Chapter I: Front Matter (1)

THE IRISH

ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

SEPTEMBER, 1865.

DR. COLENSO AND THE OLD TESTAMENT.

NO. IV.

Who is there amongst our readers that has not at some time in his life stood upon the sea-shore to watch the rising tide? Two mighty powers meet, as it were in conflict, and each in its turn seems for a time to prevail. Wave rolls after wave, but each again recedes as if baffled in the struggle and exhausted by the effort. At one moment the waters gain upon the land; then in the next the land wins back all that it had lost; and sometimes even more besides. It is only when some prominent landmark is reached, which a little while ago stood high and dry upon the beach, that we can no longer entertain a doubt of the sure and steady progress of the advancing flood.

Such, as it seems to us, is the conflict which it is the lot of our age to witness between the flood-tide of infidelity and the Established Church in these countries. The one is aggressive, the other is struggling hard to hold its own. On both sides the contest is carried on with energy and power. To a casual observer it might perhaps seem that the fortunes of each are almost equal, and the victory uncertain. But to one who extends the range of his vision and takes in the distant landmarks, it is plainly evident that one by one they are fast disappearing, and that the waves of infidelity are sweeping, slowly indeed, but irresistibly, over the face of the Established Church.

In the person of Dr. Colenso they have reached at length the episcopal bench. His brethren, it is true, have taken the alarm, and have made a show of resistance, but they only demonstrate their own weakness. Like Canute of old, they command the waters to advance no further, but their command is vain and fruitless. The great flood is still coming in, and they who but yesterday were considered, from their high position, far removed from danger, are to-day surrounded by the waves. In this perilous crisis the Catholic Church alone affords a home of undisturbed tranquillity to its children, a safe refuge to the stranger. It stands indeed in the midst of the danger, but its walls are too strong to be shaken, its foundation too solid to be undermined. It has been built by its Divine Founder on a rock, and the rain may descend, and the floods come, and the winds blow and beat upon that Church, but it falleth not. We have the promise of God, that her enemies shall not prevail against her; and therefore we may look out from our impregnable fortress upon the surging billows with the same calm sense of security as Noah had when he looked out from the window of the ark on the waters of the deluge. But though God had resolved that Noah should be saved from destruction whilst all around were perishing, yet Noah was not saved without the toil and labour of his own hands. And so, too, though by a decree of God, error cannot prevail against His Church, yet has he ordained that the true faith should be ever defended by human skill and industry. We hope, therefore, our readers will pardon us if we return once again to the charges which Dr. Colenso has brought against the truth of the Bible.

The increase of the children of Israel in Egypt, as represented in the Mosaic narrative, is Dr. Colenso’s favourite objection. It is dressed out with the most elaborate ingenuity and care. It is set forth with even more than his usual confidence. It is held up as, in itself, sufficient to destroy the historical character of the whole narrative. By this objection, therefore, we may fairly suppose that he is willing to stand or fall. We have already pointed out two fundamental errors in the data from which it is deduced; many others yet remain, which we now proceed to expose.

III. There are two suppositions which would contribute very much to account for the rapid increase of the Israelites in Egypt; first, intermarriage with the Egyptians; secondly, the practice of polygamy. For the purpose of our defence it is quite sufficient that these two customs were _possible_. Upon Dr. Colenso it devolves to prove that they _did not prevail_ in point of fact. We may observe, however, that the Pentateuch indicates clearly enough the existence of such practices. Judah married a woman of Canaan (_Gen._, xxxiii. 2); so did Simeon (xlvi. 10); Joseph married an Egyptian (_Gen._, xli. 25). Why then may we not suppose that their children intermarried with foreign nations? Was it impossible for them to imitate the example of their fathers? We must bear in mind, too, that for 100 years at least, the Hebrew people were high in favour at the court of Pharaoh. During the years of famine they were supported at the royal expense (_Gen._, xlv. 11; xlvi. 12) while the Egyptians had to part with their money, their cattle, and even their land, to pay for food (_Gen._, xlvii. 13-26): they had “the best of the land” for their dwelling (_Gen._, xlvii. 6, 11): above all, they had for their patron and friend, their kinsman, Joseph who was “lord of all the house of Pharaoh, and ruler throughout all the land of Egypt” (_Gen._, xlv. 8). An alliance with a race so wealthy and so favoured must have been eagerly courted by the Egyptians: and, on the other hand, the Israelites would not have been disposed to decline a connection which would have strengthened their position in the country and increased their influence.

It does not appear that intermarriage with the Egyptians was forbidden or even discouraged. On the contrary, an intimate social intercourse seems to have existed between the two nations. Even at the very time of the Exodus, we find that it was not unusual for the Hebrews to receive the Egyptians as guests or tenants into their houses.[1] It is not an improbable supposition that such close domestic relations might in many instances lead to marriage. But we have positive evidence that marriages of this kind actually did take place, and are in no way reprehended. Thus we find mention made incidentally of “the son of an Israelitish woman”, whose _father was an Egyptian_ (_Lev._, xxiv. 10). He was condemned to death for blasphemy when the Israelites were encamped under Mount Sinai: he must, therefore, have been born during the sojourn in Egypt. Again we are told of an Israelite who gave his daughter in marriage to an Egyptian servant (_I. Paralip._, ii. 34, 35). This occurred certainly after the Exodus. But if the two nations _sometimes_ intermarried when they lived in _different_ countries, may we not suppose that they _frequently_ intermarried whilst they were living in the _same_ country? Hence we conclude (1ᵒ) that the mutual relations which subsisted between the Egyptians and the Hebrews, would naturally lead to frequent intermarriage; (2ᵒ) that there is not a particle of evidence to make such a supposition improbable; (3ᵒ) that there is positive testimony in its favour.

As regards the plurality of wives or concubines,[2] the Israelites had before them the example of Abraham, who had at least three (_Gen._, xvi. 1, 3; xxv. 1, 6), and of Jacob, who had four (_Gen._, xxix. 20, 30; xxx. 4, 9). The practice of polygamy, therefore, had the highest and the holiest sanction in the eyes of the Hebrew people. It cannot be objected that, during the sojourn in Egypt, there is no explicit mention of polygamy in the Mosaic narrative. Moses did not undertake to write a history of the period. A single chapter in the beginning of Exodus, contains all that he records of what took place from the death of Jacob to the birth of Moses. Neither could we expect much information on this point from the genealogies which are given elsewhere in the Bible. Every one knows that it was not the ordinary custom of the Jews to mention the _mothers_ of those whose pedigree was traced, but only the _fathers_.

Yet we are not left altogether without distinct testimony to the practice of polygamy among the Hebrew people in Egypt. In one family alone of the tribe of Judah we find the following examples: Hezron, the son of Pharez, had two wives, Abiah, and the daughter of Machir (I. _Paralip._, ii. 21, 24). Caleb, the son of Hezron, had three, Azuba, Jerioth, and Ephrath (I. _Paralip._, ii. 18, 19).[3] Jerameel, another son of Hezron, had two, one whose name is not given, and another called Atarah (I. _Paralip._, ii. 25, 26). Ashur, likewise a son of Hezron, had also two, Helah and Naarah (I. _Paralip._, iv. 5). Lastly, we find that Moses himself clearly recognizes this custom as prevalent. He makes laws regarding it, to prevent abuses, but he does not forbid it, nor does he even censure it. “If a man _have two wives_, one beloved and another hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the first-born son be hers that was hated,… he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the first-born, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath” (_Deut._, xxiv. 15, 17). With these facts before us, we may judge what weight is to be attached to the authority of Dr. Colenso when he states: “There is no indication that polygamy did prevail among the Hebrews of those days” (p. 120).

IV. Another very probable source of the rapid increase in population was the accession of fresh servants from without. The early history of Jacob affords a remarkable illustration of such an increase. He went into a foreign country _without_ an invitation (_Gen._, xviii. 1-5): he _served_ in it for twenty years (_Gen._, xxxi. 41): and yet at the end of that time he tells us, “With my staff passed over this Jordan, and now I am become as _two camps_” (_Gen._, xxxii. 10). The Israelites during the first half of the sojourn in Egypt, were much more favourably circumstanced. We have seen that, immediately upon their descent into Egypt, they received an enormous increase both in wealth and importance. This change in their fortunes would naturally prompt them to add largely to the number of their servants. On the other hand, the inhabitants of Egypt and Canaan were sore pressed with famine. They were obliged to give up first their money, then their cattle, then their land, in exchange for bread (_Gen._, xlvii. 13-20). Many must thus have been reduced to extreme necessity, and nothing would seem to have remained for them but to accept of service in the households of their rich and prosperous neighbours. These dependants, according to the command of God, should have been circumcised, and thus have been made sharers in the covenant of which that rite was a token. Their posterity would, therefore, be reckoned among the 600,000 who followed Moses into the desert.

To the increase by servants we may add a further increase by proselytes. It would seem that every facility was offered to those who wished to become incorporated with the Hebrew people. Even in the celebration of the Passover, all were freely to be admitted if they would submit to the rite of circumcision. “And if a stranger sojourn with thee, and will keep the Passover to the Lord, let every male of his be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it; and he shall be as one that is born in the land” (_Ex._, xii. 48). It is manifest that Moses thought it likely, even after a century of bondage and persecution, that many would still be found to join the fortunes of this oppressed people. Is it unreasonable, then, to suppose that such converts were more numerous in the days of their prosperity?

V. The average number of children in each family, according to the calculation of Dr. Colenso, was 4½, or, at the outside, 6――3 sons and 3 daughters. The manner in which he arrives at this conclusion is singularly characteristic. He prepares the way by assuring us that “we have no reason whatever, from the data furnished by the sacred books themselves, to assume that they had families materially larger than those of the present day” (p. 102). If, however, we turn from the pages of Dr. Colenso to the pages of the sacred books themselves, we are told a very different story. “And God spake unto Israel in the visions of the night,… and he said: I am God, the God of thy father; fear not to go down into Egypt; for I will make of thee a great nation” (_Gen._, xlvii. 2, 3). Such was the promise of God; here is the fulfilment: “And Israel dwelt in the land of Egypt, in the country of Goshen; and they held possession of it, and they _grew_ and _multiplied exceedingly_” (_Gen._, xlvii. 27). “And the children of Israel _were fruitful_, and _increased abundantly_, and _multiplied_, and _waxed exceeding mighty_; and _the land was filled_ _with them_…. The more they afflicted them, the more they multiplied and grew” (_Ex._, i. 7-12). These words clearly imply that the people of Israel increased _beyond the usual rate at that time_ and _in that country_. We are told, however, by several ancient writers that the people of Egypt were wont to increase with extraordinary rapidity.[4] And yet, in the face of all this, Dr. Colenso asserts that “we have _no reason whatever_, from the data furnished by the Sacred Books themselves, to assume that they had families materially larger than those of the present day”.

He next proceeds to establish his average. The twelve sons of Jacob had between them 54 children, which gives on an average 4½ to each. It is worthy of note that in making this estimate, he studiously excludes the family of Jacob himself, who had _twelve sons_. If this family had been added to the others, the average would have been considerably increased. But there is yet a more radical defect in his argument. The 12 sons of Jacob had 54 children _before_ the descent into Egypt; how many had they after? Dr. Colenso _assumes_ that they had none. His assumption is not only without proof; it is contrary to every probability. These men were at the time in the full vigour of life. Reuben the eldest, if we take Dr. Colenso’s own computation, was about 46; Joseph was but 39; Benjamin younger still. It is, therefore, most reasonable to suppose that several of them, if not all, had children born to them during the sojourn in Egypt. This will be the more evident when we remember that Jacob, their father, had 12 sons born to him _after he had reached_ the age of 80; and that Isaac, their grandfather, was 60 when Jacob and Esau were born.

Moreover we can produce a distinct statement with regard to Joseph, that he had children born to him after the descent, “And Jacob said unto Joseph: … Thy two sons Ephraim and Manasseh, who were born unto thee in the land of Egypt, before I came unto the land of Egypt, are mine; Ephraim and Manasseh, as Reuben and Simeon shall be mine. And _thy issue which thou begettest after them_, shall be thine, and shall be called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance” (_Gen._, xlviii. 3, 5, 6). It may be objected that in the twenty-sixth chapter of Numbers, where the grandsons of Jacob are enumerated, no mention is made but of those born before the descent. We answer, that in that chapter those only are enumerated who _gave their names to families_; and it would seem that the grandsons of Jacob born after the descent, did not give their names to families, but, like the younger sons of Joseph, were “called after the name of their brethren in their inheritance”. We may observe that this oversight of our author has drawn him into a twofold error. First, it has led him to _underestimate the average number of children_ in each family; secondly, it has led him to _underestimate the number of males in the first generation_, since _all_ the grandsons of Jacob, according to his argument, belonged to the first generation.

Dr. Colenso refers, however, to the genealogies in the sixth chapter of Exodus (verses 14-25), and elsewhere, to show that the families during the sojourn in Egypt were not remarkably large. This argument is of no value if he do not prove that these genealogies give _complete lists of all the sons_ in each family. It appears to us that there is no evidence to this effect. The genealogies were generally introduced for some specific purpose, as for instance, to trace the pedigree of the most remarkable men; and for this purpose it was quite unnecessary that _all the members_ of each family should be distinctly enumerated. A striking illustration occurs in a passage already quoted: “And the sons of Pallu; Eliab. And the sons of Eliab; Nemuel and Dathan, and Abiram” (_Num._, xxvi. 8, 9).[5] It is here explicitly stated that Pallu had _sons_; and yet only _one_ is named. Eliab is probably selected from the rest as he was the father of Dathan and Abiram; for of them it is immediately added that they were “famous in the congregation”, and that “they strove against Moses and against Aaron” in the rebellion of Korah.

Enough, we think, has been said to satisfy our readers that Dr. Colenso has completely failed in his argument. He has failed to show “beyond a doubt, that it is quite impossible that there should have been such a number of the people of Israel in Egypt, at the time of the Exodus, as to have furnished 600,000 warriors in the prime of life, if we will take the data to be derived from the Pentateuch itself” (p. 101). On the contrary, we have proved that there are many circumstances overlooked, misstated, or denied, by Dr. Colenso, which are quite sufficient to explain what he regards as impossible. More than this we cannot do. How far each circumstance in particular contributed to swell the number of the people, must for ever remain uncertain. While the sacred narrative is silent on the subject, it would be unreasonable to ask such a question, and absurd to undertake to answer it. If we wished to imitate the example of Dr. Colenso, we might easily form conjectures, and set them down as facts. But we believe that such a course would be injurious to the cause of truth, which we defend. It is much better candidly to admit that we cannot determine with accuracy the number of servants that accompanied Jacob into Egypt, or the number of servants and proselytes that afterwards became incorporated with the Hebrew people; that we cannot ascertain the precise number of generations in each family, or the average number for the entire nation; lastly, that we cannot estimate how far polygamy and intermarriage with the Egyptians may have conduced to the wonderful increase of population.

But, though we are unable to say how the population _did increase in point of fact_, we can easily show how it _may have increased_. For this purpose we venture to lay before our readers a calculation by which we account for the fact in a manner perfectly conformable to all the “data of the Pentateuch”. First, as regards the number of generations. Since a generation is descent from father to son, the length of time to be allowed for a generation will be determined in each particular case by the age of the father when the son is born. This of course will vary for different families, and even for different members of the same family. We may, however, fairly suppose that, among the Hebrew people in Egypt, taking one family with another, every man on an average had children born to him at the age of 32. Thus 32 years would be the average length of each generation. The males of the first generation, as we have before seen, were all living at least three years before the descent into Egypt, or 218 years before the Exodus. For each succeeding period of 32 years we must add, according to our calculation, one generation more. In 218 years there are just six periods of 32 years each, and 26 years over. Therefore the whole of the seventh generation must have been living 26 years before the Exodus.

Next we may estimate the number of males in the first generation at a hundred and twenty-five. To this generation would belong all those, who, at the time of the descent, were above the age of three, and under the age of thirty-five. Those who were three, or less than three, should not be counted, since they belonged to the second generation: those above thirty-five should be excluded, because when the first generation was completed, they had already reached the age of thirty-two; therefore, according to our calculation, they must at that time have had children who would belong to the first generation; they could not then belong to it themselves. Now we may suppose that, amongst the followers of Jacob, there were at least sixty males of various ages between these two extremes. This estimate will appear moderate indeed, when we remember that Abraham had been able to lead forth an army of 318 _trained servants, born in his house_ (_Gen._, xiv. 14). It will not be unreasonable to compute the accession of extra servants and proselytes at 15. If to these 75 we add 50 as the number of males within the prescribed limits, in Jacob’s own family, we shall have attained our estimated figure, 125. Lastly, our readers will find little difficulty in admitting an average of four sons in each family.

From these data we obtain the following results:

Number of males in the all years before
_first_ generation, 125 living 218 the Exodus.
_second_ „ 500 „ 186 „
_third_ „ 2,000 „ 154 „
_fourth_ „ 8,000 „ 122 „
_fifth_ „ 32,000 „ 90 „
_sixth_ „ 128,000 „ 58 „
_seventh_ „ 512,000 „ 26 „

It is certain that a large number of the sixth, and probably a few of the fifth generation were still living at the time of the Exodus. Moreover, since the eighth had been coming into existence during the last period of twenty-six years, many of that generation must have already attained the age of twenty. If to all these we add the entire of the seventh generation, we shall have no difficulty in making up 600,000 men of twenty years old and upward.

Now we admit that all this calculation is founded on conjectures; and that it is very likely these conjectures do not in every respect represent what actually took place. But we maintain that they are at least possible in themselves, and perfectly consistent with the narrative of the Pentateuch. Consequently, the number of the Israelites at the time of the Exodus does not involve any contradiction, and the thesis of Dr. Colenso is false.

There is another process of calculation by which we may arrive at the same conclusion. Scientific men have been able to throw some light on the principles which conduce to a rapid increase of population. With much research they have collected statistical tables, which afford results very applicable to our present inquiry. They have conducted their studies on purely scientific grounds, and without any special reference to the Bible narrative. We may, therefore, avail ourselves of their conclusions as representing the unbiassed opinion of competent and impartial judges. “It has been constantly remarked”, says Malthus,[6] “that all new colonies, settled in healthy countries, where room and food were abundant, have constantly made a rapid progress in population. Many of the colonies from ancient Greece, in the course of one or two centuries, appear to have rivalled, and even surpassed their mother cities”. He gives examples also from the colonies that first settled in North America. Without any fresh immigrants, the population was doubled sometimes in twenty-five years, sometimes in twenty-two, sometimes even in fifteen.[7] From a table given by Euler, it appears that a population may double itself in 12⅘ years; and the author does not hesitate to say that this “is not only a possible supposition, but has _actually occurred_ for short periods in more countries than one”.

Now the circumstances of the Israelites in Egypt were peculiarly favourable to an unusually rapid increase. To say nothing of the special blessing of God which attended them, they were dwelling in a country of which the inhabitants were noted for a remarkable fecundity; the climate was genial; the land fertile; the means of living abundant. Let us then take a medium between the extreme figures mentioned above, and suppose that during the whole period of the sojourn in Egypt, the population was doubled every eighteen years. This supposition may or may not be true; but it is certainly not less in harmony with the repeated declarations of the Pentateuch, than it is with the cold calculations of science. If our former estimate be accepted, the total population at the commencement of the sojourn in Egypt would be about 500; that is to say, four times the number of males between the ages of three and thirty-five:――125×4=500. Upon this foundation we may construct the following table:――

year of Total number of the
the Sojourn. Hebrew people,
1st 500
18th 1,000
36th 2,000
54th 4,000
72nd 8,000
90th 16,000
108th 32,000
126th 64,000
144th 128,000
162nd 256,000
180th 512,000
198th 1,024,000
216th 2,048,000

Thus it would appear that, if we hearken to the authority of scientific men, who have made the principles of population the subject of their special study, we may still further confirm the accuracy of those figures which to the mind of Dr. Colenso present nothing but “multiplied impossibilities”.

We have led our readers a long and weary journey. We have conducted them through a bewildering labyrinth of names and numbers, of intricate genealogies and complicated calculations. Our way indeed lay through the midst of a beautiful country; and as we passed along, we now and then caught a glimpse, as it were, from a distance, of some sublime or touching scene which has many a time inspired the genius of the poet, the painter, or the sculptor. But we had an end in view which forbade us to turn aside from our rugged and toilsome path, even though it were to enjoy the varied charms of the most ancient, the most simple, the most sacred of histories. Like the soldiers of Saul, we might not even put forth our hand to taste of the honey that was dropping from the trees around us. If, however, like them, we have gained the victory and driven the enemy from his stronghold, our labours have been richly rewarded, and our readers have not toiled after us in vain.

ERRATUM.――We beg to call attention to an error which occurs in the last article on Colenso, page 517. The passage to which we refer is printed thus:――“According to the Mosaic, etc.… 99,989 families”. Our readers will observe that the number of families in the case supposed would be 200,000 instead of 100,000. By this alteration the character of the argument remains unchanged, but its force is considerably increased.

THE BISHOPS OF OSSORY.

When illustrating the lives of the Irish Bishops, Ware and Harris, as well as our modern annalists, seem to have devoted special care to the See of Ossory, and hence its series of bishops is one of the most complete and unbroken that we find in the history of our Church. It is in the latter half of the fourteenth century that the first great difficulty occurs. In 1367 a parliament was held in Kilkenny, and the famous Act was passed commonly styled, _The Statute of Kilkenny_, which, amongst other signatures, presents that of “William, Bishop of Ossory”.[8] Its accuracy in all the other signatures, and in several minor details, leaves no doubt as to the genuineness of the prelate’s name, who at that time ruled the See of St. Canice. Nevertheless, such a Bishop finds no room in the series of episcopal names given by Ware and succeeding writers. John of Tatenal, they say, was appointed to the see in 1360; and his death did not take place till 1370: thus the above William is altogether excluded from the episcopal succession.

The chroniclers of the Augustinian order, however, enable us to solve this difficulty. _John de Tatenal_, or as he is sometimes called _de Tayenal_, was a member of that distinguished religious body, and was appointed to the See of Ossory in 1370, the same year which saw him carried to the tomb.

There was, indeed, another Bishop _John_ appointed in 1361. On the 20th of November that year, he promised to pay to the “Camera Apostolica” the diocesan tax of 200 florins, equal to £40; and it is remarked that this is a proof of the decay of the revenues of Ossory, since only forty years before, on the appointment of Bishop Richard, the tax amounted to 700 florins. On the 9th of January 1361/2 permission was granted to this bishop to return to his see, and from the brief published in _Monumenta Vaticana_, pag. 319, we learn that he had been consecrated some time before, by Raymond, Bishop of Praeneste, then resident with the Papal court in Avignon. In 1364 Urban V. (xii. Kal. Aprilis, an. 2ᵒ) granted to him special faculties and privileges, but no mention is made of him in the following years. Thus we have full room for Bishop William, appointed before 1367, and deceased about 1369.

Dr. John Tatenal, as we have seen, was appointed in 1370, and died before Christmas the same year. _Alexander Petit_ alias _de Balscot_, canon of the Cathedral of Kilkenny, a man of great learning and wisdom (as Ware writes), was elected by the chapter to fill the vacant see; and though this election was irregular and invalid, Gregory XI. confirmed him as Bishop of Ossory by Brief of 10th February, 1371. He subsequently was appointed by the crown to some of the highest offices of the kingdom, and having held the see for fifteen years, was translated to Meath in 1386.

_Richard Northalis_, a Carmelite, was next appointed to the See. His promise to pay the usual tax of 200 florins to the “Camera Apostolica” is dated 17th Feb. 1386/7. He was translated to Dublin in 1395, not in 1396, as Ware supposed. His successor _Thomas_, a Carmelite, surnamed _Peverell_,[9] signed the usual obligation a few days after his appointment on the 3rd of November, 1395, and after an episcopate of three years, was translated to Leighlin, on 23rd January, 1398/9, whence on the 2nd July following he was again translated to Llandaff, in Wales (_Biblioth. Carmelit._). He was succeeded in Ossory by _John_ _Wultham_ (sometimes written _Wulcan_ or _Vulcan_), who was probably appointed on the very day of Dr. Peverell’s translation to Leighlin, and on 1st of February, 1398/9, signed an obligation to pay the usual tax of 200 florins for himself, and in addition 200 florins for his predecessor Thomas, who had not been as yet able to satisfy his obligation. This bishop belonged to the order of St. Augustine, and was translated to Dromore before the month of July, 1399. _Dr. John Griffin_, Bishop of Leighlin, was soon after translated to our See by brief of “6to Nonas Julii, 1399”, and on the 12th of July, he signed an obligation “to pay _185 florins and 44 solidos_ as portion of the tax unpaid by his predecessor John, and in addition 100 florins still due from the time of Dr. Thomas Peverell”. It is added that no tax was imposed upon himself, as his appointment was the second one which had been made within the term of twelve months.

Early in the following year Dr. Griffin was summoned to his reward, and in May, 1400, another Bishop _John_ was appointed to the See of Ossory. This bishop is only known to us from the lists of the Apostolic Chamber. On the 14th of May, an. Dom. 1400, he signed his own individual obligation for the sum of 200 florins, and moreover promised to pay 81 florins and 47 solidos “_pro residuis Domini Johannis prae-antecessoris sui_”. On the 26th of September, the same year (1400), Pope Boniface IX. advanced _Roger de Appleby_ to the vacant see,[10] and on the 28th of the same month, it is entered in the books of the Apostolic chamber, that he “ratas habuit obligationes, tum Johannis sui praedecessoris immediati tum alterius Johannis in Floren. 81 et solid. 47: pro se autem nihil obligavit quia fuit facta promotio bis in anno”.

The successor of Bishop Rogers was according to Ware, the _John Vulcan_, whom we have already seen appointed to this see in 1398/9, and the year 1404 is assigned as the probable date of his accession. Here again the list of taxes paid to the _Camera_ comes to our aid. It tells us that, on 17th November, 1402, “_Johannes Walteri_”, Bishop elect of Ossory, promised the usual sum of 200 florins, and also the residue of the former debt of his predecessor John, viz., flor. 81, and solid. 47. It was, probably, the similarity of name that induced the learned writer to transplace Dr. Wultham, and make him successor of Roger Appleby in the see of St. Canice.

_Thomas Snell_, Archdeacon of Glendalough, who had held the see of Waterford and Lismore since 1399, was next appointed to this see. Ware, indeed, dates his appointment to Ossory in 1405, but the lists to which we have already so often appealed in this paper, attest that he signed the usual obligation on being appointed to this see on the 11th March, 1407/8. This bishop bequeathed to his successors a mitre adorned with precious stones, and presented to his church some richly ornamented vestments. Rev. William Purcell appeared in the Council of Constance in the beginning of 1416, as proxy of our bishop, as we learn from Martene, _Veter. Monument._, tom. vii. col. 1222.

_Patrick Ragged_ on the death of Bishop Thomas, was translated from the see of Cork to Ossory, by brief of 15th of December, 1417. An ancient writer gives him the character of “a prelate who governed his flock with justice and piety, and instructed them both by word and example.” He was appointed agent of the _Camera Apostolica_ in Ireland on the 11th January, 1417/8; and he died, not on the 20th of August, as Ware arbitrarily asserts, but in the first month of 1421.

_Dionysius O’Dea_ was appointed to the see vacant _per obitum Patritii_, by Pope Martin V., in the beginning of August, 1421, and on the 6th of the same month signed his obligation for the usual tax of 200 florins assigned for his see.

_Thomas Barry_, or as he is styled in the Roman lists, _Thomas Baury_, made the usual declaration on the 5th of April, 1527, having been appointed some days previous Bishop of Ossory. During his episcopate, a famous controversy was carried on before the tribunal of Pope Nicholas V., regarding the parochial church of Callan, which is described as _alias Kilbride_, that is, dedicated to St. Brigid. This controversy was not decided till the pontificate of Pope Paul II., some years after the death of our Prelate.

_David Hacket_, prior of the Augustinian monastery of Ahassel, dedicated to SS. Edmund and Martin, and situated in the diocese of Cashel, was advanced to our see by Pope Pius II., and was consecrated _in curia Romana_ in the year 1460. When signing his usual obligation on 14th July, 1460, he is still styled _Episcopus Ossoriensis electus_. He died, according to Ware, on the 24th October, 1478.[11]

_John O’Hadian_, who is styled _Hedayn_ in the Consistorial Acts, received from the Holy See the Archdeaconries of Cashel and Ossory on the 8th of January 1459/60 (_Monument. Vatic._, pag. 424), and on the 15th January, 1479, was proclaimed in consistory Bishop of Ossory. It is added in the record of his appointment that, “die 21 Februarii sequentis consecratus fuit in ecclesia S. Tryphonis de Urbe a Benedicto Archiepo. Mitilenensi, assistentibus sibi Stephano Archiepo. Antibarensi et Stephano Sagiensi Epo”. He was appointed collector of the Apostolic taxes in Ireland in 1482, and his death is recorded on 6th of January, 1486/7.

_Oliver Cantwell_, who, in various entries of the Vatican archives, receives the names _Cantnel_ and _Wertell_, was advanced to the episcopate in consistory of the 26th March, 1487, the see being described as vacant _per obitum Joannis extra curiam_. This illustrious bishop belonged to the order of St. Dominick, and De Burgo, in _Hib. Dominic._, pag. 478, gives a letter of Innocent VIII., dated 27th March, 1487, authorizing him to be consecrated by any bishop holding communion with the Holy See. The first years of his episcopate were disturbed by the rebellion of Lambert Simnel and its accompanying disorders, and we find published by Rymer a letter of the above-named Pontiff, Innocent VIII., exhorting the Bishop of Ossory and the other Prelates of the Irish Church to use their influence in quelling the rebellious excitement which prevailed throughout our island. Dr. Cantwell governed the diocese for almost forty years, and in a very advanced age he passed to his eternal crown on the 9th of January, 1526/7.

_Milo Fitzgerald_, better known by the family surname of _Baron_, belonged to the order of St. Augustine, and was prior of the famous monastery of Inistiogue. On the death of the aged Bishop Cantwell, Dr. Fitzgerald was advanced to the vacant see, whilst at the same time he received an apostolic dispensation permitting him to retain his former priory. He is commemorated in the papers of the _Camera Apostolica_ as having paid a portion of the diocesan tax on 10th July, 1528; and from other sources we learn that he presented to his church a marble altar, and bequeathed to his successors a pastoral staff of silver. By one of the usual _voluntary surrenders_ of the 31st year of Henry VIII. (1540), this good bishop was compelled to hand over his priory to the agents of the crown. The first to enjoy its spoils was Sir Richard Butler, but on 20th December, 1551, an order was issued by the Lords of the Council in England, commanding it to be given to _Edward Seyntloo_ for twenty-one years, “in consideration of his painful and diligent services in the late wars in Ireland” (Morrin, i. 255). Nevertheless, in 1567 Queen Elizabeth ordered it to be again leased to Sir Edmond Butler, together with the monastery of Connall and the greater part of the possessions of the Abbey of Baltinglass, and thus were the offerings of the piety of our fathers sacrilegiously plundered in order to gratify the vanity and the pleasures of the retainers of the crown.

Bishop Milo ruled the see of Ossory till his death in 1550. From several letters written by the Lord Deputy immediately after his demise, we learn what little progress had been made by the so-called reformation in Ossory at this period. For instance, he thus writes on the 5th of December, 1550:――

“And now as touching the bishoprick void (of Ossory), it
shall be well done some honest man be placed therein for the
advancement of religion, which, although it hath been here
much talked of these two or three years past, yet hath it
been smally set forth in deed, and perchance if the
disposition of men here were thoroughly known, it would be
thought a thing not easy to be brought to pass”. (Shirley,
_Original Letters_, pag. 46).

It is not easy to understand how this important see was allowed to remain vacant for more than two years. As yet no record has been discovered of a canonically appointed successor till the accession of Queen Mary. But we feel persuaded that, at this time, according to the unvarying custom of the Holy See, such a successor was appointed by Rome. Even the king’s letter appointing John Bale to the see, is only dated 22nd of October, 1552 (Morrin, i. 267). In this letter the king commands the lord deputy to receive the new bishop as one highly commended; and yet the order for his consecration was not issued till the 1st of February following.

Dr. Bale was one of the first founders of the Establishment in our island: in fact he was for awhile the great pillar of that state institution, and hence has found many eulogists amongst those who succeeded him in the enjoyment of its temporalities and rich benefices. Thus Dr. Mant devotes several pages of his _History of the Irish Church_ (i. 220, seqq.) to commend “the zeal, assiduity, activity, and devotion to the reformed faith in opposition to the Romish errors”, displayed by this apostle of the Established Church. It will not, therefore, be uninteresting to inquire a little into Dr. Bale’s true character, although we do not reckon him amongst the bishops of this see, that thus, whilst we await the _historical_ grounds on which Mr. Whiteside _promises_ to justify that most monstrous institution which ever provoked a nation’s anathema, we may supply one faithful sketch at least for the consideration of our readers.

He was born in Suffolk in 1495, and having embraced a religious life, passed through the various scientific grades in Norwich and Cambridge. Notwithstanding his solemn vows, he availed himself of the libertinism which prevailed in 1530, to take a wife, and adopt the new tenets of the Reformers. He himself avowed that _a temporal lord_ was the instrument of his “conversion”, and Nicholson, in his _Historical Library_, adds, “that in truth his wife Dorothy had as great a hand in that happy work as the Lord”. More than once he was threatened with imprisonment, but he always escaped through the protection of Lord Cromwell, on whose death he fled from the kingdom and took refuge in Germany. On the accession of Edward VI., he returned to England, and happening to be presented to the king in Southampton, received at once a promise of the vacant bishopric. Bale first arrived from England at Waterford, and he himself attests that “he was forcibly impressed by the appearance of the old idolatry”;[12] that is, he found there a fine devoted Catholic people, true to the faith of their fathers. His consecration in Dublin met with great opposition “_from the popishly inclined clergy_”, and even the two Irish assistant bishops protested against the use of the English liturgy on the occasion.[13] During the six months that he held the temporalities, he tells us that he “enjoyed great peace”, but at the same time both clergy and people remained devotedly attached to the Catholic faith: “helpers”, he says, “I found none among my prebendaries and clergy, but adversaries a great number”. On the accession of Queen Mary, his episcopal career was quickly brought to a close in Ossory. “On the 20th day of August”, he writes, “was the lady Mary with us at Kilkenny proclaimed queen of England, France, and Ireland, with the greatest solemnity that could be devised of processions, musters, and disguisings, all the noble captains and gentlemen thereabout being present. What ado I had that day with the prebendaries and priests about wearing the cope, crosier, and mitre in procession, it were too much to write”. On Thursday, the 31st of August, the clergy and people of that Catholic city assembled to proclaim their faith: as yet no statute or proclamation had been made, but they could not brook any longer delay: “They rang all the bells in that cathedral, minster, and parish churches”, (writes Bale), “they flung up their caps to the battlements of the great temple; they brought forth their copes, candlesticks, holy water stocks, crosses, and censers; they mustered forth in general procession most gorgeously all the town over, with _Sancta Maria, ora pro nobis_, and the rest of the Latin litany”.

Even here, however, the trials of Dr. Bale were not terminated. A party of the citizens, having at their head an individual named _Barnaby Bolger_, surrounded his house, threatening him with death, unless he ceased to defile by his presence their Catholic county. It was only by the interposition of the mayor with four hundred soldiers, that the commotion was partially quelled; at night Bale made his escape to Dublin. Instead of protection, he found that new dangers awaited him in that capital of our island; in the disguise of a sailor he was again obliged to seek safety by flight; sailing for Zealand, as _Harris_ tells us, he was taken prisoner at sea, and tried for treason in Cornwall; escaping thence he sailed for the Continent, but was once more seized by pirates, and sold as a slave;[14] having paid his ransom, he lived during the following years at Basle and Geneva. On the accession of Elizabeth he returned to England, but never sought to be restored to the See of Ossory.

The writings of Bale acquired some celebrity on the continent, where they were nearly all composed. They are full, however, of the vilest calumnies against the religious orders and the Holy See, and are written with characteristic acrimony of style. Hence Fuller, in his _Catalogue of English Writers_, says: “Bale knew not how to moderate his passions, and hence deservedly received the agnomen _Biliosus Balaeus_”. Montacutus also (in _Apparat._, § 83) styles him, “impotentis linguae et calami scriptor”. Pitseus is still more severe, for he thus epitomizes Bale’s character, “omnia foedissimus scurra mendaciis et calumniis replevit”. Andrew Valery, in his preface to the _Bibliotheca Belgica_, writes, “Joannes Balaeus homo impius quidem, nominari tamen hoc loco vel ideo potuit ut quis e sordibus gemmas legat”; and in fine, Gerrard Vossius condemns his bad faith in treating of the early writers, “unum scio in priorum saeculorum scriptoribus non raro Balaei fidem claudicare” (_De Historicis Latinis_, lib. i. cap. 32, pag. 170). Such was the character of this boasted champion of the established church in our island! But it is time to return to the successors of saint Canice.

John Thonery, a native of Kilkenny, was nominated to this see by Queen Mary. The following is the letter of the queen to the lord-deputy, dated October the 14th, an. 1ᵒ (_i. e._ an. 1553):

“Whereas we perceive the bishoprick of Ossory to be void, we
have thought good, for the learning and integrity of life
which we understand to be in John Thonery, bachelor of
divinity, to nominate and appoint him to the same
bishoprick: these shall be therefore to will and command you
to make letters-patent under our great seal to the said
John, of the bishoprick, and to give further order for his
consecration and installation, according to the order of our
said realm”.

The congé d’elire to the dean and chapter of the cathedral of St. Canice was issued on December 26th, and the mandate for his consecration was given on 31st December, the same year, (Morrin, i. 306). This prelate is described as a benefactor to his see, and he is especially commended for taking care “to have the antient charters of his church, which otherwise would have perished, transcribed and sealed with his seal” (Ware, pag. 418). Though summoned to Parliament as bishop of Ossory in the first year of Elizabeth, and receiving commissions from the crown even in Elizabeth’s reign (Morrin, i. 370, 412), the government found him inflexible in maintaining the Catholic faith, and consequently declared that his election from the beginning was void, and that his acts as bishop could not be valid, since the heretical Bishop Bale was still living.[15] In this, however, the government fathers of the Establishment only gave another proof of their inconsistency, for a few years before, they declared that the fact of the flight of Dr. Dowdall rendered vacant the see of Armagh, and they actually proceeded to the consecration of Goodacre for that see, though Dowdall was still living. There is one great advantage, however, which we derive from the hostile course pursued by the agents of Elizabeth in regard to Dr. Thonery; it supplies us with the clearest proof we could desire of his unflinching devotedness to the Church of his fathers; and when we find Sir W. Cecil, on the 4th July, 1565, conveying instructions to the lord deputy, that, “Her majesty understanding that the archbishoprick of Cashel and the bishoprick of Ossory have been long void, whereby hath grown lack to the ecclesiastical government there”, would wish to have the sees united, and one bishop appointed “who might serve as counsellor there” (Shirley, _Orig. Lett._, 207), we are more than justified in concluding that our Catholic bishop was faithful to his trust, and successfully guarded the flock entrusted to his care against all the inroads of heresy. He passed to the crown of his zeal and labours about the year 1567.

The next bishop was _Thomas Strange_ (or _Strong_), appointed in consistory of 28th March, 1582. The following is the consistorial entry:

“Die 28 Martii, 1582.

“Sua Sanctitas referente Card. Senonensi providit ecclesiae
Ossorien. in Prov. Dubliniensi, a pluribus annis vacanti per
obitum Joannis O’Thonery, in dicta dioecesi defuncti, per
Thomam Strong, Presbyterum Waterfordiensem, Doctorem
Theologiae, in curia praesentem”.

In the Vatican list of the Irish clergy in 1579, Dr. Strong is twice commemorated, first, under the heading of those who were pursuing their studies on the Continent we find him described as “Thomas Strongius, Parisiis, annorum 32”; and again, under the heading: “Qui sunt in Hibernia fideles operarii vel certe facile eo transmitti possunt”, we find him thus mentioned in the fourth place: “D. Thomas Strong, Waterfordiensis: hic tenet utramque linguam Anglicanam et Hibernicam sed melius Anglicam” (_Ex Archiv. Vatic._) Immediately after his consecration he set out for the theatre of his missionary labours; but it was only “in ruffling apparel with gilt rapier and dagger”,[16] that a bishop could then visit his flock, and so vigilant were the agents of Elizabeth in his pursuit, that he was soon compelled to seek refuge in Spain. It is thus the bishop of Killaloe writes on 29th October, 1584:

“Thomas Ossoriensis episcopus mansit in Hibernia aliquot
mensibus in habitu saeculari, tandem contulit se ex Hibernia
ad Hispaniam”.

We cannot say with certainty whether Dr. Strange was able at any time subsequently to return to his see. Whilst in Spain he devoted himself to the sacred ministry as assistant of the bishop of Compostella, and he died there (according to the new computation) on 20th January, 1602. The contemporary, Malachy Hartry, in his _Triumphalia Sanctae Crucis_, thus briefly sketches his career:

“Dum in hac sua patria degisset, Catholicae fidei causâ et
ecclesiae permulta et gravissima a persecutoribus sustulit
et in Hispaniam ire cogitur; Compostellae in Gallicia, demum
anno Domini 1601. Januarii die 20ᵒ obiit atque in claustro
Cathedralis Ecclesiae D. Jacobo consecratae, sub marmoreo
lapide, uti vidi cum Strangorum stemmate inciso, terrae
traditur”.

PETER FRANCIS XAVIER DE RAM.

The great question of the present day is the question of education. The Catholic Church, as the infallible teacher of men, claims for herself the right to control human thought, and exercises that right by sitting in judgment on each newfangled system as it appears. This claim is peremptorily rejected by the civil power, which, on its part, wishes to make of education a department of government. The science of the age sides on the whole with the civil power as against the Church. Towards the ecclesiastical authorities it assumes at times an air of pity, as towards men whose otherwise estimable qualities are warped by a religious bigotry which is eminently unscientific; at times it exhibits irritation and distrust; at times again it is in open and undisguised antagonism. In the face of a jealous government, to urge, and to urge successfully, the inalienable rights of the Church, requires no ordinary tact; in the face of the contempt, or distrust, or antagonism of the intellect of a country, to take every understanding captive unto Christ, demands no ordinary courage and ability. And yet this is what is meant by founding a Catholic University; and this has been achieved in the nineteenth century in Belgium, under God, through the instrumentality of one priest, Monsignor Peter Francis Xavier De Ram, the late Rector of the Catholic University of Louvain. A life such as his is a model which all may study with great profit. It is only with his spirit and through his principles that we may hope to obtain for Ireland what he obtained for Belgium――the full liberty of Catholic education.