promise of much future good for Catholic truth in Germany. The broad distinction between the German method of the present century and that of the past, lies in this, that the nineteenth century is the age of historical inquiry, whereas the last century was that of critical thought. Even the Tuebingen school is an improvement on the destructiveness of Strauss, for it admits and calls attention to the historical value of at least some portion of the Scriptures. In the other schools, above described, this tendency is of course still more marked. The modern spirit tends not so much to examine the ontological value of an opinion, as to investigate how men came to hold that opinion. It was this spirit which suggested the questions of concursus, which, as we shall see, changed the current of Dr. Laemmer's life. Now we hold it very probable that as this spirit becomes more extended, its fruits will be these: men will become familiar with the teachings of Christian antiquity; and although this knowledge may be sought not for the sake of the doctrine itself, but as a preliminary to other studies, still, such is the divine power of truth, that, once revealed to the soul, it creates therein a wondrous craving after itself, which will dispose the soul for the grace of faith. There must be at this moment many thoughtful men in Germany, who, in virtue of this spirit, are engaged in the examination of the fathers and of the theologians of the Catholic Church, and, who, finding themselves, like Dr. Laemmer, between the ruins caused by Protestantism and the unbroken strength of Catholic teaching, are even now turning their eyes towards Rome, therein to seek her who was their mother of old.

Hugh Laemmer was born of a Protestant father and a Catholic mother, at Allenstein, in Eastern Prussia, on 25th January, 1835. His mother was a woman of most fervent piety, who, in almost unceasing prayer, sought and found consolation under her many severe afflictions. It was not given her to exercise much influence over the mind of her son, who, long before her death, had gone to reside with his father's relatives, by whom he was brought up as a Protestant. The lad, nevertheless, had a tender love for his mother, and from his earliest years was conscious of an indescribable leaning towards his Catholic friends in preference to his Protestant kindred. This feeling was the natural growth of observations made by the quickwitted boy regarding the piety, firm principles, and good conduct of the Catholics. At the same time, the devotion of the faithful in their processions and pilgrimages served to put him on his guard against the bigoted prejudices which his Lutheran cousins ever sought to instil into his mind against their Catholic neighbours. When with the other schoolboys he went to church on Sunday, the sermon made no impression on him, and no wonder, for the preacher carried with him into the pulpit the chilling rationalistic principles he had imbibed at the university. Even in those early years the boy's heart tended towards the beautiful and spacious Catholic Church of his native town. Once, when his father took him to Heiligenlind (a famous resort of pilgrims), and the old sacristan showed him the rare treasures of the church, he experienced an emotion so strong that it survived even the rude trials of his after life.

In 1844 he entered the gymnasium of Koenigsberg. He brought with him from home a good stock of elementary and grammatical knowledge; and soon discovered that his tastes inclined him to the study of literature more than to that of science. Ellendt, then rector of the gymnasium, was a man who possessed in a remarkable degree the power of making his lectures interesting to his pupils. Explained by such a master, Homer and Herodotus became in a short time the favourite authors of M. Laemmer, who, on the other hand, had no taste for what he calls "the tedious narratives of the Anabasis, and the pedantic tirades of the Cyropaedia". He preferred Caesar and Livy to Cicero, whose philosophy especially he found to be commonplace. Modern French literature had no attractions for such a mind as his; the contemporary romance writers of that nation excited even his disgust. As Germany is considered by many to be the very home of perfection in classical studies, it will be interesting to hear the opinion Dr. Laemmer's experience has led him to form concerning the special dangers which beset middle school education at the present day:--

"I believe it to be a mistake", he says, "to make modern languages,
mathematics, and the physical sciences occupy very much of the
time appointed for the study of the classics; and as far as middle
class instruction is concerned, we have reason to be grateful to
the Raumer ministry for the prominence it has given in the new
educational plan to the wise principle _non multa, sed multum_.
It is highly dangerous to the young to distribute their faculties
simultaneously over many heterogeneous branches of knowledge.
_Ubique hospes, nusquam domi_: such a system is the sure path to
that half-learning, which, without giving a thorough knowledge
of anything, encourages young men to talk presumptuously of
a host of subjects of which they have but the barest surface
knowledge. What happens when the examination papers exact
from students a knowledge of science as well as of literature,
physics, chemistry, natural history, and the different branches
of mathematics? It is a well-known fact that, with the exception
of a few intended for certain professions, young men are careful
to forget as soon after examination as they can, the information
it has cost them so much labour to acquire. Against this it
is vain to urge the importance which the natural sciences have
now-a-days attained to--an importance so great that no one, save
at his peril, can remain a stranger to them; for, on no account
should we furnish new weapons to materialism. At most, it is
required that students should be supplied with such elementary
information as may enable them in the future to keep in sight
the true bearings of things, and in creatures recognize Him who
is proclaimed in the first article of the Creed. That extravagant
cultivation of the natural sciences, so often substituted by our
ministers in place of the lessons of Holy Writ, is as perilous as
is the undue exaltation of man and of man's pretended victories
over nature. The laws of nature have never acknowledged any
master save One--our Lord Jesus Christ--and in Him the saints
with whom it has pleased Him to share His sovereignty" (p. 13).

Whether the authorities at the gymnasium shared these views or not, we are not in a position to state. One thing, however, is certain,--much attention was paid there to the study of the German language and literature; much of our student's time was passed in the excellent library of German authors provided for the use of the scholars. What an eventful moment that is in which a youth, in the flush of the early vigour of his mind, finds himself for the first time in a library where the treasures of human thought are gathered before him clothed in the language he has learned from his mother's lips! Then begins for him that daily contact of mind with the mind of others, which will infallibly colour for good or evil the history of his future. He who, without an enlightened and friendly guide, adventures inexperienced upon this commerce,

"Voyaging through strange seas of thought, alone",

runs no little risk of being caught unawares by error where his generous ardour looked only for truth. In the world of books as in the world of men, evil lies very close to good, and wears its garb and mien; and how shall the inexperience of youth be able to see through the disguise, or how avoid becoming captive to its snares? And from such captivity, how harassing the toil of escape! Of that toil let him make light who has never had experience of the almost ceaseless influence erroneous principles exercise on the mind with whose growth they have grown. From reading Newton on the Prophecies in 1816, Dr. Newman, then a boy of fifteen, became convinced that the Pope was Antichrist; and his imagination was stained by the effects of this doctrine up to the year 1843.[14] Nor did M. Laemmer come away safe. His random reading brought him both good and evil, so intermingled each with each, that his unripe judgment could no more discern between them than the hand can disjoin the sunshine from the shadow that follows after it. After ransacking the bulk of German literature, he selected from out the rest certain writers to be his prime favourites. The choice he made reveals at once the bent of his mind, and the dangers to which that very bent exposed him. The schools of German poetry and taste are divided in Vilmar's _History of German Literature_ into five classes. First, that which preceded Lessing, subdivided into the Saxon school, and the Swiss school of Wieland in his early manner; to which was akin the Goettingen school of Klopstock and Voss; second, that of Lessing and the writers influenced by him; third, the Weimar school with its three great names, Herder, Goethe, and Schiller; fourth, the later schools, the romantic, represented by the two Schlegels, Novalis, and the patriotic; fifth, the modern school of reaction against absolute government, headed by H. Heine. Of these schools, only the second and third gave M. Laemmer delight. There was a hidden sympathy between the qualities of his own mind and the exquisite critical genius and reasoning power of Lessing, which made him find the writers of the first class insipid and trivial. He came under the influence of Lessing to a remarkable degree, and if to that influence he owes the gain of an important truth, to it must be attributed also his acceptance of a most fatal error. That remarkable man, author, or, as it now appears, editor of the _Wolfenbuettel Fragments_, in consequence of that publication, had a warm controversy with the Lutheran pastor Goeze, in which he forcibly showed, by historical arguments chiefly, that the principle of _the Bible and nothing but the Bible_, was illogical and false. M. Laemmer followed the course of the controversy, and found to his dismay that the arguments of Lessing had brought home to him the conviction that Lutheranism rested on a false basis. This was a great gain; but it was counter-balanced by a great loss. The ardour of his youthful admiration blinded him to the dangerous principles of indifferentism and doubt contained in his master's works, and particularly in his _Education of the World_. The third Fragment sets it forth as impossible, that all men should be brought to believe revelation on rational grounds. These principles, destructive of all faith and certainty in belief, were adopted by the young student, and warmly defended by him in a special dissertation.

Towards the end of his course he devoted himself to the study of Herder; and here again vague reading brought to him gain and loss, truth and falsehood together. He learned from this writer to believe in the mysterious action of Providence in the world; but the view he was led to form of the Divine plan was confined, superficial, and vague. He also gave much time to the reading of Schiller, in whose works he found an assault on the frigid deism then predominant in Germany. But, the deity which that poet brought so near to men was not the Blessed Trinity, but the gods of Olympus; and whilst his strains rebuked the philosophy which never rose above the laws of gravity, he himself did but serve the cause of epicureanism by his praises of the pleasures of the earth.

From Goethe M. Laemmer learned to appreciate, in some measure, the Sacraments of the Church, and to think kindly of the Church itself. But what solid advantage could he gain from the man who wrote to Lavater of the chief gospel miracles that "he held them for blasphemies against the great God and His revelation in nature"?

The reader will have observed that this course of reading made several important additions to M. Laemmer's religious views. And yet the books among which his reading lay were either not at all, or not directly religious. We are now to inquire how far his ideas were modified by any directly religious training. The answer to this question opens up such a view of the condition of Protestantism in the country of its birth, as well deserves our careful study. Let M. Laemmer tell us what fruits it has produced at Koenigsberg. First of all, in the various schools where he resided during his stay in that town, there was no common practice of religion: the religious exercises of the gymnasium were limited to the singing of a few stereotyped chants. The religious instruction of the students was attended to by an aged professor, who was one of the leaders of the Freemasons, and whose religion was the religion of pure reason. He was assisted in the religious training of the students by a younger man, whose doctrines were kindred with his own, and whose lectures, though erudite, were arid. Fortunately for himself, M. Laemmer had learned from his mother the habit of night and morning prayer. This habit he retained, although for want of fixed principles it became a work of mere routine. Such was the state of religion in the gymnasium. In the city itself things were still worse. From the orthodox Lutheranism of Superintendent Sartorius, down to the absolute Rationalism of Rupp, every intermediate stage of error had its exponents and followers in the city of Kant. In the eyes of Sartorius, Catholicism, which he knew only from Luther's caricatures, stood on the same level with Rationalism; he assigned to the Confession of Augsburg almost the same authority which Catholics claim for tradition, and together with Baur, Nitsch, and Winer, made an unsuccessful attempt to refute Moehler's _Symbolism_. Rupp, on the other hand, denounced all symbols, even that of St. Athanasius, which he declared to be incompatible with Christian doctrine; his system was based on Indifferentism of the lowest kind, and conceded to women as well as to men the right of deliberating and of teaching in religious matters. And yet, these two men, so diametrically opposed to each other in doctrine, preached for a time in the same church and from the same pulpit. And, whilst Sartorius, who revered Luther as a man of God, preached to empty benches, Rupp found assembled around him a crowded audience, composed of the highest as well as the lowest in the land. The different churches at Koenigsberg had preachers of every shade of doctrine. During the course of his studies M. Laemmer made trial of them all, but found not satisfaction in any. At length, in the midst of this Babel, he became acquainted with the man who was destined to exercise a most salutary influence on his life. That man was Lehnerdt, Superintendent-General of the province of Saxony. Born in Brandenburg, and educated at Berlin, in the school of Schleiermacher and Hegel, he escaped the pernicious influence of his masters by a profound course of historical studies. On the one hand, he combated the rationalistic exegesis of Paulus, and on the other, devoted himself with all his might to the study of the Fathers. He was a man of great piety; and in preparing M. Laemmer for confirmation, spoke with such unction of God and the world, man and sin, Christ and salvation, that his words wrought in the young student's soul a blessed reaction. An intimate and affectionate relationship sprang up between the two, which was interrupted in the middle of 1851 by Lehnerdt's departure for Berlin, where he succeeded Neander as professor of history, but was resumed again at a later period in that city.

M. Laemmer passed from the gymnasium to the university of Koenigsberg at Easter, 1852. He remained there but one year, during which time he acted as secretary to Voigt, whose able _History of Gregory VII._ was the beginning of a new epoch for ecclesiastical history in Germany. One of the professors of philosophy was Rosenkranz, the pupil and biographer of Hegel. This able man was an eloquent partisan of Hegelianism, and by the poetic colouring he contrived to throw around its doctrines, exercised an extraordinary influence over the youth of the university. M. Laemmer tells us that during a fever which at this time brought him to death's door, one of his keenest regrets was his inability to attend Rosenkranz's lectures. He made up for his absence from lecture by a careful study of his professor's writings, and completely adopted the views expressed therein. It was long before he was able to shake off the yoke of Hegelianism which he then assumed. In the university, Biblical literature was treated altogether from the rationalistic point of view. One of the fruits of this method is the isolated and independent study of various parts of Sacred Scripture. "It was reserved for Protestantism", says M. Laemmer, "to cultivate in minute detail what is called Biblical Theology, and to write volumes upon the doctrine of such and such an apostle in particular.... This anatomical process, this study of atoms, has led many to apply those fine theories to various periods of Church history, and, like certain heretics of the middle ages, to speak of the Christianity of St. Peter, and of the Christianity of St. Paul, not excluding by any means that of St. John" (pp. 47, 48).

At the Easter of 1853 M. Laemmer passed from the university of Koenigsberg to that of Leipsic, on a burse founded in the old Catholic times by a Catholic priest of his native town. His departure from Koenigsberg marks the close of the first period of his university career, and it will be interesting to stop and take a comprehensive view of the phases of thought through which he passed during that time. As far as religious opinions are concerned, this first stage of his life may be subdivided into two periods: one of demolition, the other of reconstruction. In the former he lost his belief in Lutheranism and its central doctrine of the _Bible and nothing but the Bible_; that is to say, he lost hold of the only dogmatic principle he held. Being thus deprived of a fixed belief, he was more open to the action of Lessing's principles of universal tolerance, which amounted to the coldest indifferentism and doubt. These principles he made his own for a season. The spectacle of division and discord which was exhibited daily under his eyes at Koenigsberg, helped to complete the work of destruction. Even his very prayer became a dry form, lacking all influence for good. The period of reconstruction commenced with the friendship that bound him to Lehnerdt, by whose influence were sown in his mind the seeds of a reaction, which, by the play of intellectual as well as moral causes, was afterwards developed into the fulness of Catholic belief. The intellectual cause that led to this happy result was, as we said before, the spirit of historical inquiry; the moral cause, under God's grace, was the deep religious sentiment which formed part of his original character, and which, once aroused by Lehnerdt's words about justice and the judgment to come, never allowed any antagonism of feeling to stand long in the way of his acceptance of the truth. Not that the action of these causes was at all times unimpeded. The Hegelianism which he imbibed from Rosenkranz far a long time seriously crippled his mind in its exertions after truth.

In these dispositions M. Laemmer came to the University of Leipsic.

Among the professors at Leipsic Winer was beyond doubt the most remarkable. His labours on the idioms of the New Testament Greek, his lexicological and bibliographical works, and even his reply to Moehler's _Symbolism_, with all their defects, give proof of solid study. But he permitted himself in his lectures to launch sarcasms against the rites of the Catholic Church. Indirectly he was the occasion of much good to M. Laemmer, who read Moehler's and other Catholics' works in order to test the statements advanced by Winer. It was Winer too who first suggested to him the idea of devoting himself to teaching in the university. Tischendorf, so famous for his studies on the Bible texts, and Wachsmuth, who has rendered immense services to truth by his Roman history, written in refutation of Niebuhr, were among the professors whose courses he followed at Leipsic. Two resolutions taken at this period by M. Laemmer reveal the gradual change which was taking place in his convictions, owing to the action of the causes mentioned above. First, he determined to assist no longer at the lectures of Theile, on account of his grossly rationalistic treatment of the doctrine of the Word in the Epistles of St. John. Theile died shortly after. "He was a man of rectitude", says M. Laemmer, "and conscientious: I cannot think of him without a feeling of deep sorrow. You might read on his brow the painful and fruitless efforts he had made to attain to the fulness of truth and to that peace which the world cannot give" (p. 65). Daily more and more disgusted with rationalism, and wearied with ineffectual efforts to reconcile the contradictions which everywhere appeared in theology, he now began to entertain serious thoughts of confining himself exclusively to philosophical studies. But these thoughts were put to flight on occasion of his first sermon, which he preached in a suburban village where one of his friends was pastor. The subject of the sermon was charity, as described by St. Paul; and its treatment had the effect of reviving in the preacher's heart his old love for religious questions. He was now approaching the crisis of his life. While he was bewildered by the endless variations of Protestantism, and endeavouring to form out of them a religious system such as would satisfy his reason and conscience, the first rays of the grace of faith began to dawn more nearly upon his soul. In what manner this came to pass we shall allow himself to tell:

"I said before that during my stay at Leipsic, the study of a
question proposed for concursus exercised a powerful influence on
my religious views, and that to it is to be attributed my first
step towards Catholicism. The subject chosen for the concursus
of 1854, by the Leipsic Faculty of Theology, was the exposition
of the doctrine of Clement of Alexandria on the Word. This theme
made upon me a most vivid impression. At once, and with great joy,
I resolved to become a candidate. I will now state the motives
of this resolve. The conflicting theological systems which I had
observed, both in books and in oral instructions, occasioned me
extreme torture. I was too independent to follow the example of
so many others by attaching myself blindly to a party; I wished
to examine for myself the successive phases undergone by the
Protestant principle, and with full knowledge of the subject to
make my own selection. All those systems, whether confessional or
non-confessional, could not satisfy me long; on the other hand,
the distraction caused by philological and philosophical studies
could not give peace to my heart, which only in God could find an
end to its unrest. _Inquietum est cor nostrum, donec requiescat
in te._ I felt I must escape from the chaos of modern theology,
and I most eagerly availed myself of this opportunity to draw
from the spring of Christian antiquity. I procured a copy of
Klotz's portable edition, and set myself to the study of my author.
Pen in hand, I began my task by reading him through and through
before I took any account of what others had written about him.

"A new world opened on my sight as I read the earliest master of
the Alexandrian Catechetical School--the teacher of Origen. What
treasures lie hid in these three works, the _Exhortatio ad
Graecos_, the _Paedagogus_, and the _Stromata_! _The Exhortatio
ad Graecos_ is a masterpiece of Christian controversy against
Paganism, considered in its popular mythology, its poetry,
and its philosophy. The _Paedagogus_, written for catechumens,
sets before them a magnificent portrait of the true and only
Master--the eternal Word of the Father--who has created man to His
own image; who alone can provide a fitting remedy for fallen and
guilty humanity; who, though man had become of the earth, earthly,
yet enables him to attain to his heavenly destiny; who, in fine,
confides him to the maternal yet virginal love of the Church.
Then came the eight books of the _Stromata_, an unpretending
mosaic, in which the loftiest problems of philosophy and theology
are treated with great learning and rare penetration. These
three works were, without doubt, connected together in the
author's mind. The idea of the Word is the central point of
Clement's entire demonstration; and in that idea we must seek
the essential unity of his system. It is the Word which tenderly
invites man; which instructs him; which guides him to his end
by leading him to see the things of God in their profundity;
and thus the idea of the Word embraces in one same circle all
philosophy, dogmatic as well as moral" (pp. 85, 88).

The monograph on Clement of Alexandria was prefaced by prolegomena, containing a sketch of Clement's life, an analysis of his doctrine, and an inquiry into the historical sources of his doctrine on the Word. For this the author had to examine the relation in which Clement stood in philosophy and theology towards classical antiquity, Alexandrine Judaeism, the Apostolic Fathers, and the first Christian apologists. The subject proper of the essay was divided into two parts: the first treated of the relations of the Word with God; the second considered the Word as the Revealer. The work was well received by the faculty of theology, and its author was declared the successful candidate, 31st of October, 1854. By the advice of Winer and others, and by the kindness of Tischendorf, it was published in March, 1855. Wachsmuth, dean of the faculty of philosophy, advised M. Laemmer to stand his examination for the doctorship in philosophy, and backed his advice by the offer of a burse to enable him to meet the expenses. The young student obtained this degree after having presented a dissertation on the religious philosophy of Clement of Alexandria, and having passed a successful examination.

We have seen that M. Laemmer qualifies this episode in his studies as the first step he made towards Catholicity. It may be asked, what was the special fruit derived by him from these patristic studies? The answer is, that it enabled him to shake off the influence of the Tuebingen theories, which had hitherto held sway over his mind. The whole work of that school simply amounts to an attempt to submit to the all-powerful action of critical caprice the canon of Scripture and the most remarkable works of Christian antiquity, and to affirm all their own theories as indisputable facts, while they treat as fables the most authentic facts of history. Now, the more clearly it is proved that the historical origin of Christianity is able to resist the crucial tests to which it has been submitted, the more shadowy and insubsistent do these capricious theories become. Hence, the study undertaken by M. Laemmer did in reality, by occupying him with the objective side of patristic teaching, most powerfully contribute to destroy in his mind the authority of Baur, Hilgenfeld, and the others of the Tuebingen school.