\,V tt vH V^i '■ ■,/ jfc' .. •,.: ■ A : line, with a respect for the character of the ministers of reli¬ gion, combined with a thorough independence of clerical dictation in matters not of faith. Mr. Whittle and Professor Cairnes do not seem to be aware of this elementary distinction; the former, for instance, makes the Dublin Review the representative of “ Ultramon- tanism” and the oracle of the whole Church,* except a very small “ dissentient element”, of which he, it would appear, wishes to be recognized as the representative. Under those circumstances, he finds it difficult how to dispose of such dis¬ tinguished men as Dr. Newman and Montalembert, of such “ reasonable minds” as Dr. Russell of Maynooth, and Dr. Moriarty, Bishop of Kerry, who are either the luminaries of “ Ultramontanism”, like the first two, or merely within its sphere, as if by accident, like the latter,—for he admits that they enunciate moderate views. The general character of the party Mr. Whittle thus describes: * In all great bodies there will always be several parties, who, while they agree in essentials, differ in a great many points. If the House of Commons can afford to contain within it such men as Mr. Disraeli, Mr. Gladstone, and Mr. Bright, all equally anxious to maintain the constitution, and two of whom have represented that constitution in the councils of the sovereign, why should not the far greater body, the Catholic Church, also have parties ? To suppose that that Church is only represented by the Dublin Review , would be the same as to take the Quarterly Review , or any other periodical, as the sole exponent of British opinion. An English Ca¬ tholic Bishop, the Hon. and Right Rev. Dr. Clifford, recently in adminis¬ tering a deservedly severe rebuke to a Catholic gentleman who had arro¬ gated to himself the right to speak for the whole Church, as Mr. Whittle has done for the “ dissentient element” in it, has thus pointed out the true position of the Dublin Review as an organ of Catholic opinion: “ The writers in the Dublin Review are good and talented men, and they have devoted their talents to the service of the Church, but the views they advocate are worth just as much as the arguments with which they sup¬ port them, and no more. If the subjects they treat are open questions, they remain open subjects after they have been treated, just as much as they were before”. 50 Mr. Whittles “ dissentient element “ The reasoners I have referred to, ignore the following facts, that this [i.e., a Charter for the Catholic University] is the de¬ mand, not of the Catholic laity, but of a clerical faction; that this faction professes tenets opposed to British law and civiliza¬ tion ; that there exists within the Catholic body a dissentient element, which, and which alone, gives promise that that body will one day be fully qualified for the duties of British citizens; that it is for the purpose of crushing the dissentient element the bishops ask for a Catholic University” (p. 14). The constituents of the “ dissentient element” here referred to, as enumerated by Mr. Whittle, are rather curious. We have Dr. Dollinger, “ a great Catholic theologian, the hope of the Church in our time” (p. 19); then yourself and others (among whom there was more than one professor of the Catholic University), who were connected with the Home and Foreign Review , which, he tells us, “ was started in 1862 to represent that section of British Catholicism which rejected Ultramontanism” (p. 56). The next contri* bution to the “ dissentient element” is mentioned in the fol¬ lowing passage: “ I need not dwell further on the existence of this dissentient element: every one who knows anything of Catholic society is aware of the fact. I may refer to one public proof of its existence in Ireland—the lecture delivered by Mr. Justice Keogh on Milton at the After¬ noon Lectures in May, 1865”. How well informed on the history of the Catholic University and on Ultramontanism Mr. Whittle is, may be judged by a few facts. The organizer and first rector of the University was Dr. Newman; among the earliest names of its associate members are M. de Mon- talembert, Dr. Dollinger, and yourself. So that these con¬ stituents of the “ dissentient element”, to which may be added more than one professor of the Catholic University itself, are actual members of the institution which was established to crush them! Mr. Whittle’s knowledge of the doctrines of the Church seems to be of the same logical character as that about the Catholic University. But, I forgot:—he leaves logic entirely to “ Ultramontanes”. Any one who is curious to know, not the extent of Mr. Whittle’s “ dissent”, for that he could not tell himself, but his strange confusion of ideas upon the sub¬ jects about which he has undertaken to enlighten the public, will find a passage .at p. 25 of his pamphlet, sufficient for Errors of Messrs. Cairnes and Whittle. 51 the purpose, though one cannot see what the matters there mentioned have to do with the question at issue. But although I shall certainly leave Mr. Whittle’s peculiar form of “ dissent” unnoticed, I must point out some few of his many errors of fact. Professor Cairnes has fallen into the same errors; indeed, one finds them cropping up every¬ where, as arguments against the changes proposed to he made by the government in the University arrangements in Ireland. Those which I shall deal with are: 1. Dr. Cul¬ len’s appointment as archbishop; 2. his office of apostolic delegate; 3. the Synod of Thurles. Professor Cairnes, speaking of the singular circumstance that Dr. Cullen happens to be the successor of both Dr. Crolly and Dr. Murray, whom he claims as “ enlightened supporters of the Colleges”, says he was “ appointed to the See of Armagh through a stretch of Papal authority, exer¬ cised in defiance of the immemorial usage of the Irish Church, according to which the dignissimus of those recom¬ mended for the honour by the clergy of the diocese is selected” (p. 7). Mr. Whittle’s version of this story is: “ The manner of his election was significant. It had been the immemorial custom, on the death of a bishop, for the clergy of the diocese to meet and choose three names, arranged as dig¬ nissimus , dignior , dignus , to be sent to Rome for the Pope to select from among them to fill the vacant see” (p. 38). Whatever may have been the custom of the ancient Irish Church, there cannot be the slightest doubt that the re¬ commendation to vacant sees by the chapter and clergy of the diocese, though an occasional proceeding during the last three centuries, was not a general or even frequent custom; nor is there any proof that the candidate so recom¬ mended was always, or perhaps even generally, nominated by the Pope. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, when the diocesan and parochial organization was often interrupted by the persecutions, vacant sees were generally filled up, upon the petition of the metropolitan and suffragans, or of the archbishop or bishop who happened to have most influence at Rome at the time. It was only after the first instalment of emancipation was granted, at the end of the last century, that the question of domestic 52 The 11 immemorial Custom ”. nomination began to be discussed. It was proposed as a safeguard against the influence of the government in the nomination of the bishops, at a time when the question of the Veto occupied so much attention. The “ immemorial custom”, in its existing form, was, in substance, first proposed by the Rev. Richard Hayes, a Fran¬ ciscan friar, who was sent to Rome in 1815 as the delegate of the lay Catholics of Ireland, to oppose the concession to the British government of a Veto upon the appointment of the Irish bishops. His plan, which is an admirable one, and which may have been used in some dioceses before his time, was adopted in principle by the Propaganda; and Dr. Doyle was elected in accordance with it. But it was only in 1829 that it was finally settled by a decree of Propaganda. This decree expressly enacts that the proceedings of the diocesan clergy are not to be termed an election, a pos¬ tulation, or nomination, but only a recommendation. It further obliges the bishops of the province in which the see is situated to put on record their judgment upon the qualifications of the three persons selected by the priests; and if they should consider the three priests named to be un¬ qualified, the Pope is to provide for the see. And it ex¬ plicitly declares that the Holy See is not to be in any way bound to elect any one of the three persons recommended.* * The following extracts from this decree are added for the information of those who wish to see the original authority for my statements. “ Cum ad gravissimum Eiectionis Hiberniae Episcoporum negotium rite sancteque absolvendum, certam aliquam methodum ubique in eo regno servandam statuere in primis opportunum esse Sacra Cougregatio intel- lexerit, qua fieret ut Sedes Apostolica exploratam nolitiam habere possit meritorum Sacerdotum pro quibus commendationes afleruntur ut ad ali quern Hiberniae Episcopatum eligantur, etc. “ Clara altaque voce a Scrutatoribus ad Praesidem, et a Praeside ad con¬ ventual, renuntianda sunt nomina trium eorum Sacerdotum, in quos major Suffragionem numerus convenerit. “ Si Episcopi judicaverint tres illos commendatos minus dignos esse, quorum unus ad Episcopatum promoveatur, tunc quin detur novae com- mendationi locus Summus Pontifex pro sua sapientia, viduatae ecclesiae providebit. “ Significari omnibus voluit, in documentis de hac re pertractantibus, ad Sanctam Sedem transmittendis, nihil inveniri debere quod electionem, postulationem, nominationem innuat, sed simplicem commendationem: memorata praeterea documenta esse debere jussit in forma supplicis libelii ita concepti, ut inde pateat nullam in Sanctam Sedem inferri obligationem eligendi unum ex commendatis. “ Declaravit denique Sacra Congregatio salvam semper atque illaesam manere debere, Sedis Apostolicae libertatem in eligendis Episcopis, ita ut 53 Appointment of Dr. Cullen. On the death of Dr. Crolly, three names were sent, in accor¬ dance with the provisions of the brief just mentioned, to Rome. But it is a matter of notoriety that opinion was much divided about them, and that there was every reason to apprehend a most deplorable disunion, should any of the persons named be appointed archbishop. Under those circumstances, the Pro¬ paganda, to whom the state of things was made known by the Irish bishops, applied to the remaining archbishops for fur¬ ther information, and it was upon their suggestion that Dr. Cullen was appointed. One of those Archbishops was Dr. Murray, who, if he did not originate the suggestion, acqui¬ esced in it. Dr. Cullen was not, as Mr. Whittle tells us, a monk, a friar, or a member of any religious order, but a secu¬ lar priest. He was not in personal attendance upon the Pope, as Mr. Whittle further tells us. But he was rector of the Irish College, to which office he had been appointed at the age of twenty-eight, because of his reputation as a theologian and oriental scholar. He had also acted for upwards of seven¬ teen years as the agent of the Irish bishops for ecclesiastical affairs, and not, as Professor Cairnes says, as director of the Irish department of the Papal government. There is no such office. Dr. Cullen’s appointment was, therefore, not only in accordance with the brief of 1829, but with the far more usual custom of the last three centuries. And at all events, if his appointment was due to an “ ultramontane” idea, that idea came not from Rome, but from Ireland. The predeces¬ sors of Dr. Cullen in his present see were not, we are told, “ ultramontanes”, because “ ultramontanism” dates in Ireland —indeed everywhere—only from the year 1849, according to Mr. Whittle. But it may be useful for Professor Cairnes commendationes lumen tantum et cognitionem Sacrae Congregationi nun- quam tamen obligationem sint allaturae”. Decretum Sacrae Congregations Generalis de Propaganda Fide , habitae die primd Junii, anno 1829. From these extracts it will be seen that the sole object of the proceed¬ ings of the diocesan clergy is expressly defined to be the furnishing infor¬ mation, which will enable the Pope to “ become acquainted” with the merits of the clergymen who may be recommended as eligible to the vacant see. In the existing Irish ecclesiastical arrangements, the only authentic way in which this can be accomplished, is by the report of the diocesan clergy, or of the bishops of the neighbouring dioceses; and the better to secure an explorata notitia , the Propaganda requires that the information shall be furnisln d from both these sources. It is worthy of observation that the decree itself makes no mention of the classification of the names as dignis- simus , dignior, and dignas. 54 Messrs. Cdimes and Whittle on Papal Delegates. to know that Dr. Troy is believed to have been nominated directly by the Pope, Bishop of Ossory, in 1776; that he was translated to Dublin in 1786, by the same direct action of the Pope; and that he himself recommended Dr. Murray, his successor, to be his coadjutor." It thus appears that, until Dr. Cullen’s election by the clergy of the diocese of Dublin, the “ immemorial custom” did not come into opera¬ tion in Dublin. It may be further useful for Professor Cairnes to know, that our later ecclesiastical annals furnish many other instances in which the “ immemorial custom” has not been observed, and nobody complained of the infraction. For instance, Dr. Delany was appointed Bishop of Cork in 1847, and Dr. Moriarty Bishop of Kerry in 1854, although neither was dignissimus. And yet these appointments have never been denounced—probably, not even by Professor Cairnes—as “ an exercise of Papal authority in defiance of the immemorial usage of the Irish Church”. Professor Cairnes and Mr. Whittle are equally incorrect in their statement about Dr. Cullen’s oifi.ce of Apostolic De¬ legate. They seem not to know that the powers of a delegate depend upon the functions delegated. The former tells us that “ it was indeed avowedly to advance the aims of ultra¬ montane policy that he was sent to Ireland, the better to equip him for which service, he was furnished with the fur¬ ther authority and distinction of Apostolic Delegate” (p. 7). Mr. Whittle’s version of this story is: “Archbishop Cullen ably availed himself of the crisis, and won so much popu¬ larity, that on the death of Dr. Murray in 1852, his name was sent to Rome as dignissimus, and he became Archbishop of Dublin. He was also appointed Papal Delegate, an office which gives him controlling power over the whole Church of Ireland. Since this period he has used his immense power unsparingly to promote the most extreme ultramon- tanism” (p. 39). Dr. Cullen was not appointed Apostolic Delegate in 1852 on account of his action concerning the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill, as Mr. Whittle suggests; nor has he ever been appointed Apostolic Delegate simply. He was appointed on the 6th of April, 1850, in order that he might canonically convoke the Synod of Thurles, and for the causes which might arise out of the special legislation of that Synod; and he was so appointed because he was Arch¬ bishop of Armagh and Primate of all Ireland. In the capa- Prof. Cannes's blunders about the Synod of Thurles. 55 city of Delegate, so far from having immense power, he has practically none. I may also add, that there are other apos¬ tolic delegates in Ireland besides Dr. Cullen—every bishop in Ireland has, in fact, certain powers delegated to him. As Professor Cairnes appears to pay great attention to the pas¬ torals of the Catholic bishops of the province in which his College is situated, I cannot understand how he has not long since discovered the fact just mentioned. Their statements about the Synod of Thurles betray, if possible, still greater ignorance. Professor Cairnes says, that one of the first acts of Dr. Cullen was “ to summon a synod to Thurles for the express purpose of condemning” the Queen’s Colleges. Mr. Whittle mentions the Synod of Thurles as one of the “ singular acts” by which the Roman “ court” manifests its conflict with modern opinion. A synod is a deliberative body, and its acts, like those of parliament, are passed by votes of the majority. Professor Cairnes tells us that the condemnation of the colleges was carried by a majority of one. How then could the synod have been summoned for the purpose of doing an act, the nature of which could not have been predicted when the synod was summoned, especially were Professor Cairnes’s story of the “ sick bishop” true ? A few words on the history of that now famous synod may be useful. The Irish bishops had been in the habit of holding an annual meeting, in autumn, in Dublin, for the purpose of considering and taking common action upon all mat¬ ters which affected not only the spiritual but the physi¬ cal welfare of their flocks; for, unfortunately, those who ought to be the guardians of the physical welfare of the Irish people, have singularly neglected their duties, when not themselves the agents of evil. These annual meetings, although gatherings of bishops, could not in strictness be called episcopal, or even ecclesiastical, assemblies. The resolutions were drawn up and passed as at ordinary meet¬ ings, and were usually published in the newspapers of the day, just as the conclusions of any other body of men upon questions of public interest. These meetings were not synods in the proper sense of the word; they were not con¬ voked or presided over by any regularly constituted autho¬ rity; their deliberations were not conducted with the cano¬ nical formalities; and it was more than problematical whe- 56 True history of the Synod of Thurles. ther their decisions or injunctions could have any binding force as ecclesiastical ordinances. It is not unlikely, there* fore, that, at the period to which I am now referring, many of the Irish bishops were beginning to feel the inconve¬ nience of such a condition of things, just as their fellow- prelates, in the United States, in France and Germany, had been also led to reestablish the ancient synodical meetings. At their annual meeting, held on 6 th November, 1849, and presided over by Dr. Murray, the bishops had under consideration what action should be taken in the case of the Queen’s Colleges, which were then upon the eve of being opened. Since the passing of the act establishing them, they had formed a constant subject of discussion; some of the bishops were more or less in favour of giving them a trial; while another party were for immediate con¬ demnation. The matter had, indeed, been referred to Rome, and, as is well known, two rescripts had been re¬ ceived from the Propaganda, condemning the principle of the colleges; but no final decision had as yet been come to in Ireland, as to the course to be adopted regarding them. But every one—layman as well as ecclesiastic—felt the ad¬ visability and great importance of devising at once some uniform line of conduct, which might be followed by all. However, at this meeting, the bishops unanimously resolved to reserve all action in the matter for the consideration of a national synod, to be held in June, 1850. The following is the resolution of the Bishops:— “ That the consideration of all the subjects, submitted to the present meeting, be adjourned to the National Synod to be held on the Tuesday after the summer meeting of the Board of the College of Maynooth, and the preliminaries of the synod be arranged and agreed to by the Archbishops, who will communi¬ cate the same to their respective suffragans”.* In addition to other reasons likely, as I have already observed, to suggest this resolution, they probably hoped that such a solemn assembly would be more likely to arrive at the much desired result of uniformity of practice in the vexed questions that had already arisen, and were being daily multiplied, than any less formal meeting; while the dignity of a national synod would invest its decisions with * Vide Dublin Evening Post, 10th November, 1K49. 57 A nother mistake of Professor Cairnes. an authority, and conciliate for them a respect, which could not fail to insure their general acceptance. At all events, so little had the “ Roman Court” to do with this idea of a national synod, that it is said the first intimation which the people of Rome had of it, was through the Dublin newspapers. Perhaps the feeling at Rome, when the news reached there, was one of alarm rather than of pleasure, fearing that it might have some political meaning. It should be remembered, that all this took place before there was any question of Dr. Cullen’s appointment to the Archbishopric of Armagh; and that the only effect his appointment had upon the matter, was that he was able to convoke the Synod canonically, and that the period for' holding it was postponed from June to August. Professor Cairnes makes another mistake about the Synod of Thurles, when he tells us that the condemnation of the colleges was carried by a majority of one. It is to be ob¬ served that the Bishops commenced their synodical pro¬ ceedings regarding the colleges, by unanimously accepting the Papal rescripts which condemned them, and ordering their public promulgation. Consequent upon this, three courses were open to the Synod for adoption:— 1° To simply reiterate the condemnation of the colleges, as intrinsically dangerous to faith and morals; 2° To prohibit, under canonical censures , every ecclesias¬ tic from having any official connection with them; 3° The extreme measure of interdicting from the privileges of the Church all persons who should frequent them. The Synod was unanimous as to the first point, not con¬ tenting itself with merely accepting the Roman condemnation, but in a formal decree concurring in this condemnation. It was the second point, the prohibition of ecclesiastics under pain of censure, which was carried by a majority—this majority was not however, of one , but of four. The small¬ ness of the majority shows the indisposition of the bishops to adopt extreme measures; and, therefore, there was no danger that the Synod would adopt the third course just mentioned. This story of the “ majority of one'\ is an excellent illus¬ tration of an old adage. It was coined and put into circu¬ lation within a week after the celebration of the Synod, and has ever since been handed about with implicit credulity, as if the genuineness of the metal was so self-apparent as to need 58 The “ Majority of One. the testimony of no assayer. The only way of explaining it is this. Three of the Irish Bishops were not actually present at the Synod. But they were represented by Procurators, chosen exclusively by themselves, who sat in the Synod as their representatives, holding their proxies, possessing the same privileges, and exercising the same powers, and to the same extent as the absent Bishops themselves could have done, had they been present. These Procurators were as much members of the Synod, as was any Bishop, or as would have been the Bishops whose delegates and representatives they were. It would be not only erroneous, but ridiculous, to fancy that it is the Episcopal order which confers the right of sitting in the Synod; and that no one could have a vote in such a body, unless he were also entitled to wear a mitie. That Mr. Cairnes should labour under such a misapprehension of Ca¬ tholic practice is both intelligible and pardonable; but he is not therefore justified in translating his blunder into a fact. It is quite possible that among the Bishops actually present, there was only a majority of one for the prohibition, under censure, of ecclesiastics from, having any connection with the colleges. But this was not the case, with regard to the members of the Synod, who were all alike canonically em¬ powered to vote and decide, upon all matters submitted to the deliberation of the Synod. Of the members of the Synod, it is quite certain, that a majority, not of one , but of four , enacted that ecclesiastics should not under pain of censure have any official connection with the colleges. A further series of errors, into which Professor Cairnes lias fallen regarding the Synod of Thurles, is contained in his story about the “ the sick bishop”, to whose untoward absence he attributes the fact that the colleges were con¬ demned at all. “The condemnation was only carried by a majority of one; not only this, but—what may not be so well known—even this slender triumph was obtained by questionable means—through an accident improved by an artifice. During the sitting of the synod, a bishop, known to be favourable to the colleges, fell sick ; his place was at once filled by Dr. Cullen with a delegate of opposite views; the sick bishop recovered; but it was not deemed advisable to restore him to his place till the vote on the colleges had been taken” (pages 7, 8). 59 Professor Cair ness Story of “ the Sick Bishop ’. It is difficult to conceive how any man of intelligence, however ill-informed, could have penned this passage, in which the only correct statement is that a bishop fell sick; and even this is correct only in a very modified form. To explain what could have given any pretext for such misre¬ presentation, I must observe, that it had been arranged that the bishops, and as many of the ecclesiastics in attendance as could be accommodated, should take up their residence in the spacious college buildings at Thurles during the cele¬ bration of the Synod. One of the bishops became unwell; and by the advice of his physician, he left the college, and resi¬ ded outside during the remainder of the Synod. But, he was not prevented by his indisposition from being present at the synodical meetings and taking part in their deliberations. So that, for the purposes of the Synod, he cannot, with accu¬ racy, be represented as having fallen sick; nor could his re¬ covery, however gratifying to the kindly feelings of his friends, have increased his synodical efficiency, which had never been in the slightest degree impaired. Hence, the three assertions: 1° That “ his place was at once filled by Dr. Cullen with a delegate of opposite views”; 2° That “ the sick bishop recovered” so as to be able to resume his place; but 3° That “ it was not deemed advisable to restore him to his place till the vote on the colleges had been taken”; are all at variance with fact, and without any foundation. There is something painfully grotesque in the ignorance which could imagine it possible that Dr. Cullen would dare to exclude from the Synod one of the bishops summoned to attend it, or that he would venture to appoint a “ delegate' of another bishop. Of whom would the person so appointed be the delegate? certainly not of the bishop who did not delegate him as his representative. But after all, Professor Cairnes has laboured in vain, and was but losing his time, while drawing this imaginary car¬ toon of Dr. Cullen’s anti-college artifices. Let us suppose for a moment that all this story about the “ sick bishop” is strictly true, that his unfortunate absence was the only thing which rendered the condemnation of the colleges possible, that he was excluded from the deliberations of the synod “ till the vote on the colleges had been taken”. What fol- 5 b 60 Professor Cdimes 8 “ authorities' 1 ' for his u facts". lows? There will still remain the fact that, upon his “re¬ storation to his place”, he signed the condemnation of the colleges. This is indeed a fact, which “ may not he so well known” to Professor Cairnes, but which I commend to his attention when he is next disposed to repeat the statement “ that the condemnation was only carried by a majority of one, and that even this slender triumph was obtained through an accident improved by an artifice”. Is Professor Cairnes acquainted with the acts of the Synod of Thurles ? If he is not, what are we to think of his undertaking to inform the world concerning things, with which he is himself wholly unacquainted ? On the subject of the condemnation of the Colleges Pro¬ fessor Cairnes has a note: “Condemned; although (as it may surprise some of our readers to learn) only nine years before, the same mixed system of education which the Queen’s Colleges represent, had been sanctioned by the same infallible authority in the person of Gregory XVI.”. As one of his readers, I certainly was surprised, for there never was a decision of Propaganda accepting mixed edu¬ cation. The only thing done was to abstain from condemn¬ ing the National System of Education, in order that every bishop might use his discretion within his own diocese. Professor Cairnes founds his assertion upon a passage in an article of M. de Laveyle in the number of the Revue des Deux Mondes for the 1st of January—a curious authority, certainly, upon Irish ecclesiastical matters ! Can it be that the Protestant professor is indebted for his “ Facts” on “ ultramontanism” to his “ dissenting” Catholic fellow-labourer? The following passage from Mr. Whittle certainly shows a community of idea between them, which is worthy of note: “The Mirari vos of Gregory XVI. in 1831, condemned the doctrine of religious toleration, but the letter of the Propaganda, in reply to the Irish bishops ten years later, accepted mixed education”. In a previous part of the passage just alluded to, Mr. Whittle says that “ Ultramontanism was felt in all its rigour in 1849, not that many of the later acts of Pius IX. might not ibe paralleled by those of Gregory XVI.; but the pro¬ ceedings of the latter were of only partial application, adapted Mr. Whittle and the Mirari Vos. 61 to the peculiar circumstances of each locality”. As Mr. Whittle has, no doubt, made a thorough study of all the public documents issued by the Papal government, perhaps he can point out those documents issued by Pius IX., which contain principles different from those issued by Gregory XYI. ? If he intends to convey the opinion that the encyclical, Mirari vos , and the letter of Propaganda to the Irish bishops in 1841, differ in principle, he has been singularly unfortunate. It is not my intention to discuss any of the many subjects which Mr. Whittle has gleaned from the pages of the Dublin Review , or point out his misconceptions of the commonest principles, with which educated Catholics are supposed to be familiar, or the unfair and always illogical use which he makes of many matters, and all of which he has so amusingly mingled into a confused mosaic. But it is right, when crude opinions and erroneous statements are thrust be¬ fore the public for the express purpose of damaging a public measure, to show by some examples that the whole fabric is worthless. For this reason I shall say a few words on the subject of religious toleration, because it is a matter which has been grossly misrepresented. The document to which Mr. Whittle alludes, as “ the Mirari vos ”, was an encyclical addressed to the whole Church, and was not “ adapted to the peculiar circumstances of a locality”. He says it condemned the doctrine of religious toleration; but he has omitted to explain how. The Bishop of Orleans, Monseigneur Dupanloup, in his pamphlet on the encyclical Quanta curd , of December, 1864, distinguishes two kinds of toleration—one religious, or indifferentism, and the other political. By religious toleration is meant the doctrine, that m the sight of God all religions are equal. If this proposi¬ tion were accepted, it would obviously be of no importance what religion a man professed. This kind of toleration is the logical consequence of a denial of revelation, and is incom¬ patible not only with Catholicism, the fundamental principle of which is, that the religion taught by the Church is alone true, but equally so with the belief in an inspired Bible.* * “ Latitudinarians, we are told, while they profess charity towards all doctrines, nevertheless count it heresy to oppose the principle of latitude. It cannot be wondered at, therefore, that Lord Carlisle denounced, under the name of intolerance, not the forcing of consciences, for this is clone by 62 Religious Toleration . Political toleration, on the other hand, is the perfect equality of all men in everything before the law, no matter what their religious opinions may be. In a mixed community where persons do actually profess many forms of religious opinion, it is simply impossible that the State could undertake to decide which form of religion is the true one, which false; for the State is but the organ of the whole community, and should therefore be inconsistent with itself if it undertook to incline to one form rather than another. Hence all opinions (so long as they do not sap the principles of social order) the system of education he supports, but firm and undoubting faith in any creed. ‘ When we’, he said, ‘ indeed look a little backward and around us, and consider that it has pleased the Almighty to permit the various creeds and churches of Christendom to he supported and adorned by such men as Luther, Bossuet, F&ielon, Jeremy Taylor, John Wesley, Bishop Hall, Dr. Chalmers, and Channing,—men with the fire of divine eloquence on their lips, and the teachings of divine piety in their hearts,—surely there can he none of us who must not think how likely it is that in many points he must be wrong, how impossible it is that in all points he can he right’. It is difficult to overrate the importance of this statement: it was made by the representative of the sovereign in the presence of the representatives of the several Queen’s Col¬ leges ; the highest dignitaries of the state stood by his side; no voice was raised to question it; its sense was not obscure; it dealt not only with one of the most momentous questions that can occupy the human mind, but with one which greatly influences human conduct. In one word, the Lord Lieu¬ tenant here enunciated the principles which govern the teaching of the Uni¬ versity at whose solemn session he presided. Those principles, we freely admit, if founded on truth, would go far to justify the manner in which reli¬ gious teaching is dealt with by that University. The argument is, that because Bossuet and Channing had ‘ the fire of divine eloquence on their lips, and the teachings of divine piety in their hearts’, no certainty is attain¬ able on those points on which these eminent men differed; the points, there¬ fore, upon which no one can be certain are those which separate the Catholic¬ ism of Bossuet from the Unitarianism of Channing. It has been well said, that in all schools and universities there is a contract, expressed or implied, between the teacher and the learner, as to the principles on which the one agrees to teach, and the other to learn. The terms of that contract, as regards the Queen’s Colleges, are here plainly stated. Henceforth no parent of a student in them can fairly complain if he finds that the general tone of thought impressed upon his son’s mind is in accordance with Lord Carlisle's announcement. And yet, if the proposition so authoritatively enunciated be true, St. Athanasius could not have been certain that Arius was a teacher of falsehood; the Council of Nicea blasphemously erred when it declared that it was iniallibly guided by the Holy Ghost; the solemn decrees of that Council dealt with points on which it is impossible to know whether it decided rightly or wrongly; and the Emperor Constantine was the main- tainer of true Christian liberty when he asserted that Athanasius and Arius ‘ agreed in fundamentals’, and that the great question at issue between them was one of no importance ”.—Home and Foreign Review for January, 1863, p. 36. Political Toleration. 63 must be alike overlooked, and their professors equally accepted. * When religious toleration, then, is condemned, it is religious indifferentism, and not politico-religious toleration. And if at any time the latter seems to be implied in this condem¬ nation, it is either a mistake of the advocate, or because poli¬ tico-religious toleration is made a cloak for the introduction of doctrines subversive of the existing form of government. If a community profess but one form of religion, I can un¬ derstand the State pleading the inexpediency of permitting the introduction of opinions which, under cover of religious propagandism, may originate political and social disturbances. Is it not illegal, for instance, to preach atheism in England? Is not intolerance to Catholics defended on the ground that the constitution of the United Kingdom is essentially Pro¬ testant, and that it is therefore inexpedient to remove ob¬ noxious oaths, or make any other just changes which Catho¬ lics require? Do not the Orangemen of Ulster breathe “ the bracing atmosphere of a British community”? Nay, do they not say that the only taint in that atmosphere is * Among all Catholics, probably, but most certainly among “ Ultramon- tanes”, Mr. Whittle will not be considered so reliable an exponent or Catholic doctrine, or of “ Ultramontane tenets”, as Father Perrone, fof thirty years Professor of Dogmatic Theology in the Roman College, and still Consultor of the chief Roman Congregations, and universally looked up to as the head of the Roman Theological School. In his trea¬ tise dt Vera Reliyione , he establishes twelve propositions, which, accord¬ ing to him, contain the sum of what every Christian must hold concerning the true religion. The twelfth and last of the series is as follows :— “ Toierantia Religiosa est impia et absurda”. Now let us hear the exposition of this proposition, given by this great theologian, who, even Mr. Whittle must admit, has a better claim than himself to lay down Catholic doctrine with authority. “ Duplex distinguitur toierantia : politica seu civilis, et tlieologica seu religiosa ; quarutn prima dici potest extrinseca, altera intrinseca. Toier¬ antia politica est libertas seu facultas, quam princeps vel respublica tribuit civibus, earn profitendi religionem, quam quisque maluerit. Reli¬ giosa est expressa vel tacita professio veritatis omnium religionum omnium- que sectarum, qua scilicet quilibet tenet religiones omnes aut sectas aeque veras ac bonas, liominique proinde omnes aeque salutares esse. Juxta istud principium nulla religio vel secta potest aliam tanquam falsara accusare ac respuere; atque inde oritur indifferentismus , quern vocant, erga religiones omnes utpote quae turn verae, turn bonae, turn divinae cum esse possint, perinde est unam potius quam aliam profiteri et sequi. “ Nos hie de toierantia politica non disserimus ; darrtur enim non nulla rerum adjuncta, in quibus ea non modo licit a, sed etiain NECESSAU1A est”. —Perrone, de Vera Reliyione , Pars Altera, Prop xii. 64 Mr. Whittles notion of Toleration. Popery ? It seems the mere breathing of the Ulster atmos¬ phere affects the moral constitution of some men; else how can we account for this advocate of “ indepen¬ dent Catholicism”, Mr. Whittle, being so forgetful of the principles upon which he condemned the encyclical Mirari vos, as to write the following passage: “ The national feeling evinced by Catholics at the time \i.e., 1829] was the only thing that made emancipation reasonable” (p. 32). So that political intolerance may be reasonable “ in the bracing atmosphere of a British community”, provided it be em¬ ployed by a faction in support of ascendancy over mere Irish Catholics; but, in the dull mediaeval atmosphere of Rome it is unreasonable! Is this the opinion of English liberals ? Are Irish Catholics alone outside the pale of their toleration? Evidently Professor Cairnes and Mr. Whittle think so, or they would not venture to address to them some at least of the arguments they have employed. Professor Cairnes tells us that Doctors Murray and Crolly, the Archbishops of Dublin and Armagh, approved of the statutes of the Queen’s Colleges, which were submitted to them, and that the name of Dr. Murray was amongst those of the original members of the Queen’s University senate. This is to some extent true, and, as I have said before, if the moderation of these men had been strengthened by a few concessions in practice, and by a just recognition of Catholics in the senate of the University, and in the appointments to the professorships, there can be no doubt the colleges would have been received in a different spirit by both clergy and laity. If, as Professor Cairnes says, “ a few more years of their gentle and enlightened rule would have carried with them in support of the Colleges, as it had already carried with them in support of the national schools, the great body of the clergy”, the greater must be the blame which they deserve, who marred that happy result. And are not the opponents of the government proposals now work¬ ing to mar a second attempt to effect the same object? It would, however, be a great mistake to suppose that, because Dr. Murray was willing to give a trial to the Queen’s Col¬ leges, and opposed to the withdrawal of the deans of resi¬ dence, he had definitively accepted the principle upon which they were established, or was opposed to the establishment of a separate Catholic University. At the conclusion of 65 Dr. Murray and the Queen's Colleges. the Synod of Thurles, a synodical address to the Catholics of Ireland was read. When the reading of it had been finished, Dr. Murray rose, and is reported to have said, that although there were some expressions upon which he would be disposed to offer some slight amendments, yet fearing he might injure the value of the document, which was an admirable one, he would not do so, but he begged to propose it for the unanimous adoption of the Synod. Dr. Cullen, the president of the Synod, proposed to have the docu¬ ment read, paragraph by paragraph, in order that he might suggest those amendments, but Dr. Murray declined to do so. Another bishop still living, then rose, and said that there were some points which he would like to see modi¬ fied, in order not to wound the delicate susceptibilities of the people of Ulster. I believe the document was then read and amended as proposed. Such is the account of the synodical address, which was generally current at the time, and which I have reason to believe is substantially correct. Yet that document, which Dr Murray thought so admirable, con¬ tained the following paragraph: w It is by the sternest sense of duty—by a painful but irre¬ sistible feeling of necessity, that we are compelled, dearly beloved, to announce to you, that a system of education fraught with grievous and intrinsic dangers, has, within the last twelve months, been brought to your own doors. It is presented to you, we deplore to say, in those Collegiate Institutions which have been established in this country, and associated with the name of our august, most gracious, and beloved Sovereign. Far be it from us to impugn for a moment the motives of its origina¬ tors. The system may have been devised in a spirit of generous and impartial policy; but the statesmen who framed it were not acquainted with the inflexible nature of our doctrines, and with the jealousy with -which we are obliged to avoid everything opposed to the purity and integrity of our faith. Hence, those Institutions, which would have called for our profound and last¬ ing gratitude, had they been framed in accordance with our religious tenets and principles, must now be considered as an evil of a formidable kind, against which it is our imperative duty to warn you with all the energy of our zeal, and all the weight of our authority”.* * The Synodical Address of the Fathers of the National Council of Thurles. Dublin, 1850, page 8. 66 Origin of the Catholic University . The passage is perfectly compatible with Dr. Murray’s action regarding the Colleges; but while it fully bears out what I have said above, it proves that he had not accepted them definitively. I think the true solution of Dr. Murray’s interest in the Queen’s Colleges, is to be found in the letter of Lord Clarendon to him, part of which I have already quoted at p. 18. He, and no doubt Dr. Crolly also, thought “ that in the council, professorships, and other posts of each college”, the Catholic religion would be fully and appro¬ priately represented. Had he lived to see the gradual elimination of the Catholic representation from “ the council and professorships”, small as it was at first, he would have regretted—not his moderation—but the blow dealt to every rational attempt to settle the vexed question of education, by the non-fulfilment of the promises which were the ground¬ work of that moderation. There is one other error which I must correct, and it is this—that the idea of an Irish Catholic University was first suggested by Dr. Cullen and the Synod of Thurles. That idea was in the mind of many Irish Catholics long before the passing of the Act of Parliament establishing the Queens Colleges. I have already shown that the founda¬ tion of such an Institution was the second of the three proposals made, several years before, to Parliament, by Mr. Wyse, for connecting intermediate with university education. It was also frequently suggested by the Pope, and especially recommended in the rescripts of 1847 and 1848 about the Queen’s Colleges. The first practical step towards embodying the idea is due to Richard Devereux, Esq., of Wexford, who, in a letter to the Very Rev. Dr. Spratt, dated 28th January, 1850, offered to begin the work by a donation of £200, as soon as treasurers should be appointed. Before this the matter was much discussed in the newspapers, and a committee had actually been formed to promote the object. The subject had attracted so much attention, even before Mr. Devereux’s practical letter, that the Times noticed the matter on the 24th of January, and asserted the impossibility of such an attempt succeeding, saying:—“ You cannot, and you will not. The Romish priesthood cannot educate. They have, as a body, neither the moral nor the physical means, the minds, the learning, nor the money”. The first address of the committee, of 67 List of Errata to Irish Ecclesiastical “ Facts ' 1 ’. which Dr. Spratt was honorary "secretary, was issued in March, 1850. The funds collected by this committee were afterwards handed over to that appointed by the Synod of Thurles. I shall summarize here the misstatements of Professor Cairnes and Mr. Whittle, regarding Irish ecclesiastical mat¬ ters, which I have pointed out in the preceding pages:— I. Dr. Cullen was not appointed Archbishop of Armagh in defiance of the immemorial usage of the Irish Church, but in accordance with the provisions of the brief of Propa¬ ganda of 1829. II. Dr. Cullen was not a monk, nor director of the Irish department of the Papal government. III. Dr. Cullen was not appointed Apostolic Delegate in 1852, but in 1850; he was never appointed delegate simply. The powers of a delegate vary with the functions delegated; those of Dr. Cullen are confined to the causes arising out of the special legislation of the Synod of Thurles, and are, so far as interference with the jurisdic¬ tion of other bishops, nothing. IV. Dr. Cullen had nothing to do with the first idea of calling a national Synod: he was appointed Apostolic De¬ legate as Archbishop of Armagh, in order to convoke and preside over it canonically. V. The Holy See equally did not originate the idea of the Synod, and consequently “ Ultramontanism’’, as such, had nothing whatever to do with the matter. VI. The object of convoking the Synod was not the discus¬ sion of the Queen’s Colleges only; other grave matters occupied its attention. Of the sixty-nine pages contain¬ ing the printed decrees of the Synod, two only are occu¬ pied with the Queen’s Colleges. VII. The simple condemnation of the principles upon which the colleges are established, was carried unanimously, and not by a majority of one, the prohibition, under pain of censure, of ecclesiastics connecting themselves officially with them, being the proposition carried by a majority. The majority, however, was not of one but of four. VIII. Dr. Cullen did not secure this “majority of one” “ through an accident improved by an artifice”. Dr. Cullen did not appoint a delegate of opposite views to 68 Summary of Arguments. 44 fill the place” of a 44 sick bishop”. No “ sick bishop” was, 44 upon his recovery”, 44 not restored to his place till the vote upon the Colleges had been taken”. No bishop 44 fell sick” and “ recovered” during the Synod, in the sense that he did not take part in its deliberations and votes, even “ upon the Colleges”. IX. The Most Rev. Dr. Murray, whatever may have been his views about the practical relations of the Catholics of Ireland to the Queen’s Colleges, agreed in the simple condemnation of the principles upon which they are founded. X. And lastly, the idea of a Catholic University did not originate with Dr. Cullen, or with the Synod of Thurles, steps having been taken before the one came to Ireland, or the other was held, to establish such an institution. I have now shown that, even if we fully admit in theory the principle of the mixed system as regards university education, it is not practically applicable to Ireland. First, because in order that it might be equitably or successfully carried out, we should be in the enjoyment not only of poli¬ tical and religious, but also of educational, equality; secondly, because a chief want of the Catholic system of intermediate education, is an intellectual head or University; thirdly, Trinity College, Dublin, which is Protestant in theory and practice, and the Queen’s Colleges, which are, except in name, thoroughly Protestant institutions, being wholly un¬ connected with our intermediate schools, cannot possibly perform the function of intellectual head to them; and consequently, fourthly, because there is an absolute necessity for a Catholic University, which alone can perform the function of intellectual head of our schools, and enable Catholics to put their superior education on a level with that of Protestants. I have further shown that what is usually assumed to be the opinion of educated lay Catholics, is simply that of a few barristers, for the most part educated in Trinity College; and that the real opinion of Irish Catholics, of which unfor¬ tunately English statesmen have until lately apparently known nothing, is very different. I have clearly proved that the number of Catholic stu¬ dents now receiving academical education, or what might Trinity College puts on the “ united mourning cloak 69 be conventionally considered as such, is wholly dispropor¬ tionate to the number of the Catholics belonging to the learned professions, and wealthy classes, and to the number of those receiving education in superior and collegiate schools. I have likewise shown to what length the Queen’s College party have gone for the purpose of exciting the prejudices of liberal Protestants, and fanning the intolerance of the friends of that religious ascendancy which is the root of all the ills of Ireland, by misrepresenting either through igno¬ rance or design, almost every event in Irish Catholic eccle¬ siastical affairs, in any way, however remotely, connected with the Catholic University. These conclusions fully justify the government in admit¬ ting that we have a grievance, and in endeavouring to find a remedy for it. They have entered on the right path of justice, and I hope they will not be deterred from making this first step towards establishing true religious equality, by the opposition of the strangest alliance which has ever been formed against the claims of Irish Catholics. One of the strangest sights, truly, which have been lately witnessed in Ireland is the movement set on foot by Trinity College in favour of “ united” education. The institution which opens its professorships to Protestants of all nations, and advertises for a Protestant porter, at length acknowledges that the honest principle of ascendancy is dead, and the mourning cloak of “ united” education must be put on. It is ambitious of cooperating, where it once ruled, with the Presbyte¬ rians and Wesleyans in their efforts to maintain a mono¬ poly of higher education. This alliance will do more to injure in the eyes of Catholics the principle of free non-de- nominational education, and to prevent it from being carried out, where circumstances might be favourable to its equit¬ able and successful application, than the most strenuous efforts of its opponents. Indeed no opponent, in my opinion, has ever inflicted a deadlier blow upon the Queen’s Colleges than Professor Cairnes. The alliance of all Protestants against the trifling concession offered to Catholics, and the manner in which the attack has been conducted, make it the duty of Catholics of all classes to come forward, and, in concert with the bishops, insist upon a settlement of the question once for all—a settlement in which the interests of religion on the one hand, and the rights and educational 70 Conclusion . wants of the Catholic laity on the other, shall be equally taken care of. How this may be best effected, appears to me to be a question which lies exclusively between the government and parliament on the one hand, and the Catholic bishops, clergy, and laity on the other, and with which Protestants, as such, have no right to concern them¬ selves. I remain, etc., William K. Sullivan. 53 Leeson Street, Upper, Dublin, 21st March, 1866. . m "•'Mh K % l •’ • • il. MmmB UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBAN A ■f S:;: my JMS0& - ?- r ■' a : :>M : y \v Ht 'k 4 . ...... ■ 3 0112 124389682 Ip# •J .i Vi ••if' s’ - ' J IK; . : : # A |i P'iliilK " to'to to:>\ fr iS.W-v V... [j,., ■.'■iiv:: MM \ . v : vy si MHRJP! Siyfe ■ Jjg » Jk # / ^ '> I : : v,^ P' Ip ip : ' ■ ' <’■ to •;* ^ ptoflsl S|-to “'""ti. V,. iViM,: ■.• 1 > -4 ■ -<*f k ■ .. . m i, .- ,.• +',A • ii fie; LV%:- ■«sw S j® St .*W: gi Y W/. (•>'<' pli :y^m- m MW W*i Wj;# m m r!^« mmi l,‘t: ;«is: