Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

The Irish Ecclesiastical Record

Volume 1.

November, 1864

CONTENTS

The Holy See And The Liberty Of The Irish Church At The Beginning Of The Present Century. I. From Mgr. Brancadoro to Father Concanen, O.P., Agent at Rome for the Irish Bishops. Dalla Propaganda. 7 Agosto, 1801. II. From the same to the same. Dalla Propaganda, 25 Settembre, 1805. A Recent Protestant View Of The Church Of The Middle Ages. The Mss. Remains Of Professor O’Curry In The Catholic University. No. II. The Destiny Of The Irish Race. Liturgical Questions. (_From M. Bouix’s __“__Revue des Sciences Ecclesiastiques__”_). Documents. I. Condemnation Of Dr. Froschammer’s Works. II. Decree Of The Congregation Of Rites. Notices Of Books. Footnotes

THE HOLY SEE AND THE LIBERTY OF THE IRISH CHURCH AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PRESENT CENTURY.

All students of Irish Catholic affairs must feel, at every moment, that we are at a great loss for a collection of ecclesiastical documents connected with our Church. The past misfortunes of Ireland explain the origin of this want. During the persecutions of Elizabeth, of James the First, and Cromwell, our ancient manuscripts, and the archives of our convents and monasteries, were ruthlessly destroyed. At a later period, whilst the penal laws were in full operation, it was dangerous to preserve official ecclesiastical papers, lest they should be construed by the bigotry and ignorance of our enemies into proofs of sedition or treason. Since liberty began to dawn on our country, things have undergone a beneficial change, and recently great efforts have been made to rescue and preserve from destruction every remaining fragment of our ancient history, and every document calculated to throw light on the annals of our Church. We are anxious to coöperate in this good work, and we shall feel deeply grateful to our friends if they forward to us any official ecclesiastical papers, either ancient or modern, that it may be desirable to preserve. Receiving such papers casually, we cannot insert them in the RECORD in chronological order, but by aid of an Index, to be published at the end of each volume, the future historian will be able to avail himself of them for his purposes.

To-day we insert in our columns two letters never published before, as far as we can learn, in their original language. They were addressed, in the beginning of this century, by the learned Archbishop of Myra, Monsignore Brancadoro, Secretary of the Propaganda, to a distinguished Dominican, Father Concanen, then agent of the Irish bishops, who was afterwards promoted to the See of New York, and who died at Naples, in the year 1808, before he could take possession of his diocese.

The first letter, dated the 7th August, 1801, refers to certain resolutions adopted by ten Irish prelates, in January, 1799, at a sad period of our history, when Ireland was in a state of utter prostration, and abandoned to the fury of an Orange faction. In such circumstances, we are not to be surprised that the Catholics of Cork, Waterford, Wexford, and many other parts of Ireland, in the hope of preserving their lives and property, should have petitioned to be united to England; or that Catholic prelates, anxious to gain protection for their flocks, should have endeavoured to propitiate those who had the power of the government in their hands, by taking into consideration the proposals then made—that the state should provide for the maintenance of the clergy, and that a right should be given to the state to inquire into the loyalty of such ecclesiastics as might be proposed for the various sees of Ireland.

The celebrated Dr. Milner, treating of the resolutions just referred to, observes in his _Supplementary Memoirs_, p. 115, that they had nothing in common with the veto which was afterwards proposed by government in 1805, and several times in succeeding years, and adds, that the prelates “stipulated for their own just influence, and also for the consent of the Pope in this important business.”

According to the wise determination of the prelates, the matters they had agreed to were referred to the judgment of the Supreme Head of the Church. A speedy answer, however, could not be obtained. At that time the great Pontiff, Pius the Sixth, was a captive in the hands of the French Republicans, and soon after died a martyr at Valence in France. The Holy See was then vacant for several months, until, by the visible interposition of Providence, Italy was freed from her invaders, and the cardinals were enabled to assemble in conclave to elect a new Pope. Soon after his promotion, Pius the Seventh occupied himself with the affairs of our Church, and the secretary of the Propaganda received instructions to communicate through Father Concanen to the Irish Prelates the wishes of his Holiness.

The substance of the official note of Monsignore Brancadoro is, 1. That his Holiness is thankful to the British government for the relaxation of the penal laws to which Catholics had been so long subjected, and for any other acts of liberality or kindness conferred on them. 2. That the Irish prelates, whilst manifesting their gratitude for the favours they had received, should prove, by their conduct, that it was not through a feeling of self-interest, or through hopes of temporal advantages, that they inculcated on their flocks the necessity of obedience to the laws and the conscientious fulfilment of the duties of good citizens; but that they did so through a spirit of religion, and in conformity with the dictates of the gospel. 3. That to prove how sincerely they were animated with those feelings, the Irish prelates should refuse the proffered pension, and continue to act and support themselves as they have done for the past, thus giving an example of Christian perfection which would not fail to give general edification.

The second letter is also from the secretary of Propaganda to Father Concanen, and is dated 25th of Sept., 1805, in which year Dr. Milner had just brought under the notice of the Holy See some new projects of government interference with the Catholic clergy, which had lately been introduced into Parliament by Sir John Hippisley, at that time a supporter of Emancipation, but who afterwards gave proofs of a great desire to enslave the Catholic Church.

In the second letter Monsignore Brancadoro states the apprehension felt by the S. Congregation, lest the moment of the Catholic triumph should prove the one most dangerous to the purity and stability of the Catholic religion since the Reformation; that it would be no injustice to suspect the British Government of being influenced by designs to that very effect; that the Bishops should, therefore, as a general principle, renounce all idea of advancing their own proper interests, or of securing any temporal advantages, lest through human frailty they should inadvertently be surprised into any concessions which in course of time might prove injurious to the interests of religion. The Secretary then goes on to say that the S. Congregation found serious difficulties, more or less, in all the plans which, as Dr. Milner had reported, had been proposed by the statesmen of the day in England. These plans were:—1. The pensioning of the clergy. 2. State interference in the nomination of Bishops. 3. The restoration of the Hierarchy in England. 4. The concession to the ministry of the right to examine the communications which might pass between the English and Irish Catholics and the Holy See.

As to the plan of pensioning the clergy, Monsignore Brancadoro points out the dangers to which its adoption would expose them. If they accept a pension from government, the offerings of the faithful will be undoubtedly withdrawn, and the priesthood will be left quite dependent on the caprice of those in power. He recalls to Father Concanen’s memory, that in his previous letter of the 7th of August, 1801, he had announced to him the Pope’s wish that the Irish clergy should decline all pensions from the government, and mentions that the Irish Bishops, in reply, had stated that they willingly renounced all temporal advantages in order to preserve religion uninjured.

The secretary of the Propaganda next reminds his correspondent that Pius VI., in a brief of 20th March, 1791, had condemned a decree of the National Assembly of France, by which the clergy of that country were made pensioners of the state; and he adds that the Holy See had resisted a similar attempt of the English government in regard to the clergy of Corsica, when that island had fallen into their hands.

Examining the various vetoistical plans mentioned by Dr. Milner, Monsignore Brancadoro quotes the authority of the great and learned Pontiff, Benedict XIV., to show how decidedly opposed the Holy See has always been to every project directed to vest Catholic ecclesiastical appointments in the hands of a Protestant sovereign. This question is discussed in a brief of that Pope addressed to the Bishop of Breslau on the 15th of May, 1748, and his words are as follows: “There is not recorded in the whole history of the Church a single example in which the appointment of a bishop or abbot was conceded to a sovereign of a different religion”. He adds “that he would not, and could not, introduce a practice calculated to scandalize the Catholic world, and which, besides bringing on him a dreadful judgment in another world, would render his name odious and accursed during life, and much more so after death”.

2. The learned writer then proceeds to examine the various plans of granting to government certain powers in regard to the nomination of bishops, and explodes them all as replete with danger to religion, and well calculated to enslave the Church.

The plans proposed to lessen the Pope’s unwillingness to grant to the sovereign the right of nomination were the following:—Some thought that the nomination should be limited to a certain class of persons who should have been approved of by the episcopal body after an examination and trial. Such a body might be the vicars-general, of whom two should be appointed for each diocese. The government was to be bound to choose the bishops out of this body. This plan was rejected, first, because it would really amount to vesting the nomination of bishops in a non-Catholic sovereign; and secondly, on account of difficulties created by the circumstances of the time and place.

Others proposed to give the government the right of excluding from the episcopal charge those obnoxious to itself. Monsignore Brancadoro says of this plan, that unless this right of exclusion were restricted by limits, it would be equivalent to a real power of nomination. But even so, even after due limitation, it was an absolute novelty in the Church, and no one could tell what its consequences might be. Besides, it was uncalled for, since the experience of so many centuries ought to have convinced the government that the ecclesiastics appointed to govern dioceses were always excellent citizens. Besides, it was the custom of the Holy See not to appoint to a vacant diocese until it had received the recommendation of the metropolitans and the diocesan clergy. This was a safeguard against improper appointments.

3. With respect to the restoration of the Hierarchy in England, Monsignore Brancadoro blames the motive which induced the English nobles to petition for such a change of church government, namely, the desire they felt to have bishops less bound to the Holy See. He declares that, although differing _quoad jus_, bishops and vicars-apostolic did not differ in reality, and that the Holy See was equally well satisfied with the bishops of Ireland, and the vicars-apostolic of England and Scotland.

4. The Secretary condemns, as worst of all, the plan of giving to the ministers the right to examine the communications that pass between the Holy See and the British and Irish Catholics. Such a right has never been allowed, even to a Catholic power, much less should it be allowed to a Protestant government. The case of France was not to the point, for there the right was limited to provisions of benefices alone. The government has no reason to be afraid: the Holy See has expressly declared to bishops and vicars-apostolic, that it does not desire any political information from them.

The two official notes we insert will be read in their original language with great interest. They are noble monuments of the zeal of the holy Pontiff, Pius VII., and of the vigilance with which the Holy See has always endeavoured to uphold the rights and independence of our ancient Church. Undoubtedly the wise instructions given in those letters had no small share in arousing that spirit with which a few years later our clergy and people resisted and defeated all the efforts of British statesmen to deprive our Church of her liberties, and to reduce her to the degraded condition of the Protestant establishment. The notes of the secretary of Propaganda are a fine specimen of ecclesiastical writing, illustrating the maxim _fortiter in re, suaviter in modo_.

I. From Mgr. Brancadoro to Father Concanen, O.P., Agent at Rome for the Irish Bishops. Dalla Propaganda. 7 Agosto, 1801.

Informata la Santità di Nostro Signore del nuovo piano ideato de Governo Brittannico in supposto vantaggio della ecclesiastica Gerarchia dei cattolici d’Irlanda, non ha punto esitato a manifestare la più viva reconoscenza verso la spontanea e generosa liberalità del prelodato Governo, cui professerà sempre la massima gratitudine, per l’assistenze, e favori, che accorda ai mentovati cattolici de’ suoi dominj. Tenendo poi la Santità Sua per indubitato, che la sperimentata fedeltà di quel Clero Cattolico Romano al legittimo suo Sovrano derivi interamente dalle massime di nostra S. Religione, le quali non possono mai esser soggette a verun cambiamento, desidera il suddetto Governo resti assicurato, che i Metropolitani, i Vescovi e il Clero tutto della Irlanda conoscerà sempre un tal suo stretto dovere, e lo adempirà esattamente in qualunque incontro. Brama però ad un tempo vivissimamente il S. Padre, che l’anzidetto Clero seguitando il plausibile sistema da lui osservato finora si astenga scrupolosamente dall’ avere in mira qualunque suo proprio temporale vantaggio, e che dimostrando sempre con parole, e con fatti la sincera invariabilità del suo attacamento, riconoscenza, e sommissione al Governo Brittanico, gli faccia vieppiù conoscere la realtà di sua gratitudine alle offerte nuove beneficenze, dispensandosi dal profittarne, e dando con ciò una luminosa prova di quel costantè disinteresse stimato tanto conforme all’ Apostolico zelo dei ministri del Santuario, e tanto giovevole, e decoroso alla stessa cattolico Religione, come quello che concilia in singular modo la stima, e il respetto verso dei sagri ministeri, e che li rende più venerabili, e più cari ai fedeli commessi alla loro spirituale direzione.

Tali sono i precisi sentimenti che la Santità di Nostro Signore ha ordinate al Segretario di Propaganda di communicare alla Paternità Vostra affinchè per di Lei mezzo giungano senza ritardo a notizie degli ottimi Metropolitani, e Vescovi del regno d’Irlanda, nel quale spera fermamente Sua Santità, che come ad onta dei più gravi pericoli si è già mantenuta in passato, cosi manterassi pur anco in avvenire affatto illesa da ogni benchè menoma macchia la nostra cattolica Religione.

Lo scrivente pertanto nell’ eseguire i Pontificj comandi si rassegna nel suo particolare colla più distinta stima ec.

II. From the same to the same. Dalla Propaganda, 25 Settembre, 1805.

REVERENDISSIMO P. MAESTRO CONCANEN,

La lettera del degnissimo Monsig. Milner, Vicario Apostolico del distretto medio d’Inghilterra, diretta a V. P., la cui traduzione ella, per ordine del Prefetto stesso, ha communicata all Arcivescovo di Mira, Segretario di Propaganda, ha fatto entrare la Sacra Congregazione nello stesso timore, che manifesta l’ ottimo Prelato, che il momento della fortuna dei cattolici nel Parlamento sia il più pericoloso alla purità, e stabilità della nostra santa Religione, che sia mai avvenuto dopo la pretesa riforma di quel regno, e non si farebbe ingiuria al Governo acattolico, se si sospettassero appunto queste mire: E perciò dovranno i Vicarj Apostolici, ed i Vescovi di quel dominio abbandonare ogni mira di proprio vantaggio, ed interesse temporale, da cui, indebolito il loro cuore potrebbe facilmente, senza avvedersene, essere sorpreso a condiscendere in qualche cosa, che recherà, col tempo, del pregiudizio alla Religione.

Questo spirito di disinteresse si scorge già luminosamente in Monsig. Milner dal tenore della sua lettera: e perciò chiede egli saviamento della S. C. delle istruzioni, colle quali regolarsi nella trattativa, in cui si trova impegnato. Ma la S. C. trova delle difficoltà gravi, più o meno, in tutti i progetti, ch’ egli narra, fatti da quei politici.

Ed in primo luogo, riguardo al progetto di assegnarsi stabili pensioni sul pubblico erario ai Vescovi, ed al Clero di quel dominio, la Santità di N. S. espresse già i suoi sentimenti, per mezzo di un biglietto dell’ Arcivescovo, che scrive, diretto a V. P, in data dei 7 Agosto 1801, il quale essendo stato da lei comunicato ai metropolitani, e vescovi d’Irlanda, essi risposero, che rinunziavano volentieri a qualunque vantaggio temporale, per conservare illibata la cattolica Religione. Sarà dunque opportuno di spedire a Mons. Milner la copia di quel Biglietto, che si dà qui annessa.

E per verità, accettandosi dal clero le pensioni, cesseranno immantinente molti fondi di sussistenza, che ora ritrae dalla pietà de fedeli; resteranno le pensioni per quasi unico mezzo di sostentamento. Ora chi non vede a quali gravissime tentazioni non si esporrebbero gli ecclesiastici, di condiscendere, in qualche cosa pregiudiziale alla s. Religione, alla volontà di un Governo di religione diversa, che può in un punto ridurlo allu mendicità col ritenere le pensioni? Per questa, ed altre ragioni, essendosi adottata la massima di dare le pensioni al clero dell’ Assemblea Nazionale di Francia nella Costituzione civile del clero, la Sa. Me. di Pio VI. la riprovò nel suo breve dei 20 marzo 1791. pag. 61, e seg. Ed avendo la stessa corte di Londra, quando entrò in possesso della Corsica, fatto il medesimo progetto, vi si oppose la S. Sede, e quella Real corte desistè dall’ impegno.

Riguardo all’ influenza, che si vorrebbe, del potere civile nella nomina de’ vescovi, cosi varj progetti, che si sono fatti, per regolare una tale influenza, è in primo luogo da avvertirsi, che la nomina assolutamente non potrà accordarsi al Sovrano, come acattolico. Al qual proposito basterà riportare i sentimenti di Benedetto XIV. Questo gran Pontefice in una sua lettera scritta al vescovo di Breslavia li 15 maggio 1748, si espresse ne’ seguenti termini.—"Non ritrovasi in tutta la storia Ecclesiastica verun indulto conceduto da Romani Pontefici ai Sovrani di altra comunione, il nominare a Vescovadi, ed Abbadie—soggiungendo, che non voleva, ne poteva introdurre un esempio, che scandalizzarebbe tutto il mondo cattolico, e che, oltre la gravissima pena, la quale Iddio gli farebbe scontare nell’ altro mondo, renderebbe il suo nome esoso, e maledetto in tutto il tempo di sua vita, e molto più in quello che avrebbe a decorrere dopo la di lui morte. La stessa difficoltà sussisterebbe ugualmente, ancorchè il diritto di nomina fosse limitato tra una classe di persone, esaminata prima, e previamente sperimentata, ed approvata dal corpo dei Vescovi, come quello de’ Gran-Vicarj, da stabilirsene due in ogni Diocesi, e Distretto. Ma oltre a questo, il progetto de’ Gran-Vicarj involve gravissime difficoltà per le circostanze locali. Perciocchè, lasciando anche stare il pericolo dell’ ambizione degli ecclesiastici presso de’ Vescovi, e Vicarj Apostolici per essere dichiarati Gran-Vicarj, quando che ora, scegliendosi i soggetti da promuoversi dal ceto degli operaj, s’ impegnano anche gli ambiziosi a faticare a prò delle anime: é chiaro ancoro, che in tanta penuria di ecclesiastici, ch’ è in tutto cotesto dominio, se si tolgono due Gran-Vicarj per ogni Vicario Apostolico, o Vescovo, mancheranno affatto gli ecclesiastici per la cura delle anime.

Il semplice diritto di esclusiva involverebbe minori inconvenienti intrinseci, purchè fosse limitato; giacchè altrimenti, a forza di escludere si otterrebbe per indiretto una vera nomina. Ma questo diritto è affatto nuovo; e l’ introdurlo per la prima volta, non si sa a quali conseguenze potrebbe condurre. Ma siccome tutti questi progetti si fanno per assicurare il Governo, che non sia promossa persona, che non gli sia invisa, dovrebbe bastare l’ esperienza di tanti secoli, ad assicurare il Governo, stesso della somma premura, che ha sempre avuta la S. Sede, che i soggetti da lei promossi, non solo non siano invisi, ma siano anche graditi del Governo stesso. Eo V. P. puó di fatto proprio attestare della somma industria, attività, e segretezza usatasi, qualche tempo fa, della S. Sede, per escludere persona, che sospettava potere riuscire men gradita al Governo, benchè ape poggiata da forti raccomandazioni, ed includesse altra persona, cha sicuramente fosse di sua soddisfazione. Oltre di che essendo solitquesta S. C. di attendere per gli promovendi gli attestati, e le postulazioni, o le informazioni de’ Metropolitani, o degli altri Vicarj Apostolici, ed anche del clero della rispettiva Diocesi, prima di proporre al S. P. i soggetti, da questi certamente sapra quali siano quelle persone, che possano essere poco accette al Governo, per escluderle sicuramente.

Quanto al desiderio de’ Magnati, di avere vescovi, in vece di Vicarj Apostolici, in se stesso considerato è santissimo, ed analogo alla costituzione della Chiessa Cattolica; e se n’ è trattato altre volte in Inghilterra. Dispiace solamente il fine, per cui si fa un tal progetto, cioè per avere Prelati meno aderenti alla S. Sede. Ma la S. Sede nulla avrebba a temere da siffata innovazione, sull’ esempio de’ vescovi d’ Irlanda de quali è ugualmente contenta che de’ Vicarj Apostolici d’ Inghilterra, e di Scozia. Senza che, la constante esperienza dimostra, che quantunque in diritto sia diversa la condizione de’ Vicarj Apostolici de quella de’ Vescovi; pure in fatti non porta effetti diversi. Solo devrebbe rifflettersi alle circostanze de’ tempi, ed agl’ incovenienti che potrebbero esercitare il cosi detto Club Cisalpino, per evitarsi al possibile ogni innovazione.

Più di tutti sarebbe fatale quel progretto, che per altro Monsig. Milner dice essere di alcuni pochi, che ogni communicazione de’ cattolici colla S. Sede debba soggiacere all’ esame de’ ministri di S. M. Questo diritto non si è mai riconosciuto dalla S. Sede in alcun principe cattolico: e l’ esempio che si cita, della Francia, era dai concordati limitato alle sole ecclesiastiche proviste. Ma quanto sarebbe più pericoloso in un Governo acattolico, con cui non è possibile di convenire nelle massime religiose. Si spera per altro, che quei pochi, che propongono, un tal progretto, non troveranno seguito: e che quel Governo, che si vanta di lasciare una piena libertà ai suoi sudditi, non vorra imporre loro una catena negli effari più delicati, che riguardano la coscienza, per gli quali soltanto i cattolici, communicano colla S. Sede: giacchè la S. C. nel questionario stampato, che manda a quei Vescovi, e Vicarj Apostolici per norma della relazione delle loro chiese, nel primo articolo si protesta espressamente che non vuole di loro alcuna nuova politica.

Molto consolante è poi, riuscito alla S. Congr. la nuova, che sia riuscito, allo stesso Monsig. Milner di ottenere un’ assai piú grande libertà per gli soldati cattolici nell’ esercizio della S. Religione; e che abbia ben dispositi gli animi, per fare riconoscere validi nella legge civile i matrimonj contratti avanti un sacerdote cattolico. V. Paternità gliene faccia i più vivi ringraziamenti, per parte di questa S. C.

In fine l’ Arcivescovo, che scrive, con piena stima se le rassegna.

A RECENT PROTESTANT VIEW OF THE CHURCH OF THE MIDDLE AGES.

The history of the Church in the middle ages has ever forced upon Protestant minds a difficulty which they have met by many various methods of solution. The middle age exhibits so much of precious side by side with so much of base, so much of the beauty of holiness in the midst of ungodliness, so much of what all Christians admit as truth with what Protestants call fatal error, that the character of the whole cannot readily be taken in at first sight from the Protestant point of view. Some there are who dwell so long on the shadows that they close their eyes to the light, and these declare the medieval Church to have been a scene of unmitigated evil. To their minds the whole theology of the period is useless, or worse than useless, harmful. They connect the middle ages with wickedness as thoroughly as the Manicheans connected matter with the evil principle.

Others there are who honestly admit that these ages, especially their earlier part, are not Protestant, but at the same time contend that neither are they favourable to Roman doctrine. These believe that facts abundantly prove that in the bosom of the Church which was then, the two Churches were to be found, which afterwards disengaged themselves from one another at the Reformation. This is the philosophy of medieval history which, as we learn from the preface to his collection of _Sacred Latin Poetry_,(1) has recommended itself to Dr. Trench, the present Protestant Archbishop of Dublin. “In Romanism we have the residuum of the middle-age Church and theology, the lees, after all, or well nigh all the wine was drained away. But in the medieval Church we have the wine and lees together—the truth and the error, the false observance and yet at the same time the divine truth which should one day be fatal to it—side by side.” For such thinkers the sum of all the history of that period amounts to this: a long struggle between two Churches—one a Church of truth, the other a Church of error—a struggle which, however, ended happily in the triumph of the Church of truth by the Reformation, in which the truth was purified from its contact with error.

It is not without its advantages to know what views the occupant of an Irish see so distinguished, is led to take, of the Church to which seventy-seven out of every hundred Irishmen belong, with all the convictions of their intellects, and all the love of their hearts. It seems to us that his theory is not likely to satisfy any party; it goes too far to please some, and stops short too soon to be agreeable to others. But what strikes us most of all in it is the fatal inconsistency of its parts. Of this the very book to which it serves as preface is proof enough. Dr. Trench’s position is this. He tells his Protestant readers that whereas in the medieval Church there was a good church, and an evil, all the good has found its resting place in Protestantism, all the evil in tyrannical Rome. Whatever of good, of holy, of pure, has ever been said or done within the Church, Protestants are the rightful inheritors of it all. From the treasury of the Church before the Reformation he proposes to draw, and to collect in this work what his readers may live on and love, and what he is confident will prove wholesome nourishment for their souls. He would set before them the feelings of the Church during these thousand years of her existence, and would summon from afar, from remote ages, “voices in which they may utter and embody the deepest things of their hearts”. Such, he assures them, are the voices of the writers whose poems have found a place in his book. Now, if we are to understand that the two ante-Reformation Churches stood out quite distinctly, one from the other, in open antagonism, like Jerusalem and Babylon, each having its own position more or less clearly defined, we should naturally expect to find in Dr. Trench’s book the thoughts and words only of the Reformers before the Reformation, of the men, that is, who never bent the knee to Baal, but ever cherished in their hearts the true doctrine of salvation. If his own theory be worth anything, he must have recourse for his present purposes, to that one of the two Churches which alone has been perpetuated, victorious after conflict, in Protestantism. Where else shall he find sympathies that answer to those of Protestants? But he does not do so. For in the beginning of his preface he tells us that he has not admitted each and all of the works of the authors whose productions he inserts. He tells us that he has carefully excluded from his collection “all hymns which in any way imply the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation”, or, “which involve any creature-worship, or speak of the Mother of our Lord in any other language than that which Scripture has sanctioned, and our Church adopted”, or which “ask of the suffrages of the Saints”? These certainly are not the doctrines which have been perpetuated in Protestantism.

His own practice, therefore, is inconsistent with his theory, if that theory means to assert the existence of two Churches in the middle age, distinctly antagonistic, one to the other.

The only escape from this tangle is to reply, that Dr. Trench, although he may find two Churches in the bosom of the middle-age Church, does not, however, place between them a separation so sharp as to suppose the Church of good absolutely without evil, nor the Church of evil altogether destitute of good. In each there is good and some mixture of evil: error relieved by a vein of truth. His favourite authors, by whose labours he wishes to make his readers profit, are, in this last hypothesis, men who are subject to the influence of both Churches; men who belong partly to each in turn, whose doctrines are a pitiable admixture of truth with falsehood—who, in one word, are visited both by “airs from Heaven and blasts from Hell”. At times they say what all, even Protestants, may treasure up in their hearts, to live on and love; at times, again, they are made to utter what all should reject and condemn, as so many snares for unwary feet. We shall say nothing of the difficulty the mind feels in accepting such a description of the position of these writers, nor of the task we have to persuade ourselves that those who teach belief in deadly heresies to be essential to salvation, can be, at the same time, the chosen tabernacles wherein the pure spirit of real piety can ever take up its abode. Such was not the feeling of the ancient Church. We ask, instead, who are the men upon whose writings Dr. Trench would sit in judgment, “to sunder between the holy and profane”, to distinguish between the errors and the truth, to decide what we are “to take warning from and to shun, what to live upon and love”. With the exception of the two, Alard and Buttmann, all are men highly honoured by the whole Catholic world, and all, without exception, are praised for their excelling virtues by Dr. Trench himself. Among the twenty-three names we read with reverence those of Saint Ambrose, Saint Bonaventure, Venerable Bede, Saint Bernard, Saint Peter Damian, Thomas a-Kempis, Peter the Venerable, Jacopone, and others of great reputation for sanctity and learning. These are the men whose writings Dr. Trench is to parcel out into two portions; this to be venerated as sacred, that to be condemned as profane. It needs great faith in the censor, to accept readily his decision in such a case. What test does he undertake to apply? what criterion is to influence his choice? Why does he cast away the poems which celebrate St. Peter as Prince of the Apostles, and approve of those that extol St. Paul? Why should he style Adam of St. Victor’s hymn on the Blessed Virgin an exaggeration, and quote as edifying his _Laus S. Scripturae_? Why are St. Bonaventure’s pieces in honour of Mary visited with censure, and his lines _In Passione Domini_ made the theme of praise? Dr. Trench gives us his reasons very plainly. “If our position mean anything”, says he (page x.), “we are bound to believe that to us, having the Word and the Spirit, the power has been given to distinguish things which differ.... It is our duty to believe that to us, that to each generation which humbly and earnestly seeks, will be given that enlightening spirit, by whose aid it shall be enabled to read aright the past realizations of God’s divine idea in the wise and historic Church of successive ages, and to distinguish the human imperfections, blemishes, and errors, from the divine truth which they obscured and overlaid, but which they could not destroy, being, one day, rather to be destroyed by it”. That is to say, we, as Protestants, in virtue of our position as such, are able by the light of the Holy Spirit to discern true from false doctrine, the fruits of the good Church from the fruits of the evil Church. This enlightening Spirit will be given to each generation which humbly and earnestly seeks it. But, we ask, what are we to believe concerning the working of the same enlightening Spirit in the hearts of the holy men whose exquisitely devotional writings Dr. Trench sets before us? Were they men of humility and earnestness? If they were not, Dr. Trench’s book appears under false colours, and is not a book of edification. And if they were, as they certainly were, who is Dr. Trench that he should take it on himself to condemn those who enjoyed the very same light which he claims for himself? And why should we not then rather believe that as these holy men had, on his own showing, the spirit of God, Dr. Trench, in condemning their doctrine does in truth condemn what is the doctrine of the Church of the Holy Spirit.

The theory is therefore as inconsistent as on historical grounds it is false. Such as it is, however, the conclusions we may draw from it are of great importance.

1. Dr. Trench declares that, both by omitting and by thinning, he has carefully removed from his selection, all doctrine implying transubstantiation, the cultus of the Blessed Virgin, the invocation of saints, and the veneration of the cross. Now, as the great bulk of the poems he publishes belong to the middle ages, strictly so called, it follows, on Dr. Trench’s authority, that these doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church were held long before the Reformation, and that the Church was already in possession when Luther came.

2. Since he tells us (page vi) that he has counted inadmissible poems which breathe a spirit foreign to that tone of piety which the English Church desires to cherish in her children, it follows that the spirit of piety in the Church of old is not the same as that in the present Church of England. Now in such cases the presumption is against novelty.

3. Dr. Trench (page vii) reminds his readers that it is unfair to try the theological language of the middle ages by the greater strictness and accuracy rendered necessary by the struggle, of the Reformation. A man who holds a doctrine _implicitly_ and in a confused manner, is likely to use words which he would correct if the doctrine were put before him in accurate form. This is a sound principle, and one constantly employed by Catholic theologians, when they have to deal with an objection urged by Protestants from some obscure or equivocal passage of a Father. It is satisfactory to be able for the future to claim for its use the high authority of Dr. Trench.

4. A special assistance of the Holy Spirit is claimed for all those who humbly and earnestly invoke him. This assistance is to enable those blessed with it to distinguish between error and divine truth. Is this happy privilege to be exercised either independently, without the direction of the ministers of the Church, or is it one of the graces peculiar to the pastoral office? In the former case, every fanatical sectary may judge in matters of religion as securely as if he had the whole world on his side. In the latter case, it would be interesting to know how much does this privilege differ from the infallibility claimed by the Catholic Church.

5. Finally, the contradictions inherent to the whole theory are most clearly to be seen in the following passage about the noble lines which Hildebert, Archbishop of Tours, in the beginning of the twelfth century, places on the lip of the city of Rome:

“I have not inserted these lines”, says Dr. Trench, “in the body
of this collection, lest I might seem to claim for them that
entire sympathy which I am very far from doing. Yet, believing as
we may, and, to give any meaning to a large period of Church
history, we must, that Papal Rome of the middle ages had a work of
God to accomplish for the taming of a violent and brutal world, in
the midst of which she often lifted up the only voice which was
anywhere heard in behalf of righteousness and truth—all of which
we may believe, with the fullest sense that her dominion was an
unrighteous usurpation, however overruled for good to Christendom,
which could then take no higher blessing—believing this, we may
freely admire these lines, so nobly telling of that true strength
of spiritual power, which may be perfected in the utmost weakness
of all other power. It is the city of Rome which speaks:

Dum simulacra mihi, dum numina vana placerent,
Militiâ, populo, moenibus alts fui:
At simul effigies, arasque superstitiosas
Dejiciens, uni sum famulata Deo;
Cesserunt arces, cecidere palatia divum,
Servivit populis, degeneravit eques.
Vix scio quae fuerim: vix Romae Roma recordor;
Vix sinit occasus vel meminisse mei.
Gratior haec jactura mihi successibus illis,
Major sum pauper divite, stante jacens.
Plus aquilis vexilla crucis, plus Caesare Petrus,
Plus cinctis ducibus vulgus inerme dedit.
Stans domui terras; infernum diruta pulso;
Corpora stans, animas fracta jacensque rego.
Tunc miserae plebi, nunc principibus tenebrarum
Impero; tunc urbes, nunc mea regna polus.
Quod ne Caesaribus videar debere vel armis,
Et species rerum meque meosque trahat,
Armorum vis illa perit, ruit alta Senatûs
Gloria, procumbunt templa, theatra jacent.
Rostra vacant, edicta silent, sua praemia desunt
Emeritis, populo jura, colonus agris.
Ista jacent, ne forte meus spem ponat in illis
Civis, et evacuet spemque bonumque crucis.

THE MSS. REMAINS OF PROFESSOR O’CURRY IN THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY. NO. II.

_Prayer of St. Aireran the Wise, ob._. 664.

[In the first number of the RECORD we published from the
manuscripts of the late Professor O’Curry the Prayer of St. Colga
of Clonmacnoise. We now publish another beautiful devotional piece
from the same collection.

Speaking of ancient Irish religious works now remaining, O’Curry
says (at page 378 of his great work): “The fifth class of these
religious remains consists of the prayers, invocations, and
litanies, which have came down to us”. The Prayer of St. Colga,
published in our last number, is placed by O’Curry in the second
place among these documents, which he sets down in chronological
order.

“The first piece of this class (adopting the chronological order)
is the prayer of St. _Aireran_ the Wise (often called _Aileran_,
_Eleran_, and _Airenan_), who was a classical professor in the
great school of Clonard, and died of the plague in the year 664.
St. Aireran’s prayer or litany is addressed, respectively, to God
the Father, to God the Son, and to God the Holy Spirit, invoking
them for mercy by various titles indicative of their power, glory,
and attributes. The prayer consists of five invocations to the
Father, eighteen invocations to the Son, and five to the Holy
Spirit; and commences in Latin thus: ‘O Deus Pater, Omnipotens
Deus, exerci misericordiam nobis’. This is followed by the same
Invocation in the Gaedhlic; and the petitions to the end are
continued in the same language. The invocation of the Son begins
thus: ‘Have mercy on us, O Almighty God! O Jesus Christ! O Son Of
the living God! O Son, born twice! O only born of God the Father’.
The petition to the Holy Spirit begins: ‘Have mercy on us, O
Almighty God! O Holy Spirit! O Spirit the noblest of all spirits!’
(See original in APPENDIX, No. CXX.)

“When I first discovered this prayer in the _Leabhar Buidhe
Lecain_ (or Yellow Book of _Lecain_), in the library of Trinity
College, many years ago, I had no means of ascertaining or fixing
its date; but in my subsequent readings in the same library, for
my collection of ancient glossaries, I met the word _Oirchis_ set
down with explanation and illustration, as follows:

“ ‘_Oirchis_, id est, Mercy; as it is said in the prayers of
Arinan the Wise’:—Have mercy on us, O God the Father Almighty!”
See original in APPENDIX, No. CXXI.

“I think it is unnecessary to say more on the identity of the
author of this prayer with the distinguished _Aireran_ of Clonard.
Nor is this the only specimen of his devout works that has come
down to us. Fleming, in his Collecta Sacra, has published a
fragment of a Latin tract discovered in the ancient monastery of
St. Gall in Switzerland, which is entitled ‘The Mystical
Interpretation of the Ancestry of our Lord Jesus Christ’. A
perfect copy of this curious tract, and one of high antiquity,
has, I believe, been lately discovered on the continent.

“There was another _Airenan_, also called ‘the wise’, who was
abbot of _Tamhlacht_ [Tallaght] in the latter part of the ninth
century; but he has not been distinguished as an author, as far as
we know”.

It seems to us that there are three things specially worthy of our
consideration in this beautiful prayer.

In the first place, we find in it an explicit and most clear
declaration of the Catholic Faith regarding the Blessed Trinity,
especially the distinction of three persons, and the Divinity of
each of these Divine Persons. “O God the Father Almighty, O God of
Hosts, help us! Help us, O Almighty God! O Jesus Christ! Help us,
O Almighty God, O Holy Spirit!”

We are in the next place struck by the extraordinary familiarity
with the Holy Scripture which the writer evinces. There is
scarcely one of the epithets which is not found in the sacred
pages, almost in the precise words used by him, beginning with the
first words, addressed to the Eternal Father, “O God of Hosts”,
the _Deus Sabaoth_ of the Prophets, and going on to the last
invocation of the Holy Ghost, “Spirit of love”, which comprises in
itself the two inspired phrases: “_Spiritus est Deus_”, and “_Deus
Charitas est_”. We may also remark the coincidence between Saint
Aireran and the liturgical prayers of the Church, especially in
the invocations of the Holy Ghost found in the office of
Whitsuntide and in the administration of the Sacrament of
Confirmation, “_Tu septiformis munere: Digitus Paternae
dexterae_”. “O Finger of God! O Spirit of Seven Forms”.

In fine, we find our Irish saint applying to the Son of God the
vision of the Prophet Ezechiel regarding the four mysterious
animals: “O true Man! O Lion! O young Ox! O Eagle!” The prophecy
is commonly interpreted of the Four Evangelists. Saint Augustine
and Saint Jerome are quoted as authorities for this
interpretation. But it is worthy of remark, that Saint Gregory the
Great, whilst giving the same interpretation, applies the
mysterious vision also to God the Son.(2) And Saint Aireran, by
adopting this opinion, seems to afford us another proof of the
great familiarity of our Irish scholars with the writings of the
great Pontiff and Father of the Church. And this familiarity is
rendered still more remarkable, and serves to give another proof
of the constant communication between Rome and Ireland, from the
close proximity of the times of our Saint and of Saint Gregory.]

O Deus Pater omnipotens Deus exerce tuam misericordiam nobis!

O God the Father Almighty! O God of Hosts, help us.

O illustrious God! O Lord of the world! O Creator of all creatures, help us.

O indescribable God! O Creator of all creatures, help us.

O invisible God! O incorporeal God! O unseen God! O unimaginable God! O patient God! O uncorrupted God! O unchangeable God! O eternal God! O perfect God! O merciful God! O admirable God! O Golden Goodness! O Heavenly Father, who art in Heaven, help us.

Help us, O Almighty God! O Jesus Christ! O Son of the living God! O Son twice born! O only begotten of the Father! O first-born of Mary the Virgin! O Son of David! O Son of Abraham, beginning of all things! O End of the World! O Word of God! O Jewel of the Heavenly Kingdom! O Life of all (things)! O Eternal Truth! O Image, O Likeness, O Form of God the Father! O Arm of God! O Hand of God! O Strength of God! O right (hand) of God! O true Wisdom! O true Light, which enlightens all men! O Light-giver! O Sun of Righteousness! O Star of the Morning! O Lustre of the Divinity! O Sheen of the Eternal Light! O Fountain of immortal Life! O Pacificator between God and Man! O Foretold of the Church! O Faithful Shepherd of the flock! O Hope of the Faithful! O Angel of the Great Council! O True Prophet! O True Apostle! O True Preacher! O Master! O Friend of Souls (Spiritual Director)! O Thou of the shining hair! O Immortal Food! O Tree of Life! O Righteous of Heaven! O Wand from the Stem of Moses! O King of Israel! O Saviour! O Door of Life! O Splendid Flower of the Plain! O Corner-stone! O Heavenly Zion! O Foundation of the Faith! O Spotless Lamb! O Diadem! O Gentle Sheep! O Redeemer of mankind! O true God! O True Man! O Lion! O young Ox! O Eagle! O Crucified Christ! O Judge of the Judgment Day! help us.

Help us, O Almighty God! O Holy Spirit! O Spirit more noble than all Spirits! O Finger of God! O Guardian of the Christians! O Protector of the Distressed! O Co-partner of the True Wisdom! O Author of the Holy Scripture! O Spirit of Righteousness! O Spirit of Seven Forms! O Spirit of the Intellect! O Spirit of the Counsel! O Spirit of Fortitude! O Spirit of Knowledge! O Spirit of Love! help us.

THE DESTINY OF THE IRISH RACE.(3)

That God knows and governs all things—that whatever happens is either done or permitted by him, and that he proposes to himself wise and beneficent ends in all he does or permits—are truths which lie at the foundation of all religion. The wicked may refuse to obey his commands, but they cannot withdraw themselves from the reach of his power. While their wickedness is entirely their own, _God_ makes them, however unwilling or unconscious, instruments to work out his ends.

It is thus that individuals and nations have each a peculiar destiny. Not that there is a blind fate, such as Pagans imagined; but that an all-seeing and all-governing God proposes to himself certain objects, which he is determined to attain, despite the perversity of man.

To learn the purposes of God in the development of human events, to trace his hand in the complicated movements of society, to see him overruling and directing all to his own great ends, is one of the most sublime objects to which the study of history can be applied. Frequently, indeed, we may be unable fully to comprehend the designs of his providence in the moral, as in the physical world. Fancy, or pride, may easily have a great part in suggesting our theories. But, if we confine ourselves to certain facts and undoubted principles, we can often trace the design in both orders, and admire in it the wisdom, the power, the goodness—all the attributes of God. Nay, all these shine more brightly in the moral than in the physical order.

The history of his chosen people is an example of this. We find empires rising and falling, at one time to punish, at another time to try, at another to deliver his people. The good and the wicked, the weak and the strong, become in turn his instruments. The whole history of that people is but a record of the acts of his overruling providence, directing all things to the accomplishment of the designs which he had announced.

This is, indeed, so evident in this case that it may not be considered a fair instance to prove my general position. For it is admitted that God’s providence over the Jewish race was quite extraordinary. Still, it proves that God does so intervene in human affairs, and it illustrates many of the principles that must be kept in view in these investigations. It shows, for example, that many, unconscious of the fact—nay, with quite another object in view, acting perhaps from avarice, hatred, or ambition, are yet instruments in the hand of God for the accomplishment of his wise purposes. It shows how things, and persons, considered as of little or of no value, according to human views, may, in reality, be the pivots on which the destinies of vast empires turn, connected, as they may be, with the accomplishment of purposes which weigh more in the scales of Heaven than the mere temporal condition of all the empires of the Earth.

It is in this view that many Christian writers assert that the Roman empire obtained universal sway, that civilized nations being thus brought closely together, an easier way might be prepared for the spread of the Gospel. The generals and statesmen of Rome had no doubt a very low idea of the poor fishermen of Galilee, and of the tentmaker of Tharsus. It may be safely presumed that they did not even allow their names to divert their thoughts, for a moment, from the grand projects of conquest and government by which they were engrossed. Yet, in the designs of God, it was, most probably, to prepare a way for the work of those fishermen, and of that tentmaker, and their associates, that wisdom had been vouchsafed to their counsels and victory to their arms.

The endless invasions of the Roman empire by northern tribes is another instance of whole races being used by God for his own purposes, without their having any idea of the work in which they were employed. They came to punish those who had revelled in the blood of the saints, and to supply fresh material for the great work of the Church of God.

Towards the close of the fifteenth century, an Italian sailor, led by some astronomical observations and some half understood, or rather misunderstood, tales of ancient travellers, to believe that there must be another continent far away beyond the western waters, wandered from court to court, in Europe, in search of means to fit up an expedition to discover it, and he finally succeeded in making known a new world. It requires little faith in divine Providence to believe that it was God who was impelling him thus to open a new outlet for the energies of the ancient world, which were then about being developed on a gigantic scale, and, still more, to prepare a field for a more extensive spread of the Gospel, in which the Church might repair the losses she was about to sustain in the religious convulsions impending in Europe.

Numberless similar instances might be quoted. These designs of God are sometimes manifest, sometimes hidden; sometimes they are far-reaching, sometimes limited. Ignorance and pride may mistake or pervert them. But they always prevail; they are always worthy of their Author; and let me add, that the salvation of men being the object most highly prized by God, it is not only rightfully considered the most noble, but it is that to which his other works may be justly accounted subordinate.

It is under the light of these principles that I undertake an investigation of the purposes of God regarding the Irish race. These purposes seem to me no longer matter of speculation; they may be pronounced manifest; for they are written in unmistakable characters in the development of events.

The history of Ireland is, in many respects, peculiar. Few nations received the faith so readily, and no other preserved it amidst similar struggles. St. Patrick first announced the Gospel to the assembled states of the realm at Tara. He received permission to preach it, unmolested, throughout the length and breadth of the land. By his indomitable zeal and heroic virtue, he succeeded in winning over the natives so effectually, that at his death few pagans remained in Ireland. Not a drop of blood was shed when Christianity was first announced. Heroism was displayed only by the exalted virtues of the Apostle and of the neophytes. Nowhere else did the Gospel take root so quickly and so firmly, and produce fruits so immediate and so abundant. Catholic Ireland soon became the home of the saints and sages of the Christian world. To many of the nations of the continent her apostles went forth, charged with the embassy of eternal truth. In every realm of Europe her children established sanctuaries of piety and learning; and to her own hospitable shores the natives of other lands flocked to receive education, and even support, from her gratuitous bounty. Homes of virtue dotted her hills and valleys; and thus were laid deep the roots of that strong attachment to the faith, which, later, was to be exposed to trials the most severe.