<-T0 CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE REV, R, R, KANE, LL.D., AND Wickliffe, St. Peter and St. Paul at Antioch, the Deposing Power of the Pope, Catholic Loyalty under Persecution, Papal Supremacy in the Ancient Irish Church, &c. p^icE 0]^E gjimiiilie ^ s^pence. Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2017 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign’Alternates https://archive.org/details/controversialcorOOsalm (. / I Contr(/versial Cof'vespondence, eONTROVERSIAL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE REV, R, R, KANE,, LLD, AND I “S.J.” Subjects : Wickliffe, St Peter and St Paul at Antioch, the Deposing Power of the Pope, Catholic Loyalty under Persecution, Papal Supremacy in the Ancient Irish Church, t(5r»C. BELFAST : D, T, Doherty, book & job printer, 58, Ann Street. BELFAST t D. T. DOHERTY, Printer, Bookbinder, Stationer, 58, Ann Street. INTRODUCTION- N presenting this small volume to the public, a synopsis of the facts which have led to its appearance cannot be inappropriate. The controversial correspondence embodied in it arose, with the exception of what shall be specified hereafter, out of a lecture which the Rev. R. R. Kane, L.L.D., Incumbent of Christ Church, Belfast, and Grand Master of the Belfast Orangemen, delivered upon the occasion ot the Wicklifte Quincentenary, under the auspices of the Wickliffe Loyal Orange Lodge No. 1895, in the Ulster Hall, on Monday evening, 5th January, 1885. A long report of that lecture appeared next day in the ‘‘ Belfast News Letter.” I may at once state that I was not one of the Rev. lecturer's audience ; but having read the newspaper report which represented him as clinging, with marvellous though misspent tenacity, to anything and everything but his advertised subject, and which was totally devoid of information upon Wickliffe’s doctrinal and social teachings, I addressed to the Editor of the “Belfast Morning News,” aletter which that courteous gentleman published on 7th January. Though slow to answer , the Rev. Dr. Kane did not hesitate to write \ and forthwith, in the columns ot the popular journal just named, a contest ensued between us which, so far as Wickliffe was concerned, after lasting a week, was terminated by the Editor, who found with the rest of the public, that the Reformer's Rev. counsel, overcome by a tendency to ramble, partly natural and partly ascribable to his having no brief wor^h mentioning, or favour^^ble witnesses to oppose to 6 INTRODUCTION. those on the adverse side, was not pleading the cause of hi^ client, the impeached Wickliffe, but was starting and pursuing a variety of issues which had no intelligible connection with it. All^ the letters which appeared on both sides of the question are collected in this volume. No alteration has been attempted upon the product of the Rev Dr. Kane’s wandering pen, except in four instances. Therein, however, I have done him a small service, and have corrected typographical errors by substituting ‘‘actions” for "‘actives,” “tone” for “time,” and amending in similar respects his quotation from Chaucer. As he has taken that quotation from Lorimer’s translation of Lechler, I have allowed it to stand in the modernised orthography which is there given to it. An extract from Lechler which he forgot to page, I have refer- enced for him. For these trifling liberties, however, I do not apprehend that the Rev. Dr. Kane will anathematize me. Regarding my own letters, I may say that I saw only one (though I might have seen more) out of all I have written, in proof before their first publication ; and consequently, I have had not only to revise the spelling of such Latin and French as newspaper compositors would allow me, but also to supply, here and there, from my private copy, a few words which had been omitted, owing, I have no doubt, to the forest of erasures and interlineations with which my manuscript now and then abounded. Such additions, however, are so trivial, as hardly to deserve mention. I am satisfied that my opponent himself will not consider me to have dealt unfairly by him when making them. I can confidently say that I have not introduced into my letters, as here reprinted, a single sentence, illustration, or quotation beyond what they contained when originally given to the public. I have not even thought it just to polish the composition, the blemishes of which, consequent upon my having had to write sometimes amidst vexatious distractions, I am as quick to discern as any Aristarchus or Zoilus, whose severe eye may be cast upon my pages. I hope, at some expense perhaps, to establish a claim to the attribute of fairness. After the Wickliffe Controversy had concluded, my Rev. antagonist managed to have printed and distributed a Sibylline leaf, dramatic in form, known as the “ Church Tableaux Vivants ” in Belfast : erroneous where aiming at being his- torical ; and profane where intended to be theological. In it a gentleman who signed himself “ Observer,” (with whom the Rev. Dr. Kane had had an unsuccessful encounter upon the Protestant Rule of Faith) and myself, enjoyed the distinction INTRODUCTION* 7 of being mouthpieces for much of the Rev. Dr.’s native puerility; while his bad theology and impiety were supposed to issue from the inspired lips of St. Paul, as one of the dramatis personcB. The whole was a species of advertisement in which heannounced for the -theme of his sermon of Sunday following, 25th January : St. Paul, Wickliffe, and the Pope.” The discourse was duly reported in the “ Belfast News Letter!^” and as it was largely composed of false assertions regarding Catholics and the Catholic Church, any of which I was willing to disprove publicly, I challenged the Re^. Dr. Kane, in the “Belfast Morning News,” to select from the number one which he was prepared to defend against me by his pen in the friendly columns of that paper. To this challenge he did not deign to make any reply. Having awaited his convenience a week, I addressed him again through the same paper, intimating that should he fail, by a date named, to come forward and maintain what he was so prompt to allege^ it was my intention to write a series of animadversions upon his sermon. The appointed day went by, and still he gave forth no sign. I proceeded with my threatened undertaking, in which I en- countered no opposition from the Rev. Dr. Kane or any of his admirers ; and the correspondence that ensued on my part was published in the esteemed journal so often mentioned, until the pressure of public intelligence of graver importance swept me out of its columns, when my design was about half accomplished. The letters which were printed and those which were not, the latter divested of their epistolary form, are now offered to the public also. A statement ventured upon by the Rev. Dr. Kane in a subsequent sermon, on i6th March, to the effect that the ancient Irish Church acknowledged no obedience due to the Pope, is likewise grappled with and systematically refuted. In addition to all the above, I have inserted a short contro- versy which I sustained, under another signature, in November and December last, in the newspaper in which I have recently been corresponding. It is upon the subject of “ Catholics and the Second Commandment.” Two Protestant clergymen wrote a letter each against me. Both letters will be seen by the reader. It is only necessary to add that neither of the writers was the Rev. Dr. Kane. One of them showed himself too much of a gentleman to be hastily suspected of such an indentity. Although it is in but a small portion of my labours that I touch the domain of dogmatic theology, I desire to submit 8 INTRODUCTION. my utterances thereon in the most unreserved and reverent manner to the judgment of the Church, to whose authority I am ready to bow with filial obedience. In conclusion, I beg to say that while I have not deemed myself under any obligation to treat the Rev. Dr. Kane other- wise than with severity, orto afford any quarter to an individual who, with something resembling the instincts of a Thug, has yelled for the blood of Catholic priests from a public platform, and whose malignity towards Catholics and the Catholic religion shocks the manly feelings of all sober Protestants, commending him only to the rabble of his creed, I sincerely trust that in the expression of my pardonable indignation, I have not penned one syllable capable of being construed as an insult to Protestant se^itiment at large^ or tortured into an outrage upon Protestant belief. If one may have liberty to speak of his own heart, I can honestly say to Protestants of every denomination that I hope I regard them one and all in the manner becoming a Christian ; and that, if I have rightly gauged myself, I have not yet to learn the lesson of respect for the conscientious convictions of those from whom I differ in matters of religion. ‘‘S. Belfast, 3rd April, 1885. JOHN WICKLIFFE. To enable the less instructed purchasers of this book to take an interest in the Wickliffe Controversy, I append a brief and unpretentious sketch of some events of that Reformer’s career. He was born at Spresswell, by the river Tees, in Yorkshire, about 1324. The exact date of his birth is not known. His family was of Saxon origin. After having made some progress in the studies of the period, under the tuition of a priest, he entered the University of Oxford, where he quickly distinguished himself for intellect and application. Here he become conversant with the Latin Fathers, with Divinity, and also with Civil and Canon Law. He became Master of Baliol College at Oxford in 1360; and in the fol- lowing year, was appointed to the parish of Fillingham, jin Lincolnshire. There is reason to suppose that he was at one time a member of the English Parliament. In 1372 he took out his degree as D.D. In 1374 he was made rector of Lutterworth in Leicestershire Later on, he received, in addition, a prebend in the Collegiate Church of Westbury, in Gloucestershire. As a daring speculatist in theology, he fell into dogmatic errors, of which the following are but a few : that God is under the influence of an irresistible necessity : that what He does not do is impossible to Him : that He is the author of sin : that the Church is not infallible : that the Popes had been for centuries Antichrists : that a Bishop does not differ from a Priest : that laymen have power to absolve from sin : that to vow virginity is unscriptural : that clerical celibacy is unlawful, or ought not to be compulsory : that the authority of General Councils of the Church may, be resisted, &c. &c. These and other doctrines he disseminated from his pulpit and by his pen, as well as by employing itinerant priests whom he had infected with them to preach them all over the country. His sect soon became numerous, and received the name of Lollards. Papal bulls were issued against him, and commissioners were appointed to investigate the heresies with which he was charged : but he was protected by a powerful party at court, including John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, as well as by a hold upon the hearts of a multitude of his countrymen ; and the history of all the proceedings instituted against him may D JOHN WICKLIFFE, lO be summed up in the statement that they came practically to naught He superintended a translation of the Bible into English : but his actual share in the labour, if any, must have been small. This Bible was printed at Oxford in 1850. Forshall and Madden, its Protestant editors, ascribe the translation of the Old Testament to Nicholas de Hereford. Of the New Testament they say in their preface: — “This translation probably the work of Wyclifte himself.’* He wrote sundry works in English and Latin, some of which have been printed : but many of them are still in manuscript. He suffered no serious persecution for his opinions ; and died in peace at Lutterworth, on the last day of the year 1384. In 1415, his theological errors were condemned by the Council of Constance : his writings were ordered to be burned, and his bones to be exhumed from consecrated ground. They were suffered to remain in their resting-place until 1428, when the Bishop of Lincoln caused them to be dug up, consumed to ashes, and cast into the river Swift which flows by Lutter- worth in its progress to the Avon. Wickliffe is usually spoken of as the “ Gospel Doctor,** and the “ Morning Star of the Reformation ;** yet his doctrines are not reconcilable, in anything resembling their entirety, with any form which the Reformation movement ever took. The attempt to endow the brow of Protestantism with a more aged aspect (even of 1 50 years) than it wears in reality, by passing Wickliffe off as a Protestant, may be met, and its futility demonstrated, by the demand to know — to what phase of Protestantism he belonged? If we may judge him by his tenets, he would not have remained in communion with any one of the thousand sects which have started into being since the revolt of Luther ; nor is it probable that any one of them would have acknowledged him as a co-religionist. Although cut off from the Catholic Church, of which he was a rotten member, he adhered to the last to several of her distinctive dogmas^ as I have established in the following pages by the plain acknowledgments of Protestants only, for the purpose of showing that he was not such a person as Protestants can consistently admire. Not ten times the reading of the Rev. Dr. Kane would be adequate to upset what has been built upon these Protestant testimonies. Wickliffe’s name has a greater variety of spellings than even Shakespeare’s or Sir Walter Raleigh’s. In addition to the form which I have adopted myself, we find it as Wycliffe, Wyclif, Wiclif, Wiclef, Wickliff, &c. THE WICKLIFFE QUINCENTENARY. Lecture by the Rev. Dr. Kane* TO THE EDITOR OF THE “ BELFAST MORNING NEWS.’^ Sir, — Did ever anyone read such miserable trash as was delivered by that reverend crusader against ‘‘Popery/* Dr, Kane, last night upon the supposed subject of “John Wickliflf^ and the Pre-Lutheran Reformation in England ?” Those who parted with even their threepenny-bit to be treated to a discourse upon the Reformer, have been woefully deceived by the good Dr,, and whoever is treasurer for the funds received ought in all honesty to refund the money paid by the audience^ The lecture, as the expression goes, is like the play of Hamlet with the part of Hamlet left out. It contains a great deal too much about the Norman invasion, Magna Charta, Kilmainham> Gladstone, Beaconsfield, Sir Stafford Northcote, and numerous other perfectly irrelevant topics, but hardly what would furnish matter for a fair-sized paragraph upon Wickliffe or his teach- ings. I am sure the members of the Wickliffe Loyal Orange Lodge, No. 1895, are secretly chagrined at the neglect exhibited towards the individual under whose name they rejoice, doubtless, to be banded, by the gentleman whom they engaged to lecture upon him, hoping, I suppose, great glorification to their patron and themselves from their temerity in so doing. Now, Mr. Editor, as the lecturer in his singularity studiously refrained from committing himself to facts respecting the tenets of John Wickliffe, but chose, rather, to fill in his time with the excursions before alluded to, will you permit me, a Catholic and a reader of your paper, to supply some of the Rev, personage’s defects, and state a few* pretty little things of Wickliffe upon, in every instance, the unsuspicious authority oi Protestant men of letters? To begin with— Why did he ever seek to disturb the existing condition of ecclesiastical 12 JOHN WICKLIFFE. affairs in England at all ? Simple Protestants would unquest- ionably burst into fervour at once and say that it was because he was aroused by reading the Scriptures into recog- nising the terrible departure made by Popery ” from the faith as it was “once delivered to the saints/’ But what does a learned and veracious Protestant say on this matter ? Let us hear one. Old Stowe writes in his ‘‘Annales of England,” (p. 425 of the edition of 1592): — ‘‘He (Wickliffe) inveyed against the Church for that he had byn deprived by the Archbishop of Canterbury from a certayne benifice.” So, sir, it is plain to view that Wickliffe was not guided on the path to reform by any very noble spirit of disinterestedness. Having got upon that path, through whatever means, it does not appear that his doctrine was that of a man impelled by the Holy Spirit to sweep away corruption. Is it not an acknowledged fact that this divine, of boasted scriptural views, maintained that marriages between brothers and sisters were not forbidden by the Almighty, and that such unions were merely offences against human ordinances ? The curious Protestant will find this admitted by at least two Protestant writers — Hardwick (“ Church History of the Middle Age,” London, 1872, p, 389), and Southey, (“ Common-Place Book,” London, 1850, p, 463). Theformer gives the passage from Wickliffe’s work, supporting the beastly doctrine in question. In the foulest sinks of London infamy, in the lair of sin itself, in the dens consecrated to perpetual debauchery, there hardly breathes, I do believe^ that degraded wretch that would avow so abominable a principle. It remained for the Morning Star of the Reformation to reduce the vilest of incest to the level of an act in which there was no more sin thah there is, for example, in trespassing in a prohibited field, an act for which indeed, the iauo of the land may punish, but of which God will never take any account. Sisters of the members of the Wickliffe Loyal Orange Lodge No. 1895, what think ye of the individual in whose name yoUr brothers have associated themselves ? Wickliffe was also a fatalist of the most blasphemous des- cription. His chief literary work is known as the “ Trialogus.’^ Allow me to place before your readers the following abstract of that work, taken from the Protestant Gorton’s ‘ ‘ Biographical Dictionary,” at the article “Wickliffe,” (vol. 3, London, 1833). This well-read writer says — “He (Wickliffe) asserts that everything happens through necessity ; that he resisted the admission of that doctrine a long time, because it is incon- sistent with the liberty of God ; but that he was finally obliged to give way to it, and to allow at the same time JOHN WICKLIPFE. ^5 that all the sins committed in the world are necessary and inevitable ; that God could not prevent the sin of the first man, nor pardon it without the satisfaction of Christ ; but the Incarnation and its consequences were all matters af absolute necessity. He goes on to state that God approves of our becoming sinners, that He obliges us to commit sin, and that man cannot act better or otherwise than he does act.*’ This hideous doctrine of absolute necessity is given as Wickliffe’s by such Protestants as the Reformer Osiander in his ‘‘ Epitome Hist. Ecc.” (cent. 15, p. 457, Tubingen, 1604), and by Luther in his treatise ‘‘ De Servo Arbitrio,” c. 32, fol. 195, of the edition put forth by the Calvinist Jacobus Rimedoncius, in 1603, an edition which is free from the corruptions practised on this work of Luther’s by certain of his followers, and intro- duced by them into his collected writings published at Wittemberg after his death. Dr. Kane in the course of his rigmarole address, expressed his disbelief in the loyalty of Roman Catholics. This is one of the old stock-in-trade shams of controversialists of the gooc| Doctor’s kidney, and has been repelled by the Demosthenic fire of the great Protestant Plunket, as well as by others. But no matter. Let us open our eyes and see whether WicklifFe, as being a supposed Protestant, was particularly remarkable for loyalty ; and here Gorton deserves to be heard again, for the plain manner in which he displays Wickliffe’s opinions as to the limits of a subject’s allegiance. This pure light of the gospel asserted, he says, ‘‘that the guilt of mortal sin destroyed all power and authority, all title to respect and obedience in clerical and lay affairs of all descriptions, from the Pope to the deacon, and from the King to the constable.” Is this anything like what the Apostles taught when the Christians were living under the rule of even such unspeakable ruffians as Claudius and Nero, whose mortal sins were to be numbered by the hundred, aye, or by the thousand ? As one of that religion that is supposed to be in perfect ignorance of the Bible, I may be excused, perhaps, for not quoting St. Paul, for instance ; so I leave all that to Protestants ; but let them say whether Wickliffe’s opinion is founded on Scripture, and whether it opens a free passage to disloyalty or not. It is no difficult task to allege Protestant writers who have admitted tb^ seditious tendency of Wickliffe’s doctrine. Melancthon says of him in the “ Epist. ad Fred. Miconium,” to be found among the “ Epistolae Zuinglii et CEcolampadii,” printed at Basil in * 59 ^) P» 622 — “He wrangles sophistically and seditiously concerning the civil lord ” (de domino civili sophistice plane et 14 JOHN WICKLIFFE. seditiose rixatur). And again, the same writer says in his Latin commentary on the ‘‘ Politica ” of Aristotle — ‘‘Wickliffe stirred up wonderful tragedies, who contends that those who do not possess the Holy Spirit lose their authority, &cP’ (miras tragedias excitavit Wyclevus qui contendit eos qui non habent Spiritum Sanctum amittere dominium, &c. p. 27, Amster- dam, 1629). That conscientious Protestant, Archbishop Trench says in his “Medieval Church History,” (London, 1879, p. 315) — ‘‘Nor indeed can the teaching of Wyclif be wholly acquitted of containing in it an element of disturbance^ which could hardly fail to make itself felt alike in Church and in State,^^ Another of this Reformer’s teachings was that the clergy should be excluded from the possession or enjoyment of all property. Melancthon put this opinion upon a proper footing when he declared that Wickliffe “simply raved” in holding it. His words are: — “Plane furebat Wiclefus qui negabat licere sacerdotibus tenere proprium, ’’-^(Apologia Confessionis Aug- ustanse, art. 8, printed among the “ Libri Symbolici Ecclesiae pvangelicae,” Leipsig, 1827, p. 217). Wickliffe’s followers were as turbulent as himself. Dr. Fiddes (“ Life of Wolsey,” London^ 1724, p. 38-9), a Protestant, of course (for I quote no others), says ; — “ The laws made against them were necessary on account of the tumults they occasioned and the terror they were to ciml governmenV^ To return for an instant to Wickliffe^s doctrine that the clergy should possess nothing—^ was he true to his published convictions, and did he own nothing himself? By no means. Other priests were to sur- render their loaves and fishes, but he, as the originator of th’^ sentiment, was to enjoy everything that ever was his to the last ! The Protestant Milner, in his “ History of the Church,’’ (Edinburgh, 1833, p. 596), does not forget, after detailing Wicklilfe’s doctrine on the subject, to add— -“Yet he himself enjoyed tithes, and possessed the living of Lutterworth to his death.” Beautiful consistency of the Gospel Doctor 1 As Wicklifte, in the words of Priestley the Unitarian (“History of the Christian Church,” Period 20, Sec. 10, Vol. 4, p. 466 Northumberland, 1802), “seems to have thought it wrong to take away the life of man on any account,” he undoubtedly would have condemned Dr. Kane’s Donacloney speech, which im- periously demanded the slaughter of so many unoffending Catholic priests. Had it been possible for him to have had any voice in the matter, he would, in all probability have refused to be lectured upon by the meek promulgator of such bloody sentiments, As it is, he must feel relievedi that the Dr, said so little about him, JOHN WICKLIFFE. 15 We often hear and read a good deal to the effect that Wickliffe was a witness of sound Protestant truth in a benighted age. If he was a Protestant, he was one of the mongrel description, and hardly discarded half the doctrines and practices of “ Popery.” For example, he approved of holy water, as anyone may see that will take the trouble to consult his treatise ‘‘ De Blasphemia,” c. 17. He held seven Sacraments with the Catholics, and not two with the Protest- ants, as is admitted by the following Protestant writers, viz : — Sharon Turner (“ Middle Ages,” London, 1830, vol. 5, p. 190) ; Lechler (‘‘John Wycliffe and his Precursors,” Prof. Lorimer’s translation, London, 1884, p. 334) ; Priestley (“History of the Christian Church,” Period 20, sec. 10, vol. 4, p.465, Northumberland, 1802). The learned Henry Wharton, (“Appendix” to Cave’s “ Historia Litteraria,” article “Joannes Wiclefus,” p. 42, Geneva, 1705) mentions a par- ticular treatise of Wickliffe’s on the seven Sacraments (De Septem Sacramentis”) in the catalogue which he furnishes of/ the Reformer’s writings. Wickliffe also, by the confession of' Protestants, maintained the essentially Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Lechler, at page 287 of the work before cited, tells us that Wickliffe divides the Church into three parts — “ the third embraces those who are fallen asleep, in so far as they have not reached the estate of blessedness, but are still in Purgatory y Hardwick, an Oxford scholar, (“ Church History of the Middle Ages,” p. 388), tells us that Wickliffe admitted the utility of works of mercy and the Mass for the relief of the dead. It seems, however, that Wickliffe thought works of mercy the more efficacious means of affording them an alleviation of their pains. (See a Latin passage produced by Lechler, p. 303). The Mass, however, is by no means excluded. Lewis, his earliest English biographer (“Life of Wiclef,” p. 13 1, London, 1720), cites a manuscript of Wickliffe’s, in which occurs the following: — “The seying of Mass with clenness of holy life and brenning devotion full muche, and neet hpnds, most pleaseth God Almighty, and profiteth to Cristen soules in purgatory.” The Anglican Bishop Short, in his “History of the Church of England,” (London, 1875, p. 53,) allows that Wickliffe believed in Purgatory. There has been much concealment practised as to his doctrine on the Invocation of Saints. There are numerous passages in his writings in which he apparently inveighs against it. But this was because, according to him, there can be no certainty in general regarding the persons invoked being actually saints. Where there really exists such JOHN WICKLIFFE, i6 certainty he is not opposed to Invocation of Saints. And who are they? I may be asked. Well, let the Rev. James Gardner in his Faiths of the World,’’ article “Lollards,” (vol, 2, p. 328) say who they are, and declare Wickliffe’s true sentiments. “He admits,” writes this Protestant clergyman, “that those saints ought to be worshipped who are known to be such from the Word of God,^^ These would be the patriarchs, prophets, &c, Wickliffe also, by the admission of Protestants, differs from the Churches of the Reformation upon the doctrine of “assurance.” Listen to Lechler, at page 295— “ Wickliffe also holds to the purely Roman Catholic view that no Christian can ever be sure of his own standing in grace, and so be able to arrive at an assured conviction of his own proper membership in the Church of Christ ; he may have an opinion as to the probability of his state, but assurance is by no means to be reached on the question,” Milner (“Church History,” p. 600) shows that Wickliffe’s opinion on the supremacy of the Pope was not quite that of Protestants, for, according to that historian, “ it seems that he was willing to own the supremacy of that See (Rome), provided it was filled by a faithful pastor, As regards his sentiments on the Blessed Eucharist, grant- ing them to be all that Protestants would wish them, how will they rest satisfied with his continued attendance at Mass? Did he not receive the stroke that eventually carried him off, when assisting at that service, “at the moment of the eleva- tion of the Host,” says Lechler (p. 420) — “ Circa vero Sacramenti altaris elevationem,” says another Protestant, Anthony Wood, in his “ Historiaet Antiquitates Oxonienses,” (Oxford, 1674, p. 193)? This affords some ground for the suspicion of the Calvinist, La Roque, that Wickliffe was a “ prevaricating hypocrite,” (“ hypocrite pr^varicateur”) or else that he believed in the doctrine of the Real Corporal Presence. (See La Roque’s “ Nouvelles Accusations Contre M. Varillas” quoted in Bossuet’s “Variations Des Eglises Protestantes,” vol. 2, p. 149. Paris, 1752). I will grant that he adhered to the figurative doctrine, if Protestants admit him to have been acting a dissembler's part when he so sedulously appeared at the Catholic Mass. Dr. Kane says that Wickliffe maintained the eminently Protestant tenet of Justification by Faith alone, and he censures Melancthon for stating the contrary. Now, sir, Lechler is not disposed to misrepresent Wickliffe, and he says, after analysing what the Reformer thought of faith — “ He has therefore no faculty of preception for the truth of justification JOHN WlCKLIFFE. 17 by faith alone” — (“John WicklifFe and his Precursors,” p. 278) and further on he speaks of Melancthon’s assertion, that Wickliffe neither held nor understood that doctrine, thus — “ We cannot do other than acknowledge this judgment to be exact and just. ” Another point in which Wickliffe agreed with Catholics against Protestants is the constitution of the Bible. He held those books for sacred, which Protestants reject as “apocrypha,” such as Baruch, &c., and they appear in his translation of the Bible, as may be seen from Henry Morley’s “Sketch of English Literature,” (c. 4, sec. 30, p. 137, third edition). Sober Protestants do not esteem Wickliffe too highly. Milner (“ History of the Church,” p. 597) says — “ I know no person of ecclesiastical eminence whose life and character have cost me more thought and care than Wickliffe’s. And, after all, there is not much to record that deserves the peculiar attention of godly persons. I have consulted the best authorities, and, in scrutinising their contents, have been mortified to find that I could not conscientiously ]Q\vi with the popular cry in ranking this man amongst the highest worthies of the Church.” Bravo, Milner! Archbishop Trench will assist me to a conclusion. That venerable prelate says in his “Medieval Church History,” (p. 317) — “And first, with all due thankfulness to Almighty God that He raised up this witness for so much of truth, we members of the Anglican Church may not the less be thankful that our Reformation was not in his time, nor of his doing !” Ah, sir, what does this mean ? Does it not mean that, in Archbishop Trench’s opinion, it was better for the Church to remain sunk even another 150 years in all “the abominations of Popery,” of which we hear so much, rather than be purified by Wickliffe. Alas, what a kick the fine old gentleman gives the “ Morning Star !” I hope I have done nothing wrong in producing this passage from Archbishop Trench. I should be truly sorry if anyone from out the ranks of the Wickliffe Loyal Orange Lodge, No. 1895, were to post to Dublin, infuriated by the above, and by any act of vengeance bring the useful life of the venerable Archbishop to a sudden close. If you fear any such unlucky consequence strike out the passage mercilessly. Yours, &c.. Belfast, January 6th, 1885. “S. J.” i8 JOHN WICKLIFFE, TO THE EDITOR OF THE ‘‘BELFAST MORNING NEWS.” Sir, — I presume you will allow me to reply to your cor- respondent, “ S. J.” I do not think myself that one is bound to take any notice of an anonymous critic, but I am more anxious to serve the truth than to adhere to rules of debate, however reasonable such rules may be. “ S. J.” takes up his pen to supply the defects of my recent lecture, and to blacken the character of Wickliife. I did not propose in the lecture to deal exclusively with Wickliffe, as the title on placards and tickets of admission clearly intimated. The object I had in view was to answer the foolish question so often asked by ignorant persons — “Where was your religion before Luther?” and also such statements as that I quoted from the little manual written by “the Rev. Father Furness” and published “ permissu superiorum.” “Luther confessed that he made the Protestant religion to please the devil and to spite the Pope.” Now in Wickliffe we have one who protested against the Papacy, and (in the main) taught and propagated the religion called Protestant 150 years before Luther, and there- fore the Protestant religion can’t have been made by Luther, Will your correspondent “ S. J.” raise his visor and maintain that the Rev. “ Father” Furness and his superiors are worthy of credit when they teach little children that Luther made the confession above quoted ? In the opening part of my lecture I distinctly stated that we Protestants did not derive our religion from Wickliffe or Luther, but from Jesus Christ and His Apostles. “Our religion,” I said, “is to be found in the Word of God — the Scriptures of Truth — and I challenge Bishop Dorrian and his clergy to say the same of their religion and to stand by what they say in open debate, as I am prepared to stand by the famous dictum of Chillingwort, ‘The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible is the religion of Protestants.’” “ S. J,” is probably one of the clergy referred to. Will he accept the challenge, and. earnestly contend for his faith before Ulster? h It will be easier for the people, to follow us in our references to, and arguments from, a book which everyone — even the poorest — may have for himself (the Bible), than in references to the writings of Wickliffe, a large part of which has not yet been printed. Will he undertake to prove purgatory — the infallibility of the Pope — the sacrifice of the Mass — the Mariolatry of the Church of Rome — in short the creed of Pope Pius IV. and the two novel articles of Pope Pius IX. from the Word of God? As to the strictures of your correspondent on Wickliffe and JOHN WICKLIFPE. 19 my lecture, I shall reply to them as soon as I see that you are willing to publish what I write, for, having a very great deal to do, I could not possibly spend my time in writing letters which, when written, might be refused admission to your columns. Your insertion of this letter will be taken by me as an evidence of your readiness to give me space, and I shall certainly try to be brief and to the point in what I write. — Yours very faithfully, R. R. Kane, Clk., L.L.D. TO THE EDITOR OF THE “BELFAST MORNING NEWS.’^ Sir, — I am sure the letter of the Rev. Dr. Kane, published in your issue this morning, has, by the mildness, not to say feebleness, of its tone, surprised alike Catholics and Orange- men. The excellent Dr. is anxious to show the public that he, the Grand Master of Belfast Orangeism, is not the man, to pass over my strictures in silence ; but although he undertobk to lecture on Wickliffe, and we are to suppose that he read some good authors upon the subject of his intended lecture, he is not, it appears, in a position to prove, all at once, that the numerous Protestant scholars quoted by me in my remarks have been calumniating the Reformer with reference to the tenets which they have ascribed to him. He, therefore, asks time, and time, sir, I have no desire to refuse him. Let him publish what he deems fit as soon as he can get ready. I have extracts from many more Protestant writers awaiting the honour of the Dr.’s attention. Nothing prevented me from requesting you to print them the other day only the considera- tion that my letter was already of considerable length. We all know very well that Wickliffe was not the only subject which Dr. Kane proposed to himself to lecture upon on Monday night ; but it will be admitted, surely, that according to the placards, Wickliffe was to be, through Dr. Kane’s in- strumentality, the prominent figure of the evening. The fact is undeniable that, judging from the report given in your Tory and hoary contemporary, the “News-Letter,” Wickliffe is relegated altogether to the background. To allow Dr. Kane to furnish his own version of the object which he had in view, it now seems that it was his purpose to answer that ticklish question — “Where was the Protestant religion before Luther?” If so, sir, the Dr. must be admitted, even in the minds of those prejudiced in his favour, to have lamentably failed. He did not produce one individual, or body of in^ so JOHN WICKLIFFE. dividuals, that would have subscribed his or their adhesion to any one of the conflicting Protestant confessions of faith known to the world. As regards what Father Furness says in one of his writings, I have never read any of them ; nor am I called upon to prove that Luther used the exact words employed by Father Furness. The conference between Luther and the devil with reference to the Mass is well known, and is related by himself. He certainly does state that he rejected Transubstantiation with the intention of ‘‘ spiting” the Papists, if not exactly the Pope. In his Latin letter to the Vaudois he writes — ‘‘ I have hitherto thought it of small consequence whether the bread remains in the Sacrament or not ; but now to spite the Papists, I am resolved to believe that it does remain.” So here we have his own confession that he framed at least one tenet of his par- ticular form of Protestantism in the exercise of his vexation with Popery ! Only that the text, “ This is My body” was, as he says, too plain, he would have surrendered his own doctrine of Consubstantiation for no worthier reason. His words are — “ I perceived that in this matter” (that is the evasion of the literal meaning of the text altogether) I could plague Popery exceedingly” — (perspiciebam hac re papatui cum primis me valde incommodare posse — “Epist. ad Argent/^ tom. 7, fol, 502, Wittemberg edition.) Dr. Kane, Mr. Editor, thinks that your correspondent, S. J.,” may be one of the Catholic clergy. No sir ; “ S. J.” never even studied with a view to the holy ministry. He is only a layman. At the same time, sir, he is one that has devoted some years to the incessant study of controversial writers. It is not necessary for Dr. Kane to know anything more about him. Dr. Kane, like the doughty paladin he is, has challenged the Most Rev. Dr. Dorrian and the local priests to a polemical discussion. Our Bishop, sir, is a very old man, although a man of theological knowledge far superior to that enjoyed by the Rev. challenger, whose name is Greek for “ goose ;” and this venerable prelate's age might well, in the estimation of any person harbouring chivalrous sentiments in his breast, have excluded his name from being mixed up with the Dr.'s gasconading. As for our priests, their leisure is but small ; their time is all too little for the imperious duties of their arduous mission, and they are much better employed than in demolishing the Rev. R. R. Kane. But, sir, with your kind co-operation in allowing my effusions to appear in your paper, Dr. Kane’s hopes may yet be gratified ; and a layman, whose JOHN WICKLIFFE. 21 father Dr. K. might be in point of years, has no objection to run a few courses against him in the controversial tilt-yard. It would, however, first be essential for the Dr. to refute seriatim all that I have previously said relative to the doctrines and opinions of Wickliffe, since, if he would not grapple with this, the present subject of debate, your correspondent would be left without any guarantee that his opponent would stick to the point in any future polemical collision. It is time enough, however, to propose further conditions when we see the Dr. buckling on his armour. I hope it is of Milan steel, and that his blade is a real Toledo. Awaiting the Dr.’s lecture on Wickliffe, now overdue, I am, yours, &c., ‘‘S.J.” Belfast. 9th Jan. 1885. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ‘^BELFAST MORNING NEWS.” Sir, — I am much obliged for the insertion of my letted Your correspondent “ S. J.” appears to be a very general reader. He quotes from many authors (all Protestants) in support of his own estimate of Wickliffe, which appears to be a very unfavourable one. “ S. J.” quotes from Lechler’s “John Wycliffe and his Precursors” and from the Rev. James Gardner’s “Faiths of the World.” Well, I shall just satisfy myself for this occasion with quotations from these two witnesses appealed to by Wickliffe’s traducer, your correspond- ent “ S. J.” Lechler says (p, 187, Professor Lorimer’s translation,) — “As concerns the tone of these sermons (Wickliffe’s) and the moral spirit which dictates their whole contents, it will not be easy for anyone who allows them to work upon him without prejudice not to receive the impression that there is here a veritable zeal for the glory of God — a pure love to the Redeemer, and a sincere concern for the salvation of souls. There reigns throughout them an earnest striving after the life that is in Christ Jesus, a truly godly mind, whose habit is to view all that is earthly in its relations to a higher world, and to deal with all in the light of eternity.” Further, on p. 188, Lechler introduces Chaucer’s “ Good Priest,” the original of which he believes to have been Wickliffe himself : — “ But rich he was of holy thought and work, He was also a learned man — a clerk, That Christ’s Gospel truly would preach, His parishens devoutly would he teach.” 22 JOHN WICKLIFFE. Finally, this witness cited by “ S, J/’ says, on p. 429 — ‘‘ We recognise everywhere the moral pathos, the holy earnestness, which wells up from the conscience and the depths of the soul.” What tempted “ S. J.” to summon Lechler into the witness-box against Wickliffe ? An evil genius certainly. And now, sir, what has the Rev. James Gardner to say that will be of benefit to ‘‘ S. J ?” In his Faiths of the World,” article ‘‘Lollards,” this witness of “S. J.” says (just in the line above that which your correspondent quotes) — “ The great Protestant principle of Christ the only author of salva- tion in opposition to the worship of saints occupied a pro- minent place in his theological system.” Again, “ Consider- ing the age in which he lived, this eminent man had remark- ably clear views of divine truth on some points, mingled with not a few errors.” Again, “ The death of Wickliffe showed the immortal power of his principles.” In short, all through, Mr. Gardner writes in a tone of the utmost admiration of Wickliffe. No doubt Wickliffe has not received the praise which his work, considering the age in which he lived, merited, and the Protestant world feels this now so sensibly that a Wickliffe Society has been formed for the purpose or publishing all his works, and then his memory shall be delivered from the neglect and misunderstanding to which insufficient information about him has hitherto consigned it» The existence and work of this Society, together with the World-wide celebration of the Quincentenary of Wickliffe, ought to form a sufficient answer to the attempt of “ S. J/^ to show that Protestants think lightly of Wickliffe. Protest- ants are determined that the world shall know more of Wickliffe, so that L. O, L. 1895 will henceforth be more than abundantly justified for the prominence they give to the name of “ the Morning Star of the Reformation” on their banners. The cross-examination of Lechler and Gardner, supported by the present action of the Protestant world in reference to Wickliffe, must suffice for this letter. Let me ask, ere I conclude, in the name of Christian charity, has not Popery shown sufficient venom towards Wickliffe by burning his bones in 1428 ? Why persist in traducing the dead man in the nineteenth century ? Is there not manliness enough in “ S. J.” to resolve, “ I will not play the part of ghoul, and runimage in graveyards for dead men to vituperate ; I will fight with living men and there principles, and take my stand behind the impregnable ramparts of the Word of God.”* * Note. — When I became “manly,” ceased being a “ ehoul,” gave up the “ rummaging” business, and offered to “ fight” the “living^’ Kane, upon doctrinal matters, he might as well have been a dead goose for all the acceptance he accorded to my challenge.— One day, when in a “graveyard” mood, I almost yielded to the [OVER.] JOHN WICKLIFFE, 23 Irishmen, the Word of God, translated by Wickliffe, liberated England, and made her the country she is. Read the Word of God with free and independent judgment, praying for the Holy Spirit to guide you, and you will find that your task- master is priestcraft. Christ says, ‘‘The truth shall make you free/'' More of Wickliffe, with your kind permission, again, — Yours very truly, R. R. Kane. [We have no objection to affording our correspondents the opportunity they desire for a brief encounter if they will only keep their letters within reasonable limits. — Editor, B. M, N, TO THE EDITOR OF THE “BELFAST MORNING NEWS/^ Sir, — All Belfast is again amazed at the surpassing feeble- ness displayed by the Rev, Dr. Kane, hitherto deemed in- vincible, in his defence of Wickliffe. His letter is pitiful. The Orange game-cock, usually so loud, can hardly raise a/ crow. His blindest admirers must see for themselves that he' has not exonerated Wickliffe from as much as one of the charges urged against that Reformer, not, sir, by me^ but by Protestant scholars of acknowledged learning. Has he even attempted to show that Wickliffe’s principles do not sanction the abominations of incest ? No. Has he attempted to rescue Wickliffe from the imputation of being a fatalist ? No. Has he attempted to deny that Wickliffe's doctrines are subversive of all civil government and social order? No. Has he attempted to prove that Wickliffe was not incon- sistent when retaining his own good living at Lutterworth while holding that the clergy should be the possessors of nothing ? No. Has he made any effort to show that Wickliffe the “ Protestant^'' was not half a “ Papist?"'' No. Has he pointed out that' Wickliffe disapproved of holy water? No. Has he set himself to prove that Wickliffe agreed with the Protestant Churches regarding the number of the Sacraments ? No. Has he addressed himself to the task of clearing Wickliffe from all belief in the purgatorial state ? No. Has he shown that Wickliffe scouted the Invocation of Saints, when people had the assurance of the Scriptures that the man or woman invoked was among the blessed ? No. Has he proved that Wickliffe regarded the Pope''s office in the same light as temptation of “rummaging” the Borough Cemetery for him ! But upon reflection, I was satisfied that he had only taken refuge behind “the impregnable ramparts’* of bis own cowardice and ignorance. 24 JOHN WICKLIFFE, Protestants do now ? No, Has he touched the question as to Wickliffe^s conviction of what books form the Bible ? No. Has he attempted to make it clear that Wickliffe cleaved to that fundamental doctrine of Protestantism, Justification by Faith alone? No. In short, he has closed his fiery eye upon the whole question at issue. Would it not be prudent of the warlike Dr. to betake himself to a well-won retirement with some choice books, and meet me again in the columns of your spirited journal, say, this day six months ? The Dr, insinuates that I have quoted Lechler to blacken Wickliffe. The statement is perfectly false. Lechler is not referred to in my letter at all respecting Wickliffe’s character. Lechler is quoted by me but four times, and only on such points as Wickliffe’s belief regarding the number of the Sacraments, Purgatory, &c. Dr. Kane tries to blind the public with re- ference to what I have cited from the Rev. James Gardner as to Wicklifte’s doctrine on the Invocation of Saints. I have already placed Wickliffe’s sentiments on this matter in a cor- rect light. His doctrine hereon is palpably different from that of Protestants, even when we accept it as stated by the Rev. James Gardner. Owing to the uncertainties which, in Wick- liffe’s opinion, surround Papal canonisation, he was opposed to the Invocation of Saints in general, such as those declared saints by decree of the Church ; but as the Rev. James Gardner says (and let Dr. Kane deny my accuracy if he dare) Wickliffe admitted that ‘‘those saints ought to be worshipped who are known to be such from the Word of God^ Wickliffe, then, would have invoked Abraham for example, or St. John the Baptist. Will Protestants do the same ? It is plain to every man of ordinary common sense that Invocation of Sakits is not rejected by Wickliffe, except in particular instances. Dr. Kane and Protestantism at large banish it from their religious system in toto. I shall pay no attention to the baby sermon with which Dr. Kane concludes. “The trail of the ranter is over it all.’* Dr. Kane asks, “Wy persist in traducing Wickliffe ?” Now, sir, there must be no humbugging in this controversy. Who “traduces?” Not I surely? If Wickliffe is traduced, his tra- ducers are among the most erudite Protestants that have flou- rished from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. It is Dr. Kane’s business either to admit the charges or refute them. Let him do either soon ere his reputation suffer. Kindly allow me to produce some further evidence of the spirit of contradiction and cross-purposes that animated Luther JOHN WICKLIFFE. 25 when framing part of his theological system. In his “Con- fessio Parva” he makes the following admission, and I entreat Luther’s admirers to ask themselves what must have been the man that could write it: — “ I knew the elevation of the Sacra- ment to be idolatrous ; nevertheless I retained it in the Church of Wittemberg, to spite that devil Carlostadius.” (“ Eleva- tionem sacramenti sciebam esse idololatricam ; sed tamen earn retinebam in Templo Wittembergensi ut aegre facerem diabolo Carolostadio”). Hospinian, a Protestant writer, after quoting this passage in his “ Historiae Sacramentariae Pars Altera,** (Tiguri, 1602, fol. 14), declares it to be “ in truth a most unbe- coming speech for a Christian theologian, and a great piece of weakness in Luther.” (“ Minime profecto conveniens oratio Christiano theologo et magna infirmitas in Luthero^*). Amandus Polanus, a Protestant professor of theology at Basil, who died early in the seventeenth century, likewise quotes this passage from Luther with expressions of strong disapproval. (See his “ Sylloge Thesium Theologicarum,” printed at Basil in 1597,^ p. 464.) I might bring forward some more instances to show that Luther, by his own confession, was prepared to take up or lay down doctrines to gratify his spite. For example, re- garding the question whether communion should be adminis- tered under two kinds or one, he declares that if a council of the Catholic Church decreed that communion should be taken only under one, he would use both, and vice versa. He would even proceed so far as not to communicate by either kind, so as to continue in antagonism to the voice of the Church. The Protestant Hospinian, at fol. 13 of his work previously quoted, extracts from Luther’s treatise “ De Formula Missae” the pas- sage in which the Reformer makes this exhibition of his un- Christian pig-headedness, and censures him for it in a fitting manner. So much for “ Holy Saint Luther,” as the obstinate Martin is called in a book that doubtless has never before come under Dr. Kane’s notice, by a Protestant author of course ; to wit, Gabriel Powell’s “Consideration of the Papistes Supplica- tion,” (p. 70, Oxford, 1604). I beg to tender you my best thanks for your kind permission to Dr. Kane and myself to air our controversial knowledge in your popular paper. Yours, &c.. Belfast, lothjan., 1885. “ S, J.** JOHN WICKLIFFE, 26 TO THE EDITOR OF THE ‘‘ BELFAST MORNING NEWS.** Sir, — Your youthful correspondent deserves encouragement. He is quite a prodigy. Not yet out of his teens, and not only has his general education been finished^ but he has spent some years in the special study of controversial works to such good purpose as to be able to quote Latin and English authors ad libitum. I hope he will take an advice from me and cultivate accuracy. For example, he quotes Lechler as saying that Wickliffe held with the Roman Catholics that there are seven sacraments. Now Lechler says — Wickliffe holds that there are more than seven sacraments. He thinks e.g. that the preaching of the Divine Word is as truly a sacrament as any one of those seven well-known actions (p. 334).** If my young friend had heard my lecture he would have to acknowledge that points such as this were fully treated in it. The report (an unusually full and accurate one) occupied three columns ; the lecture, as delivered, would occupy six columns. But, indeed, as to what Protestants think of Wickliffe, what earthly good can arise from debating such a point? Five hundred years after Wickliffe’s death a commemoration has been held of him amongst all Protestant communities, remarkable for its unanimity and enthusiasm. In Belfast here. Churchman, Presbyterian, Methodist, united to do honour to the great man’s memory. The learned and reverend Presbytery of Belfast had clerical meetings of their own, in which some of their most emin(.mt ministers dealt exhaustively with the life and principles of Wickliffe. And a number of learned men have united in a society called ‘‘ The Wickliffe Society,” the object of which society is to publish Wickliffe’s works. At the Con- gress of the English Church held this year in Carlisle, the Reformer’s works and principles were dealt with by some of the most learned men in the Anglican Communion, and in terms of the highest commendation. Now, in the face of this consensus of opinion, what is the use of a young lad like your correspondent, whose quotations must be second or third hand, trying to prove that some Protestants do not think too highly of Wickliffe ? Protestants don’t think too highly of any man. Protestants do battle for truth and for principle. They make war against error, not against individuals. They don’t burn anybody or anybody’s bones. And if this young gentleman, who is so courageous when behind a mask, were able to make out any individual, such as Wickliffe or Luther, to be as bad — as hideous a monster in human form, say, as Pope Alexander VL, whose ideas of consanguinity were very JOHN WICKLIFFE. 27 confused* — yet the truths for which Protestants contend would remain untouched. Our religion is to be found in the Word of God.” Wickliffe taught the supremacy of the Scriptures. To the Scriptures his teachings must be sub- mitted, and whatever is not in accordance therewith we reject, lust as we reject the religion of Popes Pius IV. and Pius IX., not an article of which can be proved from the Word of God. This letter is long enough. I must congratulate the Bishop and clergy who have such a precocious boy to do battle for them. ‘‘ Boys rush in where clergy fear to tread.” — Yours obediently, R. R. Kane. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ‘‘ BELFAST MORNING NEWS. ” Sir, — Dr. Kane has now written three letters to you ; and who so blind as to assert that he has given the public any satisfaction regarding the real tenets of Wickliffe ? Having some twenty chargesTo deal with, all supported by Protestant authorities of the greatest eminence, he has, as yet, ventured to nibble at but two of them — namely, Wickliffe’s doctrine upon the Invocation of Saints (with what success your readers are enabled to judge this morning), and also his belief con- cerning the number of Sacraments. He thinks he has me noosed regarding the latter in his letter published in this morning’s paper. He nibbles in vain. The Rev. mouse, whose name is Greek for a more witless creature, is mistaken in his estimate of the good that Lechler will do him. Lechler will not serve him to prove that Wickliffe held more than seven Sacraments. I beseech your readers to notice that I lay special emphasis on the important word ‘‘held.” Wick- liffe held, as a theologian, neither more nor less than seven Sacraments. That is the thesis which I maintain. How then, sir, do I explain the passage from Lechler cited by Dr. Kane, in which that scholar (of course by “ scholar ” I mean Lechler, not Kane) says of Wickliffe — “He thinks that the preaching of the Divine Word is as truly a Sacrament as any one of those seven well-known actions.” To an unthinking reader, this may seem to declare plainly enough that Wick- liffe believed there were more than seven Sacraments. How- ever, the fact is not so. The Lechler difficulty can be smoothed away with the aid of Lechler himself. Wickliffe * Note. — The crime, here obscurely alluded to by the Rev. Dr. Kane, is no longer urged against this pontiff, except by Protestant writers of a very low order. The Protestant Roscoe, in a*‘ Dissertation” appended to his “ Life of Leo the Tenth,” has clearly estab- lished the purity of the Pope’s daughter, Lucretia Borgia, and thereby cleared Alexander the Sixth from the charge of incest. 28 JOHN WICKLIFFE. quarrels with the common definition given of a Sacrament as NOT PRECISE ENOUGH to render it clear that the seven things ordinarily called Sacraments are Sacraments to the exclusion of all other religious signs or channels of inward grace. Since he believes the definition not to be accurate from a logical or critical point of view, he goes so far as to say that there are “ a thousand such sensible signs in Scripture” — (“ mille autem sunt talia sensibilia signa in Scriptura.”) But as this expres- sion is by no means intended to convey that in Wickliffe’s judgment there are ‘‘ a thousand” Sacraments, it by no means conveys either that he believed there were more than seven Sacraments. Lechler tells us, at page 334, that Wickliffe thought seven too small a number — in what event ? — ‘‘ In case we set out from the generic idea which is common to them all, This shows clearly enough that all Wickliffe took exception to was the definition usually given of what a Sacrament is, and this definition he, as a verbal critic, considered not suf- ficiently exclusive in character to hedge in the seven Sacra- ments, and NOTHING MORE. But it is not Wickliffe’s opinion as a THEOLOGIAN that there are more than seven Sacraments in reality; much less is it his opinion that there are only two, as Protestants maintain. If Dr. Kane and I were disputing whether there are seven Sacraments or less, I should be treated probably to a repetition of that old Protestant sham that Peter Lombard first fixed the number at seven. Peter Lombard held that there were seven Sacraments ; and, as that much is admitted on all sides, allow me to take advantage of the admission so as to still further buttress my position that Wickliffe held seven Sacraments and no more. Dr. Kane’s Own author, Lechler, at page 335, acknowledges that, relative to the Sacraments, Wicklife “follows, on the whole, the same manner of teaching which had been in fixed use since Peter the Lombard.” Would this be correct if Wickliffe held that there were innumerable Sacraments, for that is what the ex- pression “ a thousand,” before quoted from his writings, sig- nifies ? Sharon Turner, who devotes ten pages of his “ Eng- land During the Middle Ages” (vol. 5, London, 1830, pp. 185 — 194), to a minute analysis of Wickliffe’s “Trialogus,” the very work in which the Reformer is supposed to maintain that the Sacraments are more than seven, this Protestant his- torian, I repeat, knew nothing to support the theory that Wickliffe believed in more Sacraments than the Catholics. He says of Wickliffe^s work — “The fourth book begins a conversation on the seven Sacraments of the Romish Church’* — and nowhere does this writer, a man unsurpassed for his JOHN WICKLIFFE. 29 knowledge of Middle Age literature, separated from other men for this very knowledge by Hallam himself, as much as breathe a hint that Wicklilfe adhered to more than the Catholic num- ber of Sacraments. The Unitarian Dr. Priestley puts Wick- liffe’s doctrine in four words — He acknowledged seven Sacraments.” (History of the Christian Church,” period 20, sec. 10, vol. 4, p. 465, Northumberland, 1802). Lechler, I con- cede, does not write with his usual clearness relative to Wickliffe’s conception of the number of Sacraments ; but if Dr. Kane thinks to draw any advantage from some of that author’s words, I have every willingness to discuss the ques- tion further. Dr. Kane, it will be recollected, challenged me to prove that Luther made the Protestant religion “ to spite the Papists.” In my last two letters I showed from Luther’s writings that some of his dogmas were formed in the avowed spirit of spite against the Papists. Dr. Kane carefully eschews meeting me when I answer his challenge. Where is all his bravado now? But I am not done with Luther and the Doctor’s challenge yet. Luther himself confesses, and the Protestant erudite/ allow the fact, that “ to spite the Papists” was one of the rea- sons that induced him to break his monastic vows and marry his darling Kitty. Sharon Turner, in his ‘‘ Edward the Sixth, Mary, and Elizabeth” (London, 1829), in a note to page 83, says of Luther’s marriage : — “To pretend that he did it to vex the Papists did not add to the merit of the action.” So much for Sharon Turner. Now let us hear the celebrated Bayle, who was a Calvinist with sceptical tendencies. In that vast magazine of learning, his “ Dictionnaire Historique et Critique,” at the article “Bore” (Luther’s wife) he has the following: — “ What is more, there entered a little desire to spite the Papists into the design of his marriage” (“ Qui plus est, il entra un peu d’envie de faire d^pit aux Papistes dans le dessein de son manage”). Then in the “ Remarque E” to that article, this great scholar, whose erudition was colossal, gives passages from Luther’s* letters to bear out his assertion (tome I, p. 638, Amsterdam, 1730). Does Dr. Kane wish for more ? If so, he shall be satisfied. It will be better for him to meet me on Wickliffe alone. I have no reason to evade that subject, but if Dr. Kane would rather dispute upon Luther, why, let him say so, and I will undertake to quote none but Protestant authors of celebrity regarding that Reformer. I pine to put the Dr. in possession of what Zuinglius, Calvin, &c., &c., thought of their “reform- ing’^ brother^ 30 JOHN WICKLIFFE. And now, sir, I must conclude this letter with some re- marks upon what the Dr. says of myself. He, not knowing me, says that I am “ not out of my teens;’’ and elsewhere I am characterised as a ‘‘ boy.” There is no truth in either of these statements. I have said that in point of years Dr. Kane might be my father; and so he might, unless Dr. K.’s appearance belies him, in which event he has good grounds for an action of libel against it. At any rate, I know nothing positive concerning this illiterate ‘‘ LL.D.’s” age. But this I do know, that I am not in my teens, as the Dr. says; neither am I a boy. I am less than 30 years old, am married, and a father. But, sir, even though I were a boy, as the baffled Dr. Kane pretends, the Dr. ought to hide his conviction, for, in that case, his defeat only appears the more shameful \ and defeated ignominiously he has been in this con- test, which, so far as ‘‘S. J.” is concerned, shall not be brought to a close till Dr. Kane is ineffaceably branded, even in the eyes of his own party, as an ignorant braggadocio and a charlatan. As regards the authors quoted by me, Dr. Kane is good enough to say that I have taken my extracts at second or even third hand. But Dr. Kane is not always right. Nor is he right here. I did not conceive that I should be led to tell the public anything of my library, and I disclaim all in- tention of boasting when I state that my collection of volumes is possibly the largest, and unquestionably the most singular in respect of rarities, of any private collection in Belfast or for many miles around it. This is known to several. I will ex- hibit for a wager twenty books, printed in the i6th and 17th centuries aloney for every one belonging to either period of typography in the LL.D.’s” possession; and I credit him, perhaps wrongfully, with a few score of them. Or would Dr. K. like to see Bayle’s four folios, or the “Grand Dic- tionnaire Historique” of Mor^ri, about which he made a stupid blunder some years ago when opposing Father Lynch, of Ballymena? Would he like to see Anthony Wood, Cave, Du Pin, Sixtus Senensis, Cluverius, D’Herbelot, Bellarmine, Gretser, Benedictine editions of the Fathers, Arnauld’s “ Per- p6tuit6 de la Foi,” and an endless number of rare works on a variety of subjects, some of them bearing distinguished auto- graphs, as, for instance, Sharon Turner’s, for many of my volumes have come from the shelves of the mighty dead — if, I say. Dr. K. would take pleasure in viewing any of these, notwithstanding our contest I am not a churl, and I will for- ward any one or more of them to your care for his “learned’^ inspection. JOHN WICKLIFFE. 31 As to my acquaintance with controversial writings alone, of which I have some hundreds, I am perfectly content that that should be decided by your readers by-and-%e, if the gal- lant Dr. has any inclination to write against me after we have settled Wickliffe. Between ourselves, and in a low voice, Mr. Editor, he has none.* — Yours, &c., ‘‘S. J.” Belfast, 12th Jan., 1885. TO THE EDITOR OF THE ‘‘ BELFAST MORNING NEWS.’* Sir, — “ Take it for what it was and is to the most vital life of the Anglo-Saxon race, and of all peoples that have wrestled up to the high levels of civil a'nd religious liberty, there is no square foot of space in England or in Europe upon which an Englishman or an American should set his foot more reveren- tially than upon the iron-hard, thin-worn floor of Wickliffe’s pulpit in the old church of Lutterworth. ” This is the language of Elihu Burritt. Our young friend ‘‘ S. J.” has heard of Elihu Burritt. Less general readers have. The proposition my spirited critic ‘‘ S. J.” seeks to establish is that Protestants think lightly of Wickliife. S. J.” has a very poor opinion of Wickliffe, and he (if “ S. J.” be a he) desires to adduce Protestant testimony to corroborate his opinion. Poor ‘‘ S. J.!” Doubtless he thought he would have more success in an attempt to bedaub a dead man than in an attempt to defend the dogmas of his Church, which in letter and lecture I have as- serted (and now repeat the assertion) cannot be defended from the Word of God by any Roman Catholic layman or ecclesiasticin the Dioceseof Down and Connor. Well, ‘‘ S. J.’s” attempt to persuade your readers that Protestants think lightly of blessed John Wickliffe is just as hopeless. The learned Bishop of Lincoln read a paper at his Diocesan Conference on ‘‘ The Life and Times of John Wickliffe.” His Lordship in- troduces his subject in these words : — “At a session of this province, on May i 6 th last, the Archbishop of Canterbury announced that he had received a communication from the Archbishop of York, informing him that the Bishops of the Northern Province had resolved unanimously to take part in the ‘ Wickliffe Quincentenary,’ and he further expressed a hope that the suffragans of his province would, in their several dioceses, associate themselves with their Northern brethern in that commemoration.” What a spectacle ! The ancient Hierarchy of England standing with uncovered heads round * Note. —Events proved me correct in this opinion, 32 JOHN WICKLIFFE, the tomb of John Wickliffe, in token of how they honour that great forerunner of the martyred men who led the Anglican Communion out of the Egypt of Papal bondage into the Canaan of evangelical liberty ! And yet this poor young man (of whom we may believe that he is not quite distraught since he has the prudence to conceal his name) goes into an ecstasy of rubbish about ‘‘the foulest sinks of London infamy, the lair of sin itself, the dens consecrated (sic) to perpetual de- bauchery.”* Poor youth, he has read “controversial works !” I wish he would read his Bible, which is far more easily under- stood by persons of a very limited education. In his paper at his Diocesan Conference his Lordship of Lincoln gives a brief digest of Wickliffe’s views on the subject of matrimony and the prohibited degrees, and I shall give this digest in my next letter, as well as a word or two on the quotation from Arch- bishop Trench. Then I hope “ S. J.” and those who prompt the choleric youth will be prepared to furnish a scintilla of support for Purgatory, the Infallibility of the Pope, the Sacrifice of the Mass, and from the Word of God. Wickliffe rejected them because he didn’t find them there. Will anyone undertake to say that they are to be found in the Word of God ? As to bogus quotations, disparaging of the dead man’s character, if they are put forward, I shall make both the ears of “ S. J.” and his confederates to tingle with the enormities of mitred villains, from Alexander VI to Antonelli. Sir, your energetic correspondent avers that I can “hardly raise a crow,” and I will say that if the question at issue be one of crowing, so far as my experience goes, you may give the palm to “ S. J.” of all the men I ever heard of. But crow- ing is not an evidence of intelligence ; in my opinion, it exhibits a want of sense. Now, what is all this row in the “ Morning News,” about? “ S. J.” began the debate by a complaint that my lecture was wanting in information about Wickliffe, and he undertook to supply that defect by quotations from Protestant authors, which would show that Wickliffe was a man held in light esteem by Protestants. Well, I answered that by pointing to the extraordinary unanimity and enthusiasm with which the Wickliffe Quincentenary has just been * Note. — By this little word “ sic” the Rev. Dr. Kane takes exception to my use of “ con- secrated.” He evidently thinks that it means “ to appropriate to sacred uses” only. But in addition to this, it also means, as any one may ascertain who has Dr. Johnson’s large “Dictionary” — “to dedicate inviolably to some particular purpose y’* a bad one not ex- cluded. With such an “ LL.D.” on my side as Johnson, I can contemn such another as the Rev. R. R. Kane. In this letter. Dr. Kane, who is such a purist in point of language, uses an expression which is worthy only of Sairey Gamp, Mrs. Brown, or some such feminine celebrity. It is — “disparaging of the dead man’s character.” — The “of” is a vulgar redundancy. What were you doing o/Dr., when you put it in? All other LL. P’s will be repudiating o/‘you, and ridiculing o/you over the head of it! JOHN WICKLIFFE. 33 celebrated by the Protestant world, and my letters may be read again for the purpose of seeing what representative Protestants such as the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, the Bishop of Lincoln, that most remarkable man, Elihu Burritt, and others thought of Wickliffe. The evidence is as clear as the sun that Wickliffe is held in the highest esteem by the Protestant world, however some in- dividual Protestants may think that esteem and admiration might be modified. Where, then, is ‘‘ S. J.’s” attempt to prove that Protestants think lightly of the great man of blessed memory who stood alone for the truth against the superstition and fanaticism of mediaeval Papacy? ‘‘ Has he attempted,” asks ‘‘ S. J.,” ‘‘to show that Wickliffe’s prin- ciples do not sanction the abominations of incest?” Well, if Wickliffe were a blind follower of the Popes he might not be so horrified at the shocking and forbidden relationship which my unkown opponent names, but I shall just ask you to insert the learned and truly Catholic Bishop of Lincoln’s digest of / Wickliffe’s views on marriage and celibacy. “ Wickliffe’s \ opinions on marriage and celibacy (Trial, iv., 19) deserve to be noticed. He regarded celibacy as the preferable state where it could be received, but he was opposed to the imposi- tion of vows of celibacy; and the consequences of this enforced celibacy on men and women are displayed in strong language by him and his followers. He thought that marriage without expectation of offspring was sinful, and he did not realise the force of the i8th chapter of Leviticus, which the Church of England, with the rest of the Church Catholic, regards as a Divine code obligatory on all nations, and as prohibiting mar- riage within certain degrees of kindred and affinity. Indeed, the arbitrary multiplication of prohibitions of marriage by the Church of Rome, extending them to what she called ‘ spiritual affinity,’ seems to have inclined Wickliffe to reject all prohibi- tions entirely. — Trial, iv., 20.”* In Lechler I find, on page 309, these words: — “ On the subject of the celibacy of the priesthood, Wycliffe gives repeated expression to his views. In several places he characterises the Church law which enjoins it as an ordinance plainly unscriptural, hypocritical, and morally pernicious.” It is a curious thing that “ S. J.” began by attempting to prove that even Protestants thought lightly of Wickliffe, and now he seems most anxious to per- * Note. — His “Catholic” Protestant Lordship of Lincoln saddles Wickliffe’s incestuous principles upon the rnarriqge prohibitions of the Catholic Church. If that Church is an- swerable for Wicklilfe’s wicked doctrine hereon, by a parity of reasoning, Christ’s Gospel by inculcating so much virtue is responsible for all the vice that is in the Christian world ! Bishops even of Lincoln ought not to be above reflecting. 34 JOHN WICKLIFFE. suade your readers that, after all, Wickliffe was not far removed from a good Papist. Witness how he beats the air to represent that Wickliffe was one with Rome on the subject of the sacraments, invocation of saints, &c., though his chosen witnesses, Lechler and Gardner, flatly contradict him on these points. If even Protestants think lightly of Wickliffe, why does ‘‘ S. appear anxious to claim him? In the latter part of his letter “ S. J.^’ seeks to prove Wickliffe orthodox, though his Church ordered the Reformer’s bones to be dug up and burned forty years after burial! O, Christian charity! And it seems, after all, they were the bones of a man whe held Catholic doctrine, “S. J.^^and his prodigious library being witness! What comes of Papal infallibility if they burned an orthodox man^s bones ? Irishmen, I would not turn aside from my work at the ‘‘ crowing^’ of “ S. were it not that I wish to tell you the Word of God — the Bible — is of more value than all the books in ‘‘S. J/s” wonderful library. Wickliffe made it speak to the English people, and it smote the dragon of the Papacy in England to the dust. Read it for yourselves. It is God’s book. He has sent it for your enlightenment and salvation. Read it, and you will find that the anti-scriptural religion of Rome is the incubus that op- presses and enslaves Ireland. — I am, sir, yours faithfully, R. R. Kane. [The question at issue is not the reading of the Bible, or the smiting of the Papacy, or what Rev. Dr. Kane calls the anti-Scriptural religion of Rome.” ‘‘ S. J.” has only dealt with Wickliffe. We think Rev. Dr. Kane will himself admit that he has not kept to the point. Under these cir- cumstances there is, we fear, nothing to be gained by continuing the controversy. We ‘have given our corres- pondents the opportunity they desired, and we hope they are satisfied. It is for the public to say whether or not Rev. Dr. Kane has successfully replied to the letters of our correspondent “ S. J.^’ — Editor ^.Af.TV^] TO THE EDITOR OF THE ‘^BELFAST MORNING NEWS.” Sir, — I have no desire either to trespass unnecessarily on your valuable space or to oppose your wish for a conclusion of this controvers^^ which may be said to have been one- sided, and unless Dr. Kane shall find means to publish more on the subject I do not intend to trouble you further. Should he appear in print again regarding Wickliffe, I trust to your consideration not to see your Catholic correspondent excluded JOHN WICKLIFFE. 35 from the Press, and must respectfully ask you, in that case, not to close your columns against me. As it is, I am perfectly satisfied to leave the matter to an intelligent and dispassionate public, and should not have written to you to-day only that it is incumbent on me to correct two false statements that occur in Dr. K.^s letter of this morning. None but a man who feels he has been foiled could have made them. I take them as an acknowledgment of his total defeat. He says I have “con- federates,"' and that my quotations are “bogus."' Now, sir, I solemnly affirm that the idea of criticising the Rev. firebrand was suggested to me by no creature breathing, but arose in my own mind solely; and I as solemnly affirm that not one argument, fact, quotation, or authority used by me was sup* plied to me, directly or indirectly, by anybody. All is the result of my own personal researches and patient labour. So much for that. As for the quotations, there is mt one of them “bogus." Many of the works appealed to by me may be bought at Mr. Mullan's in Donegall Place, and as for those of a more recondite character, a good collegiate library ougl^t to be able to supply them. Several of them, at least, are id the Queen's College library, and if the Rev. R. R. Kane, “ LLD.," would but go to it, first taking the precaution to be in the company of somebody that knows Latin and French, he could easily verify my extracts. Till he could have proved me a misquoter, he would not, had he been a gentleman^ have so wildly imputed to me dishonesty. I now make my bow to you and the public. — Yours, &c., “ S. J."' Belfast, January 14, 1885. The works appealed to by me are still at the disposal of the Rev. Dr. Kane, should he think fit to call for them, upon the condition of publicly acknowledging his error, when he finds it out. The confidence which he has in his assertion as to the “bogus" nature of my quotations will be manifested by his treatment of this proposal. Should he not bring me to the test, I shall ask the public to believe that in his desperation he committed himself to what he knew to be a falsehood. “ST. PAUL, WICKLIFFE, AND THE POPE.'" TO THE EDITOR OF THE “BELFAST MORNING NEWS." Sir, — The Rev. R. R. Kane’s sermon of Sunday last upon the above three subjects, duly published in the “ News-Letter,'" 36 JOHN WICKLIFFE. is, I suppose, to be considered as a challenge. Doubtless the Rev. gentleman, notwithstanding his recent experiences in the field of controversy, is still panting for the combat. It would be a pity to deny him another opportunity to redeem, if possible, some of his lost renown as a polemic ; and I, sir, as one of his late antagonists, would not have the' least objection to cross swords with him again. The Rev. R. R. seems at length to have arrived at some consciousness of his own inability to adhere to any one subject at a time ; and so he thought to per- clude the possibility of adverse criticism regarding his well- known defect by advertising himself as intending to cope with no fewer, than three subjects last Sunday, any one of which was more than enough to tax his capabilities heavily. In his generosity he treated his hearers to even a greater number of subjects than he had publicly undertaken to discourse upon — twenty would be nearer the mark than three. Without going into anything fully, he con- trived, in the course of his sermon, to descant a little on the towers of St. Peter’s Church, a little on Gladstone’s pamphlet against the Vatican, a little on Catholic loyalty, &c., &c,, &c. He was thoughtful enough, actually, to allow St. Paul, Wickliffe, and the Pope to come in for a little attention also ! Now, sir, I desire to say that, owing to the Rev. gentleman’s confirmed habit of jumping from matter to matter, to give him a thorough refutation would necessitate such a demand upon your space as I could hardly bring myself to make ; although, should you be so kind as, of your own accord, to afford me a free career, say for two letters every week for the next month or so, I bind myself to undertake the necessary labour, and to leave this Rev. hopper, this clerical acrobat, nothing to boast about by the time I shall have concluded. If this cannot be done, at least let us have another bout on some one or other of the subjects which the Rev. R. R. K. introduced into his sermon on Sunday. I will leave the choice to himself. Will he meet me regarding Wickliffe again ? Will he undertake to show that that Reformer is a fit and proper person to be commemorated by Protestants ? Will he discuss the actions of Popes Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius in their bearing upon the dogma of Papal Infallibility? Will he discuss the question as to whether Catholics or Protestants have enunciated the more seditious principles, referring the issue to the testi- mony of impartial historians? What one subject will he engage to debate with me in your columns, promising to STICK TO IT LIKE A MAN ? Whatever may be the subject chosen, I would respectfully suggest that a certain number of letters JOHN WICKLIFFE. 37 of an agreed length shall conclude the controversy, and that those letters shall appear in your journal upon stated days to suit your convenience. If this arrangement can be effected, the public will be in a better position to follow the Rev. R. R. K. and myself through our encounters. — Yours, &c., “S. Belfast, 27th January, 1885. [Should our correspondents not trespass too far on our space, they might have the opportunity they seem to desire for a final settlement, once for all, of their differences. — Editor TO THE EDITOR OF THE “BELFAST MORNING NEWS."" Sir, — May I ask the Rev. R. R. Kane why he has not condescended to notice my letter which appeared in your issue of the 31st ult ? Daily and patiently have I been watching for his reply. Early in the week I was apprehensive of his being out of town or unwell. However, his presence at a social re- union the other evening came as an answer to the first supposition, and no doubt to the second also ; for when a Rev.^ gentleman, with Dr. Kane’s experience, is told to his face at a tea-party that he is “learned,” and has fortitude enough not to faint at the word, it may be safely concluded that that Rev. gentleman is in excellent health indeed. There is, then, some other cause for his silence. “ Not to put too fine a point upon it,” (to use Snagsby’s phrase in “Bleak House”), the Dr’s cowardice will not tend to revive his already withering repu- tation, nor will it confer oblivion upon his sermon of Sunday the 25th ult., for should he not by Tuesday morning intimate his readiness to engage in another discussion with me, I intend to commence a series of criticisms upon that discourse, its misrepresentations and slanders, and trust that with your wonted courtesy to correspondents you will insert my letters from time to time when found convenient. — Yours, &c., “S. J.” Belfast, 6th February, 1885. To THE editor OF THE “BELFAST MORNING NEWS.” Sir, — The Rev. Mr. Kane having failed to select a dogma of the Catholic Church to be impugned by him and defended by me in your columns, I now beg to proceed with my animad- versions upon his sermon, “ St Paul, Wickliffe, and the Pope.’^ As Wickliffe was the cause of all the trouble which poor R. R. K. has been forced to endure during the past month, it is only fair that I should first of all refer to the little which was 38 JOHN WICKLIPFE. said of him on Sunday, the 25th January. It is the destiny of the Rev. R. R. Kane, written on his forehead, as the Mahometans would tell him, never to be entirely accurate in what he says upon any subject, no matter how little what he says upon it may be. He produces a passage from Lechler (an author whom he probably never heard of till I introduced him to his notice), which is briefly to the effect that Wickliffe believed the Pope to be Antichrist. From this he unwisely concludes that Wickliffe was at one with the Protestant Churches upon the question of the supremacy of the Pope. Now, sir, while Wickliffe was not a Catholic upon this point, his opinion regarding the Papal office differed widely from that of any Protestant community in existence. In my letter which you published on Jan. 7, I proved, with the help of Milner, the Protestant Church historian, that Wickliffe would have acknow- ledged the supremacy of the Pope in a certain event — namely, when the Pope was a good man. Will Protestants do the same ? Wickliffe separated the office from the man. He admitted that the office was one which had its origin in the very constitution of the Christian Church ; that previous to the year 1,000 the Papal authority was a perfectly legitimate authority ; but he maintained that after that date the Chair of Peter had been in the possession of Antichrist, and that the Popes who sat in it from that time down to his own could not be regarded as Christ's vicars by any Christian. It is almost unnecessary to point out that according to Protestants the Papal supremacy never was legitimate. Wickliffe acknowledged it in theory. Protestants deny it in theory. There is the difference. The Rev. R. R. Kane will allow me, I am sure, a certain facility in marshalling Protestant authors against him. In the Wickliffe controversy I damaged him somewhat with the help of about thirty of them. Allow me to produce two here, Priestley (“ History of the Christian Church," Period 20, sec. 10, vol. 4, p. 466, Northumberland, 1802) says — It does not appear that Wickliffe denied the supremacy of the Pope" — that is to say, in theory, as I have already explained. The Rev. Mr. Waddingtoninhis ‘‘History of the Church," published by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge in 1833 (p. 584), says — “He appears not to have disputed that the Pope was the highest spiritual authority in the Church." Protestants dispute this loudly; therefore Wickliffe and Pro- testants are not in accord upon the question of Papal supremacy. Where can we find the truth about Wickliffe's sentiments, if not in the works of Protestant writers ? The Rev. R. R. Kane tries to disprove the charge of JOHN WICKLIFFE. 39 seditious teaching urged against Wickliffe by the Protestant authors appealed to in my letters, by making the simple state- ment that Edward III. entrusted him with various offices, and he thinks that this famous king may well be taken as a witness for Wickliffe’s orderly principles. Doubtless, sir, this would be so, provided that Edward III. had lived through the whole of Wicklifle’s career. But such (alas for the Rev. R. R. Kane !) is not the fact. Any schoolboy will tell the Rev. gentleman that Edward III. died in 1377 ; and the work in which Wickliffe maintains those principles, which even Protestants stamp as subversive of social order — nam.ely, his “ Trialogus,” was not written until several years after the Kin^s death. Lechler (“John Wycliffe and his Precursors,” London, 1884, p. 492) says that this work is to be assigned to 1382 or 1383. So poor R. R, K.’s attempt to get Wickliffe off falls through completely ! The learned Archbishop Trench (“ Medieval Church History,^’ London, 1879, p. 315) gives Wickliffe’s social principles thus — “ Only those who were in the grace and favour of God were the righteous possessors of anything here / — in one sense a very solemn truth — in another the justification \ of the wildest revolution.^ such as, if admitted, would go very far to the overthrowing of the whole order of the present world."" Old Dr. Heylin, chaplain to Charles 1 . (“Animadversions on Fuller,'” p. 65) says of Wickliffe — “Many of his opinions were so far from truth, so contrary to peace and civil order &c., &c.” Sir James Mackintosh, (“History of Eng'land,” vol. I, p. 321, Lardner’s “Cabinet Cyclopaedia”) says — “ It is easy to see that unless he distinguished morality from law with the utmost steadiness, his denial of the lawful authority of vicious superiors mtist he dangerous to civil as well as spiritual powerd" Listen to Priestley again (“ History of the Christian Church,” Period 20, sec. 10, vol. 4, p. 465) — “Tithes, he said, were voluntary alms, and might be given or withheld at the pleasttre of the peopled" Hallam, a greater LL. D. than the Rev. R. R. Kane, says (“Middle Agesf c. 7, p. 399, London 1869) — “All ecclesiastical possessions were marked for spoliation by the system of this Reformer.” The Rev. Arthur Martineau (“Church History in England,” London, 1854, p. 470) says, in an attempt to excuse Wickliffe — “The maimer in which he called for reform in cases wffiere there w^as evident abuse lays him open to the charge of being a. patron of re- volutionary schemes of plunder which he perhaps never seriously contemplated."’ It will hardly be necessary for me to return to Wickliffe again in the letters which I purpose to address to you, I have sufficiently refuted the random statements 40 ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. which the Rev. R. R. Kane has ventured to make regarding this Reformer; and I have only to ask your Protestant readers to recollect that I have quoted none hut Protestant authorities^ I hope to write to you again in a day or two upon another portion of the Rev. R. R. Kane’s sermon. — Yours, &c., ‘‘S. J.” Belfast, loth Feb., 1885. TO THE EDITOR OF THE BELFAST MORNING NEWS.” Sir, — The Rev, R. R. Kane will actually pay for the erec- tion of the towers of St. Peter’s Church, in Belfast, if Catho- lics will prove Papal supremacy from St. Paul’s teaching as written in the Scriptures! Sinc^ the Sandy Row divine, so maoy years ago, received the- grace to discern and discard the spiritual errors of a much more amiable person than himself — I mean John Wesley — and developed into a Church of Ireland parson, an Orangeman, and the shepherd of Christ Church, he has, it is reported, become conscious of the dignity of owning some cash, and loves to show he has it. Accordingly he must be excused for flourishing his purse even in so inappropriate a place as his pulpit^ and before so many poor people on Sunday, the 25th January. When, however, he was so confident as to insist that as Catholics cannot explicitly de- monstrate Papal supremacy from the Epistle:^ of St. Paul, the logical inference must be that such a doctrine held no place in the theology of that Apostle, he doubtless intended it to be understood that all his own peculiar Protestantism could be proved from that source most satisfactorily. Now, sir, it would be a pity that the Rev. gentleman’s proposed generous treatment of Catholics should not meet with an adequate re- turn. Therefore, as a set-off against what he is prepared to do for the towering Catholics of Belfast, I beg to say that I will present him with a library of a few thousand volumes (which he is in greater need of than Catholics are of his pecuniary assistance) if, from the Epistles of the Apostle of the Gentiles alone y without the help of the early Fathers of the Church, he will clearly establish the Divine origin of episcopacy against his friends the Presbyterians, or prove the other points which I am going to mention. According to the Rev. Mr. Kane, the Church to which we Catholics belong is, and has been for centuries, in the possession of Antichrist. In his last letter against ‘‘ Observer” he calls it an “apostasy.” ’Y et his own Church takes her holy orders from the Catholic Church. The earliest of the Church of England or Church of ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. 41 Ireland ecclesiastics had of necessity to get his orders in the Catholic Church. Without it he had none; and the validity of such holy orders is acknowledged in the Rev. Mr. Kane’s Church to this day. We know that when the Church of England or Church of Ireland becomes enriched by the possession of an apostate priest, she never re-ordains him, but, giving him a new mission, sends him forth as a lawful minister. Yet he got his orders from the same source as the Rev. Mr. Kane, to wit, from ‘‘Antichrist” and an “ apostasy.” I challenge the Rev. Mr. Kane, who considers that all points of theology are dealt with in St PauVs Epistles^ to furnish one solid proof, or the ghost of such, from the writings of that apostle to show that “Antichrist” or an “apostasy,” as he terms my Church, can possess valid orders, much less confer them on others.* If he cannot produce such proof I hope he will honestly confess that he has not been validly ordained, and vacate his pulpit, or else change his theology. The Dissenters have constantly upbraided the ministers of the Churches of England and Ireland with their absurdity in bawling out that the Roman Church is the synagogue of Antichrist, the Scarlet Lady of Babylon, &c., and yet pro- fessing to trace their own religious descent as ecclesiastics to her. The Rev. Mr. Kane will do well to read old Micaiah Towgood^s “Dissent from the Church of England Justified’^ (Newry, 1812, pp. 95 — 6), twitting those Churches upon this very subject, and answer him, if he can. Again, the Rev. Mr. Kane admits the validity of Catholic baptism. Let him produce one text from St. Paul clearly showing that “Anti- christ” or an “ apostasy” can bestow baptismal grace un- tainted. I defy him to do it. Again, he maintains the validity of infant baptism. Where does St. Paul write that it is valid? Will he prove from St. Paul alone the transference of the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, and make it manifest from that apostle that a Christian may not lawfully labour on Sunday after the hour corresponding to that at which the Jewish Sabbath terminated? I think not, for he failed completely to do so in his recent controversy with “ Observer,” when he was not pinned down to St. Paul alone,, * Notb. — The above does not involve a denial of the indelible character imprinted upon the soul by holy orders. But as Dr. Kane’s Church reliesforthe validity of her orders upon the Catholic Church, while he calls the Catholic Church “ Apostate,” 1 simply take a fair advantage of the narrow standard by which, according to him, the soundness of a doctrine must be tried, namely, St. Paul’s Epistles alone, and challenge him to 'prove therefrom, and therefrom only, that an “apostasy” could have been in the possession of valid orders to give to hU church when she began. I do this, not as thinking that the character of holy orders passes away from the soul which, after receiving it, deviates from the fulness of the faith ; but because I know that there is no text in St. Paul that will suit the required pur- pose, and to show Dr. Kane the insufficiency of his doctrinal standard to prove what he himself must callow. This explanation will prevent misconception. P 42 ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. but was allowed to search the entire New Testament for the necessary authorisation. Indeed, honest Protestant writers have acknowledged that in this instance the principle of ‘ ‘ the Bible alone,” the great base and boast of Protestantism, is perfectly inadequate. In the good old days of Queen Anne, when the letters ‘‘ LL.D.” appended to a man’s name might be taken as an assurance of erudition, and when that degree was not conferred so indiscriminately as to be given to the ill-informed and even to dead men, as it has been in our time, there was a fine old Church of England clergyman, named Dr. Thomas Brett, who is known for his translation of the ancient liturgies of S.S. Clement, James, Basil, &c., and for his learned vindication of their antiquity, as well as for other works, among which is one called ‘‘Tradition Necessary.” At page 27 of this book, quoted in the “ Downside Discus- sion,” (p. 183, London, 1836), occurs the following candid admission: — “ It is utterly impossible without a miracle to say which day is Sunday hut by tradition only/' So the Rev, Mr. Kane must either retreat upon tradition, and beseech the Fathers to assist him in proving the transference of the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, or, in his loyalty to the principle of “the Bible alone,” submit to regard Sunday as Luther did, who says — “ As for the Sabbath or Sunday, there is NO NECESSITY FOR ITS OBSERVANCE; and if we do so, the reason ought to be not because Moses commanded it, but because nature likewise teaches us to give ourselves from time to time a day’s rest,” &c. (Vide Michelet’s “ Life of Luther,” Hazlitt’s translation, London, 1884, p. 271). Now, if the Rev. Mr. Kane cannot prove all the above items of his Protestantism from St, Paul alone (and the Presbyterians will tell him he cannot prove prelacy even from the whole Bible) y why should he be so absurd as to require Catholics to per- form for their religion what he is unable to accomplish for his own? We say that we cannot indeed explicitly demonstrate St. Peter’s primacy from St. Paul’s Epistles, but we maintain that there is nothing in them inconsistent with it; and that is the extreme of what the Rev. Mr. Kane himself is able to say with reference to some of the difficulties which I have pre- sented to him for solution, such as infant baptism, for example. This brings me to a late effusion of the Rev. Mr. Kane’s, a specimen of his combined ability as a playwright and a theo- logian. I may be allowed to notice it in so far as it bears upon what I have asserted — namely, that there is nothing in ^t. Paul’s Epistles antagonistic to the supremacy of St, Peter or the Pope. ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. 43 First, however, let me say that I question very much if the Sandy Row sheep were at all aware of the formidable rival that “ the Sweet Swan of Avon’* had in their dulcet shepherd till he shot athwart the sky as a theologico-dramatic meteor, irradiating it with the effulgence of his “Church Tableaux Vivants in Belfast!” Seldom has there been witnessed such a blending of the genius of a Shakspeare with the merits of a “judicious HookerV^ It is allowed on all hands that the Rev. R. R. Kane can “judiciously hook it” when neccssa.ry. But to resume. To give him his due, he succeeded in being Shak- spearean in at least one particular. The Genius of Blunder that so faithfully attends him, guarding him from ever being right, guided him into an historical error which was pointed out in your paper, Indeed, if any doubt could possibly exist as to the authorship of the chef-d’oeuvre in question, the mat- ter might be satisfactorily decided by manifesting how closely its author and the Rev, Mr, Kane resemble each other in their remarkable capacity for going astray as to facts. Now, to become serious, the Rev, Mr, Kane, in this theological / flysheet, tries to overthrow the primacy and infallibility of St, Peter by means of what St, Paul says in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians, namely—^ ^ When Peter was come to Antioch I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed,^’ Is the dramatic theologian of Christ Church sure that St, Peter is the person referred to in this passage ? How does he know it ? Is it because he finds the word “Peter” in this passage, according to the Authorised Version? But “ Petros” does not occur in the original Greek, Let the Rev, Mr, Kane borrow a Greek Testament and examine it. He will see that the name of the individual spoken of is there given as “ Cephas.” If he will cast his eye over the Revised Version he will see that the revisers have been more honest than the translators employed by King James, and instead of saying “When Peter was at Antioch, &c.” they say “ When Ce^as was at Antioch &c.” Here, perhaps, I may be reminded that Cephas was St. Peter’s name in the vernacular of Palestine, and I may be asked why I suggest a doubt that the Cephas mentioned in the passage under investi- gation and St. Peter are not identical ? I shall explain. It is well known that one of the seventy-two disciples was also called Cephas. That is one step forward. Then there is a fair presumption that since— a few lines higher up — St. Paul ♦Note. — He said that the Creed of Pope Pius the Fourth was “drawn up by Council of Trent** — whereas the Council had been many months dispersed before that document was composed. Fra Paolo and Pallavicini will be searched in vain for support for the Dr.*s assertion. 44 ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. speaks of St. Peter as “ Peter” and not as “ Cephas,” he can- not be writing of him here under the name of “ Cephas for what likelihood is there that inside a few lines he would speak of the one man hy two different names'^ Is it probable that in the 8th verse he would speak of the head of the Apostles as “ Peter,” and, instead of continuing to use that name, mention him as Cephas” in the 9th and nth verses? Such a course seems arbitrary and unmeaning. Why should there be a change ? What caused it ? These are questions which the Rev. Mr. Kane, must answer. Furthermore, it is highly pro- bable that ‘‘James, Cephas, and John,” mentioned by St. Paul in this part of his epistle, were three disciples only, and not the three apostles who bore those names. Here is the reason for this suggestion. St. Paul characterises those three men as reputed to he somewhat'^ in the Church. Persons characterised as “somewhat” in authority are those whose station is not accurately known, but who are set doWn as not being of any exalted account. It may be left to any sensible man to determine whether this phrase of St. Paul’s is not better adapted to describe three disciples of whom St. Paul did not know very much, than to express the great dignity of three famous apostles like St. Peter, St. James, and St. John, any one of whom would have been ranked as more than “somewhat” in any church where he happened to abide. Possibly, all this is new to the Rev. Mr. Kane ; but that does not render it a novelty. So long ago as the latter half of the second century, that illustrious doctor of the Church, Clement of Alexandria, maintained that the Cephas mentioned by St. Paul in the passage quoted by the Rev. Mr. Kane was the disciple of that name, and not St. Peter. I find this noticed by Eusebius, w’ho wrote his “ Historia Ecclesiastica” in the fourth century (lib. i, c. 12, in the “ Historiae Ecclesiasticse Scriptores” of Valesius, tom. i, p. 23, Amsterdam, 1695) ; and as that historian takes no exception to Clement’s interpretation, he may fairly enough be alleged as accepting it himself. Dorotheas of Tyre, who flourished at the close of the third century, and a variety of ecclesiastical writers quoted by St. Jerome and St. John Chrysostom, as also the commentator OEcumenius, who wrote in the eleventh century, are also of this opinion. (Vide Bergier’s “ Dictionnaire de Thtelogie,” article “Cephas,” Lille, 1830, tome I, p. 475.) Among the moderns who have supported this exposition may be mentioned the learned Jesuit, Hardouin, who defended it in a special dissertation to be found among his “ Opera Selecta,” published at Amsterdam in 1709 ; also Vallarsi, to whom the erudite ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. 45 world is indebted for the best edition of St. Jerome’s works, in his “ Annotationes” upon that Father’s Commentary upon St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians (lib. I, c. 2) ; and Zaccaria, an Italian Jesuit of vast research, in his ‘‘Raccolta di Dissertazioni di Storia Ecclesiastica,” Dissertation No 8, (Tomo i. pp. 195 — 214, Roma, 1780.) The opinion that it was St. Peter whom St. Paul reproved is surrounded with other difficulties besides those already hinted at. Whoever “Cephas” was, his fault was Judaizing. Judaizing was condemned at the Council of Jerusalem, at which St. Peter assisted. Let us, for the sake of argument, suppose St. Peter to have been the man. He must in that case have acted so as to merit St. Paul’s reprobation either before or after the Council of Jerusalem, at which he and the other apostles condemned Judaizing. That much will pass unquestioned. One can hardly say it was after this Council, since to do so is to make against this apostle the serious charge of hiding that which had been so solemnly determined in council, with his own co-operation, from the Jews, and practising the direct contrary, a charge which none but an absolute enemy and' vilifier of this glorious apostle would press. Was it, then, before the celebration of the Council of Jerusalem ? This, too, has something improbable about it, if we are to take St, Peter as the offender, for the offence of this “ Cephas” in Judaizing appears have been the very occasion of St. Paul’s journey to Jerusalem to see the other apostles, SL Peter among the rest, as related in the 15th chapter of Acts. Would he have gone to Jerusalem to consult the apostles {Peter being in the number) about the misconduct of Peter? Such a course is certainly unlikely, and the improbability of it adds force to the opinion that the “ Cephas” who was rebuked by St. Paul was not St. Peter, but a disciple. It must also be remarked that the proceedings of the Council at Jerusalem, as related in the 15th chapter of Acts, contain nothing that has ever been cited to confirm the accusation regarding St. Peter’s supposed Judaizing. If he had Judaized before its celebration, such con- duct was perfectly unknown to the Council ; yet it could not have remained unknown when we consider that St. Paul, who is said to have reprehended him for it, was present at the Council. Again, it is not probable that St. Peter, who, by a special rervelation, was made acquainted with the calling of the Gentiles, would have acted the dissembling part he is supposed to have acted, since he knew from that revelation that all distinction between clean and unclean meats was so soon to be abolished, (Vide Delahogue, “De Ecclesia,” Dublin, 46 ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. 1829, p. 340.) The considerations presented to your readers in this letter must at least render it doubtful that St. Peter was the “ Cephas’^ whom St. Paul took to task at Antioch for living after the manner of the Jews. But to render the Rev. Mr. Kane’s argument of any application whatever as against St. Peter, anything short of absohite certainty must be in- effective. In my next letter I hope to show that even if it were in the Rev. Mr. Kane’s power to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that St. Peter was the actual recipient of St. Paul’s rebuke, his primacy and infallibility would not be at all affected thereby. Already this letter is, perhaps, too long. Yours, &c., “ S. J.” Belfast, February i6th 1885. TO THE EDITOR OF THE “ BELFAST MORNING NEWS.” Sir, — Notwithstanding that I have already rendered it doubtful whether St. Peter was the Cephas reprehended by St. Paul at Antioch, I am to assume in this letter that it was indeed he, and to investigate whether St. Paul’s action is tantamount to an implied declaration of equality with St^ Peter. Protestants assert that the course adopted by the Apostle of the Gentiles in reproving St. Peter for Judaizing is a clear demonstration that St. Peter possessed no manner of primacy over the rest of the apostles. Now, unless they lay it down as a first and eternal principle, impugnable by none, that no one ever was resisted or rebuked by a person who was in a position subordinate to that of him whom he re- sisted or rebuked, I must confess that I have not intellect acute enough to see what ground they base their argument upon, as against the supremacy of St. Peter. The absurdity of such a principle is so patent that to dwell upon it at any length is, perhaps, supererogatory. It is contradicted by the ordinary experience of almost everybody, and there are but few readers of your paper who will not be able readily to recall familiar instances of its perfect untenableness. Foolish as it is, let us test it, least someone should think it invulnerable, Here is one example of its application, leading to a ridiculous consequence. If Queen Victoria were to propose something incompatible with the liberty or rights of the subject, and if Parliament were, in consequence, to oppose her wishes, and even to remonstrate with her upon the matter, the sapient reasonerswhodeemSt. Paul’s reproval of St. Peter irreconcilable with the latter’s supremacy must then, to be consistent, main- tain that the course pursued by Parliament manifests of itself, and without any more ado, that thereby all allegiance is denied ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. 47 to her Majesty, and that the remonstrants have ceased to con- sider themselves her subjects — in fact, that they have asserted their entire independence of her, and never owed her any obedience ! Aristotelian logicians ! “Trained dialecticians” — like the Rev. Mr. Kane ! ! Let us take another example, one which cannot fail to be appreciated in Ulster. Although the event is never likely to occur, let us suppose that that Christian gentleman and estimable Protestant prelate, the Right Rev. Dr. Knox, the Rev. R. R. Kane^s ecclesiastical superior, happened to deliver an exhortation tending to produce, if acted on, a wholesale massacre of inoffensive Catholic pHests^ and that the Rev. Mr. Kane, in a singularly unwonted access of the meek spirit ot the Gospel, happened to resist his Lordship in so trivial a matter, and actually dared to rebuke him, would it follow that the Rev. Mr. Kane acknowledged no canonical obedience due to the Right Rev, Dr. Knox ? Surely not ? Although it would be as impossible for the Right Rev. Dr. Knox to commit himself to sanguinary utterances as it would be for the Rev. Mr. Kane to condemn them (at least so far as “ vulgar priests” are concerned), the example is as good as another to manifest the utter absurdity of the species of argu- ment brought against the primacy of St. Peter. History, too, is full of instances which declare how inferiors have had the courage to reprove their acknowledged superiors’ conduct when necessary, without any implied derogation from the latter’s lawful dignity and authority. Popes have been thus treated by zealous and holy men who were withal staunch supporters of Rome’s supremacy. When Pope Victor, in the second century, threatened to excommunicate the Asiatic Churches for differing from him regarding the proper day for the celebration of Easter (a matter which was altogether one of discipline^ not of faith) the illustrious bishop of Lyons, St. Irenaeus, who was martyred in the beginning of the third century, expostulated with him by letter on his harshness, as we read in the “ Historia Ecclesiastica” of Eusebius, lib. 5, c. 26 (vide the “ Histori^e Ecclestiasticae Scriptores” of the erudite Valesius, tom. i, p. 156, Amsterdam, 1695). And was Irenaeus opposed to Papal supremacy ? By no means. To say so would be to exhibit an entire ignorance of the con- tents of his well-known work “ Adversus Haereses.” He is as explicit an assertor of the primacy vested in the See of Rome as any Catholic controversialist could desire. For in- stance, he says — “ With this Church (the Roman), on account of her more powerful principality, it is necessary for every 48 ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. Church — that is, the faithful everywhere dispersed — to be in communion” — i. e., in faith. (Ad hanc enim ecclesiam, propter potentiorem principalitatem, neces&e est omnem con- venire ecclesiam, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles — lib. 3, c. 3, p. 175, Benedictine Edition, Paris, 1710). So it is plain in the case of Irenaeus that a rebuke offered to a Pope was no disclaimer of Pontifical authority. I may here be permitted to notice, en passant ^ that Protestants have sometimes tried to injure the effect of the above passage from this Father of the Church by raising a quibble upon the Latin word “ con- venire,” as if it were erroneous to render it into English by such an expression as ‘‘to be in communion with” or “to agree.” However, the more learned Protestants protest against their co-religionists in this very matter. That the word “ convenire” bears the meaning which I have given it is freely confessed, regarding this identical passage of Irenaeus, by no less a Protestant than the celebrated Salmasius, than whom, as all scholars know, a greater master in the intricacies of the classical tongues never existed. It is not necessary for me to occupy your space with what Salmasius says upon the point; but inquirers, like our local professors, can see it for themselves in his treatise “ De Primatu Papae,” c. 5. The modern German Protestants, Thiersch and Stieren, are as candid as Salmasius in the mat- ter. (Vide Allnatt’s “ Cathedra Petri,” London, 1883, p. 92, among the notes). Let us take another instance of a man who was not afraid to reprove a Pope, and who, notwithstand- ing, never denied Papal sovereignty. I allude to the great St. Bernard. He, though ever accustomed to speak fearlessly to his former disciple. Pope Eugenius the Third, respecting trifling lapses in conduct, could yet, in a treatise which he penned for that Pope’s special guidance and instruction, give the following unequivocal testimony to the spiritual supre- macy of the very man whom he had so often reproved. He says — “ Who art thou ? A great priest, the Supreme Pontiff. Thou art the prince of bishops f &c. (Qnis es ? Sacerdos magnus, summus pontifex. Tu princeps episcoporum, &c. “ De Consideratione,” c. 8, quoted in Gieseler’s “Ecclesiastical History,” vol. 3, p. 55, Clarkes Foreign Theological Library). Again, in the same place, he says, contrasting the privileges of other bishops with those of the Bishop of Rome — “ They particular assigned to them: to thee all are en- trusted, as one flock to one man. Not only art thou the pastor oi h\xt the o?ie pastor of all pastorsT (Habent illi sibi assignatos greges, singuli singulos; tibi universi crediti, uni ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH 49 unus. Nec modo ovium, sed et pastorum, tu unus omnium pastor). As seen by the instances alleged, it by no means follows, as a natural consequence, that to reprove a person is to acknowledge no official superiority \n him. Yet Protestants ask us to assume this as a postulate, as an unquestionable first principle, by trying to show that St. Paul admitted no ecclesiastical sovereignty in St. Peter, just because when St. Peter committed a fault, St. Paul was zealous enough to re- prehend him for it! Such an exposition of the 2nd chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians was never thought of till it be- came convenient to deny Papal supremacy ; and then every straw was conceived to be a bludgeon that would “floor” the Pope! Not one of the early Fathers of the Church ex- tracted such a meaning from St. Paul’s reproof. All that they could discern in it was the immense sieal of St. Paul and the great humility of St, Peter, who, to borrow the language of the glorious martyr St. Cyprian, did not say in self-defence “that he held the primacy^ and that it was fitting he should be obeyed by a later apostle,” (se primatum tenere et obtem- perari a novellis et posteris sibi potius oportere — “Epist. 71,” Goldhorn’s edition, Leipsig, 1838, p. 204). The great St. Augustine, who understood Scripture as well as any com- mentator that has appeared since the Reformation, found nothing derogatory to St. Peter’s authority in the Epistle to the Galatians. He says: — “Peter, in whom primacy of the apostles was pre-eminent with so excellent a grace, was reproved by a later apostle,” (Petrum in quo primatus aposto- lorum tarn excellent! gratia praeeminet, &c. — “ De Baptismo Contra Donatistas,” lib. 2, c. 2, tom. 9, Benedictine edition, 1679-1700). I could easily produce other quotations from the Fathers to show their entire ignorance of the modern interpretation of the Epistle in question, but that I have already reached, perhaps, as great a length in this letter as is desirable. In my next I will consider whether St. Peter’s conduct, for which he was blamed by St. Paul, affects his infallibility. Yours, &c.. Belfast, Feb. 19th, 1885. “S. J.” TO THE EDITOR OF THE “ BELFAST MORNING NEWS. ” Sir, — In the first tumultuous fury of the Reformation every expedient was resorted to that could debase the Supreme Pontiff and injure his authority ; and, in furtherance of this design, not even the character of the glorious St, Peter was a 50 ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. left unassailed by the calumniator. That he had been one of the Twelve Apostles, that he had spent his life in extending the benign sway of Christ’s holy Gospel, and that, finally, he had freely shed his blood in testimony of its truth, all this was ineffectual to exempt him from attack. It was sufficient that the Pope claimed to be St. Peter’s successor for St. Peter to be at once subjected to assault. Impelled by a more criminal hostility than even that of the pagan philosopher. Porphyry, against the great chief of the apostles, those famous Lutheran ecclesiastical historians known as the Centuriators of Magdeburg, tortured numerous texts of Scripture for the unchristian purpose of supporting horrible charges against him. In their “ Historia Ecclesiastica” (cent, i, lib. 2, c. 10) these defamers of the apostolic dignity enumerate no fewer than fifteen grave sins into which they accuse him of having fallen. How far the virulence of the times had carried some of the early disciples of Luther will be sufficiently manifest to your readers if it is just recorded that in one place the historians I have mentioned openly charge St. Peter with giving the lie to our Lord, and in another they represent the apostle’s conduct as worthy of eternal damnation,* Happily these slanders are no longer uttered, although now and then there is to be found a Protestant controversialist who will venture to assert that St. Peter did not preserve the faith intact, even after he had been fortified by the descent of the Holy Ghost. The Rev. Mr. Kane seems anxious to be considered of this opinion, if we are to accept the ‘‘Church Tableaux Vivants in Belfast” as a serious record of his theological sentiments ; and if it be not, I have only to say that the spirit of Christianity must have sunk to a very low ebb in the Rev. Mr. Kane’s soul when he can deem it a worthy act of one who claims to be a Christian divine, and not a scoffing Lucian, to misrepresent two of Christ’s blessed apostles. Certain I am that St. Paul never harboured one contemptuous thought towards St. Peter, yet an expression of contempt is what the Sandy Row theo- logian (?) places in St. Paul’s mouth the moment St. Peter’s name is mentioned — “ Peter! the rashest man in all our com- pany. If any of us ever made a mistake it was sure to be Peter!” I do trust that some of the Rev. Mr. Kane’s brothers in the ministry have ere this admonished him never again to calumniate St. Paul by supposing him capable of uttering such a speech as the above, to say nothing of the disrespect for St. Peter that lurks beneath it. Why should the Rev. * Note. — They are refuted hereon by Bellarmine, “ De Romano Pontifice/* (lib. I, c. 28, tom. I. “ De Controversiis,” col. 594—598. Paris, 1608}, ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. 51 Mr. Kane seek to degrade St. Peter? Is it because, while, on the one hand, the Rev. Mr. Kane has been known to publicly advocate the murder of men who are at least as good Christians as himself, St. Peter, on the other, shed his blood for Christ and Christianity, thus making an antagonism in doctrine between them ? But to come to the purpose of this letter — does the Epistle to the Galatians contain anything tending to show that St. Peter erred from the faith? I defy the Rev. Mr. Kane to point to as much as one syllable in it proving that St. Peter was doctrinally fallible. Granting the “ Cephas^^ referred to in this portion of Scripture to have been St. Peter, what did he do to expose himself to a rebuke from St. Paul ? He ate with the Gentile converts at Antioch till certain Christians of the Hebrew race came thither, when, through false respect, and for fear of offending the latter, he withdrew himself, and declined familiar converse with the regenerated Gentiles. This, indeed, was an error in conduct \ but not an error in faiths The distinction is not a modern one, invented to meet the arguments of Protestants, It was known and impressed upon the minds of Christians for many ages before the oldest of the existing Protestant sects came into being. Lying open before me are the works of Tertullian, who, according to Cave Historia Litteraria,'* Geneva, 1705, p, 56), embraced Christianity about a.d. 185; and from them I learn that the Christians of the second century thought, concerning St. Peter’s action in quitting the Gentile tables, just what Catho- lics think to this day — namely, that it was an error in personal conduct^ but not an error regarding any matter of faith (con^ versationis fuit vitium, non prsedicationis — vide his treatise, *‘De Praescriptionibus adversus Haereticos,” c. 23, Franeker edition, 1597, p. 207). In another place, this ancient Christian writer says that when St. Paul rebuked St. Peter, it was “ not on account of any perversion of doctrine^'^ (non ob aliquam divinitatis perversitatem), but that on the contrary, it was “ on account of inconstancy in his method of livings which he varied according to the quality of persons” (ob inconstantiam victus, quern pro personarum qualitate variabat — ‘‘Adversus Marcionem,” lib. 5, c. 3, p. 455, edition as above). So it is evident that the early Christians found nothing in the Epistle to the Galatians to lead them to suspect that St. Peter had ever fallen from the faith. Poor, benighted souls, bereft of the light of the sixteenth century! Indeed, sir, we have only to turn to that Epistle to be satisfied that it was not for any loss of the faith that St. Peter received a rebuke from his 52 ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL AT ANTIOCH. zealous brother apostle. St. Paul says to him, according to the Revised Version — “ If thou, being a Jew, livest as do the Gentiles, &c.” (c. 2, verse 14). Here there is no charge made against St. Peter of having lost the faith himself, or of having taught erroneous doctrines as of faith to others. Inconstancy in his mode of livings as Tertullian notices, is the only thing tor which he is reproved. Impeccability, or absolute exemp- tion from sin, is what no Catholic has ever claimed for either Popes or apostles. As I have maintained, with the early Church, that St. Peter fell into no dogmatic error at all, it would be only foolish to insist that he taught nothing against the faith, ex cathedra, which would be the only circumstance that could give any supposed doctrinal error of his any cogency as against the dogma of Papal Infallibility. But, sir, I must present the question to Protestants from another point of view before I conclude this letter. The con- tention of certain Protestants is that St. Peter failed from the faith at Antioch. But St. Peter had received the Holy Ghost n the same manner and at the same time as the other apostles. As St. Peter was not infallible, according to those Protestants, neither could the other apostles have been in* fallible ; for no exception is allowable in their favour. There- fore, all the apostles, if the reasoning be sound, must have been fallible. Is the descent of the Holy Ghost, then, a myth or a mockery ? Christ Himself said He would send the Holy Ghost to guide the apostles “ into alltruth.*^ (St. John, c. 16, verse 13). . But the furious anti-Papists must blasphemously deny this effect of the Holy Ghost’s coming, or their argument against St. Peter's infallibility falls to the ground. They must allege that the Holy Ghost, though He descended from Heaven to guide the apostles “into all truth f cannot have done so\ for “Peter failed from the faith at Antiochl” Again, they cannot feel assured that either Peter, or any other apostle, ever preached the true doctrines of Christianity to any one creature in their integrity; for since, as it is said, St. Peter and the other apostles were not lastingly secured from error against faith by the descent of the Holy Ghost, it is just as probable as not that they promulgated (unintentionally, of course) erroneous doctrines from the very beginning, and that Christ, perhaps, never had a true Church on earth. Again, to deny St. Peter’s permanent infallibility (and with his, as a natural consequence, that of all the other apostles) is to ^u}Q\QXt the doctrine of inspiration as regards the New Testa- ment ; for if he and they were not permanently infallible, no Protestant can ever prove one text of the New Testament THE DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE. 53 inspired or infallible. If the Holy Ghost did not endow St Peter with an enduring stability in the faith, it is quite as likely as not that there is as little inspiration in his Epistles as there is in one of the Rev. Mr. Kane's discourses; it is possible that St. Matthew’s Gospel is no more inspired than the History written by Tacitus ; it is possible, even, that St. Paul, who did not enjoy a greater measure of inspiration than the chosen Twelve, though he received it at a different time and in another manner, may not have been inspired when writing his Epistles, this one to the Galatians among the number. And here we have a dilemma for those who say that according to St. Paul St. Peter erred from the faith at Antioch. Let me suppose what otherwise I deny — viz., that St. Paul’s expressions do clearly convey the statement that St. Peter erred from the faith. Yet whether St. Peter really so erred or not would depend altogether upon whether St. Paul was permanently infallible regarding the faith or noU As St. Peter’s maligners, to stand their ground, are bound to maintain that no apostle was permanently infallible, they can- not have any logical assurance that St. Paul himself \i2A not deviated from the faith and wrongfully accused St. Peter — in short they cannot, as rational beings, give it forth as certain, that St. Peter erred doctrinally at Antioch! In fact, not only is their argument such as must necessarily unsettle the foundations of Christianity, as I have shown, but (alas, for the theological noodles that framed it!) it is absolutely unfit to accomplish the purpose for which it was originally intended! In my next letter I hope to take up a new subject Yours, &c.. Belfast, 23rd Feb., 1885. “S. TO THE EDITOR OF THE “BELFAST MORNING NEWS.’’ Sir, — To enter into the discussion of any subject further than the Rev. Mr. Kane himself has been pleased to do does not come within the scope of my design in criticising him. Accordingly, since he confined himself in his sermon, and in the “ Tableaux Vivants,^’ to what he deemed objections to-the primacy of St. Peter, taken from the Epistles of St. Paul, I have not thought it necessary to do more than refute him solidly thereon, without occupying your space, which is so valuable at this time, with a demonstration of St. Peter’s primacy, drawn from the Scriptures and the Fathers. The subject, in its entirety, has been the theme of far abler pens 54 the deposing POWER OF THE POPE. than that of your present correspondent. Ecclesiastical scholars know and appreciate the labour expended upon it by such learned men as Bellarmine, Zaccaria, Cardinal Orsi, Ballerini, Passaglia, &c., while the general English reader may be referred for ample satisfaction to such works as Arch- bishop Kenrick’s “ Primacy of the Apostolic See Vindicated/* ‘‘The See of Peter/* by T. W. Allies (a convert), Cardinal Wiseman*s “Lectures on the Catholic Church,** Hawarden*s “ True Church of Christ Shewn,** the Rev, Robert Manning*s “ Answer to Lesley,** the Rev. H. I. D. Ryder*s “ Reply to Littledale,** &c. Should he wish to see the constant tradition of the Greek and Latin Church upon the subject, as displayed in the writings of the Fathers, he cannot provide himself with abetter work than the “ Cathedra Petri** of C, F, B. Allnatt, a distinguished convert, where he will find hundreds of passages in the original tongues with a translation. Even Protestants, too, have defended the supremacy of St. Peter ! This may strike with astonishment such sciolists in ecclesias- tical literature as the Rev, Mr, Kane, It is, nevertheless, a fact. There is a rare book written by Whitgift, who was Archbishop of Canterbury during the last twenty years of Queen Elizabeth’s reign, known % the following queer title: The Defence of the Answere to the Admonition against the Reply of F,G,,*' printed in 1574. In it even Ci|lvin is alleged as saying in his calmer moments — The twelve apostles had one among them to governe the rest"* (p. 173), A similar acknowledgment is quoted (p. 66) from the learned Lutheran divine, Musculus; and Whitgift himself says et p. 375 — “Among the apostles themselves there was one chiefe, &c., that had chiefe authorise over the rest,*" Yea> the good Archbishop goes so far as to devote several pages to systematically answering those texts of Scripture which are commonly cited against St. Peter’s primacy ! Archbishop Whitgift’s book is not in my possession; and I must confess my indebtedness for the above extracts to one of the scarcest as well as one of the most erudite controversial works ever written. I allude to Brereley’s “ Protestantes Apologie for the Roman Church’* (edition of 1608, p. 97), a volume in which the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church are de- fended upon a very singular plan — namely, by the admissions made in their favour, like the above, to the number of many thousand passages, by Protestant authors who had written from the outbreak of the Reformation down to Brereley’s own time, which comprehended the closing years of the sixteenth century and the opening years of the seventeenth. Brereley’s THE DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE. real name was Anderton, and he is to be ranked among those laymen who have had what is a terror to superficial clergy- men like the Rev. Mr. Kane — viz., a “prodigious library,’^ and an equally “prodigious^’ acquaintance with it. Perhaps the only copy in Ulster of this invaluable and costlv work belongs to your present correspondent. From it, were I discussing the question of Papal supremacy in its fulness, I could produce numerous Protestant admissions to the effect that as far back as ecclesiastical records extend, the doctrine of the Pope’s spiritual authority was recognised in the Church; and I could supplement such passages with some of my own researches, in the shape of similar admissions on the part of Protestant scholars who wrote after Brereley’s death, all of great name and indisputable learning, such as Grotius, Milton, &c. But at present another subject demands my attention. The Rev. Mr. Kane went to some trouble on Sunday, 25th January, to impress the minds of his flock with the charitable belief that the allegiance of Catholic subjects to their sovereign is a divided allegiance, and that there is something inherent { in our religion which prevents us from being loyal to any civil government, whether Catholic or Protestant. Mr. Editor, before I have done with this subject, which cannot be con- cluded in this letter or the next, I hope, with the assistance of that knowledge which God has allowed me to acquire, to prove to demonstration, in the face of the upright, honest, candid and free-hearted Protestants of Ulster, who are to be my jury, that Mr. Kane (for it were a prostitution of terms to which I shall not descend to call him “ Rev.” in this connec- tion) is an infamous slanderer of millions of the human race, careless of how the sacredness of truth is sacrificed, so long as he can pander to the vile animosities of the vulgar, illiterate herd that follow him to applaud him, and upon whose despised shoulders he has climbed up to comparative affluence and mediocre social position. Mr. Kane revives worn-out calumnies bellowed to the world by bigoted parsons, gambling unscrupulously for preferment, and by narrow-minded states- men, ten thousand times, before the great moral triumph of right over might was gained in the ever-memorable year 1829. Men like these and Mr. Kane are prepared to force the asser- tion down the throats of both Catholics and Protestants that Catholics are bound to acknowledge, as part and parcel of their religion^ a power vested in the Pope of deposing kings, of absolving subjects from their oath of allegiance, and gene- rally of interfering with that lawful obedience in temporal ,n;iatters which is due to the sovereign. Now, sir, I am i>ot 56 THE DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE, so ill-informed as not to know that Popes have, for a fact, issued bulls deposing various kings, and that one of them by a bull, so far as a bull could do it, deposed Queen Elizabeth, Neither am I so unacquainted with literature as not to be aware, nor so uncandid as not to admit, that some few theo- logians of the Catholic communion have maintained in past ages that such a power actually appertains to the Pontifical office. Perhaps if Mr. Kane wanted some such author, and really could read the volume that I would send him, I could supply him with one. What then ? Are Protestants so ignorant as to think that every act done by a Pope is to meet at the hands of Catholics with all the reverence due to a divine manifestation ? Or that to disobey the Pope when he steps beyond his spiritual province is to cease to be a Catholic ? Or that everything found in the books of Catholic theologians is of necessity a part of the Catholic faith ? If they think so, nothing could be grosser than their ignorance. Such Popes and theologians are accountable to God for whatever disrup- tions in States they may have been the occasion of, and to Him I leave them. The Catholic religion is not affected by them. The abettors of the deposing power, and of the other powers mentioned above, never dared to maintain them as articles of the Catholic faith. Nor did any Pope, as defining a dogma divinely revealed, speak as Pope to the whole Church to bind the faithful to a belief in his possession of such powers. Every utterance of the individual who happens to be Pope is not infallible. Yet how many thousands of Pro- testants there are who think so ! The Pope may state the faith erroneously in conversation, in a sermon, as the author of a work of theology, in a letter — in short, in any one of the endless variety of circumstances in which he may publish his sentiments as a private doctor. The infallibility accorded to the Pope is that assistance of the Holy Ghost, which will be given to him when, and only when, as teacher of the whole Churchy he teaches the whole Church in things of faith and morals. In all other capacities we hold that he may err. Therefore, it is plain that all bulls or other documents emanat- ing from any past occupant of the Papal chair, pretending to depose certain sovereigns, cannot, as being directed to certain peoples and countries only^ come in under the definition of Papal Infallibility, as containing decrees of faith binding upon the whole world\ even though it should be expressly declared in them that the belief of the Pope’s possession of such a power as that of deposing kings must be recognised by that people and in that country as an article of faith. In any such THE DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE. 57 utterances the Pope speaks not as Pope^ but as a private doctor \ and as such, the Catholic doctrine allows him no more infallibility than any other man. Ag'ain, take any instance recorded in history of a sovereign deposed by a Pope. When a reconciliation took place, as it mostly did, between the de- posing Pope or his successor, and the sovereign deposed, comprehending also that sovereign’s adherents, was that sovereign or were his adherents ever required to acknowledge verbally, or by writing, that in resisting the Pope’s interference in temporal matters they had denied an article of the Catholic faith? Surely, if it be an article of our faith that the Pope has any such power of interference, no Pope would have become reconciled to any prince whom he had deposed, ai d who had stoutly resisted him, till he (the Pope) had first of all received an explicit acknowledgment of said supposed power or right? Now, I assert (and if I am wrong Belfast ought to be able to produce someone to prove me so) that no such acknowledgment or declaration was ever sought by any Pontiffs or given by any prince or people who had resisted Papal in- ( terference in temporal matters. I challenge all history on the matter. And if evidence of some such recognition be not forthcoming, I will ask the unprejudiced Protestants who are honouring my letters with a perusal to agree with me that such power of interference in temporal concerns, however it may have been asserted by some Popes, was never regarded by them or by the European peoples affected as forming a part of the Catholic faith^ and ought not to be alleged as part of that faith at this day. It will not be denied that Catholic priests, at least, are trained in the fulness of the Catholic faith. Now, Mr. Editor, in the course of those controversial studies which have formed my delight, and which Mr. Kane was once good enough to sneer at, but in which, coward as he is, he now knows and feels I am more than his match, and his co- religionists know it with him, it has been my fortune to read through or casually consult the best ‘‘ Dogmatic Theologies” which either have been or nojv are used in the various semi- naries and colleges in these kingdoms and on the Continent, where young men are educated for the priesthood. In some of these “Theologiae DogmMicae/’ all of which profess to teach and defend the entire Catholic faith, the question as to arright of temporal power vested in the Tope is not disctissed at all, which proves that it is not considered a point of Catholic doctrine \ while in others it is discussed and decided in the negative. Now, good Protestants! how does it come that in so many countries, through so many ages, that Roman Churchy U 58 THE DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE of whose despotism we hear so much and so often — that ter- rible Church which permits no one to deviate from her faith, that tyrannical Church which, as you are told, allows nothing to be uttered contrary to her decrees — how does it come that she tolerates such a thing as this — that her own bishops and priests, who are to instruct her flock, are brought up in the denial of what, according to people of the Kane type, is an article of the Catholic faith? When the Most Rev. Dr. Dorrian was a student at Maynooth, Delahogue, if I mistake not, was the popular classbook; and he and hundreds of others studied in it. Now, sir, Delahogue is on a shelf before me, and he is one of those countless theologians that refute and reject as ridiculous and untenable the Pope’s pretended right of interference in temporal matters between subject and sovereign; yet I will be bound to say that the Pope never fulminated an excommunication against the Maynooth pro- fessor or his students for inculcating or imbibing w’hat, according to some Protestants, we are obliged to consider heretical doctrine. How extraordinary that there should be some hundreds of thousands of priests in the present Catholic world, as there have been hundreds of thousands in the past, brought up at Paris, Louvain, Salamanca, &c., in direct antagonism to a doctrine of the Catholic Church ( if we are to believe some people )y and who teach or have taught their faith to millions upon millions, now forming, or that once formed, the Catholic universe; and yet Rome, so watchful, never enters her protest, never has entered her protest, against such conduct, though the same thing has been going on for cen- turies ! In my next letter I will show that the English and Irish Catholics have solemnly denied upo7i oath the doctrine which certain illiberal and ignorant Protestants impute to us respecting the Pope and the temporal authority; and I will show that the reigning Popes approved of the oath^ and further, that the most famous Catholic theological faculties in the world have, without any hindrance attempted by the Pope, published a full and satisfactory disclaimer of any such doctrine as being, or ever having been, an article of the Catholic faith. After that I hope to clear Catholics from the accusation of disloyalty by the evidence of Protestant historians. Yours, &c., “ S. J.’’ Belfast, ist March, 1885. TO THE EDITOR OF THE “ BELFAST MORNING NEWS.” Sir, — In this letter I am to show that the tenet ascribed tp THE DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE. 59 Catholics of according to the Pope a right to interfere in temporal matters, as between subject and sovereign, has been solemnly disavowed, not only by the maligned Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland, but by our co-religionists on the Continent. Having stated that this is my present object, further preface is needless. Let us hasten to proofs at once; and in doing so commence with this country. The above slanderous imputation had long been utilised as an engine to prevent the unfortunate Catholics of persecuted Ireland from obtaining relief from the cruel disabilities of the hellish Penal Code, when in the year 1757 the Catholic Committee was formed for the purpose of promoting the attainment of redress by constitutional means. At a meeting of this Committee, held shortly after its birth, the Catholic Bishop of Kildare and Leighlin, the Most Rev. Dr. O’Keefe, who is deserving of commemoration for having hopefully and manfully begun the erection of the magnificent college at Carlow at a time when he had barely ;^5'ioo in his possession, proposed a declaration which was passed unanimously, and subsequently signed by the clergy and laity of his diocese. From this declaration I take the following passage, viz. — ^‘We abjure, disavow, and condemn the opinion that princes excommunicated by the Pope or Council, or by any ecclesiastical authority whatsoever, may, therefore, be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or by any other persons. We hold such doctrines in detestation, as wicked and impious ; and we declare that we do not believe that either the Pope, with or without a general council, or any prelate or priest, or any ecclesiastical person whatsoever, can absolve the subjects of this kingdom, or any one of them, from their allegiance to his Majesty King George, who is by autho« rity of Parliament the lawful king of this realm.” The document containing the above, besides a disavowal of other calumnious imputations with which I have no present concern, was duly forwarded to Rome, where it w^as officially recorded and approved ^^by the reigning Pontiff, the pious and learned Benedict the Fourteenth. Similar expressions of abhorrence of the hateful accusations hurled against Catholics, with respect to the Pope and the temporal power, soon followed from the clergy and laity of other parts of the country, till the voice of all Catholic Ireland was heard at Rome. The author from whom I have taken the above facts was one of Ireland’s most gifted sons, the Most Rev. Dr. England, first Bishop of Charleston, in the United States \ and the extract which 1 have given may be read in his “ Letters to the Rev. William Hawley,” Letter 4, aag, voK a, of the Baltimore edition of 6o THE DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE, his ‘‘Works, ’’published in 1849. Again, when in 1772 the Irish Catholics were permitted to swear allegiance to George the Third (who, poor soul, never could spell the word “ emanci- pation” in the phrase “Catholic Emancipation” without an “s”!), they took an oath in which occurs the following unequivocal rejection of the tenet which Mr. Kane, in the exercise of his foul, unchristian malice, falsely attributed to us, viz.: — “ I do declare that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome^ or any other foreign prince, prelate^ state, or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any temporal or civil jurisdiction^ power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly^ within this realm.” The deponent then proceeds to swear that he subscribes to the oath without any equivocation or reservation whatsoever, and that neither the Pope nor any other authority can absolve him from the terms of it. (See Dr. England — “ On the Pope’s Dispensing Power,” section 5, vol. 2, p. 418, edition as before). Pope Pius the Sixth sanc- tioned this oath in a most solemn manner, declaring it “ consonant to what always was the Catholic doctrine.” The Pope’s approval, accompanied by that of the Roman Cardinals, was published by the Irish Catholic hierarchy as soon as re- ceived; and the oath was taken all over the country by our bishops^ priestsy and laymen. The above oath was remwed two years later by the patient but still suffering Catholics of Ireland. (See Dr. England’s “Letters to the Rev. William Hawley,” Letter 4, vol. 2, p. 230). On the 17th March, 1792, the Catholic Committee in Dublin published a similar oath, approved of by the archbishops and bishops of Ireland, and sanctioned by Pope Pius the Sixth. It contained the clause last quoted and also the following: — “We have been charged with holding as an article of our belief that the Pope, with or without a general council, or that certain ecclesiastical powers, can acquit or absolve us before God from our oath of allegiancey or even from the just oaths or contracts entered into between man and man. Now we utterly renounce, abjure, and deny that we hold or maintain any such belief, as being contrary to the peace and happiness of society, inconsistent with morality, and above all, repugnant to the true spirit of the Catholic religion.'' This oath was also taken, from 1793, by the hierarchy y priesthoody and laity of Ireland. (See Dr. England “ On the Pope’s Dispensing Power,” section 5, vol. 2, pp. 418 — 419). From the year 1791 the English Catholics, and from the year 1793 the Scotch Catholics, solemnly swore to the falsehood of the imputation which, it pains us to think, is not yet extinct, viz. — that the Pope has any right to inter- THE DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE. 6i fere, directly or indirectly, in temporal concerns between a Catholic and his sovereign. The tenor of the oath was the same as that in use among the Irish Catholics. (See the “ Religious World Displayed,” vol. 2, p. 80, Edinburgh, 1809, by the Rev. Robert Adam, a Protestant clergyman). This abjuration on the part of our English and Scotch tellow- sufferers for the faith was approved of by three Popes — namely, Pius the Sixth, Pius the Seventh, and Leo the Twelfth. (See Dr. England’s “ Letters to the Rev. Wm. Hawley,” Letter 4, vol. 2, p. 233). When in 1788 a deputation of the English Catholics sought to enlist the aid of the illustrious Pitt towards procuring a repeal of the penal laws, he requested that the opinions of the great Catholic theological faculties of the Continent should be taken for his satisfaction and as the con- dition of his assistance in Parliament, upon three queries, which were drawn upas follows: — (i.) “Has the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre- eminence whatsoever within the realm of England? (2.) Can the Pope, or Cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the Church of Rome absolve or dispense his Majesty’s sub- jects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatso- ever? (3.) Is there any principle in the tenets of the Catholic faith by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics, or other persons differing from them in religious Opinions, in any transaction either of a public or private nature?” These questions were cheerfully and at once submitted to the divines of six of our most famous Universities — namely, Paris, Louvain, Alcala, Douay, Salamanca, and Valladolid. An- swers, distinct and categorical, were returned without delay, some in 1788, and some in 1789, according as the theologians appealed to could be assembled. Each question was met by a decided negative. Whoever desires to read all the answers in full may find them in Dr. England’s “ Letters on the Calumnies of Blanco White,” Letter 23, vol. i, pp. 200 — 2 of the edition of his “Works” before mentioned; but the general reader may satisfy himself by consulting the popular “ History of Ireland” of John Mitchel (c. 26, p. 201, Glasgow, 1869), where he will find the answers of the University of Alcala, in Spain, cited as a specimen. For the benefit of such of your readers as are ill-provided with books (and in this category, I conceive, the Incumbent of Christ Church occupies a pro- minent place, as he has evinced such a contempt for “ prodigious libraries”), I shall transcribe from Dr. England the answers sent by the University of Douay. They are as 62 THE DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE. follows : — To the first and second queries the Sacred Faculty answers, that no power whatsoever^ in civil or temporal con- cerns^ was given by the Almighty either to the PopCy the Cardinals, or the Church herself, and consequently, that kings and sovereigns are not^ in temporal concerns^ subject^ by the ordination of God, to any ecclesiastical power whatsoever \ neither can their subjects, by any authority granted to the Pope or Church from above, he freed from their obedience or absolved from their oath of allegiance. This is the doctrine which the doctors and professors of divinity hold and teach in our schools, and this all the candidates for degrees in divinity maintain in their public theses, &c. To the third question the Sacred Faculty answers, that there is no principle of the Catholic faith by which Catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics^ who differ from them in religious opinions* On the contrary, it is the unanimous doctrine of Catholics that the respect due to the name of God, so called to witness, re- quires that the oath be inviolably kept to whomsoever it be pledged, whether Calholic^ heretic , mfidel) &c.’' I have sub- joined the affirmation relative to oaths for the benefit of such furious bigots as still adhere to the old lie that Catholics do not consider themselves bound by anything they swear, sd that our solemn abjuration of the tenets imputed to us may be fully protected from cavil* I may say that the oaths them* vselves, from which I have already made extracts, deny this further slander in the most indignant manner. Now, Protestants, were these six Universities ever reprU manded by the Popes, by any Catholic nation, or by any Catholic individual, whether lay or clerical, for thus rejecting and scouting the idea that the Pope has any jurisdiction over Catholics at large in matters of temporal concern ? There are several professors of history in Belfast, and I challenge them, one and all, to convict me of error when I say that all the above-cited oaths, and all the above declarations of faith from the Catholic Universities, known as they were throughout the world, received the tacit approval of the entire Catholic universe. Not one of those gentlemen will accuse me of being wrong. Not one of them will dare to do so. To do so would be to incur a literary disaster, and to reap that disgrace which I am in a position to inflict upon anyone who may con- tradict me in the matter, and which it would be unwise for any salaried professor of history to provoke. Which is more likely to know the Catholic faith — Catholic nations,, or the ill- taught individual who cannot divest himself of his malignity, even when he mounts his pulpit for the ostensible purpose of THE DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE. 63 preaching the Gospel, but who lets loose the pent-up venom of his narrow soul against millions and millions of his fellow- creatures, from that place whence nothing should be heard but the mild principles of Christian morality. Thank God, there is no priest in Ireland, aye, or in the world, that would pro- stitute a sacred edifice for the purpose of perpetuating notorious falsehoods regarding those differing from him in religion. Were one to be found whose base nature could descend to such ruffianism, he would be torn from the temple which he had dishonoured, or from the altar which he had defamed. His appearance on a platform would be hailed with yells of detestation. The air would not be rent with those cheers which greet the Christ Church slanderer. He would be loathed, not lauded. He would be degraded, not deified. But to return. Protestants of Ulster, you have read our solemn oaths. Catholics all over the globe are as ready to make such abjurations as ever they were. Popes, and Cardinals, and Universities are as ready to sanction and endorse them. Would the Catholic world insult Protestants by persisting in disseminating against them accusations which had been repeatedly, and in the most solemn form, sworti against false and scandalous? No ! As a Catholic I say it would not ! Were Catholics to become capable of such detestable baseness, I, as a Catholic, who have taken up my pen to transfix the ceaseless maligner of my religion, would sever myself from them to-morrow for ever, and unite myself to any denomination, though it were as fanatical as that of Mahomet, where sacred Truth is revered, rather than have my soul befouled by one instant’s contaminating connection with a system in which such shameful villainy, such opprobrious practices, are tolerated without rebuke. Yours, &c., “S. J.” Belfast, March 5th 1885. TO THE EDITOR OF THE “BELFAST MORNING NEWS. Sir, — The fortnight’s delay which has befallen my last letter, not yet published, convinces me that the pressure upon your space at this season must be considerable; and since I could not, at so slow a rate of progression, complete my criti- cism of Mr. Kane in your friendly columns for a couple of months to come, I beg to say that I do not now intend to trespass further upon your kindness. Mr. Kane need not, however, start with delight. He is not yet off the rack upon which he w’as stretched for the first time on the 7th January 64 THE DEPOSING POWER OF THE POPE. Some bitter wrenches it is yet his fortune to endure. I have several more letter&.in manuscript. These I shall reserve for the pamphlet which I have been urged to offer to the public, and which I trust will be ready shortly. In addition to the strictures just referred to, it will embrace all the correspondence relative to Wickliffe which appeared in your journal from the respective quills of Mr. Kane and myself, and also those subse- quent letters of mine which that profoun^ theologian and historian was too much of a craven to attempt to answer. “ Now pen to pen, and zeal to zeal, A firebrand's vengeance I didn’t feel !” — Revised Version of Scott. It will also contain, I hope, some letters in refutation of the unscholarly assertion recently ventured (but not proved) by the LL.D.’^ in a sermon — that is, that Papal supremacy was not recognised in Ireland anterior to the days of Henry II. Mr. Kane will have to try a few times more before he can discover a subject upon which the ‘‘prodigious library” can- not shed light to his confusioji, I cannot conclude without stating that although our acquaintance dates only from the termination of the Wickliffe controversy, I have experienced much courtesy at your hands; and I am pleased to be afforded this opportunity of acknow- ledging it. In the hope that when next the Catholic Church is attacked in local newspapers, you will allow me to confront its assailant in your columns, and praying that I may then have to encounter a man who will not display that cowardice which ever characterises a hully\ but who will be a gentleman of principle and education, I remain, your obedient servant, “ S. J.” Belfast, 23rd March, 1885. [Our brilliant correspondent “ S. J.” is quite right in thinking that pressure on our space makes it difficult for us to con- tinue a lengthened controversy. In view of the fact that for some reason or other, the public are not to be allowed the opportunity of seeing the “ other side” of the question, we have found it unnecessary to prolong a controversy, as to the merits of which most people who read it have long since made up their minds. — Editor Before the above letter appeared in the newspaper, all the fol- lowing matter was written; but as it was not published in the “ Belfast Morning News,” I have not thought fit to offer it to the public now in the form of correspondence addressed to the Editor. CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND UNDER PERSECUTION, a N that singular medley of bad divinity, false history, and misplaced politics, mixed together in a sort of chaotic porridge and ladled out from the pulpit to the meek Christians of Sandy Row on Sunday, 25th January last, ‘‘the episcopal mountebank of Christ Church,” as the Rev. Mr. M‘Cullagh, a fine old Presbyterian, dubs Mr. Kane, surpassed himself in deliberate falsehood or shameful ignorance of authentic records — I cannot settle which — when he committed him- self to the following statements: — “The Roman Catholic coiild not be loyal either in England or Ireland ; either in a Roman Catholic country or a Protestant country;* ^ Roman Catholics were only loyal and satisfied either when everything was subject to their domination, or when they were too insignificant to give trouble.” Mr. Kane, who plumes himself upon being a “ trained dialectician,” saves me the labour of refuting that part of the above extract where he asserts that Catholics cannot be loyal even in a Catholic country. Poor, suicidal Mr. Kane unconsciously slides into self-contradiction, and soon states the direct contrary ! Where ? Why, in the sentence, also quoted above, in which he declares that Catholics are “ loyal and satisfied” when “everything” is “subject to their domination.” Such a state of affairs, manifestly, can obtain Qnly in a Catholic country ! Now, I ask any intelligent reader, I 66 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. is not the muddiness of intellect which this self-confounder here displays, really shocking in one who claims to be a logician, and who, in moments of complacent self-esteem, writes himself “LL.D.”? The worthy dignitaries who authorised him to tack those three capital letters to his name ought to be called upon to do public penance for their rashness, unless they can clearly show that in their secret souls they in- tended the letters, in Mr. Kane’s case, to stand for “ Logic-lorn Dialectician !” I beg to return my best thanks to Mr. Kane for his having so expeditiously and so effectually cut the throat of his own mendacious assertion regarding Catholic subjects in their relation to Catholic sovereigns. I feel over- whelmed with gratitude. It was really so good of him to stultify himself purely on our account ! It was self-sacrificing, in a double sense. The spectacle of Curtius and Decius, dooming themselves for the benefit of the old Romans, fades into nothingness before that of Kane, dooming himself ^ in the interest of the modern Romans.” The gabbling of geese once saved the ancient Romans from the Gauls \ and now, (historic parallel !) those other “ Romans” go ungalled^ owing to the gabbling of Kane whose name is Greek for goose! Let us examine Mr. Kane^s second assertion, which is to the effect that Catholics cannot be loyal in England or Ireland to a Protestant government. I, at once, confront him with this counter assertion or proposition — viz. , that Catholics caw be loyal to a Protestant government, as has been abundantly demonstrated by their noble conduct in the worst days of their persecution. I engage to prove this with reference to the very countries selected by our Rev.” maligner — namely, England and Ireland. Furthermore, it is not my intention to employ, when establishing my actual proposition, except very rarely, the testimony of any writer who was not a staunch Protesta7it. If such men shall warmly accord to us the praise of patriotic bearing, in many a great national crisis, towards the very sovereigns who were imbruing their hands in our blood, impoverishing, and brutalising us, I submit that I shall have successfully overthrown the allegation of Mr. Kane, and reared my own upon a substantial basis. Having said this much by way of exordium, I entreat my readers to accompany me, in spirit, back to the dark days of Queen Elizabeth. In the first half of her reign, acts of parliament of the following cruel tenor were in force against the Catholics, viz. — To maintain the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope was death for the third offence : it was treason to convert anyone, or to be one’s self converted^ CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 67 to the Catholic religion : to say or hear mass was to risk a fine of 200 marks, besides twelve months’ imprisonment : to refuse to attend the English Protestant service exposed one to a further fine of ^20 per month : to keep a tutor who was a recusant was punishable by a penalty of per month. By a later act, two thirds of the possessions of the person who failed to assist at the Protestant service passed to the crown. All priests remaining in the Kingdom 40 days after proclamation were amenable to a traitor’s doom ; while to harbour or re- lieve one was accounted a felony. I cannot pause to relate how many dauntless pastors stood by their stricken sheep and were gibbeted : how many were racked and tortured in the mostinhuman manner: howmany noble housesanddistinguished families were reduced to the brink of beggary by those harassing pecuniary exactions, which they bore because they would not consent to endure the stigma of apostasy from the faith of their ancestry : what multitudes of the humbler classes, be- cause of their inability to pay, languished out a miserable existence in the most loathsome and foetid dungeons, starved sometimes to death by their brutal gaolers : what domiciliary searches were instituted for concealed priests : what inex- pressible insults the tenant of the house suspected was subjected to t what execrable outrages were inflicted upon his wife or his daughter by priest-hunting desperadoes : how they pillaged : how they ravaged : how they desolated : how they destroyed : how Catholic artisans were obstructed in their legitimate crafts, till driven over the gulf of destitution : how Catholic gentlemen were debarred the exercise of their pro- fessions» *‘The inns of court,” says the Protestant Hallamj “were more than onc^ purified of Popery by examining their “members on articles of faith.” (“ Constitutional History,” c. 3, p. Ill, London, 1871). It is not unfrequently alleged that the severe measures put in force against the English Catholics were necessary, in consequence of a spirit of dis- affection which, bigoted historians say, had displayed itself amongst them ; but Hallam, when dealing with the early penal statutes, rescues his Catholic countrymen from that imputation. He says — “It cannot, as it appears to me, be truly alleged that any greater provocation had as yet been given by the Catholics than that of pertinaciously con- tinuing to believe and worship as their fathers had done before them” — (“ Constitutional History,” c. 3, p. 93) Behold the language of an honest Protestant, admitting that the savage persecution which English Catholics endured under Elii^abeth was inflicted upon them, not on 68 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. account of any disloyalty prior to its commencement, but simply and solely for being Catholics! Readers, remember this, in order that when I shall array before you invincible proofs of their heroic devotion to their pitiless queen, you may view their splendid patriotism in all the grandeur of its mag- nanimity, and recognise in your souls what a false, foul, and atrocious aspersion the calumnious or illiterate Incumbent of Christ Church, Belfast, has cast upon the Catholics of Eng- land. I am not an Englishman, but an Irishman glorying in that regard for truth which distinguishes the Irish nation ; and, in the maintenance of our national repute as lovers of justice, I will use my pen, first of all, to vindicate the unswerv- ing fealty exhibited by English Catholics to their Protestant sovereigns. But let me make a reservation. I do not seek to convey that every English Catholic was loyal to Elizabeth’s government. A good number of them (I will not deny it) were involved in a variety of conspiracies against her. Such i idividuals, however, may, to a certain extent, be excused, when we examine with sympathetic consideration the private grievances of some of them, and accord due weight to the goadings of a general and incessant persecution. What I contend is that the vast majority of Elizabeth’s Catholic sub- jects remained inflexibly loyal even to that sovereign who rewarded their fidelity with the rope, the rack, imprisonment, and the fine. The Catholics of a country are not to be stig- matized as disaffected for the commotions excited by a few among them. This statement is based upon a principle so just that even Mr. Kane, who is a headlong accuser, and rarely makes exceptions, must, perforce, accept it, else, some one, taking a fair advantage of his rashness, will surely turn the tables against him, and, by his own reasoning, prove the Protestant hierarchy of Ireland a nest of sodomites, adulterers, will-forgers, &c., simply because some of its members in the past have been hung, degraded, or imprisoned for the offences connected with such unpleasant names. Even supposing the Catholics inexcusable who, from time to time, plotted against Elizabeth, their number bears no more proportion to the total Catholic population then in England, than the number of criminal Irish Protestant prelates, in the sixteenth and seven- teenth centuries, bears to the entire Irish Protestant hierarchy; and it would be as inequitable, in the one case as in the other, to visit the delinquencies of the small minority upon the general body. I have deemed it well to make this observation, in order to parry with one stroke all the blows aimed at Catholic loyalty, in connection with sundry conspiracies set on CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 69 foot by certain Catholics in the reign engaging our attention. Indeed, the impartial among Protestant historical writers summarily dispose of several of them in this way. Hallam, for instance, declares of the Pole Conspiracy, — I know not how to charge the Catholics with the conspiracy of the two Poles, nephews of the Cardinal, and some others’’ — ("‘Con- stitutional History,” c. 3, p. 93, London, 1871, among the notes). To resume. In 1569, Pius the Fifth fulminated a bull of deposition against Elizabeth, and a Catholic gentleman, named Felton, affixed a copy of it to the gates of the Bishop of London’s residence. What effect had this bull upon the English Catholics ? Did it occasion a general revolt? No* It was a spent ball, and did no harm, except to Felton who was executed for his temerity. The Catholics treated it with contempt, knowing, as they did, that the Pope had received no power from God, authorising him to interfere with the legitimate duty of a subject towards his sovereign. Miss Aikin, a Protestant writer of no little merit, speaking of this bull, says at the close of c. 17 of her interesting “ Memoirs of the Court and Time of Queen Elizabeth” (p, 263, “World ( Library” edition) — “ Even the Catholic subjects of Elizabeth, for the most part, abhorred the idea of lifting their hands against her government, and the peace of their native land ; and several of them were among the foremost in their sincere offers of service against the disaffected.” I would refer Latin scholars with “ prodigious libraries” to the contemporary Protestant writer, Wm. Camden, and request them to read the passage beginning with — “Cseterum hanc bullam Pontificii modestiores tacite improbabant &c.,” where they may learn that the Pope’s bull was thoroughly despised^ and viewed by the Catholics as “an empty clatter of words”~(tanquam vanum verborum fragorem. — Vide his “ Annales,” p. 186, Elzevir edition of 1625). With reference to this most impolitic bull, which was nothing short of an act of cruelty towards the English Catholics, affording their enemies a pretext to brand them as traitors, a denial of the power assumed in it by the Pope was signed by Richard Watson, John Feckenham, (last abbot of Westminster), Henry Cole, J. Harpsfield, and N. Harpsfield, all — ecclesiastics held in high esteem by the Catholics. They say: — “Notwithstanding this bull, or any other declaration or sentence of the Pope, passed or to be passed, we hold Queen Elizabeth to be the lawful Queen of England and Ireland ; and that obedience and fealty are due to her as such by all her English and Irish subjects.” Lord Burleigh, the Queen’s chief minister, in his Execution of CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 70 Justice,” acknowledges that the principles of this bull were protested against by Heath, Archbishop of York, and by the Bishops Poole, Tunstall, White, Oglethorpe, Thurlby, and Tur- berville, besides numerous abbots and deans. Father Caron, in his “ Remonstrantia Hibernorum,” mentions that the “ Apology for the Catholics,” printed at Douay, and presented to James the First the year after his accession, declared that “ those prelates held themselves to be ready for the defence of the Queen, to expose and oppose themselves, with all their strength, to any external power, whether of the Pope, or procured by the Pope.” (See Charles Butler’s “Historical Memoirs of the English, Irish, and Scottish Catholics,” vol. I, p. 423, London, 1822). It is impossible, at this distance of time, to arrive with any degree of accuracy at the exact reason which induced Pope Pius the Fifth to issue this bull. All that can be said is that it cannot have been, simply and solely, because Elizabeth was a Protestant ruler ; for no such steps were ever taken by him against the Protestant princes of Germany, Sweden, Denmark, &c. The rebellion, about this time, of the northern Earls of Northumberland and Westmoreland, with their tenantry, is sometimes adduced as furnishing evidence of the disloyal sentiments which animated the English Catholics towards Elizabeth. I refrain from investigating its merits. Whether it was justifiable or not, the vast majority of the English Catholics evinced no sympathy with it. As is my custom, I ground my statement on the unexceptionable authority of a Protestant writer, namely, J. R. Green. In his “Short His- tory of the English People” (p. 383, London, 1877), he says, regarding this insurrection,—** The mass of the Catholics throughout the country made no sign : and the earls no sooner halted irresolute, in presence of this unexpected inaction, than their army caught the panic and dispersed.’^ A little lower down, he says — ** It was the general inaction of the Catholics which had foiled the hopes of the Northern Earls.” In other words, it was the rooted principle of generous loyalty, which not the most barbarous persecution could eradicate from the breasts of the down-trodden English Catholics, that preserved the nation at this time from the internecine horrors attendant upon a civil convulsion. This, too, though one of the avowed objects of the insurrection, was the restoration of the Catholic religion in England! The English Catholics, at large, were directly appealed to for their co-operation by the northern leaders ; but instead of rendering them any assistance, as they would have done had the Catholic population, generally CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 71 speaking, been disaffected towards Elizabeth’s government, they made her fully acquainted with the manner in which their virtue, as subjects, had been assailed. This will, of course, seem incredible to those of my Protestant readers who have been trained up in the belief that it is impossible for Catholics to be well-disposed towards a Protestant government. But they must believe it, though Mr. Kane himself were to take a solemn oath to the contrary. English Catholics even in the sixteenth century, even in the days of gibbetings, of disem- bowellings, of thumb-screws, red-hot pincers, the Scavenger’s Daughter, Little Ease, Skeffington’s Irons, cruel pecuniary exactions, disabilities of all descriptions, were heroic in their loyalty to their persecutor. The Protestant Camden, who was a diligent personal observer of the events whose history he relates, says, relative to the insurgents of Northumberland and Westmoreland: — ‘‘They despatched letters to the Papists all over the kingdom, exhorting them to collect their power. But so far were these from joining with them, that most of them sent the letters which they had received, together with the hearers^ to the Queen” — (Literasque ad Pontificios cir- cumquaque per regnum, missitant, ut vires conjungerent, Tantum autem abfuit ut se consociarint, ut plerique acceptas literas cum latoribus ad reginam transmiserint. Vide his “ Annales Rerum Anglicarum,” p. 168, Elzevir edition, 1625), Sir Ralph Sadler wrote to the queen, regarding the disposi- tion of the Catholics towards the northern insurgents, thus: — “ 1 fynde the gentilmen of this countrey, though the most parte of them be well affected towards the cause which the rebells make the colour of their rebellion, yet in outwarde shew well affected to sarve your majestie trewly against them. ” (See Lingard’s “ History ot England,” vol. 6, p. 105, Dublin, 1874). The Catholic population in general would, of course, have welcomed gladly the restoration of the ancient faith ; but they were not prepared to effect even this desirable object by the sacrifice of their duty towards their Protestant sove- reign, though she was their persecutor. Where can we find similar devotion ? Camden relates that they were emulous in offering their resources (certatim obtulerint), for service against their rebellious brethren in the north. “ They afforded their aids and purses against them, no less than the best Pro- testants,'^ These are the words of Sir Richard Baker (“ Chronicle of the Kings of England,” p. 341, Edward Phillips’s edition), a Protestant author who wrote in the time of Charles the First, when the opposition to Catholics was extreme. With regard to those plots which, for their object, aimed 72 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. at the release of the unjustly imprisoned Mary Queen of Scots, many English Catholics, not privy to them, had the misfortune to suffer notwithstanding ; and when Protestants read of the numbers who either perished on the scaffold or were immured in prison upon this hapless beauty’s account, let them pause ere they come to rash conclusions ; for we know, from the historian Wm. Camden, a Protestant eye- witness of the times, the infamous artifices by which innocent men were victimised, with the connivance of Elizabeth herself, and by the procurement of her cabinet of scoundrels. • The Protestant Bevil Higgons, quoted by the Rev. Robert Manning in his “ England’s Conversion and Reformation Compared” (Preface, p. xlviii., Antwerp, 1725), says that Elizabeth ‘‘had the most wicked ministry that ever was known in any reign.” Camden discloses the shameful fact that emissaries were suborned to stimulate the Catholics by crafty arts into overt acts of treason : that letters forged in the name of poor Mary were secreted by paid ruffians in the dwellings of the unsus- picious, or of such persons as it was desirable to get rid of, where, of course, they were easily discovered when the time arrived for the completion of the contemplated villainy : that false witnesses were encouraged to testify against the accused, till, as Camden himself admits, while he palliates the enormity of such practices, innocence and prudence afforded the wretched Catholics no protection. He manifests their complaints re- garding the nefarious expedients adopted in the fomentation of such plots by the murderous Earl of Leicester and the sour, subtle, and dark-souled Walsingham. All sorts of snares were spread for our English brethren in the faith. Do what they would, it was beyond their power to escape the accusa- tion of treason. There was no security for them even in the seclusion of their homes — (“ Annales,”p. 377, Elzevir edition, 1625). When the perjured informer was incited from the very throne, to impeach at all hasards his Catholic countrymen, when his detestable office was the highroad to position and emolument, when such ready means lay at hand for the safe and profitable gratification of private enmity or envy, it is too much to expect from human depravity that many harmless persons had not to meet a violent end, or to endure long in- carceration for acts of which they were wholly guiltless. What Protestant is there, with a desire to see justice done, who, with the knowledge of what is related by Camden, will not distrust the oft-paraded statistics of alleged Catholic dis- loyalty in Elizabeth’s reign, comprehending, as they do, the unhappy victims of odious resentments, villainously ensnared CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 73 and done to death for the purpose of satiating the passions of avarice dr revenge? Numerous proofs of this are given, passim^ in the “Annals of the Reformation” by the Protestant historian, Strype, who prints letters from sundry informers in which they admit that all the Catholics denounced by them during their career to the government, and punished, were innocent men. After eighteen years of unjustifiable imprisonment in a land whither she had fled for protection from the machinations of her turbulent Protestant subjects, but where her trust met with nothing better than the imperishable treachery of Queen Eliz- abeth, the beautiful and accomplished Mary Queen of Scots, in defiance of all justice and of her rights as an independent sovereign, was brought to the block at Fotheringay Castle on the 8th February 1587. At this time, Philip the Second of Spain was the most powerful monarch in Europe. The regions subject to his sway equalled in extent the territories apper- taining to nearly all the other European crowns put together ; while the indomitable enterprise of Hernando Cortes and the fierce energy of Francisco Pizarro had, for half a century, fed the national coffers with the inexhaustible treasures of Mexico and Peru. For many years Philip had submitted, whether through policy or disdain, to the injuries inflicted upon him by the Queen of England. She had aided his insurgent subjects in the Low Countries with money and with an army of 6,000 men under the command of her wicked favourite, the Earl of Leicester, who had the insolence to assume the title of Captain General of the United Provinces, and with it, the entire control of the finances and courts of judicature. She had subsidised foreign mercenaries to fight against him ; she had suffered Sir Francis Drake and other piratical adventurers to plunder his galleons, laden with gold and silver, on the high seas ; she had permitted lawless Englishmen to undertake murderous and predatory incursions into his possessions in the New World, when, at length, the execution of the Scottish Queen put a termination to his long forbearance. Viewing the bloody death inflicted upon that miserable lady as an insult off- ered to the majesty of sovereigns, he considered himself, as the highest representative of regal power in Europe, peremp- torily required to wreak vengance on her destroyer. With this object he prepared, for the invasion of England, the vast arma- ment which received the pretentious title of the Invincible Armada. Supplied with every munition of war known to sciencein thatage, 152 vessels of all sizes, manned by8,766 mari- ners, and carryingon board 2 1,855 soldiers, set sail for the shores % J 74 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. of England. To support the expedition, the Duke of Parma, one of the ablest generals of a warlike age, had in readiness a flotilla of flat-bottomed boats, and had collected a force of 30,000 men ; while the Duke of Guise led 12,000 veterans to the coast of Normandy, whence he hoped to embark with his command. (See Patrick Fraser Ty tier’s “ Life of Raleigh,” pp. 69-70, London, 1841). Never before had the English monarchy been in such jeopardy. Never since then has the English nation experienced such apprehension, till we reach the era of Bonaparte and the armament at Boulogne. It is no part of my duty to specify the defensive preparations made by Elizabeth to confront the impending danger. Suffice it to say that her measures were prompt, prudent, and compre- hensive. Her mighty spirit awoke the slumbering strength of the national character. My concern, however, is only with her Catholic subjects. Protestants ! the grinding statutes previously specified were, every one, then in active play; and the Catholics, though, at least, a full half oi the population (vide Lingard’s “ History of England,” vol. 6, p. 247, Dublin, 1874), lived as bondsmen in their own land, practising their religion in precarious concealment, and, as will be seen, cherishing amidst persecution the sentiment of inalienable loyalty towards their tyrannical sovereign. Dr. Bridgewater published a table at the end of his Concertatio Catholica,” giving the names of some twelve hundred Catho- lics who, from the year of Elizabeth’s accession to that of the Spanish expedition, had been deprived of their estates or pos- sessions, imprisoned, banished, or otherwise punished for their religion, declaring that so far was he from having named all, that he included only those persons whose sufferings had come within his personal knowledge. Many had died in prison, and some under sentence of death. (See Charles Butler’s ‘‘Historical Memoirs of the English, Irish, and Scottish Catholics,” vol. i, p. 400, London, 1822) How did the Queen bear herself with regard to the Catho- lics when intelligence was received of the destination of the Armada ? Did she relax the inhuman rigour of oppression, for the purpose of conciliating their friendship? No ! And yet the friendship of half oi the nation, in a moment of peril, was well worth some kindness. Let Miss Aikin, a Protestant lady, relate how Elizabeth treated the Catholics at this serious juncture. Here are her words: — “The existing laws against priests and seminary men were enforced with vigilance and severity \ all Popish recusants were placed under close in- spection, and a considerable number of those accounted most Catholic loyalty in England, 7$ formidable were placed under safe custody in Wisbeach Castle” — Memoirs of the Court of Queen Elizabeth,” c. 22, P* 375, ‘‘World Library” edition). The contemporary his- torian Camden assures us that the queen was advised to behead the leading English Catholics — (Capita Pontificiorum, quaesitis causis, demetenda — “ Annales,” p. 518, Elzevir edition, 1625). Lingard, who though a Catholic, quotes for his assertion Protestant authorites, states that domiciliary searches were made for concealed recusants ; and crowds of the poor wretches were thrust into the common gaols on suspicion of favouring the Spaniard ; while the reformed clergy throughout the country declaimed against the tyranny of the Pope, and the alleged treachery of Catholics. And what was the effect of the Queen’s rigorous measures and the Protestant clergy’s exasperating conduct upon this occasion ? Did it goad the Catholics to rebel ? No ! Did it even make them view with sulleness the active preparations which were on foot for the defence of the realm and the Protestant succession? No ! Their virtue rose, in this hour of trial, superior to tbe most pressing considerations of self, and soared away to the regions of sublime heroism. Their almost broken hearts kindled with the celestial fire of patriot- ism; and the rescue of their country became their engrossing aspiration. For thirty years they had groaned under a merciless persecution ; their oppressor was now, it might be said, in their power ; her crown was theirs to protect or to wrest from her ; and although they knew that by revolting they could ensure victory to the Catholic invader, and secure, upon the subjugation of the kingdom, then appearing probable, a perfect abolition of the terrible laws which ground them down, they scorned to deviate from their allegiance, and resolved, in the magnanimity of their souls, to ignore their injuries and spill their blood in the cause of the Protestant Elizabeth. In steel corslets, or stout buff doublets, they encased their bodies, shattered and enfeebled, as in many an instance, those bodies had been by the tension of the pitiless rack, and girt on the swords or shouldered the firelocks with which their Protestant and more affluent neighbours supplied them, or which they purchased for themselves out of such miserable wrecks of their former flourishing fortunes as the all - devouring fine had left them. One spirit actuated them and the Protestants. They stood up by the side of their own bitter foes against the most potent foe of Protestantism. Protestant rule, with its long accompaniment of gibbets, gaols, tortures, and extor*^ 76 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. tions, appeared preferable in their eyes to freedom from them all, bought at the price of the nation’s independence. And yet a minister of the Gospel, instead of preaching what he considers the Gospel, (perhaps he thinks the fomenting of party animosities a duty imposed by Revelation ?) dares to aver that it is impossible for Catholics to be loyal to a Protestant government ! Say you so, Mr. Kane ? But you are recog- nised, at last, by the Protestant public as a slanderer and impostor. Let us away from a dealer in falsehoods, and hold converse for a brief while with candid Protestant men of letters, that we may see how they speak of the demeanour of the English Catholics at this eventful crisis. The authors whom I am about to quote were all staunchly opposed to the dDCtrines of the Catholic Church. Osborne, who wrote his “ Historical Memoirs of the Reigns of Elizabeth and James” in the seventeenth century, says, as quoted by Lingard (‘‘History of England,” vol. 6, p. 247, Dublin, 1874) — Not one man appeared to favour the Spaniard ; the very Papists themselves being 7 io lesse unwilling than the rest to see their native country in subjection to the ordinary cruelty found in strangers.” Patrick Fraser Tytler (‘^Life of Sir Walter Raleigh,” p. 76, London, 1841) says: — “Elizabeth, at this trying crisis, experienced the fidelity of the great body of her Roman Catholic subjects : though on one side the Protestants assaulted them with suspicion and odium, and on the other they were invited by the Pope to throw off their allegiance and combine in a general insurrection. But bred up as they had been in the errors of their fathers, these brave and honourable men were still devotedly attached to the land of their birth ; and hence many nobles of that faith served as volunteers in the fleet and the army. Some fitted out vessels at their own expense^ entrusting the command to Protestant officers^ while others encouraged their dependants to neglect, at such a moment, the distinctions of politics and religio 7 i^ and to unite in the efforts to repel an act of unprinci- pled aggr3ssion.” Cobbett (‘* History of the Reformation,’^ Letter 11, paragraph 322, London, 1824) says: — “On this occasion, as indeed on all others where love of country was brought to the test, the Catholics proved that no degree of oppression could make them forget their duty as citizens or as subjects.'"'' Miss Aikin, a highly competent authority upon English affairs in the sixteenth century, (“ Memoirs of the Court of Queen Elizabeth,” c. 22, p. 375, “ World Library ” edition) says : — “ The Catholics who remained at liberty became earnest to prove themselves possessed of that spirit of CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 77 patriotism and loyalty for which she (Elizabeth) had given them credit ; some entered the ranks as volunteers ; others armed and encouraged their tenantry and dependants for the defence of their country ; several even fitted out vessels at their own expense, and entrusted the command of them to Protestant officers on whom the queen could rely.” Dr. Thomas Vowler Short, late Lord Bishop of St. Asaph’s, (“History of the Church of England,” p. 248, London, 1875) says: — “Not- withstanding the steps which were taken to urge the Roman Catholics of England to unite in the attempt at subjugating our island, it is manifest that the mass of them viewed the matter in its true light, and joined hand and heart in the common cause wherever the government was wise enough to employ their services.” J. R. Green (“Short History of the English People, p. 410, London, 1877) says — “ Even had the Prince (i.e. of Parma) landed, the only real chance of Spanish success lay in a Catholic rising ; and at this crisis patriotism proved stronger than religious fanaticism in the hearts of the English Catholics. Catholic gentry brought their vessels up alongside of Drake and Lord Howard, and Catholic lords led theirtenantry to the muster at Tilbury.” Sir James Mackintosh (“ History of England,” vol. 3, p. 342, Lardner’s “Cabinet Cyclopoedia”, London, 1831) says : — “The sacred sentiment of affection, even to a country in which they were oppressed, extinguished the resentments or bigotry of the Catholics. They joined the rest of their countrymen, heart and hand against foreign domination ; and Elizabeth had what some of her advisers called the temerity, but what was really the en- lightened and courageous, if not generous prudence, to confide in them. ” The Protestant continuator of Sir James Mackintosh’s “ History of England,” (vol, 4, p. 13, Lardner’s “Cabinet Cyclopoedia, ’’London, i835)says : — “The Catholics were bowed to the earthy and went, moreover, through the ordeal of the Spanish invasion in such a manner as to prove that off ered reliej nnd favour as religionists could not reconcile them as Englishmen to a foreign yokef' Miss Agnes Strickland (“ Lives of the Queens of England.” c. 10, “ Life of Elizabeth,” vol. 7, p. 75^ Philadelphia, 1856) says : — The Catholic aristocracy and gentry performed their duty, as loyal liegemeny on that occasion, and were liberal in their voluntary contribution of men and money for the defence of Queen and country, from a foreign invader.” Hallam (“Constitutional History,” c. 3, p. 125, London, 1881) says: — “As the Catholics endured without any open murmuring the execution ot her on whom their fond hopes had so long rested, 78 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. SO, for the remainder of the queen’s reign, they hy iio means appear^ when considered as a body^ to have furnished any specious pretexts for severity. In that memorable year when the dark cloud gathered around our coasts, when Europe stood by in fearful suspense to behold what should be the result of that great cast in the game of human politics, what the craft of Rome, the power of Philip, the genius of Farnese ::ould achieve against the island-queen with her Drakes and Cecils — in that agony of the Protestant faith and English name, they stood the trial of their spirits without swerving from their allegiance. It was then that the Catholics in every county repaired to the standard of the lord-lieutenant imploring that they might not be suspected of bartering the national independence / 6 ?r their religion itself The ministry in the narrative which they published in almost all the European tongues, under the title of — “A Letter to Mendoza,’* remark that during this crisis no difference could be observed between the Queen’s Catholic and Protestant subjects ; and they mention with special praise the aged Catholic, Viscount Montague, who raised a troop of 200 horse to serve as her body-guard. They also tell us that the prisoners for religion in Ely signed a declaration of their readiness to fight till death in her behalf against all her enemies, though the Pop^ himself should be of the number. It is not my purpose to follow the Spanish Armada through the encounters that took place between it and the English fleet. Let it suffice to say that the elements conspired to crown English valour with victory: the shores of Ireland and Scot- land were strewn with Spanish wrecks : while but a remnant of the mighty armament returned to Spain in safety^ The fidelity of her Catholic subjects, it may be thought. Was recompensed by Elizabeth, in the hour of national jubilation, by the unsolicited repeal of the odious laws formerly enacted against them. By no means ! A desire to reward past favours, at least as far as Catholics were concerned, formed no trait in the character of the able but perfectly heartless woman who could read Plato, harangue the Polish ambassador in Latin, and speak with fluency all the cultivated tongues of Europe. The Protestant historian Hallam says : — *‘It would have been a sign of gratitude if the laws depriving them (the Catholics) had been, if not repealed, yet suffered to sleep, after proofs of loyalty. But the execution of priests and of other Catholics became, on the contrary, more frequenf and the fines for recusancy exacted as rigorously as heforef"^ (“Constitutional History,” c. 3, p, 126, London, 1871^) CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 79 Cobbett, (“ History of the Reformation,” Letter ii, paragraph 323, London, 1824) says : — “The Catholics, had they listened to their just resentmenty might have greatly added to the danger ; and therefore, their generous conduct merited some relaxation of the cruel treatment which they had hitherto endured under her iron sceptre. No such relaxatio 7 i, howevery took place ; they were still treated with every species of barbarous cruelty ; subjected to an inquisition infinitely more severe than that of Spain ever had or ever has been ; and, even on the bare suspicion of disaffection, im- prisoned, racked, and not unfrequently put to death.” When such was the reward meted out to the Catholics by the Queen . for having valiantly stood by the nation during the hour of peril, we need not be at all surprised when we find her accep- ing the bountiful hospitality of one of her wealthy subjects of that persuasion, and yet suffering the earl of Sussex, one of her suite, to cast him into prison on the score of religion afterwards. This was how she treated a loyal Catholic, named Rookewoode, at whose house at Euston she had been enter- ( tained. An original document of the period quoted by Lingard (“ History of England,” vol. 6, p. 162, Dublin, 1874), after relating how Elizabeth thanked Rookewoode for her lodging, giving him her hand to kiss, proceeds thus : — “ But my lord chamberlayn (the earl of Sussex), noblye and gravely, under- standing that he was excommunicated for papistrie, cawkd him before him, demanded of him how he durst presume to attempt her reall presence, he, unfytt to accompany any Crystyan person ; forthwith he sayd he was fytter for a payre ot stocks ; commanded him out of the coort and at Norwych he was comytted.” He died in gaol at Bury St. Edmunds, in 1598. (See Butler’s “Memoirs of the English Catholics,” vol. I. p. 382, London, 1822). In the fifteen years during which Elizabeth survived the defeat of the Armada, her ingratitude for the assistance ren- dered by the Catholics was shown in the execution of sixty- one priests, forty-seven laymen, and two ladies. At every rumour of a new Spanish invasion, the Catholic gentry were hurried to the county gaol ; and, when released, they were either placed for safe keeping in the custody of Protestants, or, if permitted to revisit their homes, they were rendered liable to the forfeiture of all their possessions for the small offence of straying more than five miles from their own doors. The case of a Catholic gentleman, named Edward Sulyard, of Wetherden, in Sufiblk, may be cited as a specimen of the wretched life led by many of his religion and class, in the 8o CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. latter years of Elizabeth’s reign. The fines inflicted upon this unfortunate gentleman for 69 months^ absence from the ser- vice of the Church of England, amounted to ;^i,38o! Of this amount he paid gave security for the balance. Upon the approach of the Armada he was thrown into prison; but having in November, 1588, subscribed a declaration of his readiness to defend the Queen with his life and goods against all her enemies, whether Pope, prelate, foreign prince or potenate, he was allowed to repair to his estate to raise money, but upon condition that he should return to London for confinement by the loth March, 1589. He did so, and was confined in a private house, having been first bound in a penalty of ;^2,ooo not to leave it. There he remained till October, 1591, when he was allowed to walk about, under a like penalty, if he proceeded more than six miles from the place of his confinement, or failed to present himself before the council within ten days after notice to that effect. In 1594, on a rumour of invasion, he was thrown, with other recusants, into the Castle of Ely. Leave was granted to him in the fall of that year to go to his own house for fourteen days ; and afterwards to choose the house of a friend where he might be kept in safe custody under the usual pains and penalties. In 1595, he obtained the melancholy indulgence of having his own house for his prison ; and in 1598 he was permitted to be absent from it six weeks. Another rumour of invasion having gone abroad in 1 599, he was again carried off to Ely Castle ; but as soon as the threatened danger was past, he was allowed to return to his own house, having first paid the expenses of his incarceration in Ely. During all this time, besides his composition to the Queen, he was occasionally compelled by privy seals to lend money which was never re- paid ; and occasionally to find a trooper, fully armed and equipped, for the Queen’s service. (See Lingard’s “History of England, ”vol. 6, Appendix, Note “ YY.,” p. 361, Dublin, 1874), Many who suffered in a similar manner had signed solemn declarations of the most unbounded loyalty to the Queen’s government and person ; and their oaths may be read in sundry works of the Protestant historian, Strype. The meaner sort of Catholics were brought before the bench in multitudes for recusancy, or refusing to conform to the established worship. At one sessions in Hampshire 400 were presented for sentence ; at another in Lancashire 600 were put forward ; and so with other parts of the country. Some had their ears bored through with a red-hot iron ; others were publicly whipped. The county gaols were crowded with recusants, CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 8i to such a degree that several counties rebelled against the expense of maintaining them. Cooper, Bishop of Winchester, as an expedient to relieve the country of the burthen, petitioned Elizabeth to employ the ‘‘ Popish recusants as labourers or pioneers for the English army then in Flanders. An act was passed requiring all Catholics not possessing twenty marks per annum to conform to the Protestant faith, within three months after conviction, or to abjure the realm under the penalty of felony, if discovered to be still at large. This act, however, was soon disused ; and instead, commissions were issued by the magistrates to certain officials to levy, in stated districts, discretional sums upon the lower order of Catholics in lieu of the legal fine for recusancy. These marauders appear to have been allowed a certain poundage for their labours. Lingard History of England,” vol. 6, p. 259, Dublin, 1874) quotes a manuscript letter of the time, which will give an idea of the profits accruing out of this nefarious occupation to some of them, and show that they were pitiless towards the unfortunate Catholics who were their prey. It is with reference to one Felton, and says: — ‘‘Felton hath at lengthe obtayned his long desyred sute, viz., 3s. qd. in the pounde of all that he hath alreadye or shall hereafter entitle her majestie unto of the landes or goodes of recusants, which will amount to 500I. per annum, and this by the mediation of Sir John Stanhopp. ***#*# Felton proceedeth with all violence against all sortes of recusantes, and his courses, be they never so unjuste or unconscionable, ar main- tayned by the L. Treasorer, chiefe justice, chiefe baron, and Sir John Stanhopp.” Such was the treatment which the English Catholics experienced at the tender hands of Elizabeth and her truckling satellites, in return for their good will, and for the money which they had generously expended, and the blood which they had freely shed to defend the threatened liberties of Protestant England. Candid Protestants ! weigh it, and pronounce whether they deserved it. The Catholics, taking that term to mean the great majority, were not cank- ered with any general disaffection which could be pleaded in justification of so harsh and ungrateful a line of policy, or rather, perhaps, impolicy, as was pursued in their regard by the Queen and her advisers, in the period extending from the dispersion of the Armada to her decease in 1603. Movements against her, it is not to be denied, were frequently discovered or suspected ; but they were of no very serious import, or, at least, effect. They were confined to the small, if enthusiastic, minority ; and the existence of such schemes and plots is no 82 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. proof that the English Catholics, as a body, were at this time pervaded with disloyal sentiments. The sentiments of a great body are not justly declared if only those of the minority are put in evidence ; and, keeping this rational principle before him, the Protestant historian, Hallam, feels himself called upon to state that the English Catholics, at the close of Elizabeth’s reign were, when considered numerically^ decidedly loyal to her rule. His words are : — ‘‘There were now two parties among the English Catholics ; and those who, goaded by the sense of long persecution, and inflamed by obstinate bigotry, regarded every heretical government as unlawful or unworthy of obedience, used every machination to deter the rest from giving any test of their loyalty. These were the more busy, hut by much the less numerous class ; and their in- fluence was mainly derived from the laws of severity, which they had braved or endured with fortitude.” — (“ Constitutional History,” c. 3, p. 128, London, 1871). The English Catholic has always been regarded as a good representative Catholic. Whatever the spirit of Catholic doctrine may be, or may lead to, is as likely to be ascertained from contemplating the conduct of English Catholics, as from consulting any other source. If then there be anything in Catholic teaching which makes it a matter of impossibility, as Mr. Kane so shamelessly avers, for Catholics to be loyally attached to Protestant rulers, is he competent to explain what he dare not deny^ in the face of the weighty authorities whom I have cited — namely, the singular affection with which our English co-religionists regarded the Tudor lioness in the dreadful sixteenth century ? If the conscientious profession of the Catholic religion be, as he will allege, incompatible with the due payment of a subject’s duty to a prince of an opposite persuasion, how did it happen, I call upon him to tell those poor people whom he deludes with his impudent falsehoods, that the English Catholics, whose conscientious- ness bears the undeniable impress of the most bitter persecu- tion, furnished, as a class, such ample, unsolicited, and indisputable proofs of their loyalty as it has been my pleasing task to place before the public in the preceding pages ? The tendency of a system is exemplified by its workings among the majority; and it is only by such workings that its tendency can be properly gauged. Applying this principle to the history of English Catholicity in Elizabeth’s reign, it will be found that as the vast body of her Catholic subjects were always prepared, when necessary, to support her with their lives and properties, their actions, as representative Catholics, performed as tho^e CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 83 heroic actions were, despite the most grinding oppression, all go to show that the spirit of Catholicity is not in itself that of political discontent, not that of faction, not that of dark plot- ting against the civil authority, not that of rebellion, but that, on the contrary, it inculcates the preservation of a steady allegiance under hardships the most distressing in their circumstances. Such commotions as were occasioned by Catholics in the reign of Queen Elizabeth are not thought, in the minds of sensible Protestant writers, to be rationally accounted for by any statement which assumes that the Catholic religion is an insurrectionary one. The occasional rebellions which were the acts of certain isolated bodies of Catholics are, on the contrary, ascribed by them to their true cause — namely, the spirit of intolerance which actuated Elizabeth and her govern- ment towards that considerable section of her people. Hal- lam was one of those Protestants, of whom there always have been very many, whose aims in this life included something nobler than the mere pandering to party or religious ani- mosities. And what does a man of that description, one of England's greatest historians, with a mind full of erudition and enlarged in its grasp by philosophy, declare to be the cause of whatever discontent the Catholics were at the bottom of, during the Elizabethan period? Readers, consider his manly language, and emphatic tone. He says, in his “ Con- stitutional History” (c. 3, p. 128, London, 1871) — ‘‘I am persuaded that if a fair and legal toleration, or even a general connivance at the exercise of their worship, had been con- ceded in the first part of Elizabeth's reign, she would ham spared herself those perpetual terrors of rebellion which occupied all her later years^ Rome would not indeed have been ap- peased, and some desperate fanatic might have sought her life; but the English Catholics, collectively, would have repaid her protection by an attachment which even her rigour seems not wholly to have prevented.” He concludes his review of the condition of the English Catholics under Elizabethan rule by protesting against such writers as Southey, Churton, Townshend, and others, who assert that the infamous penal code of this reign was called for, in the interests of public tranquillity, and for the purpose of repressing the disaffection which, they allege, then pervaded the Catholic body. His words are noble ; and with them I shall pass on to the suc- ceeding reign. He says, in his ‘‘Constitutional History,” (c* 3, p. 128, London, 1871)— “It is much to be regretted, that any writers worthy of respect should, either through 84 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. undue prejudice against an adverse religion, or through timid acquiescence in whatever has been enacted, have offered for this odious code the false pretext of political necessity. That necessity, I am persuaded, can never he made out ; the statutes were, in many instances, absolutely unjust ; in others, not demanded by circumstances ; in almost all, prompted by re- ligious bigotry, by excessive apprehension^ or by the arbitrary spirit with which our government was administered under Elizabeth.” Although James the First was, on the whole, better dis- posed towards the Catholics than Elizabeth, his desire for their partial toleration was overruled by his cabinet and a bigoted Parliament. Thus, while the ruthless enact- ments passed in the reign of his predecessor were enforced with undiminished severity, the professors of the obnoxious faith were harassed by new statutes of persecution. They were forbidden by law, three years after his advent to the throne, to appear at Court, or to dwell within the boundaries, or ten miles of the boundaries, of London. They were not permitted, upon any prejtence whatsoever, to proceed a greater distance than five miles from their own homes, without a license signed by four magistrates. They were incapacitated from turning their attention to the professions of medicine or law. They could hold no office in any court or corporation. Hus- bands and wives were rendered incapable of deriving any benefit from each other’s property, unless they had been mar- ried according to the Protestant rite. For each child not presented for baptism to a Protestant minister, within one month after birth, the parents were liable to a fine of ;^ioo. Burial in a Protestant cemetery was compulsory, under a penalty of ^2© to be paid by the representatives of the deceased. No Catholic could be an executor, administrator, or guardian under a will. Every youth sent beyond the sea to be educated was at once debarred of any advantages in property or money which might accrue to him by devise, descent, or gift, until such time as he should return and con- form to the Parliamentary religion ; all such property or money passing, in the meantime, to the Protestant next of kin. The King had the option of taking from the recusants the monthly fine of for absence from the Parliamentary Church service, or in lieu thereof, at one sweep, all their per- sonal and two-thirds of their real estate. Whoever, whether Catholic or Protestant, received Catholic visitors, or main- tained Catholic servants, was obliged to pay for each such visitor or servant ^10 per month, Boderie, the French CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 85 ambassador to the Court of James, mentions in a letter quoted by Lingard History of England,” vol. 7, p. 46, Dublin, 1874), that he knew a Catholic lord who, in consequence of this cruel law, had just been compelled to dismiss sixty mem- bers of his household. Others, he says, were resolved, at all hazards, to keep their Catholic servants. This appears to have been the general practice among the Catholic nobility and gentry, because they knew that the poor Catholic domes- tics, preserved from destitution by them, would be faithful to them ; while to dismiss them, in favour of those of the opposite persuasion, would only be, such was the condition of the times, to harbour traitors, informers, and spies. The ex- pense, in such cases, upon the Catholic nobility and gentry was continual ; and in great establishments enormous. Many houses, for the sake of freedom from a hateful espionage, were reduced almost to the verge of beggary ; and numerous touching instances could be related of the mutual devotion which sprang up in this age between master and servant, the offspring of what might be called mutual protection. Searches for concealed priests were conducted in the most iniquitous manner. The picture left of them by a writer of the age, the celebrated Jesuit, Father Parsons (or Persons), is worth transcription. It is from his “Judgment of a Catholic Eng- lishman,” quoted by Lingard (“ History of England,” vol. 7, p. 27, Dublin, 1874). He says : — “ For then, not only in the shires and provinces abroad, but even in London itselfe, and in the eyes of the Court, the violence and insolency of con* tinuall searches grew to be such as was intollerable ; no night passing commonly, but that soldiours and catchpoles brake into quiet men’s houses, when they were asleepe ; and not only carried away their persons unto prisons at their pleasure, except they would brybe excessively, but whatsoever liked them best besydes in the house. And these searches were made with such violence and insolency, as divers gentlewomen were drawne or forced out of their bedds, to see whether they had any sacred thing or matter belonging to the use of Catho- lic religion, either about them or under their bedds.” Articles of plate, such as gold and silver cups, dishes, &c., were sure to be seized upon, under pretence of their being chalices or patens, or something connected with what was denounced as the idolatry of the mass. A private letter of the time, belong- ing to Lingard, says “ Neither pot, nor pan, nor bedding, nor ringe, nor Jewells, nor anie thing escapeth their hands” {“ History of England,” vol. 7, p. 97, Dublin, 1874). The pursuivants, and other officers appointed to conduct such 86 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. searches and enforce the laws against the Catholics, were guilty of such excesses in this way that James had to issue a proclamation against them, in which he says that they broke into “the houses of divers our honest and well-aflFected sub- jects without just cause of suspicion” — in other words, into the dwellings of harmless Catholics — “ taking,” says the pro- clamation, “and seizing goods, plate, and jewels, no way leading to superstitious uses, &c.” Eighteen priests and six laymen were executed for the faith in this reign. The details of their capture and sufferings may be read in Challoner’s “ Memoirs of Missionary Priests,” (vol. 2, Derby, 1843). One hundred and seven priests were banish- ed from the Kingdom. Of the number of priests who suffered imprisonment, it is imposible to give any account. The number must, however, have been considerable, since, during the year 1622 alone, four hundred of them underwent incar- ceration. It is, indeed, surprising, considering the laws in force against them, that there were so many even in the kingdom, much less in prison ; while others were, of course, in concealment. But Catholic priests, in the English Reform- ation times, were dauntless. Their almost superhuman zeal is freely attested by their bitterest enemies. What the Protestant poet, Spenser, writes of the priests who passed over to Ireland to keep alive the faith in the days of Elizabeth, is equally applicable to Catholic ecclesiastics in England in the reign of James the First. Spenser freely awards the palm to the priests as against the clergy of that body to which Mr. Kane belongs ; and the great poet had excellent opportunities of observing both clerical orders. In his “ View of the State of Ireland,” (p. 178, Dublin, 1633) he says, with the utmost naivetd : — “ It is great wonder to see the oddes which is betweene the zeale of Popish Priests and the Ministers of the Gospell ; for they spare not to come out of Spaine, from Rome, and from Remes, by long toyle and daungerous travayling hither, where they know perill of death away teth them, and no reward or richesse is to be found, onely to draw the people unto the Church of Rome ; whereas some of our idle Ministers, having a way for credite and estimation thereby opened unto them, and having the livings of the countrey offered unto them, without paines, and without perill, will, neither for the same, nor any love of God, nor zeale of religion, nor for all the goode they may doe, by winning soules to God, be drawne foorth from their warme neastes, to looke out into God’s harvest, which is even ready for the sickle, and all the fieldes yellow long agoe ; doubtlesse those good olde godly Fathers CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 87 will (I feare me) rise up in the day of judgment to condemne them!*’ Readers of Leland’s “History of Ireland,’^ and of the “Ecclesiastical History of Ireland” by our best local author. Dr. Killen, will readily recall sundry severe passages regarding the total lack of interest displayed in matters of religion by many of the early Reformation clergy ; but they will not, I think, find such plain, uncompromising language as flows from the pen of the immortal Spenser. The English Protestant clergy were bound by the laws of James the First to make a return of all the “ Popish” recusants within their several parishes. I learn from a letter written by the Jesuit Garnet to Father Parsons, published in Lingard’s “History of England,” (Appendix, vol. 7, Note “GGG.,” p. 271, Dublin, 1874), that courts were held every six weeks for the sentencing of recusants. He tells us that if a recusant re-purchased his pillaged goods, the commissioners inquired whether the money so used was his own ; and if not “they would have that too,” meaning that the redemption money and goods were both retained. He mentions that in the lodging from which he writes, there was a man who had had to redeem “ the verie bedd he lyeth on,” twice in six months. Of the unfortunate prisoners for the faith, immured in Wisbeach Castle, he states that the allowance for their support was a mark per week. But they did not receive the benefit of it ; for “ the keeper maketh his gains, and giveth them meate but three dayes a weeke.” Great multitudes of Catholics were presented for sentence at the Recusancy Courts to which Garnet refers. The Protestant historian, J. R. Green, says : — “ Six thousand Catholics were presented as recusants in a single year.” (See his “ Short History of the English People,” p. 463, London, 1877). Some idea of the immense number who suffered imprisonment for the faith, during this reign, may be gathered from the single fact, that while the unsuccess- ful match between the Infanta of Spain and Prince Charles was in process of negotiation, James released four thousand Catholics from confinement, by way of propitiating the Spanish monarch and nation. As regards the fines levied upon the Catholics for non- conformity with the Parliarnentary religion, James the First himself states that they reached, annually, ;^36,ooo — a sum equal in power to eight or ten times that amount, present currency. (See Lingard’s “History of England,” vol. 7, p. 96, Dublin, 1874). The case of our persecuted English breth- ren, in the County of Hereford, may be cited in illustration of how severely such penalties were exacted. In it alone, 409 88 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND, families were brought to a state of beggary ! The Bishops were directed to excommunicate the richer Catholics, and to sue for writs in Chancery, by which the excommunicated parties would become subject to imprisonment and outlawry ; incapable of recovering debts, rents, or damages for injuries ; of making sales or purchases of property ; or of conveying it by deed or will. (See Lingard’s ‘‘ History of England,’* vol, 7, p. 28, Dublin, 1874). James the First’s favourites drove a thriving trade, and enriched themselves by preying upon the more opulent Catholics. These harpies prevailed upon him to assign to them a certain number of the recusants, men of mark and means, who, to prevent seizure of the two-thirds of their property, forfeited for non-conformity, compounded with the grantees, sometimes at a great sacrifice. The State Paper Office contains returns connected with these marauding pro- ceedings. They are called “Notes of such recusants as His Majesty hath granted liberty to his servants to make profit hy^ &c.” The chief spoilers were the Scotch ; for James the First was in all things a patriot ! If there was any dainty morsel of plunder going, he wished his countrymen to get it. Tierney, in his edition of Charles Dodd’s “Church History” (vol. 4, Appendix 9) publishes several of these schedules. We find the Scotchman Lord Hay receiving a grant of the following recusants : — Thomas Arundell of Llanhern, John Townley, of Townley, Lancashire, (this family is stilfi distinguished for its attachinent to Catholicity), John Talbot of Grafton, John Southcot and William Green of Essex ; and Richard Cotton of Warblington, Southampton, — “to make profit of.” Henry Stuart, Laird of Craigiehall, and Lady Elizabeth Stuart, had, each, ten very very wealthy recusants assigned to them tor the same purpose. The character of the Protestant population was in admirable harmony with that of the laws. Both breathed nothing but the fiercest intolerance. The following incident, related by Lingard, from a private letter in his possession, dated 9th May, 1613, may be taken as exemplifying the principles prevalent in that age. On the 7th May, 1613, several persons were arraigned in the Star Chamber, charged with having defamed the character of the Earl of Northampton and six other lords of the Council. And wherein lay the defamation ? Simply in this : — that, like wicked slanderers, they had asserted that the said lords had solicited the King to grant toleration to the Catholics ! When this was considered defamation of character, what would have been thought exaltation of character ? Why, logically, the opposite assertion, namely^ that the above nobles CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 89 had called for extra severities against the Catholics. Lo, the ideal of an exalted character in the days of Bacon, and Selden, and Usher, and Harvey, and Burton, and even Shakspeare and Ben Jonson ! When judgment was given in the above desperate case of libel, the Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, declared that the conduct attributed to the Earl of Northampton was little short of high treason, because to advise toleration was to advise the King against the rights and dignity of his crown ! The Bishop of London and the Earl of Shrewsbury prayed that they might never live to see the day when toleration should be conceded ; and Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbury said that he would fearlessly main- tain, if such an event came to pass, that the King would then become the betrayer of the faith, instead of its defender. The dastardly criminals were condemned by the guardians of good character to lose an ear, each, to pay a large fine, and to suffer perpetual imprisonment! (See Lingard’s “History of England,” vol. 7, p. 96, Dublin, 1874). A petition of both Houses of Parliament presented in this reign to the King, praying for the strict enforcement of the laws against the Catholics, concludes by saying that such a course “will much advance the glory of Almighty God !” A letter written by Archbishop Abbot to the King, relative to a proposal to grant toleration to the Catholics, stigmatizes such toleration as an act “ hateful to God,” and one calculated to draw down upon His Majesty and upon the Kingdom God's heavy anger and indignation!” (See Milner’s “ Letters to a Prebendary,” Letter 7, p. 288, Cork, 1802). In the foregoing pages, I have given an imperfect sketch of the condition of the English Catholics during the reign of James the First. It is not in the least exaggerated. At every step, almost, I have been careful to fortify myself by referring to recognised authorities. Darker colours could with ease he imparted to the picture^ had I the necessary leisure. The path of the English Catholic at this period was not one of roses. It led over briars and thistles ; thistles especially, when we recall to our recollection the Scotch extortioners! What then was the conduct of the victims of persecution? No such opportunity was afforded them as had fallen to the lot of their fathers and some of themselves in the reign of Elizabeth, when foreign aggression took an unexampled form. There were no Spanish invasions. Spain was as friendly towards the England of James the First as one great power usually is towards another. The reign of James the First was com- paratively barren of exciting incident. Neither Catholics nor 90 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. Protestants, accordingly, could perform such acts as should emblazon their loyalty upon the page of history. The utmost that they could do was to keep tranquil. The Protestant Earl of Northampton, in a letter dated two years after the King’s accession, as quoted by Lingard History of England,” vol. 7, p. 28, Dublin, 1874), says : — ‘‘Our Gracious King hitherto forbears to draw blood of the Catholiques [this was not exactly true], no civill practise tending to conspiracy or treason having yet appeared, either by their doctrine or their dispensations ; but whensoever they shall hault in dutie, the King means (as he hath cause) to proceed to justice. In the meantime they pay their two parts more roundly than ever they did in the time of the late Queen, not any one, as I think, being left out y or like to he left out before Michaelmas ; and besides like to fall into Church censures of excommunication, with the penalties thereunto belonging, which were riot felt formerly.” This letter is of importance for two statements which it con- tains, namely (i), that the Catholics, were undergoing additional oppression, worse in, at least, one particular than they had suffered under Elizabeth ; and (2) that there existed no known grounds upon which an accusation of disaffection could be sustained against them. But somebody may ask me did I never hear of the Gunpowder Plot, very near in date to the Earl of Northumberland’s letter? I answer that person by saying that I have heard something of that Plot, and have contrived, since I first heard of it, to learn more. A smile, perhaps, may, at this point, overspread the countenance of my imaginary querist: and he may say to himself — ‘‘S.J. knows that the Catholics were at the bottom of it. Catholics loyal to James the First ? Well, after that — ! ” But to that gentle- man I say, in the language of Othello : — “ Soft, you, a word or two before you go.” I know that certain English Catholics were engaged in the Gunpowder Plot to blow up the King and Parliament ; but I do not know — neither can it ever be proved — that the English Catholics were acquainted with it. The Jesuit, Garnet, who had been consulted by Catesby, one of the conspirators, under the inviolable seal of confession, regarding the lawfulness of such a plot, may be taken as a witness to the general feeling of the English Catholics towards the Stuart government. The point in dispute is not the amount of complicity which must be assigned to that Jesuit with reference to the Gunpowder Plot ; and therefore I will not enter into it. But if Protestants will have Garnet to have been as guilty as Catesby, Guy Fawkes, and the rest, they are bound, in all consistency, to give additional weight to his CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 9i testimony, when he speaks of the temper of the English Catholics towards James the First. As the sanguinary plotter who has evoked the detestation of so many Protest- ant writers, and given occasion to so many denunciations of Jesuits and Jesuitism, he ought to have been well acquainted with the extent of support afforded to the Gunpowder Plot in England. Writing on 28th August, 1605, some time after the Plot had been broached to him by Catesby, he, in a letter to Father Parsons who had enquired whether there was any agitation among the Catholics, answering for the great body, says : — “ For anything wee can see, Catholicks are quiet, and likely to continue their oulde patience, and to truste to the Kynge and his sone for to rimidie al in tyme.''* (See Lingard’s “ History of England,^’ vol. 7, p. 32, Dublin, 1874)* Writing again to the same correspondent on 4th October, 1605, a month before the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot, he says : — ‘‘Whatsoever men give owt there (at Rome) of easie proceedinges with Catholicks is mere fabulous. And yet I am assured notwithstandinge that the best sort of Catholicks will beare all their losses with patience. But howe these tyrannicall proceedinges of such base officers may drive par^ iicular men to desperate attempts, that I cannot answer for, &c.** It is plain from this that the Catholics, as a population, were quiet. In any case. Garnet's evidence is good ; but upon the supposition that he was the soul of the Gunpowder" Plot, it amounts to an invincible demonstration that the English Catholics at large were not implicated in that PloU After all, how many persons are accused in the act of attainder of any share in the guilt of the Gunpowder Plot ? Just sixteen ! Of these, it does not appear that more than seven were ac- quainted with the worst of it. These seven were Robert Catesby, Guy Fawkes, Thomas Winter, Thomas Percy, Bates (Catesby’s servant). Keys, and Francis Tresham. Six others of the attainted were concerned only in the general scheme of an insurrection. These were Sir Everard Digby, Robert Winter, Grant, Ambrose Rookwood, John Wright, and Christopher Wright. The other three were Fathers Garnet, Tesmond (alias Greenway) and Gerard. The two former had been consulted, under the seal of confession, respecting the lawfulness of such an undertaking, and had condemned it ; while the part of the third in it is very obscure, because, though confined in the Tower of London, he was never tried, a circumstance which would seem to argue that there was no proof against him. It is an act of crying injustice to visit the crime of a few men upon the English Catholics in general, 92 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. who knew nothing of it. If the villainy of an equal number of Protestant ruffians were to be charged upon Protestantism by Catholics, and a church service drawn up to do that act, and the pulpits to be filled upon the anniversary of discovery by a horror-stricken orator with denunciations of Protestants as “our cruel, and blood-thirsty enemies, and of “ Protestant treachery,” how some Fifth of November preachers, a race not quite so prolific or zealous as it used to be, would wax wroth, and throw up their holy hands in the excess of their strong Protestant protestation ! And truly there are gunpowder plots enough, and other plots, quite as Protestant as the Gun- powder Plot is Catholic, with which to retort upon our friends of the Fifth of November. Was not the father of James the First blown up with gunpowder, owing to a plot contrived by the Protestant Earls of Murray, Morton, Both well, Lethington, Sir Archibald Douglas, Sir James Balfour, &c? Did not James himself escape a gunpowder plot contrived by his Protestant subjects of Perth ? Was it not Protestants who contrived the gunpowder plot to blow up the Prince of Parma, Governor of the Netherlands, with all the nobility and magis- tracy, at a procession in Antwerp ? Was it not Protestants who contrived the Gowrie Plot against James the First, which nearly cost him his life ? Was it not John Knox’s ministers of the Gospel in Edinburgh who refused to assemble the people to return thanks to God for the King’s happy escape from this last-mentioned plot? (See the Protestant Dr. Peter Heylin’s “ History of the Presbyterians,” p. 366, Oxford, 1670). In every one of the above plots, small knots of Protestants gave proof of what they were capable of doing as conspirators ; yet I have never met any Catholic historian who, in dealing with the dark details even of the blackest of them, ascribes them to the Protestants generally^ The plot against the Prince of Parma equals in atrocity the English Gunpowder Plot, and preceded it, as did that of Perth, and the others which I have enumerated. Although our religious opponents were first in the field with gunpowder plots, the Protestants in the countries which were the scene of them were no more responsible for them, as a body, than the Catholics of England, as a body, were responsible for the treason of Guy Fawkes and his asso- ciates. James the First himself acquitted his Catholic subjects in general of complicity in it. Hume (“ History of England,” vol. 6, p. 29, London, 1834) says: — “The King, in his speech to Parliament, observed, that, though religion had engaged the conspirators in so criminal an attempt, yet ought we not to involve all the Roman Catholics in the same guilt, of CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 93 suppose them equally disposed to commit such enormous barbarities.'" The Rev. James Gardner, a Protestant writer, allows, in his Faiths of the World,"’ (vol. 2, p. 225, Article — “Jesuits in Great Britain and 'Ireland ”) that the Catholics “ were innocent, as a body, of all connection with the nefarious transaction.” Hallam, a more famous authority, and like- wise a Protestant, characterises this plot, in his “Constitutional History,” (c. 7, p. 287, London, 1871), as “unjustly imputed to the majority of Catholics^ though perhaps extending beyond those who appeared in it.” The English Catholics, then, as a population were not implicated in it. Nothing can be truly predicated of a great body, which is not true of the majority. It was the loyalty of a noble Catholic, Lord Monteagle, which led to the discovery of this detestable plot. He re- ceived a letter, (from which of the conspirators is not known), warning him to absent himself from his seat in the House, for “they shall receyve a terribel blowe this parleament.” Lord Monteagle at once laid this communication before Secretary Cecil ; and the result was that the plans of the con- spirators were defeated. In return for his loyalty. Lord Monteagle received from the King a substantial gift of crown lands, and an annuity of for life. (See Baker’s “ Chro- nicle,"’ Edward Phillips’s edition, p, 409). The English Catholic clergy, upon the discovery of the Gunpowder Plot, acted better than the Knoxite ministers of Edinburgh when the King escaped his enemies, the Gowries, who had at* tempted to murder him. Instead of refusing to give thanks, alleging that they did not believe His Majesty with reference to that plot, as the Edinburgh clergy did with regard to the Gowrie plot, Blackwell and other distinguished English priests, rejoicing at his safety, publicly denounced the con- spirators. Pope Paul the Fifth despatched an envoy to Eng- land, who was admitted in secrecy to the Court ; for such was the popular hatred ot “ Popery"’ that he dare not appear openly as ambassador from the Pope ; and this envoy brought with him two letters, one to Blackwell, commanding him to prohibit by pontifical authority all treasonable practices of Catholics against the King’s government, and the other to James, expressing the deepest detestation of the plot, and soliciting protection for the innocent Catholics. (See Lingard’s “History of England,” vol. 7, p. 49, Dublin, 1874). Similar detestation was expressed by the Catholic sovereigns and princes of Europe. The Protestant Sir Richard Baker relates in his “Chronicle” (p. 409, edition as before) that when the plot was discovered “to the great rejoycing of all people f 94 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. the ambassadors of the King of Spain and the Archduke made bonfires, and scattered money among the people in token of their delight. This old historian describes the magnificent presents sent to James by the Queen of Spain, by way of congratulation, and says: — “It seems there was none re- joyced more for the overthrow of this plot for the Catholick cause than the Catholick King himself.*’ There have not been wanting Protestant authors who have openly charged Cecil, Secretary of State, with having got up the Gunpowder Plot himself, either to bring the Catholics into greater odium with the nation, or to divert the King from looking favourably upon them. One, a contemporary, Francis Osborne, in his “Historical Memoirs of James the First,” calls it — “ a neat device of the Secretary;” another, Bevil Higgons, in his “ Short View of English History,” says: — “This design was first hammered in the forge of Cecil, who intended to have produced it in the reign of Eliza- beth.” I find these passages quoted by Dr. Milner, in his celebrated “ Letters to a Prebendary” (Letter 7, pp. 277 — 278, Cork, 1802) ; but I do not pretend to decide upon the question which they raise. Cecil has never been credited with much conscience, and might have been capable of doing what his father, Lord Burleigh, scrupled not to do before him ; but that he was the contriver of the Gunpowder Plot is the view only of a zealous minority among English historians. The Gunpowder Plot forms the staple accusation against Catholics in respect of their alleged disloyalty to James the First ; but, as I have shown in the preceding pages, it is most unjustly, by the confession of candid Protestants, charged upon the general body. Its existence cannot be admitted by honourable enemies as disproving the tranquil attitude pre- served by the great mass of the Catholics of England towards the first of the Stuart dynasty. The Catholics who were most deeply concerned in it were villains of the darkest die. To put them forward as examples of what the Catholic doctrine sanctions, favours, or leads to, is a piece of villainy second only to that concocted by the conspirators themselves. Some of them, before engaging in the infernal scheme, were known profligates. Catholics merely in name. Catesby, in particular, was a notorious libertine, and had once apostatized from the Catholic religion, though he returned to the nominal profes- sion of it afterwards. We have now reached a new reign, with which I shall finish my vindication of English Catholics from the charge of disloyalty. Filled with the most exaggerated notions of regal privilege CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND, imbibed from his father, Charles the First ascended the throne in the year 1625. But England had seen in Elizabeth the last of her absolute monarchs. James had tried to follow in her footsteps ; but he was too weak, and failed. Never again was the legislative assembly, or the nation, to be dictated to in the imperious terms of the last of the Tudors. The era of feudality had, at length, reached its term. The modern spirit had grown up amongst all classes. None were unaffected by it ; but among the Puritans and other sectaries who disdained submission to a settled system of ecclesiastical government, it took the perverted form of a violent recoil against all authority. Scarcely had Charles the First and the gay daughter of Henry the Great of France assumed the insignia of majesty, when those disputes with his unruly Parliament began, which were fated to develop into graver complications, involving infractions of the English constitution upon the part of the King, and eventually plunging the nation into a ruinous civil war. The King had entered upon the path which was to conduct him to the headsman’s block, and to bequeath a life of bitter recollections to his beautiful Catholic consort, Henrietta Maria. It is no part of my purpose to enter into an elaborate ac- count of those causes which led to the singular spectacle of the King and one-half of his subjects with arms in their hands against the Parliament and the other half. I cannot expatiate upon the question of ship money and forced loans. Neither can I write the history of the unwise attempt made by Charles the First, instigated by Archbishop Laud, to force upon the unwilling Scotch Covenanters the acceptance of the boasted Church of England Liturgy. I cannot stop to speak of the arrest of the Five Members, or to dilate upon any of the un- constitutional acts which he performed, or tried to perform, in the course of his reign. This is not the place to settle how far he invaded the liberty of the subject. If he outstepped his kingly prerogative in some cases, there was a class of men among his English subjects only too ready for an excuse to rise in rebellion. This was the Puritan party. The Puritans started into being with a wonderful zeal for Reformation in the time of Elizabeth. The “ holy discipline,” as they termed their own innovations, was to be propagated by force wher- ever it did not meet with willing admission. They christened their children mostly by such names as Joy Again, Deliverance, Kill Sin, Dust, Ashes, -More Fruit, Praise God, &c. The Church of England in their eyes was no better than “ Popery.” The surplice worn hy her ministers they denounced as the 96 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. vesture of Satan.’* They lived but for the destruction of that Church which Seymour and Cranmer bequeathed as a model to posterity. They marked her for doom. Such of their de- testation as they could abstract from her they lavished upon minced pies ; and, in the words of Butler, the author of the inimitable ‘‘ Hudibras,^’ they “blasphemed custard through the nose.” But it was not because they bestowed absurd names upon their offspring, or because they were averse to the famous Christmas dainty, that they involved Charles the First in civil war. They were seditious besides. In their hatred of the Church of England they naturally included the sovereign who was the head of it. Southey, in his “Book of the Church” (c. 15, p. 274, London, 1869), says of the Puritans: — “Elizabeth perceived that the principles of these church-revolutionists were hostile to monarchy * * * and she declared that, without meaning to encourage the Ro- manists, she considered these persons more perilous to the State.” Her career as a Reformer did not please them. Dr. Peter Heylin, Charles the First’s chaplain, and a very candid historian, tells us, in his “History of the Presbyterians” (p. 25, Oxford, 1670), that they likened her “ to an idle slut, who swept the middle of the room, but left all the dust and filth thereof behind the doors. To translate their metaphor, she retained too much that was “papistical” to suit their minds. James the First fared no better at their hands. Dr. Heylin in the rare work, before cited (p. 26), says : — “ The late most mighty monarch of G?eat Britain was handled by his subjects of this faction with no less scurrility than if he had been raised on high for no other purpose than to be made the mark against which they were to shoot their arrows, even most bitter words, the object of all false tongues and bitter pens.” Isaac D’Israeli, in his account of the Martin Mar- Prelate publications in which they disseminated their disloyal principles, says of these fanatical sectaries : — “ They aimed at reform ; hut they designed revolution^ (See his “ Miscellanies of Literature,” p. 298, London, 1856). The Protestant Bishop Parker says, as quoted by the learned annotator of “ Hudi- bras,” Dr. Zachary Grey, (part 2, canto 2) — “They scarce accounted any act so religious as to resist human authority Such were the political principles of a sect w’hich was ex- ceedingly powerful in the days of Charles the First, and which soon became predominant in Parliament. What wonder, then, that, with subjects of this class, Charles the First found himself compelled to draw the sword and summon all loyal men in bis dominions to stand by the Crown against these CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 97 apostles of anarchy and revolution ? The condition of the Catholics under Charles cannot be said to have been much different from what it was in the reign of James the First. The same laws were in existence against them, and need not be recapitulated. The King, upon his marriage with the daughter of France, had promised her brother, Louis the Thirteenth, to consider some measures for the alleviation of the distressed Catholics of England ; but the royal word was broken. It had been passed to served a pur- pose ; and when that purpose was accomplished, Charles, with that unscrupulous disregard for solemn pledges, which forms the darkest trait in his character, thought no more of his assurances. The fines for recusancy were still exacted, and proved a fruitful source of revenue to the Government. In lieu of the penalty of £20 per month for absence from the Church of England service, Charles, in some cases, permitted the Catholics to compound for a life exemption by surrendering sometimes one-third and sometimes one-tenth of their posses- sions, A new penalty of eight pence per head was paid by them if they had not received the Sacrament, according to the rite of the Church of England, within the year. In the matter of ordinary taxation, they were treated with especial harshness, being forced to pay twice the amount levied upon their Pro- testant fellow-subjects. Injustice of every description could be inflicted upon them with the utmost impunity. The highest rank afforded no protection to the Catholic. Clarendon, a contemporary and a Protestant, relates in his “ History of the Rebellion and of the Civil Wars in England,’^ (Book 6, vol. 2, part I, p. 32, Oxford, 1807) that the house of the Countess Rivers was broken into by the rabble, for no other ground than that she was a Papist ; and they ill-treated her and plundered her of ;^40,ooo ; for which she never could receive any reparation. The Protestant nation, through its represent- atives, repeatedly called for the open persecution of the Catholics ; and the King in numerous declarations, published by the historian Clarendon, protested his hostility to ‘ ‘ Popery. Hallam says of him — (Constitutional History, c. ii, p. 527, London, 1871) — “ He had never scrupled in his various negot- iations with the Parliament to acquiesce in any proscriptive measures suggested against Popery.’’ All this, notwith- standing, no sooner had the King taken the field against his Roundhead Parliament, than the Catholics crowded to the royal standard; and during the long civil war which ensued they showed themselves, in his cause, spendthrifts of their resources and their blood. Not one English Catholic is known to have M 98 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. served in the rebel armies of Fairfax, Cromwell, or any other of the Parliamentary generals. Who ever heard of a Catholic Roundhead ? The Catholics were all loyal to Charles the First. Their devotion to him, and his acceptance of it, exas- perated the Parliamentary party. Hallam (“Constitutional History,’’ c. lo, p. 415, London, 1871) says: — “He had already given much offence, at the commencement of the war, by accepting the services which the Catholic gentry were forward to offerf^ Again, the same great historian says (c. ii, p. 527) — “The Catholics had been the most strenuous of the late King’s adherents, the greatest sufferers for their loyalty Lord Macaulay in a brilliant speech upon the state of Ireland in 1844 (“Speeches,” p. 146, London, 1866) says of the Eng- lish Catholics : — “ They were all under the banner of Charles the First.” Dr. Stanhope, who was Dean of Canterbury, during the first quarter of the eighteenth century, in a passage quoted by Dr. Milner (“ Letters to a Prebendary,” Letter 7, p. 295, Cork, 1802) says ; — “ It is a truth beyond question that there were a great many noble, brave, and loyal spirits of th^ Roman persuasion^ who did, with the greatest integrity, and without any other design than satisfying conscience^ adventure their lives in the King’s service ; and that several, if not all of them, were men of such souls that the greatest temptations in the world could not have perverted them, or made them desert the King in his greatest distress.” Behold the character of the English Catholics, who, according to poor, bigoted, ill-read Mr. Kane, cannot be loyal to a Protestant sovereign ! An anonymous work of the day, ascribed to a bishop of the Established Church, says, as quoted by Dr. Milner, with re- ference to the conduct of the Catholics towards Charles the First : — “ The English Papist for his courage and loyalty de- serves to be recorded in the annals of fame.” These are the unsolicited testimonies of Protestant scholars, men of honour; and they deal a death-blow to the wild statements of the Christ Church Brahmin. To say nothing of the many thousands of Catholic soldiers who lost their lives in the cause of Charles the First, we can produce the names of 194 Catholic noblemen and gentry, who fell in battle against the Parliamentarians. Their names were collected by the contemporary Lord Castlemaine ; and the entire list may be read in Challoner’s interesting “ Memoirs of Missionary Priests” — (vol. 2, pp. 324 — 330, Derby, 1843). The following are a few of the castles and mansions which were converted into fortresses, and defended against the King’s enemies by their Catholic owners: — Winchester Castle, CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 99 Arundel Castle, Wardour Castle, Ragland Castle, Lulworth Castle, Fowls Castle, Lidney House, Camden House, Basing House, &c., &c. The Marquis of Worcester, who belonged to that faith which, we are told, cannot produce a loyal man, spent, together with his son Lord Herbert, the immense sum of ;^200,ooo in the service of the unfortunate Charles, as I read in the continuation of Sir James Mackintosh’s ‘‘ History of England,” a Protestant work (vol. 6, p. 14, Lardner’s ‘^Cabinet Cyclopaedia,” London, 1836). Several of the Catholic gentry raised and maintained bodies of troops at their own expense. Of these, I find the names of Sir Edward Widdrington and Sir N. Thornton conspicuous in the stirring events of the times. Their estates were confiscated and sold, under an act of the Rump Parliament in 1652. After the execution of Charles the First, the young prince, then Charles the Second, made a brave yet vain endeavour to recover the throne of his fathers. Cromwell, whose power was in the ascendant, inflicted a crushing defeat upon him at Worcester in 1651. The young king fled for his life. Had he been captured, the same fate awaited him as had befallen his unhappy father, for whom Cromwell had no more respect- ful title than ‘‘the man,” “the late man,” Let Protestant writers have the privilege of stating by whom the youthful king was protected. Lord Macaulay says, in one of his most effective parliamentary utterances (“ Speeches,” p. 126, Lon- don, 1866) — “When a reward of ;^5,ooo was offered for Charles the Second, alive or dead, when to conceal him was to run a most serious risk of the gallows^ it was among Roman Catholics that he found shelter.'^'' The great Protestant his- torian Clarendon has preserved some interesting particulars of the hunted King’s adventures, as detailed to him by the royal lips, The King had sought a hiding place in a wood> and had rested himself, when he perceived a man seated in an oak. This man he knew to be a Staffordshire Catholic, named Captain Careless, an old adherent of his father’s, and one of his own army at the battle of Worcester. Careless easily persuaded the King to exchange his own place of concealment for one in the tree which was covered with dense foliage. Here they both remained in perfect safety, and heard the threatening conversation of many who were searching the wood for the royal fugitive. Clarendon (“History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England,” Book 13, vol, 3, part 2, p, 625, Oxford, 1807) says : — “ It was part of the King’s good fortune, that this gentleman (Careless) by being a Ro- man Catholic, was acquainted with those of that profession loo CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. of all degrees^ who had the best opportunities of concealing him ; for it must never be denied, that some of that religion had a very great share in his Majesty’s preservation.” When night came on, the King and Captain Careless pushed for a cottage, ‘‘the owner whereof,''’ says Clarendon, “being a Roman Catholic, was known to Careless.’" They rapped him up ; and he, understanding their plight, in the words of the same authority, “ presently carried them into a little barn, full of hay ; which was a better lodging than he had for him- self.” Upon consultation, it was determined that as the dan- ger would be increased by both fugitives remaining with this poor peasant. Careless should depart, and, in two days, send the King a guide to conduct him to some other place of se- curity, Charles, in the meantime, feasted upon buttermilk and bread, brought to him by his simple host who apologised for the rudeness of the fare, by stating that it was the daily provision of himself and wife, and that he feared to draw sus- picion upon himself by trying to procure better ; for people might then be apt to think that he was harbouring some one of greater consequence than his own family. “ However,” says Clarendon, “if he would have him get some meat, he would do it; but if he could bear this hard diet, he should have enough of the milk, and some of the butter that was made with it.” Poor, hospitable soul ! Charles was content with this humble fare ; and declared that he had never eaten or drunk anything with greater relish. Another Catholic^ sent by Careless, now came to guide his Majesty to a house^ twelve miles farther on. “ And being now,” says Clarendon (p. 628), “in that quarter which was more inhabited by the Roman Catholics than most other parts of England, he was led from one to another of that persuasion, and concealed with great fidelity f At Boscobel, Whiteladies, Moseley, Madeley^ &c., he was entirely in the hands of the Catholics, and ex- perienced their most devoted attachment. The names of fifty-two Catholics can be given who were acquainted with the dignity of the royal fugitive, and through whose hands he passed not only with safety, but with loving ten- derness, during the brief but eventful period which elapsed between the disaster at Worcester and his escape to the Con- tinent. In this number were three priests, poor, burrowing fugitives like their sovereign. Father Huddlestone, in par^ ticular, a Benedictine, placed his own hiding-hole at the com- mand of Charles. This was the same priest who had the greater happiness of receiving His Majesty into the bosom of the Catholic Church, when the repentant libertine was about CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. lot to close his e3^es upon this world. The infidel Hume His- tory of England/' c. 6o, vol. 7, p. 246, London, 1834), speak- ing of the royal adventures, says: — “As he often passed through the hands of Catholics, the Priest’s Hole, as they called it, the place where they were obliged to conceal their persecuted priests, was sometimes employed for sheltering their distressed sovereign.” What would Charles the Second have said in reply to Mr. Kane’s assertion that an English Catholic could not be loyal to a Protestant sovereign ? I fear me, he would have said, with his well-known expletive — “ ’Odds fish, man, the Rev. fellow lies — notoriously lies.” Upon the overthrow of the Royalists, the English Catholics, because of their distinguished loyalty to Charles the First, were marked for vengeance by Oliver Cromwell and his party. The hatred of the Commonwealth to the late King’s Catholic adherents took the form chiefly of confiscation. It is impos- sible to say how many Catholics suffered the loss of their estates for that virtue which the all-sufficient Kane of Christ Church, Belfast, declares they could not possess, namely, loyalty. But I have before me particulars which will show how many Catholics were robbed of their possessions by the rebels in the two years 1651 and 1652, By an act of the famous Rump Parliament passed July i6th, 1651, the estates, both real and personal, of eighteen Catholics were sold, in consequence of their owners having supported the King, The list of. sufferers includes five Lords, viz.: — John, Lord Marquis ofWorcester, Henry, Lord Marquisof Worcester, Francis,Lord Cottington, John, Lord Somerset, Marmaduke, Lord Langdale 5 eight Knights, viz ; — Sir J. Winter, Sir T. Tildesly, Sir H^ Slingsby, Sir Percy Herbert, Sir Francis Howard, Sir Henry Bedingfield, Sir Arthur Aston, Sir Thomas Haggarston ; and five Esquires, viz : — Roger Bodenham, Charles Townley, Rowland Eyre, Peter Pudsey, and John Giffard. By an act passed on August 4th, 1652, the estates of Henry Viscount Dunbar were sold, together wfith those of Sir William Vavassor, and Sir Edward Ratcliffe, Knights ; also those of the following fifteen Esquires, viz: — Thomas Clifton, Peter Gifford, Walter Fowler, Thomas Brook, Francis Biddulph, William Middleton, Nicholas Errington, Henry Errington, John Jones, John Weston, Philip Hungate, Robert Dolman, Richard Massey, George Smith, and Ralph Pudsey. By an act passed on Nov- ember i8th in the same year, the estates of five Lords were sold, viz. : — Henry, Lord Arundel of Wardour, Henry, Lord Morley and Monteagle, William, Lord Ewre, William, Lord Powis, and Charles, Lord Somerset j also those of eleven 102 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. Knights, viz.; — Sir Walter Blount, Sir Edward Widdrington, Sir Richard Tichbourne, Sir Charles Blount, Sir J. Clavering, Sir John Cansfield, Sir John Thimbelby, Sir Philip Constable, Sir Edward Plumpton, Sir N. Thornton, and Sir Edward Charlton ; besides those of thirty-two Esquires, viz. : — Hugh Anderton, Thomas Langtree, William Houghton, William Hesketh, William Latham, Thomas Singleton, John Westby, William Sheldon, William Gage, Thomas Clavering, John Plumpton, Marmaduke Holby, Hengry Inglefield, Robert Wigmore, Robert Cramblington, William Sherburn, John Constable, Richard Latham, William Bawd, James Anderton, Thomas Singleton, John Talbot, Nicholas Fitzakerley, John Percy, Thomas Acton, Thomas Gillibrand, Thomas Grimshaw, Ralph Rishton, William Floyer, Richard Chorley, James Anderton of Cleyton, and William Anderton; making a grand total, for two years only, of eighty-four wealthy Catholics whose estates were confiscated by the usurping Commonwealth for the loyalty manifested by their oimers to Charles the First ! As Hallam says of the English Catholic nobility and gentry at this period — ‘‘Their estates had been selected for confisca- tion when others had been admitted to compound.’’ (See his “ Constitutional History ” c. 1 1, p. 527, London, 1871). I am indebted for the knowledge of the above names to a work which is indispensable to any writer purposing to deal with the history of the English Catholics in the sixteenth and seven- teenth centuries, namely, Challoner’s “ Memoirs of Missionary Priests,” (voL 2, pp. 331—334, Derby, 1843). Verily, the Catholics suffered sharply for their loyalty. The character of the Catholic country gentlemen of the iseventeenth century has been portrayed by Lord Macaulay in a vivid manner. There is not the least hint given by that Protestant historian of a constitutional disloyalty forming any part of it. Why not, when, according to Mr. Kane, Catholics cannot be loyal? Lord Macaulay (“History of England,” vol. I, p. 491, London, 1875) says of the typical English Catholic country gentleman of the Stuart period — “ He was always a Cavalier ” : which is tantamount to saying he was a constant supporter of the Protestant King. Again, in place of being turbulent, as disloyal people must be, he was, says Macaulay, “unambitious and inoffensive.^'* Again — “His peculiar notions were not obtruded, no annoy ance^ But those of disloyal men do cause annoyance. Again, the great historian writes ; — “ The most impudent false witnesses could hardly venture to shock the common sense of mankind by accusing him of being a conspirators ” Could they not indeed? CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. 103 Then he must have been an eminently quiet, submissive, law- abiding, loyal gentlemen, of a surety ! But the great word- painter did not live to hear the most impudent false witness ” who bellows out in Christ Church, Belfast, that neither English nor Irish Catholics can be loyal — who has howled it from numerous platforms in a perfect agony of malignity ; for his hatred of Catholics tortures him. The English Catholic gentleman of the period which I have been writing about never allowed the question of religion to interfere with his loyalty. The enemies of the nation were his enemies, too, even though they might be Catholics. He was ready to welcome the Catholics of other countries as brethren in the faith, if they visited England as ordinary travellers visit any country ; but if th^y came with arms in their hands to molest the Protestant succession, he favoured them not ; they grew as aliens to him ; he forgot that they were Catholics ; he remembered only that they came to usurp ; and he became earnest to witness their repulse. “ Indeed,” says Lord Macaulay (p. 492) “he would have been as ready as any of his Protestant neighbours to gird on his sword, and to put pistols in his holsters, for the defence of his native land against an invasion of French or Irish Papists*” Mr. Kane says that Catholics cannot be loyal in England or elsewhere. Hallam, a more judicious Protest- ant, with a thousand times his knowledge, describes the English Catholics as “ by no means naturally less attached to their country and its liberties than other Englishmen.” (See his “ Constitutional History ” c. 10, p. 415, London, 1871). Their Catholicity does not make them traitors. What then becomes of the assertion which, some Sundays ago, was made, with other assertions of a like nature, for the instruction of his congregation, by Mr. Kane, who finds it so difficult to let the stream of the Gospel flow from his lips for even twenty minutes consecutively that he must defile so much of it as he pours out for his people, with an admixture taken from the gutters of calumny in the proportion of two parts of falsehood to one of celestial truth ? — I now commit my case, so far as the English Catholics are interested, to the judgment of all reflecting and unbiassed Protestants. I have directed upon Mr. Kane’s reckless statement the light shining from the elegant pages of men who were hostile, but still honest in their hostility, to the Catholic Church. So destitute of a foundation in truth has that state- ment been proved to be, and proved upon unexceptionable authorities, that, I am convinced, every intelligent Protestant who has followed these pages with attention will arrive at the 104 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN ENGLAND. conclusion that Mr. Kane has no alternative but to plead, in excuse for himself, a lamentable lack of historical reading, should he have any desire to escape the graver charge of being considered a deliberate traducer. Which horn of the dilemma will he take ? Will he sacrifice his character as a great “LL.D.,’’ by admitting that he knows of history just what Voltaire’s hero, Zadig, knew of metaphysics (c’ est-i-dire fort peu de chose) ? Or will he preserve his estimation in the eyes of the public as a learned ‘‘LL.D.^’, by claiming to have been well acquainted with the facts which these pages have placed before him, and sacrifice himself as a Protestant clergyman by giving Ulster to understand that he prefers to be recognised as a wilful maligner ? I care not the value of his word which of the two courses he may choose to adopt. The falsehood of his assertion has been demonstrated. But the University that gave him his ‘‘ LL.D.”, may be desirous to see him vindicate his claim to it, as a learned man, by admitting the historical facts at the expense of his virtue, lest people should wonder at the liberality with which the letters of the alphabet are dispensed in Ireland; while on the other hand, his brother clergymen, his congregation, and the local Church of Ireland Protestants generally, oblivious of University degrees, maybe better pleased if he will meekly accept the brand of ignorance, to evade the worse one of intentional calumny ; for English Catholics have been loyal, and loyal despite the most terrible persecution. “S. J.» CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND UNDER PERSECUTION. history of English rul^ in this country, ©v©n in the days when Englishmen and Irishmen were alike Catholic, was not marked by any of those valuable blessings undoubtedly imparted by it to the inhabitants of that land over which, in the opinion of many, it ought alone to be ex- ercised. In the mind of the Englishman, it was consecrated by the glorious traditions of past ages. The great constitu- tion under which he lived was framed of the accumulated wisdom of generations of his ancestors. It was that under which he should, legitimately, exist ; it had given the nation, and every member of the nation, a position of high considera- tion in the eyes of other nationalities ; his own prosperity was caused by it, and was identified with its preservation ; it was the best legacy of his forefathers, best even in the days of its gradual growth ; his affections were indissolubly bound up in it — in a word, it was his own, and was not synonymous with usurpation or oppression. Not so with the case of Ireland. English rule was not indigenous to Ireland. It was altogether extraneous. It had entered by invasion ; and subsisted not by virtue of the protection or benefits which it conferred, but by dint of arms. Of moral roots it had none. It never did, because in the nature of things it could not, reach the Irish heart. It was not associated with the advancement of the Irish people, for its aim was to uproot them as a nation. For this purpose, the invaders proceeded to ban the national lan- guage, dress, music, and everything which gives body and form to a nationality. This was in the time when England X io6 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. and Ireland knelt at the same altar. Long before the Re- formation came to envenom the hostile relations which already existed between the two races, the object of English domina- tion in Ireland was the extinguishment of the Irish. They were made to feel that though equal in the sight of the Al- mighty, in the estimation of the usurping Normans they were, in the words of the monk Matthew Paris, “bestial men” (homines bestiales). In process of time, it became high trea- son for an English settler to intermarry with a woman of the degraded race, or to give his children to an Irish female to nurse. Forfeiture of lands and tenements was entailed upon an English resident by the assumption of an Irish name, or if he spoke the Irish language, or wore Irish apparel. If the offender had no lands, he was to be imprisoned till he found security for his better behaviour. It was penal for an Eng- lishman to permit an Irishman to graze his cattle in the fields of the former ; it was penal to present any Irishman to an ecclesiastical benefice, to receive one into any monastery or religious house, to entertain any of the Irish bards, or to have any trade or commerce in an Irish market or fair— “Whereby,” says Sir John Davies, the Protestant Attorney-General sent over to Ireland by James the First, “ it is manifest, that such as had the government of Ireland under the crowne of Eng- land, did inte 7 id to make a perpetuall separation and enmity betweene the English and the Irish, pretending (no doubt) that the English should in the end roote out the Irish : which the English not being able to do did cause a perpetuall .warre betweene the nations.” (See his “ Discoverie of the State of Ireland,” p. 50, London, 1613). Behold the assurance of an official of the administration, a lawyer, and one well acquainted with English policy, in a book dedicated to the King of Eng- land, as to what was the guiding principle of Irish government within two centuries after the Norman invasion ! To receive the benefit of the law, it was necessary, in the times of which I am writing, for an Irishman to purchase a charter of denizatiofiy as if the land were not his own, and that he was in it merely as an alien. Indeed, says Sir John Davies (p. 51), the native Irish “were in worse case than aliens of any forren realme that was in amity with the crowne of Eng- land.” An Irishman, unless he belonged to one of the Five Noble Bloods, whioh were the O’Neills of Ulster, the O^Me- laghlins of Meath, the O’Connors of Connaught, the O’Briens of Thomond, and the MacMurroughs of Leinster, could not take legal proceedings of any sort against an Englishman ; or, if he did, he was sure to be non-suited. It misbecame the CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. 107 dignity of an English judge to open the statute-book in his behalf, or, rather, the statute-book, when opened, was found to declare that, as one of “the mere Irish,'" he was not en- titled to look for justice in this world. Sir John Davies (p. 47) gives two instances, taken from the archives of Dublin Castle, of the application of this iniquitous principle. One is an action for trespass and the other for detinue of goods. The sole plea of the defendant in each case is — that the plaintiff is one of the “ mere Irish,” and that in consequence he (the defendant) is not accountable to him for the injury ! (Quod non tenetur ei inde respondere, eo quod est Hibernicus, et non de libero sanguine). In each case, however, the plaintiffs got a verdict. But was it because they proved their wrongs ? Not at all. It was because one plaintiff swore that, he be- longed to one of the Five Noble Bloods, and therefore was entitled to enjoy the same privileges as an Englishman ; and because the other one swore that he was not Irish, but English ! The violator of female chastity, if his victim was an Irishwoman, went unpunished. (See Moore’s “ History of Ireland,” c, 36, vol. 3, p. 51, Lardner’s “Cabinet Cyclo** paedia,” London, 1840). The life of an Irishman was of no value in the eyes of English legislators. A capital offence was not committed by taking it* The murderer had but to allege that his victim was one of “the mere Irish and he escaped with the payment of a fine. This, in the language of Sir John Davies, “ is manifest by many records.” Again, he says (p. 46) — “They were not only disabled to bring anie actions, but they were so farre out of the protection of the Lawe, as it was often adjudged no fellony to kill a meere Irishman in the time of peace,” Again (p. 50) he writes “ Our Lawe did neither protect his life nor revenge his death*’' Moore (“ History of Ireland,’" c. 36, vol. 3, p. 75), by quoting the statute, shows that not even the life of a Bishop of Irish race was protected by law. Sir John Davies enumerates (p. 51) statutes of the reigns of Edward the Third, Henry the Fourth, Henry the Sixth, Edward the Fourth, and Henry the Seventh, all of which speak of our countrymen as the “ Irish Enemiesf “as if,"’ he remarks, “the Irish had never bin in condition of Subjectes, but alwaies out of the protection of the Lawe !” Further, he assures His Majesty, James the First, that English misgovernment is the cause of Irish dis- content ; and, like a reasonable man, asks (p* 53)- — “If the King woulde not admit them to the condition of subjectes, how collide they leame to acknoledge and obey him as their Soveraigne?” No Irishwoman, married to an Englishman, io8 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. could, if she survived him, claim a dowry by English law. She might starve. Every English lord in the country was empowered to set aside the last wills of the unfortunate Irish who were under him, and could legally appropriate all the testators’ property to himself, if so inclined. (See Moore’s “ History of Ireland,” c. 36, vol. 3, p. 75). No Irishman was permitted to quit the realm without a license under the Great Seal ; and any English subject who should seize the person and goods of a native attempting to depart without such license, was to receive one-half of the fugitive’s goods as his reward (ib. ib. p. 151). In such laws is to be found the origin and well-spring of Irish dissatisfaction. They were framed in the spirit of tierce hostility. They produced their legitimate fruit ; and fired Irish bosoms with detestation of the ruthless Sassenach. And what other could have been their effect ? No general amalgamation of races could follow. Individual connections were, indeed, formed, and a race, intensely Irish in feeling, sprang from them, in spite of laws. But the in- evitable tendency of such enactments was to erect an eternal wall of separation between the invader and the native. They kept apart, and not even a common faith could fuse them together. The father told his sufferings to his son, and he his to the next generation, and so on. The tradition has passed down to the present day. The most ignorant Irish- man knows that English sovereignty in Ireland never meant protection. It was always synonymous with persecution. MidvVay between the Norman period of which we have been speaking, and the present time, came the Reformation. No sooner had it found a home in England than it was recog- nised as a powerful engine wherewith to work woe upon the Celt. Armies of apostles (I use the word “armies” ad- visedly) were at once despatched to Ireland. Never was there an ill-fated country in which, in the attempt to propagate the Reformation and make people recognise its celestial origin, there was such reliance placed upon what the Protestant author of “ Hudibras” terms — “the holy text of pike and gun.” Erstwhile, in the dark days of “ Popish slavery,’^ an infallible church had been wont to determine controversies as to doctrine ; but now that men’s minds were set free by the “Gospel” (lately discovered), crosiers gave way to ramrods, mitres to steel head-pieces, prelates yielded to cannoneers, and the religious tribunal, the ultimate ecclesiastical court of appeal, became, in the phrase of the witty author last quoted — “ infallible !” Forthwith, the Reformers sent to Ireland began, like the rest, to— CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. 109 “ prove their doctrine orthodox By apostolic blows and knocks, Call fire, and sword, and desolation, A godly thorough reformation !” — “Hudibras” (Canto 1). I cannot do more than glance at the atrocities perpetrated in this country during^ Elizabeth’s reign, in the blasphemed name of the Gospel. Taylor, the Protestant author of the ‘‘History of the Civil Wars in Ireland,” (vide O’Connell’s “ Memoir on Ireland,” p. 127, Dublin, 1844), says, with infinite candour: — “ The first impression produced by the advocates of the reformed religion was that the new system sanctioned sacri- lege and robbery P'' The monasteries, those long-revered sanctuaries of saintly piety or learned industry, whence humble charity daily fed the famished poor for ages before the workhouse (that offspring of the Reformation) was known, were burned, or levelled to the ground ; or, if allowed to remain intact, were sold or leased for a mere trifle, to be- come the profane abode of some pander to Henry’s lust or some tool of the fratricidal Somerset. One Edward Barret received a grant from Elizabeth of the monastery of Moyne, with all its appurtenances, to hold the same at the rent of five shillings per annum ! (See the Rev. C. P. Meehan’s “Rise and Fall of the Franciscan Monasteries in Ireland,” p. 63, Dublin, 1872). Holy monks were forced to fly to the caves and the fastnesses of the mountains, where many of them perished of hunger, while those who were captured died by the cord, or beneath the fragments of rocks which the military apostles hurled upon them. Some were tortured by encasing their feet in an iron boot filled with quicklime ; and it was no uncommon practice to batter their shaven crowns in derision with stones till the brain protruded, and life became extinct. The spouses of Christ were expelled from their peaceful con- vents, and murdered or violated. Churches, erected in the long-past days when Ireland was the luminary of Christendom, where saints had once officiated, and from whose altars they had dispensed the Bread of Life to the faithful, were dese- crated and overthrown. Their richest carvings fed the Eng- lish and apostolic campfire. The sacred edifices themselves were not unfrequently transformed into stables ; and some- times from the choir, or from the very altar-slab itself, the taverner sold his wine. Jewelled chalices, which had once contained the redeeming Blood of Christ, became the prey of the avaricious apostate, or were converted by the blasphemer of the holy mysteries into drinking-cups, to be used, amid imprecations and unutterable impieties, in the wild orgies of a cut-throat^s debauch. The newly-enlightened desperadoes) i 10 CATHOLIC Loyalty in irlland. with their souls cleansed from ‘‘Popery’’ and whitened by “ the Gospel/’ mockingly arrayed themselves in* the vest- ments of the plundered and murdered clergy whose bleeding corpses were hard by, and with many a curse upon priests and shavelings, and in celebration of their own regeneration, they relaxed, as over-wrought missionaries, and abandoned themselves to apostolical inebriety. They broke open and rifled the tombs of Irish princes and saints in search of buried treasures, and scattered the ashes of generations to the winds. These were the successors of St. Malachy and St. Laurence O’Toole ! What marvel is it, then, that the Irish peasantry, the peasantry the most wed to religion of any under the sun, banded themselves together in many counties, and rose to exterminate those godless ruffians whose actions formed a continual libel upon the name of Christian or even of man ? They had been tried beyond endurance ; they were a con- quered people, with the recollection of four centuries of op- pression branded in their memories ; and they perceived in the introduction of the new religion a crowning effort put forth for their extermination. That the Irish, then all Catho- lics, should be patterns of submission and loyalty, to a man, is not to be expected. If they showed any attachment at all to the English rulers who bequeathed them the Reformation with the above results, their virtue certainly must be allowed to take infinite precedence over any exhibition of loyalty which Protestants or Catholics nowadays make, of can evef hope to make. The loyalty, under such circumstances as I have generalised, of even a minority of any nation to theif persecuting rulers, would go farther to prove the law-abiding character of the natives generally than complete tranquillity preserved by them under the improved circumstances of peaceful times like the present. Many a monastery had been plundered, many a library had been burned, many a stained glass window had been shattered, many a holy image had been hewn down, many a crucifix had been spat upon, many a priest had been butchered, many a peasant had been mur* dered, many an Irish maiden had been defiled, many an infant had been tossed upon the spears of the first apostles of the Reformation in Ireland, when war broke out between England and Scotland, then an independent kingdom, in the reign of Edward the Sixth. And did persecuted Ireland interest her- self in the military operations of the Protestant Somerset, and assist him ? She did, and afforded him a body of troops, all Catholics, under the command of Donough, son of O'Connor Fahy> together with the sons of Cahir O'Connor. (See Mac® CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. Ill Geoghegan’s “ History of Ireland/’ p. 432, Dublin, 1844). They were present at the decisive battle of Pinkie-cleugh, in which the Scotch were routed with a loss of 10,000 men, and performed prodigies of valour in behalf of their country’s enslaver. In all the risings which took place of the native chieftains seeking their independence in Elizabeth’s reign. Irishmen and Catholics, in considerable numbers, were in the royal armies that put them down. This was the case with Shane O’Neill whose insurrection failed of its object, mainly through the opposition which he encountered from his Catholic country- men who were allied with the English forces. The Desmonds failed in Munster, owing largely to the same reason. It is not necessary to pass any opinion relative to those Irishmen who supported Elizabethan and Protestant rule against Irish and Catholic rule. My object only is to display facts which patriotic historians acknowledge with unwillingness. It does not matter with what names of traitor and recreant such chieftains and their adherents are branded. The fact remains^ and it is a singular one, that there was no small attachment upon the part of the native Irish to the Tudor lioness, and that they loyally supported her against their Catholic brethren at the very time when she was working for the uprooting of their religion. The testimony of patriotic Catholic historians in such a case is of as much moral weight as if it came from the lips of a Protestant opponent, inasmuch as the. fact is grvdgingly allowed. The rising of the Desmonds in Munster has been alluded to. Sir William Drury commanded the English forces against them. Soon after his arrival in Ireland, he hung Dr. Patrick O’Hely, Bishop of Mayo, and two priests, after inflicting upon them frightful tortures; and allowed their bodies to remain suspended from a tree for fourteen days, to be used as targets by his soldiers. Yet Irish Catholics helped him to put Desmond down ! That patriotic writer, Martin Haverty, declares so and endeavours to excuse them. In his “ History of Ireland” — (p. 416, Dublin, 1867), he says : — ‘‘Drury summoned all the nobility of Munster, on their allegiance, to rally under the royal standard, and thus gathered a considerable army, composed to a great extent of Irish and Catholics^ who, partly through fear and partly through the indecision or jealousy of their lords, found them- selves thus serving against the very cause to which all their national and religious sentiments would have naturally attracted them.” John Mitchel, in his interesting “Life of Hugh O’Neill,” (c. 5, p. 63, Dublin, 1868), says : — “ In th^ II2 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. southern war the greater portion of the Irish race was on the side of Elizabeth, ’’ All this time the work of Reformation was going on in Ireland. It is not necessary to particularise the laws which were made for Ireland against the Catholic religion by Elizabeth. They were the same in character and tenor as those in force in England. The pages of even Protestant writers, such as Fynes Moryson, ( a contemporary ), Cox, Taylor, &c., reek with the horrors which were enacted against the Irish, when it was found impossible to Protestantise them. In every chapter we meet hideous records of butchery, treachery, spoliation, devastation, and famine. Garrisons of those who had banded themselves together for the defence Iq their faith were repeatedly massacred in cold blood, after the honour of English officers had been pawned for their safety. Intractable native chiefs and their families were sometimes invited to accept ‘‘Reformed*’ hospitality, and suddenly slaughtered while their deceitful hosts were smiling in affected amity upon them. The peasantry were sometimes driven into dismantled strongholds or deserted mansions, and there left to expire amid the terrors of an enforced conflagration. The cornfields were set on fire for league after league, to spread the work of extermination ; and multitudes of the victims of starvation were often discovered whose shrivelled lips were green with nettles and dock-leaves, or incarnadined with human gore. Children were found roasting the hideous feast of man’s flesh. Irish females, as mere “ Papists” and “ idolators” were ravished and hung to trees, while their innocent babes were strangled with the mothers’ hair, and left as a dangling spectacle of horror in mid-air, to be devoured perhaps, by some miserable wretch, frantic with hunger, some rejecter of “ the Gospel,” who crawled from a cavity in the earth where he had concealed himself, to escape the swarm of passing desperadoes. We read of whole families, choosing immediate death in preference to the protracted agonies of famine, offering themselves to the soldiers to be slain, and having their wish acceded to, amid the demon shouts of their callous murderers. Two marauders in Ulster, named Boen and Willis, made themselves a name for cruelty. They carried off the heads of families for whom they required a ransom of 200 or 300 cows. When the ransom was not forthcoming, they tortured their unhappy prisoners by frying the soles of their feet in seething butter and brimstone. (See the Rev. C. P. Meehan's “Rise and Fall of the Franciscan Monasteries,” p. 12, Dublin, 1872). The estates of the Catholic chieftains CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. 113 were bestowed upon Protestants. Sir Walter Raleigh received 12,000 acres in Munster. (See Patrick Fraser Ty tier’s “Life of Raleigh’^ p. 59, London, 1841). The Poet Spenser was presented with a magnificent estate, watered by the river Mulla, and enclosing the Castle of Kilcolman. Sir Christopher Hatton, Elizabeth’s “ Dancing Chancellor"^ received estates in Co. Waterford ; Sir Edward Denny, Sir Wm. Harbart, Charles Harbart, John Holly, Captain Jenkin Conway, and John Campion, in Co. Kerry. In Co. Cork, estates were given to Sir Warham St. Leger, Hugh Cuffe, Sir Thomas Norris, Arthur Robins, Arthur Hyde, Fane Beecher, Hugh Worth, and Thomas Say ; in the Counties of Cork and Waterford to Richard Bacon ; in the Co. Limerick to Sir Wm. Courtney, Francis Barkley, Robert Anslow, Richard and Alexander Fitton, Edmund Mainwaring, Wm. Trenchard, George Thornton, Sir George Boucher, and Henry Bollingsly, Sir Edward Fitton received estates in the Counties of Limerick, Waterford, and Tipperary. Estates in other parts were soon confiscated ; and circulars were sent round to the younger sons of English families inviting them to take them at two pence and three pence per acre, but upon condition that no Irishman, in other words, no Catholic should he permitted tQ reside upon the land so taken ! (See MacGeoghegan’s “ His- tory of Ireland,” p. 484, Dublin, i844)» Protestantism would not spread, notwithstanding. From the outbreak of the Reformation in Ireland to the accession of James the First in 1603, a period of upwards of sixty years, it made only sixty converts ; while the Catholic faith produced as many thousand martyrs and confessors whose names, though unknown to history, have been recorded in Heaven. Thus were the Catholics of Ireland persecuted for their religion, under the pretext of rebellion, — they who had re- ceived and sheltered numerous Protestants flying from persecution in England. The Catholic merchants of Dublin hired seventy-four houses for the Protestant refugees of Bristol and its vicinity, and fed and sent back those refugees in safety to England when Elizabeth ascended the throne. Taylor, the Protestant author of the “History of the Civil Wars in Ireland,” in a passage cited by O’Connell in his stirring “ Memoir on Ireland,” (p. 134, Dublin, 1844) says : — “ Several of the English who fled from the furious zeal of Mary’s inquisitors, found a safe retreat among the Catholics of Irelands ^ The anti-Catholic Leland, in his “History of Ireland, ”(voL 2, 213, Dublin, I774)says i — “Several English families, friends to the Reformation, fled into Ireland, and there enjoyed their 114 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. opinions and worship in privacy without notice or molestation. What a return ! What Protestant merchants took houses for the persecuted Catholic merchants and maintained them ? What Irish families, coming within reach of the Protestant denizens of Ireland in the days of which I am speaking, were allowed to enjoy ‘‘their opinions and worship without notice or molestation Such, in brief, was the state of affairs when the great Hugh O’Neill began his struggle for independence and for the sup- pression of the Reformation in Ireland ; and although his was the most widespread rising of the Catholic Irish which took place in the reign of Elizabeth, the Catholics of Ireland generally were far from taking any part in it, at least, upon the side of that hero. I suppose there is not that English or Irish Protestant so ignorant as not to know, in general terms, at least, that the Irish Catholics suffered dreadful persecution in the reign of Elizabeth. Such Protestants as are tutored by Mr. Kane in the belief that it is impossible for Catholics to be other than perturbers of a Protestant government, are at once prepared to hear that when such a leader as the deathless Hugh O’Neill called upon them, throughout Ireland, to rise in the cause which he had made his own, there was not one man of their number who did not rally round his standard. Had they done so in this unanimous manner, who is there that could blame them, and brand them with the name of rebels ? Surely Protestants will not be their accusers, who boast of their own struggles for liberty of conscience ? Did Protestants endure one-thousandth part as much from James the Second as Catholics did from Queen Elizabeth be- fore they stood up and cast their allegiance from them ? Yet the Catholics in England, as we have seen, suffering in- numerable times the oppression of Protestants under James the Second, remained loyal as a body, while the Protestants, as a body, for their comparatively insignificant grievances, drove the last-mentioned monarch from his throne, and trans- ferred their fealty to the Prince of Orange. But to return to the insurrection of Hugh O'Neill. In November, 1599, he issued a manifesto to the Catholics of the towns throughout Ireland warning them of “ the great calamity and misery into which they were likely to fall by persevering in the damnable state in which they had been living.” “Damnable state in which they had been living?’^ What did he mean by that? Did he mean that they had not been leading virtuous lives — that they had been giving way to theft, drunkenness, or any other offence against the Commandments ; and that, accord- CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. *15 ingly, he, like a pious man, feared for their salvation? Not at all ! Hugh O’Neill, with a soul of great nobility, fired by intense patriotism, undoubtedly wished to see all moral ex- cellence existing in his countrymen ; but it was not for their offences against honesty, sobriety, or the like, that he issued his proclamation to the Irish in the towns. The “damnable state in which they had been living,” and in which he besought them not to persevere^ meant this — that they had hitherto sup^ ported the government of Elizabeth ^ which, as heretical and persecuting, he considered it “damnable” in them to uphold; and he hoped that as he had now risen to overthrow that government, and restore their beloved religion in its splem dour, they would abandon their past attachment to Elizabeth and English rule^ and combine with him in the cause of their faith and independence. So we possess the evidence of Hugh O'Neill himself, as contained in the above reproach, that the Catholics throughout Ireland, so far from being enemies to Protestant persecuting rule, had been steadfast in their maintenance of it. He threatens to despoil them, if they do not join him — another proof that they had, in the past, kept their allegiance to Elizabeth ! Do rational men employ threats to secure the help of those who have been always in favour of their objects ? He declares that it will be impossible for him to succeed without the assistance of the Catholics in the towns ; a declaration which proves that the number of supporters which the Queen had in them, of the Catholic re- ligion, must have been very considerable. He concludes in a manner which still further proves that, theretofore, the Catholics of the towns had taken part with Queen Elizabeth, and upheld her sovereignty in Ireland. He says; — “So I rest, praying the Almighty to move your flinty hearts to prefer the commo- dity and profit of your country before your own private ends.” The Reformation had at this time been in the country upwards of fifty years, and had wrought all the desolation which 1 have but glanced at; and yet Irish Catholics, living in Irish towns, were such good subjects to the Protestant succession that they were taunted with their adhesion to it by Hugh O'Neill ! It is indisputable, then, that a vast body of Irish Catholics, amidst even the persecutions of fire and sword in the sixteenth century, were steady adherents of the English crown. The Catholics to whom O’Neill addressed his pro- clamation remained so ; and patriotic writers blame their conduct. But with that I have nothing to do. My sole pur- pose is to produce facts to which no well-read person of any candour can close his eyes. The Rev. C. P. Meehan, who CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND, ti6 was the first to publish Hugh O’Neiirs proclamation to the Irish Catholics of the towns, in his “Fate and Fortunes of the Earls of Tyrone and Tyrconnel,” (p. 34, Dublin, 1868), says : — “ But no ; not even the dint of that manifesto, with the ring of true steel in its every line, could strike a spark out of their hearts ; for they were chalky !’’ They did not assist the famous Ulster chieftain. As they have provoked the indig- nation of the worthy Father Meehan, perhaps some people in Belfast who never heard of loyal Irish Catholics as existing in the days of Queen Elizabeth, will think well of them in future. Let them be praised or condemned, there they were, true to that merciless woman. Among the Irish and mixed Irish Catholic princes and nobles who went out with the royal armies against Hugh O’Neill may be mentioned Murrough O’Brien of Inchiquin, the O’Connor Don, O’Melaghlin of Meath, MacPieris Butler of Dunboyne, the De Courcys, Burke of Castleconneh Fitzgerald Earl of Kildare, Preston Viscount Gormanstown, Nugent Baron of Delvin, Fleming Baron of Slane, Plunket Baron of Lowth, Plunket Baron of Dunsaney, Plunket Baron of Killeen, O’Brien of Thomond, MacCarthy Riagh Prince of Carbry, MacCarthy of Muskerry, Barry Vis« count Buttevant, O’Donovan, Fitzgibbon the White Knight, Owen O’Sullivan, Dermot O’Sullivan, Donough and Florence MacCarthy. (See MacGeoghegan’s “ History of Ireland,” pp. 488 and 536, Dublin, 1844). With rare exceptions, the Catholics of the Pale, or the Counties of Louth, Meath, Dub- lin, and Kildare, were in arms against him. MacGeoghegan (p. 488) says that the principal men in Leinster were attached to the Queen’s cause ; and on the next page he has the fol- lowing : — “ It is strange that all the ancient and modern Irish who abetted the cause of heresy were Catholics^ with the ex- ception of three or four who had embraced the reformed religion. The latter were guided by their principles, the former by a blind respect for the shadow of legal authority,^^ Half of the army that foiled Hugh O’Neill at Kinsale was Irish and Catholic. A learned writer, whose childhood was passed among men who had witnessed several of the national insurrections in Elizabeth’s reign, enables me to say what proportion of the entire Catholic population of Ireland re- mained loyal to that sovereign. I allude to Dr. Lynch, the brilliant author of “ Cambrensis Eversus,” a work dedicated to Charles the Second, a circumstance which, taken in con- nection with Dr. Lynch’s repute for many virtues, will place his testimony above suspicion. I will quote the English transla- tion by the Rev. Matthew Kelly, and afterwards, for the CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND, 117 satisfaction of scholars append the words of the original Latin, It must be remembered that Ireland was altogether Catholic at the time of which he is writing. He says : — ‘‘ An epithet which is true only of a minority cannot be appropriately ap- plied to a community. It must be true of the majority ; and as the Irish who were faithful to the Queen’s standards were far more numerous than those who took the field against her^ the Irish must be praised for their signal loyalty, rather than de- nounced as infamous rebels. For, the majority of the nobles of the first rank, and the long roll of their dependants, the towns, and all the cities — in a word, two-thirds of the entire population were faithful the Queen’s standard. One-third of the nation was hard{ found under the standards of the great lords who defied her power in the field.” (Non aminori sed a majori parte ad rem quampiam denominatio manat ; cum igitur multo plures Hiberni a regina steterint, quam contra illam militarunt, gens Hibernica potius fidissimi subditi partes egisse quam rebellionis opprobrium retulisse dicetur. Nam potioris ordinis magnates majori numero longi clientium eorum cunei, oppida, et urbes omnes, duo denique gentis trientes reginae castra sequebantur, Vix alius nationis triens paucioribus majorum gentiu. i nobilibus in adversa acie pug- navit. Vide his “ Cambrensis Eversus,” c, 27, vol. 3, pp. 84 — 85, Dublin, 1851). How far pure disinterestedness may have entered into their preservation of loyalty, I cannot say ; but it is a very singular fact that even the bloody regime of Elizabeth could alienate only one-third of Catholic Ireland. The Protestant Leland, when dealing in his “ History of Ire- land,” (vol. 2, p. 412, Dublin, 1774), with those priests and others who endeavoured to stir up the Irish against their per- secutor Elizabeth, says ; — “ They saw numbers of the Romish communion act with firmness aiid vigour in support of that government to which they had sworn allegiance ; they saw numbers of their ecclesiastics inculcating the doctrines of civil obedience and submission^ Let any honourable man but recall to mind what it was to be a priest in the days of Elizabeth, and while he will easily pardon such of the sacerdotal body as, driven to desperation by beholding the ruthless cruelties, exercised upon themselves and their flocks, incited the people to arm in their defence, he cannot, on the other hand, refrain from according his hearty admiration to those hunted eccle- siastics who preached patience. They reached the highest point of Christian virtue. Their conduct was sublime. Would that we knew the names and stories of every one of them, that we might grave them on our hearts and profit by thern ! CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. ti8 Theirs was the Gospel of Christ ; theirs was the spirit of Christ — while the sanguinary wretches who called forth their heroism were possessed but of the Evangel of Satan, and guided but by the spirit of Hell. It has become almost conventional with English historians to speak in terms of eulogy respecting the rule of James the First in Ireland, and to descant in flowing periods upon its assumed character for wisdom and toleration. There are some minds apt to consider that no reign can be justly set down as wise, in which the charter of religious liberty has not been freely extended to the subject ; and if we are to be guided by this liberal principle in forming an estimate of how the regal functions were discharged in this kingdom by the son of Mary Queen of Scots, we shall fail to find in him any equitable title to be known, as he is, as the “ British Solomon.’* Doubtless, in the twenty-two years during which he filled the English throne, there were perpetrated upon the Irish Catholics fewer of those sanguinary enormities than disgrace an equal number of years in the reign of his predecessor ; but he cannot fairly be described as tolerant except by way of comparison. He openly avowed his intention to crush the Catholics of Ireland and that, too, in a manner which was at once solemn unmistakable. ‘‘The King,” says the Protestant Leland, “had denounced a curse upon himself and his posterity if ever he should grant a toleration to the Romanists ; he had on particular occasions instructed the Irish administration to administer the oaths and execute the penal laws” — (“ History of Ireland,” vol. 2, p. 452, Dublin, 1774). James the First actually imprisoned Sir James Gough in Dublin Castle for merely representing at Waterford and elsewhere that the King, whose humanity is so much lauded, was about to tolerate the Catholics. Of the truth of this fact any one may satisfy himself who will consult Leland at the place last referenced. Scarcely had His Beneficent Majesty been two years upon the throne when he issued a proclamation, the language of which is such as to force a smile. It begins thus : — “ Whereas His Majesty is informed that his subjects of Ireland have been deceived by a false report that His Majesty was disposed to allow them liberty of conscience and the free choice of a re- ligion : he hereby declares to his beloved subjects that he will not admit of any such liberty of conscience as they were made to expect by such report!” — (See John Mitchel’s “Life of Hugh O’Neill,” c. 12, p. 155, Dublin, 1868). Was ever bigotry expressed with so much unintentional humour before? Catholic ecclesiastics were still hung, drawn, and quartered. 119 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. though not with the same frequency as in the days of Eliza- beth. It was in this reign that the octogenarian Bishop of the diocese in which I am writing, Connor O’Devany, under- went the above dreadful doom at the hands of an English murderer, who received a free pardon to do the bloody deed, the common executioner having revolted at the barbarity which he was called upon to perform. (See Haverty’s “ History of Ireland/’ p. 501, Dublin, 1867). Trial by jury was ‘‘a mockery, a delusion, and a snare"’ long before Lord Denman applied to it that memorable phrase. Jurors were threatened by King’s Counsel in open court with loss of their ears, with imprisonment &c., if they failed or refused to accommo- date their findings to the wishes of their intimidators. In the spirit of wanton insult, and as a theretofore unheard of refinement of cruelty, a commission was directed to respect- able Catholics, requiring them, under serious penalties, to spy upon the conduct of their poorer neighbours of the old faith, and to inform against them as often as they absented them- selves from the Parliamentary form of worship. For this offence, a fine of ten pence a time was imposed, equal to ‘about ten times that sum, present currency ; but the amount exacted was seldom less than ten shillings, currency of the period, being augmented by other extortions in the shape of clerk’s fees &c., &c» Churchwardens were to give in monthly reports of the names of such Catholics as had been absent from the Parlimentary service ; and, in the words of the Pro- testant Godkin, Religious History of Ireland,” p. 120^ London, 1873), “ to whet the zeal of warders and constables, they were, for each conviction of offending parties, to have a reward of 40s levied out of the recusant"s estate and goods.” There was but one way of escaping these penalties outside that of conformity* It was — to take the oath of abjuration^ by which the Catholic bound himself to quit the realm for ever^ and, for that purpose, to hasten by the most direct road to some port and to tarry there but one flood and ebb before embark- ation for the land of exile. The oath concluded thus : — ‘‘And Unless I have it (a passage) in such a place, I will go every day into the sea up to my knees^ essaying to pass over — so God me keep and His holy judgment !"’ Verily, there is a grim humour in all Jacobian documents. If less Catholic blood was shed in this reign than in the preceding one, there was more wholesale and iniquitous con- fiscation of landed property than distinguished that of Eliza- beth. Who has not heard of the Ulster Plantation ? Six entire counties of this fair province were made over to a 120 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. colony of English and Scotch settlers ; and Tyrone, Derry, Donegal!, Armagh, Fermanagh, and Cavan knew their rightful owners no more. The London Companies of Drysalters, Cordwainers &c., received nearly 210,000 acres in Derry. They re-named the city Londo 7 tdQx:ry — a name which few Irishmen care to employ. They received extra- ordinary privileges, and by royal charter were for ever free of all tolls, and harbour dues throughout all Ireland. In Derry, and around it, no other traders were permitted to buy or sell. The Londoners were to be the grand suppliers of everything to the exclusion of everybody else. The Protestant Godkin, in his ‘‘ Religious History of Ireland,’’ (p. 131, London, 1873) says ; — ‘‘ What the natives saw in Londonderry was, in fact, a royal organisation of selfishness, bigotry, and monopoly of the most intensely exclusive and repulsive character.'” To the Londoners everybody else was a ‘ ‘ foreigner. ” The ‘ ‘ foreigners’* about the privileged district were forbidden to trade with each other. All commodities had to pay toll at the wharves of the London Companies. To take Irish apprentices was against the law ; and to meet the wants of persons engaged in busL ness, young lads were imported from Christ Hospital in London, and elsewhere. The Corporation of Coleraine was similarly privileged, ‘‘ Such,” says the indignant Protestant Godkin, was the system established by the enlightened city of London about the middle of the seventeenth century, in its model communities in Ireland. Such were its model schools of freedom, its fountains of civilising and Christianising ins. fluences, which were to reclaim and convert the barbarous and superstitious natives into industrious citizens and loyal Pro*- testants."” Sir Arthur Chichester, the Lord Deputy, whose plan for the Plantation of Ulster had been preferred to Bacon’s, received, for his share, the lands belonging to Sir Cahir O’Doherty who, by a preliminary measure, had been goaded to rebel ; so that some excuse might exist for the act of con* fiscation. Tracts of 1,000, 1,500, and 2,000 acres were assigned to the imported colonists. The grantees covenanted that they would not permit anyone who refused the oath against the Pope’s supremacy (the test and touchstone of a Catholic at that day) to reside upon their estates ; that they would employ no Catholic labourers, &c. After a prescribed number of freeholders and leaseholders had been settled in each townland, the rest of the ground, as Sir Thomas Philips says, might be let ** to natives for lives so as they were con* formable in religion^ and for the favour to double their rents,'' (See John Mitchel’s ‘'Life of Hugh O'Neill,” t6, 234, CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. I2I Dublin, 1868). They might dwell on their own soil if they first became apostates, and then paid twice as much rent as the Scotch and English planters ! This was the unique way in which devotion to the crown and constitution was generated in the seventeenth century in Ireland. Such was the Ulster Plantation, lauded by the King’s Attorney General, Sir John Davies, in his “ Discoverie of the State of Ireland,” (p. 120, London, 1613), as “ the Maister-piece and most excellent part of the work of Reformation and worthy indeed of His Majesties royall paines.” Another Protestant, however, may be thought by many to have taken a jus ter view of it. J. R. Green stamps it as “the fatal measure which brought inevit^ ably in its train the massacre and the war.” (See his “ Short History of the English People,” p. 592, London, 1877). It has no doubt proved, in the end, a fortunate thing, under existing circumstances, that Ulster was so completely Pro- testantised, because, having had everything in their favour^ Protestants have been enabled to render the province pros- perous ; but the staunchest Ulster Protestant must regret that his ancestry did not obtain their footing in it upon grounds less opposed to the grand principle of civil and religious liberty. They are not however to blame ; and sorry should I be, if the question of occupation were to shape (as it never can now) Catholic feeling towards them. The immediate plea for the Plantation of Ulster lay in a sham plot, contrived, it is said, by Cecil, Secretary of State, for the downfall of the O’Neill and the O’Donnell, who had made their peace with the English sovereign. “ If,” says the Protestant Godkin, “the people were to continue quiet and submissive^ how was it possible to get possession of their land in any legal form ; and above all, how was it possible to get rid of the priests who abstained from politics and quietly de- voted themselves to their clerical duties (See his “ Religious History of Ireland,” p. 124, London, 1873). Why not shoot them in the proportion suggested at Donacloney ? Alas, for human genius ! It hath its limit; and even “Artful Cecil,” was not so rich in expedients, and in “imperial policy” as Kane. O’Neill and O’Donnell fled. They took shipping from Lough Swilly for Normandy, and thence passed through Flanders to Rome, where they subsisted upon a pension allowed them by the Pope and the King of Spain, till they died. Fearing that they might rouse the Catholic powers to interpose in behalf of Ireland, James the First sought to con- ciliate the Irish by a proclamation calculated for the Ulster P 122 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. clansmen, in particular, in which he declared that none of them “should be impeached, troubled, or molested, in their own lands, goods, or bodies, they continuing in their loyalty &c.’* “ These gracious promises,’’ says Godkin, (“ Religious History of Ireland,” p. 126, London, 1873), “however, were forgotten, as soon as the danger was over.” The scheme for the Plantation of Ulster was all this while in the royal brain. The Attorney General, Sir John Davies, had charge of a survey of the province with the Plantation in view. The dreadful tidings of confiscation and removal soon became public. The wretched Catholics ventured to recall the royal promises ; but in vain. In fine, they petitioned that, at least, they might be allowed to gather in their harvest before ejection. “ Sir Toby Caulfield,” says Godkin (p. 127), “ancestor of the Earl of Charlemont relates that they held discourse among them- selves that if this course had been taken with them in war- time, it had had some colour of justice ; but being pardoned and their land given to them, and they having lived under law ever since and being ready to submit themselves to law for any offence they can be charged withal since their pardoning, they concluded it to be the greatest cruelty that ever was inflicted upon any people.” This honest Protestant adds : — “The general opinion of Christendom, and of all the civilised world beyond Christendom, would agree that this conclusion of the poor Catholic peasantry of Ulster was perfectly right ; and, save Mr. Carlyle and Mr. Froude, all historians have con- curred in the same conviction.” Thus, we see that the Catholics were loyally disposed when this new persecution was put upon them. Their quietness and submission, how- ever, were of no avail : their expulsion was a foregone con- clusion, first conceived in the days of Elizabeth ; they were soon ousted, and some of them perished of hunger within view of their hereditary homes ; while others died of a broken heart on the shores of a foreign land, not consoled by the enjoyment of ‘‘ altars free” for a glimpse of the lost tranquil glories of Lough Neagh, or the wild surges of Buncrana. But James the First did not stop with the confiscation of Ulster. He appointed a roving Commission of Inquiry to ferret out, or rather to concoct flaws in the titles under which the native chieftains and others held their estates in various parts of Ireland ; and 385,000 acres in tjie province of Leinster were quickly found which, these subservient Commissioners thought, ought to be escheated to the crown. The process of dispossession was soon carried into effect ; and James, having secured the finest part of Leinster for his minions in CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. 123 the profaned name of God and the Bible, was proceeding to extend the work of confiscation to Connaught, when death put a period to his career of plunder. Even Leland, whose sympathies were never with the Catholic Irish, when relating the sad story of these sequestrations, is forced to pen the fol- lowing: — ‘‘There are not wanting proofs of the most iniquitous practices, of hardened cruelty^ of vile perjury ^ and scandalous suhornationy employed to despoil the fair and unoffending pro- prietor of his inheritance.” (See his “ History of Ireland,” vol. 2, p. 470, Dublin, 1774). Surely now, at last, the Catho- lics of Ireland, frenzied by the sufferings of their fathers under Elizabeth, and by their own under the Stuart, rose up in unanimous and irrepressible rebellion ? That question will be best answered in the words ofan eloquent and learned Protestant, Sir Jonah Barrington, in his “Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation,” (c. 13, p, 269, Dublin, 1843), sums up the disposition of the Irish Catholics towards James the First in a passage with which I will terminate my investigation of that monarches reign. He says : — “ The reign of James amply demonstrates that Irish loyalty was fully commensurate with royal tolerance; and that whilst plots against his life, and conspiracies against his throne, abounded in England and debased the British character, a Catholic population in Ireland remained faithful to a bigoted Protestant of England \ and by their conduct^ during his reigHy unequivocally disproved the charge of native disloyalty^ ” Charles the First’s reign opened with war against France and Spain. Although Parliament was mainly answerable for the belligerent attitude of the country, its members would not vote sufficient supplies for carrying on the necessary opera- tions, Richelieu and Olivarez were triumphant : reverses attended the English arms ; and enormous debts were the consequence. In this perplexity of the King’s affairs, the Catholics of Ireland, in the words of a contemporary Protes- testant. Sir Edward Walker, (see his “ Historical Discourses,” quoted in O’Connell’s “ Memoir on Ireland,” p. 193, Dublin, 1843), constantly to pay an army of 5,000 foot and 500 horse, for His Majesty’s service, provided they might be tolerated in the exercise of their religion.” They were pre- pared to support their Protestant sovereign against their own co-religionists, as loyal subjects, and they asked in return — not power, not preferment, not ascendancy — but simply liberty of conscience. No liberal Protestant reader will consider their demand exorbitant. Instead of taking advantage of the royal difficulties to revolt, they voluntarily offered their assist- ance, and placed a moderate price upon it A great meeting CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. of the nobility and gentry was convened at Dublin Castle, at which the Catholics, says Leland, (“ History of Ireland,*’ vol. 2, p. 480, Dublin, 1774), ^‘offered larg-e contridutwnsto purchase security to their lands and a suspension of the penal statutes/* The Lord Deputy, Falkland, sincerely attached to the King, and anxious that His Majesty should have the valuable aid of so numerous and zealous a body as the Irish Catholics, advised the assembly to send representatives to England to tender their dutiful service to Charles, while submitting their just grievances to his generous consideration. The bigotry, however, of the Protestant clergy of Ireland was aroused, carried as it was with many of them, according to Leland himself (vol. 2, p. 481), “ even to a degree of rancour imbibed among the English and Scottish Puritans ;** and it is lament- able to find at the head of the intolerant party the celebrated Usher, Archbishop of Armagh, who affords a pregnant ex- ample of how man’s mind may be stored with the most varied and inexhaustible learning, while debased by the most illiberal sentiments. Illiterate Kanes have not had a monopoly of the wretched spirit of bigotry. Usher was an intolerant zealot of the first water. He did all in his power to perpetuate, not alleviate, the sufferings of his Catholic countrymen. Having invited the Irish Protestant hierarchy to his house, he drew up a declaration, which was signed by himself and eleven other prelates, characterising as “a grievous sin,” any per- mission empowering Catholics to “ freely exercise their reli- gion and profess their faith and doctrine.” The entire shameful document, dated November, 1626, may be read in O’Connell’s ‘‘Memoir on Ireland,” (p. 194, Dublin, 1843), and in several Protestant works, of which I shall mention three, in my own possession — namely, Leland’s “ History of Ireland,” (voL 2, p. 482, Dublin, 1774), the “ Life of Usher” by his chaplain. Dr. Richard Parr, (p. 28, London, 1686), and San- derson’s “ Raigne of King Charles,” (p. 66, London, 1658). I read in the two last-mentioned books that both Usher, and Dr. Downham, Bishop of Derry, preached against the pro- posed toleration in Christ Church, Dublin, before the Lord Deputy and Council of State. Similar narrow-mindedness at once displayed itself among the established clergy of inferior grade. The sentiments of the Bishops’ declaration, as Leland relates, “ were expressed with great ardour from the pulpit.” In the meantime, this general opposition notwithstanding, the agents of the Catholics were listened to with a ready ear by the King, whose necessities, at least, predisposed him to make friends of the majority in Ireland, A voluntary contri- Catholic loyalty in Ireland. 125 bution of ;^i 20,000 was offered (equal in power to nearly ten times that amount, present currency), and in return for this extraordinary exertion of loyalty,’^ as even Leland allows it to have been, certain graces or concessions were sought, “such,’’ says the same historian, (vol. 2, p. 483), “as in general were evidently reasonable and equitahley calculated for the redress of those grievances which persons of a// denominations had experienced, and tending to the peace and prosperity of the whole nation,^'" The “ graces,” though numerous, did not amount to a repeal of the odious statutes which were in force against the Catholics, but were chiefly designed in alleviation of those grievances which pressed as well upon Protestant Dissenters from the Established Church as upon Catholics. They comprehended regulations respecting property, and measures for restraining the insolent oppression practised by the soldiery ; for moderating the excessive fees extorted in the administration of justice ; for confining martial law to times of war ; for preventing the unlawful exactions of the estab- lished clergy, many of whom were in the habit of keeping private prisons in which they immured those who resisted them^ &c., &c. The “graces” were conferred by the King, who notified them to the Lord Deputy in a written document, and undertook to have them confirmed by Parliament. The Catholics bore at least two-thirds of the enormous money grant before mentioned : the stipulated sum was duly paid \ but Parliament was not so compliant, as Charles had antici- pated. The Puritan element was now dominant in England, and especially in the House of Commons. The Puritans lived but for three things — political revolution, the subversion of the Church of England, and, above all, the extermination of “Popery.” Should the King whose authority they were plotting to overthrow ameliorate the condition of the Catho- lics whom they desired to extirpate? That was the considera- tion which presented itself to the Puritan mind. That he should have received any assistance in his difficulties was vexatious enough ; but that “ Papists” should have dared to assist him, and should (horror of horrors !) derive any benefit from their loyalty, was perfectly intolerable. What did it matter whether the King’s faith was plighted to the Catholics or not? Were they not idolators, and was it not a part of the “ holy discipline” that no promises or oaths were binding except those which had been made to “ the saints ?” This article of Puritan morality is made known to us by a witty Protestant who was well acquainted with “the saints,” Samuel Butler, the author of “ Hudibras”— 126 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. “ Yet all of us hold this for true, No faith is to the wicked due, For truth is precious and divine. Too rich a pearl for carnal swhie.” — Part 2, Canto 2. Parliament being swayed by such men, the ‘‘graces’’ never came into operation. The money was retained ; but the royal word was broken. The King, having secured what he wanted, fearing the turbulence of his House of Commons, was worse than lukewarm in behalf of the Catholics. He yielded to his hard circumstances, in the vain hope of conciliat- ing the disloyal Puritans, who were rending the welkin with their clamours respecting the insolence of “ Popery” and the crime of truckling to “ the sons of Belial.” The relief of the Catholics, if ever seriously intended by Charles, was timorously abandoned. Time passed on, and Wentworth, afterwards Earl of Strafford, was sent to Ireland to succeed Falkland, as Lord Deputy. In 1634, this intriguer summoned an Irish Parlia- ment. He opened it with a speech in which he promised that if an unconditional grant of supplies were sanctioned for the King’s service, the “graces” would assuredly pass into law. The loyalty of our deluded countrymen was not yet worn out* On the contrary, it seemed to have become more devoted when this new demand was made upon it. It surpassed the ex* pectations of Charles and Wentworth, both of whom knew full well how it had been trifled with in the past. Once more the Irish people trusted in the honour of an English sovereign The parliament of 1634 astonished the King and the Lord Deputy by voting, in an exuberance of faith and generosity, six subsidies of ;^5o,ooo each, payable in four years, for the relief of the royal circumstances, which were yearly growing more straitened, through the parsimony of the rebellious Puritan element in England. Wentworth’s hopes, communi* cated to His Majesty, had not soared beyond a subsidy of ;^30,ooo ! The major part of this sum, enormous for the age, was leviable upon the Irish Catholics. Alas for the return ! Wisely has the Psalmist said — “ Put not your trust in princes. Again were the Irish deceived. Again was their money pocketed, while their just complaints were ignored. The stipulated redress of the “graces,” conceded several years before, was again evaded — this time by the subservient Wentworth, in such a way as to relieve Charles from the odium of a plain denial. To this duplicity, to this scheme of unscrupulous plunder, the King himself was a party. He approved of the Lord Deputy’s injustice in a letter which has been published among the Strafford State Papers. This CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. 127 evidence of his treachery may be found in several writers. It is quoted by Haverty, (“ History of Ireland/' p. 509, Dublin, 1867), O’Connell (“ Memoir on Ireland,” p. 200, Dublin, 1844) &c., &c. But the royal perfidy was not then known, except to its supple instrument, Wentworth, whom the King afterwards abandoned to the block. In addition to their money, the Irish, about this period, raised for their forsworn sovereign, an army of 8,000 infantry, and 1,000 horse, to serve against his rebellious Protestant subjects in Scotland. Nine-tenths of the troops were Catholics. In the meantime, let us consider what were the other measures adopted by the King’s representative, Wentworth, for begetting affection to His Majesty, in the bosoms ot the Irish Catholics. A neat little scheme for the confiscation of Connaught was thought to have a direct tendency in that direction. Catholics throughout Ireland, and Connaught Catholics in particular, would have a new incentive to loyaltv if they were robbed of that province by law. This must have been Wentworth’s notion : for we cannot accuse him of ever doing anything which he believed to be prejudical to his sovereign’s interest. At any rate, he resolved that the western province should be treated like the northern. Leland His- tory of Ireland,” vol. 3, p. 30, Dublin, 1774) says : — “Wentworth was impatient to signalise his administration by a service of immediate and extensive emolument to his royal master. His project was nothing less than to subvert the title to every estate in every part of Connaught, and to establish a new plantation through this whole province ; a project which, when first proposed, in the late reign, was received with horror and amazement, but which suited the undismayed and enterprising genius of Lord Wentworth.” He began with Roscommon ; and this was the method of procedure, as detailed by Haverty, (“ History of Ireland,” p. 510, Dublin, 1867), from Wentworth’s own published letters. The sheriff was instructed to select wealthy jurors to try the cases of title; so that “in case they should prevaricate” — that is to say, in case they refused to find the verdict wanted^ they might be heavily fined. The foreman of the Roscommon jury, Sir Lucas Dillon, for compliance of this nature, received a large estate, and Sir Gerard Lowther, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, as an inducement to His Lordship to hold the scales of justice evenly between the King and his subjects, received four shillings in the upon the first year’s rent raised under the Commission of Defective Titles. In Galway, however, juries were not to be bribed or intimidated. They 128 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND, refused to join in a scheme for robbing their countrymen. The rest had better be told in the words of Leland. He says History of Ireland,” vol. 3, p. 33, Dublin, 1774) : — ‘‘ Went- worth was enraged; he laid a fine of ;^i,ooo upon the sheriff, and bound the obstinate jurors to appear in the Castle cham- ber, and answer for their offence, where they were fined, each in the sum of ;^4,ooo, sentenced to imprisonment, until it should be paid, and to acknowledge their offence in court, upon their knees !” The Protestant writer. Carte, in his ‘‘Life of Ormond,” quoted by Haverty, (“ History of Ireland,” p, 51 1, Dublin, 1867), relates that Charles, instead of con- demning the Deputy’s flagitious conduct, assured him before the English Council in 1636 that his treatment of the Galway jurors was “no severity,” and wished him “to go on in that way,” adding “that if he served him otherwise, he would not serve him as he expected P'" He wrote to the King to say that he would pack the juries^ so as to secure verdicts. In one of his letters, quoted by O’Connell, (“ Memoir on Ireland,” p, 206, Dublin, 1844), he says: — “I will redeem the time as much as can be ; treat with such as may give furtherance in finding of the title ; which, as I said, is the principal ; and enquire out fit men to serve upon juries P'* We know what their “fitness” was. Was there ever such infamous jobbery? Jurors who refused to surrender their consciences to the keep- ing of Wentworth were either fined, as above, or had their ears cut off, or their tongues bored through, or their fore- heads branded with a hot iron ! (See the “Commons Jour- nals,” quoted by O’Connell, “ Memoir on Ireland.” p. 204, Dublin, 1844). Must Irish Catholics still be loyal? At any rate, their Parliamentary representatives joined the Protestant members in voting subsidies to the King — an excellent proof of loyalty. Leland tells us, in his “ History of Ireland,” (vol. 3, p. 16, Dublin, 1774) that the Irish Parliament was equally composed of Catholics and Protestants ; and Haverty assures us that even after Wentworth had given the above proofs, as King’s representative, of his cruelty towards the Catholics, the Irish Parliament voted His Majesty four new subsidies, “ some of the members protesting, with characteristic warmth, that six or seven 7 nore ought to he given^ and others declaring that ‘ their hearts contained mmes of subsidies for His Majesty.’” (“History of Ireland,” p. 511, Dublin, 1867). Such affection is wholly unaccountable ; for certainly Charles the First’s rule in Ireland was not of a character to deserve it. What had he done but plunder the Catholics ? The reader has now had placed before him some of the trying CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. 129 conditions of life in Ireland when the Catholics of Ulster appealed to arms in 1641. If Catholics have at any time risen against their rulers, there are always men^ with the narrow bigotry of a Kane, prepared, without the least investigation, to ascribe every such insurrection to the teachings of the Catholic Church. They flatter themselves that they have proved the alleged seditious tendencies of Catholic doctrine^ if it cannot be denied that the insurgents were Catholics, With equal justice, and by the same logic, it might be proved that Pro- testantism inculcates insurrection, because there have been Protestant insurgents. In each case there is a perfect non sequitur. The link is wanting which connects the /zr/ with the doctrine. Catholics have rebelled, not because they have been Catholics purely and simply ; but because, being but men, they have been provoked. There is a limit to endurance whether in Catholic or Protestant ; and that limit had long been passed, in the history of Protestant government in Ire- land, in the year 1641, Let us ask the Protestant Hallam what occasioned the rebellion of 1641. Does he resort to the insufferable cant of Mr. Kane about an assumed volcanic element in Catholic doctrine, ever and anon prompting its professors to the overthrow of the State? No. Hallam never lent his potent pen to wilful calumny for the perpetua- tion of party discord. He tells what he knew to be the truth, and says, without reservation, (“ Constitutional History,” c. 18, p. 861, London, 1871), that the primary causes of this rebel- lion are to be found “ in the two great sins of the English government : in the penal laws as to religion^ which pressed on almost the whole people, and in the systematic iniquity w^hich despoiled them of their possessions.” The Catholics of Ulster, as we see by this, rose because they were oppressed meuy not because they professed an insurrectionary religion. Before the rising broke out, letters had been intercepted which showed that the complete extirpation of the Irish Catholics had been demanded by the Scottish army. 3,000 Irish Puritans had signed a petition to that effect. Sir John Clotworthy, as w^e are told by the Protestant historian Carte, quoted by Haverty, (“ History of Ireland,” p. 514, Dublin, 1867), had declared in the English House of Commons that the work of the Reformation in Ireland was to be carried on by the combined aid of the Bible and the sword ; w^hile Sir William Parsons, one of the Irish Lords Justices, had asserted, at a public entertainment, that within twelve months not one Catholic should be left in Ireland. Edward Loftus, son of the Chancellor, a year before the rebellion broke out, gave Q 130 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. ;^ioo to Mr. Cheevers, Sheriff of the County Wexford, with this stipulation that double that amount should be paid back to him if, in the following year, the Irish were not deprived of religion and country. (See Dr. Lynch’s ‘‘Cambrensis Eversus,” c. 27, vol. 3, pp. 88 — 89, published by the Celtic Society, Dublin, 1851). In the Parliament of 1640, the Inde- pendents had publicly called for the extirpation of the Irish Catholics, and the confiscation of all the property that re- mained unforfeited. Protestant writers say that ‘‘extirpation” was the word most frequently in the mouths of a large majo- rity of their co-religionists at this period. The history of the time, indeed, may be summed up in words rhyming therewith —confiscation, desecration, devastation, desolation, decima- tion, spoliation, all done in the interest of Reformation ! Speaking of the reign of Charles the First, Leland himself says (vol. 3, p. 166) — “The favourite object both of the Irish governors and the English Parliament was the utter extermi- nation of all the Catholic inhabitants of Ireland J"* Foreseeing that existence itself was threatened, the Ulster Catholics, who, in point of confiscation, had suffered more than their brethren in the other provinces, having lost six counties, sought their defence in arms. What Protestant enthusiast upon the subject of liberty of conscience can blame them ? Under similar circumstances, would not Protestants have rebelled ? But the men of 1641 did not rise against the King. They rose against that fanatical party of Puritans, Independents, &c., who threatened not only the destruction of Irish Catholicity, but, avowedly, that of the Church of England also ; that nefarious scum ot hypocrites and incendiaries who marred all government, who plunged England into civil war, and finally struck all Europe aghast with the bloody tragedy enacted at Whitehall, when Charles the First was brought by them to the block. In rebelling against the Puritans, the insurgents were not guilty of disloyalty. They owed no allegiance to the Puritans. In resisting their tyranny, they opposed those w^ho, it cannot be denied, w^ere the relentless enemies of the King. Of course their primary objects were self-protection and toleration ; but secondary to these, and indeed inseparable from them, w^as the assertion of the royal perogative, no disloyal aim ; for they believed, and believed truly, that Charles was governed, in his owm despite, by the overbearing Puritans ; and they also believed (whether truly or not does not affect the question) that if the King were free to act, his disposition was that of amity towards the Catholics. Sir CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. Phelim O’Neill, the head of the Ulstermen, declares in his proclamation dated from Dungannon, 23rd October 1641, that the insurrection “is nowise intended against our sovereign lord the King” ; so anxious were the insurgents to be acquitted of disloyal intentions. Another fact, while it casts some dis- honour upon the characters of certain leaders of the insur- rection, proves to satisfaction that the great body of the Ulster Catholics were well-affected towards Charles the First. I allude to the forged commission, supposed by all but the few who were in the secret, to have emanated from His Majesty, in which he is made, after deploring his state of slavery to his rebellious Parliament, to call upon his faithful Catholic sub- jects of Ireland to seize and hold, in his interest, all places of strength in that island, except those belonging to the Scotch. At the end of the war, the leaders implicated in this forgery declared, according to the Protestant Leland, (vol. 3. p. 120), “that they had no commission from the King, but had invented the tale to collect and animate their followers.^^ To collect and animate their followers ! The trouble to which those leaders put themselves in forging such a document, affixing to their counterfeit the great seal, which was taken from a genuine patent, found among the plunder of Lord Caulfield’s castle of Charlemont, and their admission that it was required “ to collect and animate their followers” must, of necessity, go to prove that there was a large amount of devotion to the King in the breasts of the Ulster Catholics. If the Ulster Catholics had been disloyally disposed towards Charles, would such a document have been presented to them ? Would not the counterfeit, in that event, have taken the shape, for example, of a stimulus to persecution, directed to the Protestant party ; so that the Catholic leaders, by producing it, might fan the flame of rebellion against the King ? But it was well known that the Ulster Catholics were loyally attached to Charles ; and some of the Ulster leaders of the movement of 1641 wrought upon that attachment^ by means of the pretended royal commission, to attract men to their standard. No other supposition will explain why ra- tional beings resorted to such an expedient. At first, the rising was confined to Ulster. Speaking of Munster, the anti-Catholic Leland, in his “History of Ire- land,” (vol. 3, p. 137, Dublin, 1774), says; — “The strength of the English Protestants and the loyalty of the Irish gentry as yet preserved this province from any material disorder, Of Connaught, he says, after stating that “ the English power was inconsiderable in this province,” and that its people had 132 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. been kept in continual alarm of a general confiscation ; — “Yet here, too, the good affections of the principal inhabitants stemmed the torrent of rebellion/^ They were all Catholics. Protestantism was hardly represented at all in Connaught. However, the barbarities exercised upon the unfortunate Irish of Ulster, and the unprovoked atrocities which were com- mitted in undisturbed districts throughout the country, by the English soldiery, soon extended the rising beyond the northern province. In several parts it was impossible for Catholics, being but men, to remain quiet. The best dis- posed were compelled to resort to arms. Leland (vol. 3, p. 174) relates that Inchiquin, who, at this time, had for his chaplain the fanatic, Hugh Peters, “pointed his hostilities chiefly against those who were most distinguished for their loyalty f requiring them “ to acknowledge themselves rebels.’^ It is no wonder then that the whole country was quickly in a state of insurrection. The movement having become general, a synod held at Kells took steps to convene a national council. The council asssembled at Kilkenny on the 24th October, 1642 ; and consisted of ii spiritual and 14 temporal peers, besides 226 commoners. The war was declared to have been undertaken, as it was directed to be pursued, for the defence of the Catholic religion, and for the assertion of the royal prerogative, the due exercise of which, the Confederate Catholics believed, was prevented by the intolerant Puritans. The Irish Catholics were in arms, it is true ; but it was not against the King, It was against the predominant religious party which hated both King and Catholics. The Irish Catholics carefully distinguished between their sovereign and the Puritans who aimed at their utter extermination. For the latter they had arms ; for the former nothing but affection. This I will soon show. It is not, however, my purpose even to sketch the history of the celebrated Confederation of Kil- kenny, which administered the affairs of Catholic Ireland for a brief but brilliant period ; and was, to all intents and pur- poses, the government. It has received sympathetic treat- ment from the industrious and elegant pen of the Rev. C. P. Meehan, whose monograph upon the subject has long been a standard work. My sole business is to show that this great Confederation, in all its proceedings, never lost sight of the principle of loyalty to Charles the First: to whom alone loyalty was then due. No loyalty was due to exterminating Puritans or Castle administrations. The lay lords and prelates assembled at Kilkenny drew up an oath to be taken by the Catholics of Irelands It opens with CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. 133 a solemn profession of loyalty to His Majesty. Loyalty was the first consideration. It begins thus : — I, A. B., do pro- fess, swear, and protest before God, and His saints and angels, that I will, during my life, bear true faith and alle- giance to my Sovereign Lord, Charles, by the grace of God, King. &c.^^ (See Father Meehan^s “ Confederation of Kil- kenny,*’ c. I, p. 21, Dublin, 1882). The Catholic Bishops of Ireland issued a mandate to their clergy requiring them to see this oath administered to the laity, I entreat Protestant readers to mark that. The Catholic hierarchy insisted that this oath, containing a solemn profession of allegiance to the Kingy should be taken by the Irish Catholics ! To refuse it was to incur excommunication! (See Leland’s ‘'History of Ireland,” vol. 3, p. 181, Dublin, 1774). This means that a good Catholic in Ireland at that time was, literally, a sworn friend of Charles the First. Every one who took the oath of association, and it was taken by many thousands of Irish Catholics, had made a profession of fealty to His Majesty. That in arming for self-defence against the Puritan or anti- royalist party, the Irish Catholics did not forget their alle- giance, but, on the contrary, deemed themselves His Majesty’s supporters, is apparent from a letter written by Malachy. O’Queely, the Archbishop of Tuam, to the celebrated Fran- ciscan, Luke Wadding, which says, alluding to the tyranny of the Puritans : — “ The quarrel grew to that height that the nation is fully resolved to die for God, King, and countrie.” (See Father Meehan’s “Memoirs of the Irish Hierarchy in the Seventeenth Century,” Appendix, p, 304, Dublin, 1872). Leland (vol. 3, p, 181), speaking of the assembly at Kilkenny, says: — “ They began with declaring the war maintained by the Catholics against sectaries and Puritans, for defence of the Catholic religion, the prerogative of the King^ the honour and safety of the Queen and royal issue, &c. ;”and (p. 183) he continues: — “ They commanded all persons to bear faith and allegiance to the King, and to maintain his just prerogatives.” The Confederate Catholics had, upon their banners, “ Long Live King Charles,” (assuredly not a disloyal wish), and, above that inscription, the letters “C.R.,” and a crown. (See Father Meehan’s “Confederation of Kilkenny,” c. 2, p. 56, Dublin, 1882). The seal of the Confederation was, in itself, a manifestation of loyalty. A fac-simile of it is upon the cover of Father Meehan’s book ; and represents the Irish as “ United for God, King, and Country” — (Pro Deo, Rege, et Patria Hiberni Unanimes). The copper coins which were issued by the Confederation bore evidence of the feeling which animated i34 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. the Irish Catholics towards Charles the First. Each had the legend, ‘‘Floreat Rex,'’ or ‘‘ May the King prosper." Among the ‘‘ Lawes and Orders of Warre," printed for the Confede- rate Catholics of Ireland at Waterford in 1643, occurs one which shows, in a marked manner, that the Irish Catholics were devotedly attached to him. It is as follows: — “ No man shall use any trayterous words against his maiesties sacred person or royall authority upon paine of death,'^ The entire document is given by Father Meehan, in his ‘‘Appendix," (pp. 289 — 307). Again, the loyal disposition of the Confederate Catholics towards Charles the First, appears in the letters of marque which the Supreme Council gave to privateersmen ; as for instance, to Francis Oliver, a Fleming, who is charged “ to prejudice all such as he should meet of His Majesty^s enemies and the enemies of the general Catholic cause." (See Father Meehan's “Confederation of Kilkenny," c. 3, p. 61, Dublin, 1882). Disloyal subjects, or traitorous associations, do not desire to see their sovereign's enemies “prejudiced." The Confederate Catholics manifested their loyalty in another manner. A book, said to have been written by an Irish Jesuit, but now believed to have been a forgery, was about this time circulated throughout Ireland, exhorting the Catho- lics to free themselves from the English yoke altogether. Let the reception which it met at the hands of the Confederate Catholics determine whether they were imbued with senti- ments of loyalty to the Crown and Constitution or not. The Protestant Leland, in his “ History of Ireland," (voh 3, p. 320, Dublin, 1774), says; — “It was condemned by the Supreme Council, and ordered to be burnt at Kilkenny by the common hangman." The book, doubtless, expressed the views of a number of exasperated Irishmen ; but it is not minorities that impart a characteristic, or can afford a true record of the feel- ings pervading a great body. In vindications, like the one I am engaged in, the advocate is not supposed by sensible men to include every individual in his proposition. A man for in- stance may accurately describe the Irish race as intellectual, even though his own range of acquaintance should take in several Irish dullards, and comprehend Mr. Kane. So, I can fairly claim the attribute of loyalty for the English and Irish Catholics, notwithstanding the fact that history records the disloyal acts of a number of them. When the civil war broke out in England between Charles the First and his rebellious Parliament, the Irish Catholics, if disloyally disposed, ought to have been found upholding in Ireland the same cause as the Roundheads did in England\ CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND, 135 Were they with Cromwell or against him? Heaven knows the Irish Catholics had Cromwell and the whole Puritan party against them. But Cromwell and the English commanders who preceded him in Ireland about this time were all Round- heads ; and since they and the Irish Catholics were in opposition, the Irish Catholics were fighting for the King, In combating the Puritans in Ireland, they had two aims — toleration, and the assertion of the royal prerogative, which the Puritan party would not allow Charles to exercise for the relief of his Catholic subjects. The Irish Catholics were Royalists to a man. As Dr. Lynch, in the “ Dedication’* of his learned work, “ Cambrensis Eversus,”(vol. i, pp. 18 — 19, Dublin, 1848), says to Charles the Second:— The Confede- rate Irish, in conformity with these principles, spontayieously professed their sworn allegiance to your father, and flew to arms, not like the English, to depose, but to support him."' (Hibernica Comitia, istis ob oculos positis, in verba sui regis tui patris ultro jurarunt, et non ad eum proculcandum, ut Anglica, sed ad erigendum, arma sumpserunt). A virtuous ecclesiastic like Dr, Lynch, an eye-witness of the conduct of the Irish, would not have ventured to tell Charles the Second of the services which the Catholic Irish had rendered to the cause of that sovereign’s father, if the Catholic Irish, in reality, had not been his tried friends and faithful subjects. Had they sided with the regicides whose hands were stained with the blood of his father, to have relied, when addressing Charles the Second, upon such ‘‘services,” with the view’ of propitiating His Majesty in behalf of Ireland and her people, w^ould have been not only an insane procedure, but an insult unparalleled in its wantonness and brutality. While the Irish had enough to do to maintain their own and the royal cause in Ireland against the fierce republican party, the Supreme Council of the Confederate Catholics voted, for the support of His Majesty’s army in England, 5,000 in money, and the value of another 5,000 in pro- visions. Later on, 10,000 men were voted to serve His Majesty in England ; but the capture of Chester by the Round- heads left the Irish without a place where they could be safely landed in England. Of this number, 300 then took service under Lord Digby, as a bodyguard for the young prince, afterwards Charles the Second ; and a large body joined Montrose, who was upholding the royal standard in Scotland. At the battle of St. Johnstown, w’here the Covenanters, shouting Jesus and no quarter !” were routed, 2,500 Irish- men were present. (See Father Meehan’s Confederation 136 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND, of Kilkenny/* c. 4, p. 109, Dublin^ 1882). After the execution of Charles the First, the Confederate Catholics of Ireland proclaimed the young Prince of Wales King in all the towns and cities within the jurisdiction of their Supreme Council. (See Father Meehan^s notes to Dr. Lynch’s “ Pii Antistitis Icon,^’ p. 6, Dublin, 1884). He was then invited by Ormond to land in Ireland, “ where,” says the Protestant, J. R. Green, “he would find three-fourths ot its people devoted to his cause,'' (See his “ Short History of the English People/’ p. 555, London, 1877). Even when Charles the Second was in exile during the usurpation of Cromwell, Catholic Ireland obeyed his mandates. He him- self said, in his “ Declaration for the Settlement of Ireland/* Nov. 30th, 1660: — “In the last place, we did, and always must, remember the great affection a considerable part of that nation expressed to us, during the time of our being beyond the seas, 7vhe?it with all cheerfulness and ohedienccy they re- ceived aud submitted to our orders ; which demeanour of theirs cannot but be thought very worthy of our protection and jus- tice.** Again, in his speech to Parliament, July 27th, 1660, he says: — “I hope I need say nothing of Ireland, and that they alone shall not be without the benefit of my mercy ; they have shown much affection to me abroad ; and you will have a care of my honour and of what I have promised to them.** (See the Rev. Matthew Kelly’s notes to Dr. Lynch's “ Cam- brensis Eversus,” vol. i, p. 40, Dublin, 1848). Although Charles the Second thus acknowledged the fidelity of the Irish to the royal cause, he treated them with the same ingratitude as he manifested towards his father’s supporters in England ; but the history of it would lead me too far. The Protestant, Sir Jonah Barrington, in his “Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation,” (c 13, p. 270, Dublin, 1843), says of Catholic Ire- land’s devotion to Charles the First: — “She combated his murderers, and, as the reward of loyalty, she met the fate of rebels ;” and again, in the preceding page: — “The more she suffered in the cause of royalty, the more she was branded with the charge of disaffection.” A better testimony of the loyal feelings with which the Irish Catholics, as a nation, regarded James the First and Charles the First, cannot be produced than that given in his “ Cam- brensis Eversus” by Dr. Lynch, who lived in both reigns. He says: — “ I am now near sixty years of age, and I solemnly swear that down to this day, I never knew a man who either privately or publicly hinted or maintained that allegiance was not due to the King ; nay, there was nothing more constantly CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND, 137 inculcated from our pulpits, in sermons to the people, than that all obedience should be paid to the King, that the woes inflicted on us by magisterial tyranny should be patiently borne, that prayers should be offered up to God every day for the King and all who were in authority/* (Ego quidem non multum sexagenario nunc minor sancte testor me neminem hactenus novisse qui clam insusurraverit aut palam snaserit, obsequium regi praestandum non esse, imo suggestus nostri vix alia re magis personabant quam concionatorum hortationi- bus populum ad omnem obedientiam regi exhibendam, aerum- nas a magistratibus illatas aequo animo perferendas, et preces quotidianas ad deum pro rege ac praefectis fundandas impel- lentibus — see vol. 3, c. 27, pp. 115 — 116, Dublin, 1851). To feel the full force of the above solemn testimony, the reader must recollect that it was given by a very pious ecclesiastic, in a work dedicated to Charles the Second, There are but few men (and none of them pious) who, in a book, intended for their sovereign’s perusal, would swear to the existence of a state of things which, they knew, that sovereign or any other man was capable of disproving, I do not put forward Dr, Lynch’s testimony to convey that there was no such thing at all in those sixty years as discontent or disaffection in Ireland, I only contend that it furnishes most conclusive evidence of the general tranquillity preserved among the Catholics during the period to which it applies. Had disaffec- tion been widespread. Dr. Lynch might, probably, in every second Irish Catholic whom he spoke to, have beheld a speci- men of it ; and his testimony satisfactorily shows that within even so many years of trouble and persecution, a man might lead a long and active life in Ireland without having met any native who, despite the national martyrdom, could be pointed to as a bad subject. Catholics may well glory in the record of patience which the history of their persecuted ancestors affords them. Before proceeding to give further proof of the submissive conduct of the Irish Catholics under persecution, I must cast a brief glance at the penal laws under which they were groan- ing when that proof was furnished. If the son of a Catholic father, however youngs declared himself a Protestant, the father was to be deprived of all right to dispose of his estate ; and the little pervert became entitled to absolute ownership of it. If a Catholic purchased a landed estate, any Protestant might seize it without paying one penny of the purchase money. If a Catholic held a farm upon lease for more than thirty-one years, any Protestant R 138 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND might lawfully dispossess him. If a Catholic, by his labour, raised the value of his land so as to yield a profit equal to one-third of the rent, any Protestant might evict him by law and enjoy the property. If a Catholic owned a horse, though it were worth £ioOy any Protestant, upon offering him ;^5, might deprive him of it. To conceal the horse for the pur- pose of evading this law was to risk a fine of three times the value of the animal ; and to become liable, in addition, to three months’ imprisonment. Catholic schoolmasters were banished by law. To return was death. If a Catholic, whether child or adult, attended a school kept by a Catholic, such child or adult incurred a forfeiture of all present or future property, while the same fate awaited those who were sent abroad for education. A Catholic could not be a game- keeper to an estated gentleman, or even be a private soldier, without first abjuring his religion. He could not be a solici- tor, much less a judge, a barrister or a sheriff. He could not vote at a parliamentary election. ;^5 was the market price for the head of a priest. To know where a priest was con- cealed, and not to inform, was death. To convert a Protes- tant to the Catholic faith was likewise a capital offence. A Catholic was legally incapable of being an annuitant. He could not have more than two apprentices, except in the linen trade. Merchants whose ships were captured by a hostile nation, in time of war, were to be compensated by a tax levied upon the Catholics only. I must hurry away from those burning sentences in which such Protestants as Burke, Grattan, Plunket, Curran, Godkin, &c., have recorded their enduring detestation of that infernal code which I have but imperfectly abridged. Despite its operation, Irish Catholics were not forgetful of their loyalty. Sir Jonah Barrington, after reciting some of the above odious enactments against us, says: — ‘‘ Yet, under this galling yoke, the Irish, for near eighty years, remained tranquil and submissive,^' (See his “ Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation,” c. i, p. 35, Dublin, 1843). The great Plunket said of us, in Parliament, on 28th Feb., 1821 — ‘‘I cannot but admire the persevering cordiality which men so circumstanced have fought the battles, and shared the dangers and borne the burdens of their country.” (“ Speeches,” p. 215, Dublin, 1873). When the Chevalier St. George and his son the Young Pretender made their unsuccessful attempts to recover the throne of their fathers in 1715 and 1745 respectively, while English and Scotch Protestants assisted them. Catholic Ire- land remained faithful to the dynasty established by the CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. 139 Rebellion of 1688. The Protestant Sir Jonah Barrington says: — “ It will be as difficult to defend the rebellions of 1715 and 1745, raised by British Protestant subjects against their Protestant King, as it will be to calumniate the undeviating^ unshaken loyalty of Catholic Ireland to her Protestant monarchs and the House of Brunswick during the same periods. ** (See his “ Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation,” c. 14, p. 280, Dublin, 1843). At page 278, after alluding to the crowds of British who suffered death for their disloyalty to the Georges, he says: — “ English ingenuity could not find a single traitor to execute in Ireland.” So great indeed was the tranquillity of the Irish Catholics in 1715 that six regiments of inf antry be removed from that country to fight against the royal invader. (See Haverty’s “ History of Ireland,” p. 685, Dublin, 1867), As regards the rebellion of 1745, Primate Stone examined all the papers and correspondence which had been seized in the custody of Murray, the Young Pretender’s Secretary, hoping to find the Irish Catholics implicated in the designs of the invader ; but ‘‘ he could not discover the least trace, hint) or intimation of such intercourse or correspondence in them 5 or of any of the latter's favouring, abetting, or having been so much as made acquainted with the designs or proceedings of these rebelsP (See John Mitchel’s “History of Ireland)*^ c. It, p. 75, Glasgow, 1869). He was surprised to find nothing “ from which he could infer that either their Holy Father the Pope, or any of his cardinals, bishops, or othef dignitaries of that Church, or any of the Irish clergy^ had> either directly or indirectly, encouraged, aided, or approved of the commencing or carrying on of that rebellion.” Chief*^ Justice Marlay, quoted by Mitchel, addressing the Dublin Grand Jury, testifies that the Irish Catholics “not only^r^ served peace at home ^ but contributed to restore it among his (George the Second’s) subjects of Great Britain.” Comment- ing upon the quiet bearing of Ireland at that time, John Mitchel says: — “Thus, if Irish Catholics of the present day are willing to plume themselves, as some Catholic writers have done, upon the unshaken loyalty of their ancestors in 1745, there is no doubt that they are fully entitled to all the credit which can come to them from that circumstanced We certainly must be allowed to point to our peaceful demeanour at that period when a clerical slanderer says that it is impos« sible for Irish Catholics to remain submissive to a Protestant government. As regards the conduct of the Irish priesthood of thu 140 CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND, Georgian era, it will be sufficient to place before the reader what has been said by an enlightened Protestant, Sir Jonah Barrington. That distinguished writer and sterling patriot, in his ‘‘ Rise and Fall of the Irish Nation,” (c. 2, p. 66, Dub- lin, 1843), says: — “The Catholic clergy had then an unlimited influence over the people of their own persuasion. Though the cruel impolicy of the penal statutes had not been altogether set aside, they remained dutiful and faithful to the sovereign power^ cheerfully submissive to the existing lawSy and friendly and affectionate to their Protestant fellow-subjects.” Sir John Davies, James the First’s Attorney-General, who spent a considerable time in Ireland, observing its people, concludes his “ Discoverie of the State of Ireland,” dedicated to that sovereign, with these words: — “In which condition of subjects they (the Irish) will gladly continue, without de~ fection or adhering to any other Lord or Kingy as long as they may be Protected and Justly Governed, without Oppression on the one side or Impunity on the other. For there is no Nation of people under the sunne that doth love equall and indifferent Justice better than the Irish; or will rest better satisfied with the execution thereof, although it be against themselves ; so as they may have the protection and benefit of the Lawe when, uppon just cause, they do desire it.” What is all this but a full testimony to the loyal disposition of the Irish CatholicSy if justly treated? In speaking of the Irish, Sir John Davies was speaking solely of Catholics : for in his day, the smallest village meeting-house would have held all the Protestants in Ireland who had Irish blood in their veins. Sir John Davies had infinitely more penetration than Mr. Kane ; and his judgment of the Catholics of Ireland was that more contented subjects a Protestant King could not have, if they only received common justice. Poor Sir John Davies did not know that it is impossible for Catholics to be loyal to any government, whether Catholic or Protestant I Godkin, another Protestant, in his “ Religious History of Ireland,” (p. 107, Dublin, 1873), says: — “If the natives are prone to rebel, it is not because they are Celts — not even be^ cause they are Catholics^ Poor Godkin did not know that it is impossible for Catholics to be loyal to any government) whether Catholic or Protestant ! But I am not yet done showing the opposition of sentiment that exists between Mr. Kane and Protestants who had intellect. The unfortunate prince, whether Catholic or Protestant, who happens to have Catholic subjects, need never hope to rule them. They are of necessity, rebels, That is Mr, Kane’s notion, Now, when CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. 141 one turns to a learned Protestant, like Dr. Robertson, the great Scotch historian, he finds the very opposite assertion regarding Catholics. Robertson, in his “ History of Scot- land,” (book 2, p. 59, vol. 2, Edinburgh, 1833), says : — ‘‘The genius of Popery is extrejnely favourable to the power of princes! The implicit submission to all her decrees which is exacted by the Romish Church prepares and breaks the mind for political servitude.” Kane asserts that the profession of the Catholic religion converts subjects into rebels ; the great Robertson asserts that instead of making them rebels, it makes them too submissive to princes ! — in short, renders them princes’ slaves ! ! Moderate men will conclude that Robertson has gone too far ; and that if he had stopped at saying that the implicit submission which the Church requires to be paid to her decrees prepares mpn to be duteous to the constituted authorities, he might have been nearer the truth. Let us give Mr. Kane another chance. If Mr. Kane’s assertion that it is impossible for Catholics to be other than perturbers of the civil government, whether Catholic or Protestant, be so self- evident a fact as he concludes it to be, surely a brilliant genius like Lord Macaulay could not have lived to be 45 years of age, and maintain the opposite opinion ? I have that great man's Speeches’* on my table ; and turning to the one upon ** The State of Ireland,” (p. 146, London, 1866), I find the foL lowing, where he is speaking of the Catholics: — “A man who has been taught from childhood to regard with horror all innovation in religion is surely less likely than another man to be a bold innovator in politics f In other words, there is something in the Catholic religion antagonistic to State revo-* lution. The Catholic, as Macaulay says, is ‘‘eminently conservative f using that word outside its party sense. He is for preserving, not destroying; for upholding, not subverting. Assuredly there is no similarity of mind between Macaulay and Kane ! But who ever thought there could have been ? Is it “ Hyperion to a satyr,” as Hamlet says ? No Protestants of any intelligence have ever thought of explaining Irish discontent by saying — “ The Irish are Catho- lics, and Catholics are necessarily disloyal.” They all ascribe it to its proper cause — English misgovernment, constant persecution, and soforth. Macaulay, in the speech which I have just quoted, asks: — “And can we believe, in defiance of all reason and of all history ^ that, if the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom had been tolerably well governed, they would not have been attached to the Government ?” What is that but to say that Catholics, as history shows, are good CATHOLIC LOYALTY IN IRELAND. 142 subjects, if even tolerably well governed? I never care to look into a volume by Mr. Froude, a writer whose dishonesty has been exposed by Protestants as well as Catholics. I am content to take his testimony at second hand ; and even that misrepresenter of the Irish does not carry his policy of misrepresentation so far as to allege that England cannot govern Ireland because Ireland is Catholic. England, according to him, is herself responsible for the diffi- culties which exist in Irish government. The penal laws against religion are, he believes, at the bottom of Irish dis- affection. He says : — “ The suppression of the Catholic service, enforced wherever the English had power, and hang- ing before the people as a calamity sure to follow as the limits of that power were extended, created a weight of animosity which no other measure could have produced, and alone^ perhaps^ made the problem of Irish administration hopelessly insoluble.''^ (See Godkin’s “ Religious History of Ireland,** p. 107, Dublin, 1873). With this I leave the Protestant public to determine for themselves whether Mr. Kane delivered himself of a falsehood or not, when he, thinking he was speaking from a political platform, declared in Christ Church, Belfast, that Catholics could not be loyal to Protestant rulers, “S. J,** PAPAL SUPREMACY IN THE ANCIENT IRISH CHURCH, KANE will, I hope, forgive me, if before pointing rA&S out the fallacy of what he said upon the above subject on i6th March last, I devote some attention to a leaflet which, 1 understand, was pretty generally distributed in town about that date. It is headed — “St. Patrick’s Dayr— Important Questions for Roman Catholics.” The author, among other things, endeavours to show that Ireland is not indebted to any Pope for her Christianity, and that St. Patrick never was at Rome. Granting for the moment that St. Patrick had a mission from Rome, Ireland, he thinks, is under no obligation to Rome for the faith, because Catholic historians inform us that there were Christians in Ireland before St. Patrick’s advent amongst us. Now he does not deny that St. Patrick was the national apostle ; and as, apparently, the existence of a few isolated Christians in Ireland before St. Patrick’s date does not, in the author’s mind, lessen that saint’s right to be recognised as the national apostle^ why should that circum- stance diminish our indebtedness to the Pope, if the Pope really sent St. Patrick to this country ? The dispute then resolves itself into this — was St. Patrick commissioned to preach here by one of the Popes? If so, we have every reason to be grateful to that Pope, as well as to St. Patrick, because both of them, though not connected with the origin of Christianity among the scattered congregations previously mentioned, were concerned in the conversion of the entire nation. As a proof that St. Patrick had no Roman mission, the author quotes Lanigan, who says that our saint was not 144 PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND, consecrated Bishop by Pope Celestine the Great. Is the gfentleman so simple as to think that it became impossible for Pope Celestine the Great to despatch St. Patrick as a mis- sionary to Ireland, because, forsooth, St. Patrick had received episcopal consecration before the Pope saw him? None put a fool could be deceived by so poor an argument. Catholic writers, in general, concur in stating that St. Patrick was consecrated in France by St. Amatorex ; and none of them dream that in saying so they are relating a fact fatal to his Roman mission. The gentleman who wrote the leaflet then asks whether Nennius, a British monk, who lived “ about the middle of the ninth century,” was not "‘the first person to make the the unauthorised assertion respecting Patrick’s Romish mission ? ” In short, he asks whether we have any authority for it earlier than 400 years after St. Patrick’s time ? Even supposing the assertion were not extant in any author older than Nennius, I would remind the gentleman that that circumstance would fall very far short of proving that Nennius was the first to make it. Then again, it is by no means pos- itive that Nennius lived so late as the “ middle of the nmth century.” Scholars know that the exact period at which he lived is a matter of great dispute. Competent authorities say that it was in the early part of the seventh century, 200 years before the period to which the author of the leaflet assigns him. To quote just one, the Protestant, William Cave, a most weighty authority upon ecclesiastical biography, tells us that Nennius flourished about the year 620. (See his “ His- toria Litteraria,” Article “ Nennius,” p. 337, Geneva, 1705,). However, it is of no consequence to settle the exact period at which Nennius lived. But if the writer of the leaflet believes that no author older in date than “the middle of the 7 iinth century,” or “ 400 years after St. Patrick’s time,” can be appealed to for St. Patrick’s Roman mission, he must submit to be told that notwithstanding his being able to quote “ PHest Brennan,” and “ Priest Hamilton,” (for both of whom there is a more polite title), his knowledge of Irish ecclesiastical anti- quities is imperfect. In the Book of Armagh, the existing copy of which, according to the eminent Protestant archaeolo- gist, Dr. Graves, was transcribed in the year 807, the “ Proverbs” of St. Patrick are preserved; and these are allowed byProtestants to be genuine. (SeeCave’s“HistoriaLitteraria,’^ Article “Patricius,’''p. 271, Geneva, 1705). These “Proverbs” make a manifest allusion to St. Patrick’s Roman mission when they speak of the Christian Church in Ireland as “a Church of the Romans, ” (.^cclesia Scottorum immo PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. 145 Romanorum). The Irish Church is a Church of the Romans because the faith was sent to it from Rome. That is obviously the meaning* of the expression. We have likewise the testi- mony of St. Ultan whose boyhood goes back to the closing years of St. Patrick’s life, at the end of the fifth century, conveyed to us by Tirechan, his disciple, stating that Pope Celestine the Great sent St. Patrick to Ireland. Ferdom- nach transcribed Tirechan’s labours into the Book of Armagh in 807 ; and so old was Tirechan’s manuscript at the time of transcription that Ferdomnach had difficulty in deciphering it, (See the learned Protestant, Dr. Graves, “ On the Date otthe Book of Armagh’^ — “Proceedings of the R. I. Academy,** vol, 3, Nov, 30th, 1846). The “Tripartite Life of St. Patrick,** was discovered in the British Museum some forty years ago, written, according to the famous critic and antiquarian, Curry, in Irish of the sixth century \ and it states, in so many words, that St. Patrick was sent to Ireland by Pope Celestine the Great, In Lanigan*s days the “ Tripartite Life^* was not very highly esteemed as an authority, because then It was known only through a Latin version. The “Vita Secunda,** written in the sixth century, mentions St, Patrick’s Roman mission as a fact ; so does the “ Vita Quarta,** written in the seventh century, St, Columbanus, writing to Pope Boniface the Fourth, who reigned between the years 607 and 614, makes a manifest allusion to St. Patrick*s Roman mis- sion. Speaking of Irish orthodoxy, he says : — “The faith just as it was at first delivered by you, the successors of the holy apostles, is held unshaken.** (Fides, sicut a vobis primum sanctorum scilicet apostolorum successoribus,traditaest,incon- cussa tenetur. — Vide Dr. Rock, “ Did the Early Irish Church Acknowledge the Pope’s Supremacy,” p. 16, Dublin, 1844). He says that the faith was first delivered to Ireland” through the Holy See, that is to say, through St. Patrick voho was commissioned by the Holy See to preach in Ireland, Again, in plain allusion to the facts that Saints Peter and Paul had taught at Rome, and that Ireland had learned the faith through Rome, St. Columbanus says : — “ are the of Saints Peter and Paul.” (Nos enim SS. Petri et Pauli ^ ^ ^ discipuli sumus). The Irish are the scholars of Saints Peter and Paul, because those saints taught Rome, and Rome taught Ireland by sendmg the missionary y St, Pa tricky to her. Again, in allusion to the same thing, he says to Pope Boniface the Fourth : — “ Whatsoever I shall say either useful or orthodox will be reputed unto you, since the master'" s praise is the schoU ars' doctrine.” (Quidquid enim dixero aut utile aut ortfio- 146 PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. doxum, vobis reputabitur ; laus enim magistri in discipulorum suorum doctrina est). St. Columbanus was not, literally speakings Pope Boniface’s disciple ; but, as a native of Ireland ^ St. Columbanus was a scholar of the See of Rome, because the See of Rome had taught Ireland Christianity by sending over St. Patrick to labour for her conversion. St. Patrick’s Roman mission is the key, and the only key, that will lay open the meaning of the above extracts from St. Columbanus. I need not produce later evidence, because the author of the leaflet admits that from the ninth century ‘'a host’^ of writers speak of St. Patrick as sent to Ireland hy the Pope. The greatest Protestant sholars have been convinced of the truth of St Patrick’s Roman mission, such as Usher, Camden, Sir James Ware, Mosheim, Petrie, &c., &c. All ancient autho- rities are for it^ and not 07 ie represents our apostle as sent to Ireland by any one hut the Pope. The opposite assertion has been taken up, not because it has any direct evidence to sup- port it [for it has none ) ; but in defiance of all evidence, and in the spirit of insane contradiction to whatever has been the constant tradition of the Catholic Church for ages. The author of the leaflet believes, contrary to all logic, that a scrap or two of the flimsiest negative presumption will overthrow all the positive evidence which Catholics can pro- duce for St. Patrick’s Roman mission. He asks, with great confidence — Why did not Prosper, the friend of Pope Celes- tine the Great, record the success of St. Patrick in Ireland, since he chronicled the want of success which attended the labours of Palladius whom the same Pope had sent to Ireland before sending St. Patrick ? I am prosperous enough to own a copy of Prosper ; and upon turning to that writer’s work, “Contra Cassianum,” (c. 41, p. 113, Paris, 1671), I read the following of Pope Celestine the Great: — “ Whilst that Pope laboured to preserve the Roman island (Britain) Catholic, he made the barbarous one ( Ireland ) Christianl^ (Dum Romanam insulam studet servare Catholicam, fecit etiam barbaram Christianam). It has never been thought that Pope Celestine the Great sent more than two missionaries to Ireland, viz.: — Palladius first, and St. Patrick afterwards. Now, when Prosper said that Celestine made Ireland Christian^ he cannot have had in his mind Palladius, whose failure to convert the natives he had himself chronicled. He must have been think- ing of St Patrick, I have, therefore, every right to say that Prosper is not silent concerning St. Patrick’s Roman mission. It will do no good to say that Prosper may have written the above passage \n anticipation of the success of Palladius, and PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. 147 before his failure was known at Rome ; for another passag-e shows that the work containing the above statement was written during the pontificate of Pope Celestine’s successor. Now, Pope Celestine himself, long before he died, had become aware of the failure of Palladius. So there is no escape from the conclusion that Prosper had in view St. Patrick’s Roman mission when he said of Pope Celestine, long after Pope Celestine’s death : — “ He made the barbarous island (Ireland) Christian.” I have lying open before me the “ Bishops of Ireland,” by the celebrated Irish antiquarian. Sir James Ware,(vol. i, Harris’s edition of his ‘‘ Works, ”p. ii, Dublin, 1739), 2ind he commends his co-religionist, the Protestant Bishop Lloyd, for giving to the above passage from Prosper the very interpretation which I have placed before my readers. Accordingly, we have in Prosper, a writer of the fifth century, contemporary with St. Patrick, evidence that St. Patrick was sent to Ireland from Rome. The author of the leaflet then points to the silence of Beda and Platina, as fatal to the theory that St. Patrick was sent to Ireland by the Pope. Beda wrote in the eighth century, and Platina — when? In the fifteenth century, a thousand years after St. Patrick’s time ! ! These writers have not said that St. Patrick was sent hither from Rome 5 therefore, he was not so sent. Such is the argument. But have they said that he was so sent ? No. And what is the silence of these two writers worth when weighed against the positive testimony of all antiquity preceding them ? Is it, for instance, to outweigh the testimony of an Irishman whose boyhood goes back to the era of St. Patrick himself? Is it to out- weigh the testimony of the contemporary Prosper, who, in ascribing to Pope Celestine the Great the conversion of Ire- land, cannot have been referring to any one but a missionary sent from Rome, while that missionary cannot have been other than St. Patrick ? Suppose, for argument sake, that Beda and Platina, in opposition to all ages before them, had said that St. Patrick had been sent from Rome to Ireland by the Pope, would the writer of the leaflet have considered even their positive testimony to that effect decisive against all pre- ceding antiquity to the contrary ? He would not. Yet, in the present case, he has not even diwything positive from them. He has only their silence ! Were Beda and Platina such marvels of accuracy and completeness that whatever they do not openly say must be rejected as something which is not to be believed? They could not have been ignorant of what all antiquity told them \ and the mere fact of their silence 14S PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. proves nothing against the Roman mission of St. Patrick. Is an omission on the part of Beda, an Anglo-Saxon^ and Platina, an Italian^ of the eighth and fifteenth centuries respectively, regarding an event of the fifth century connected with the history of Ireland^ to be relied upon as conclusive against the positive stditement of an Irishman of the sixth century, and the positive statements of Irishmen of several succeeding centuries, regarding the life of their own apostle? When such trash is palmed upon people for sound reasoning, we are probably approaching the day when it shall be considered the proper course of procedure to decide difficult points by the evidence of those people who have the least right to know the truth of them, or of those people who say nothing at all upon the subject, and when natives of Borrioboola Gha, regenerated by Mrs. Jellyby, shall be encouraged to lecture Irishmen upon Irish history. I hope to be dead before such events come to pass. I think I can disenchant the gentleman with the argument which he seeks to draw from the silence of Beda against St. Patrick’s Roman mission. He is evidently not one of those who question the existence of St. Patrick, On the contrary, he seems a thorough believer in it. Accordingly, I hope to snare him. It has not remained for the author of the leaflet to rear an argument upon the silence of Beda. Within reach of my hand I have Ledwich’s ‘'Antiquities of Ireland and that writer (p. 62, Dublin, 1804) relies upon the silence of Beda to show that there was never any such person as St. Patrick. The gentleman whom I am criticising will certainly not consider this a valid consequence drawn from that won- derful silence. But why not ? It is as good as his. Now, as soon as the great talent, which I am sure he has, enables him to explain Beda’s silence, so that it shall not be fatal to the existence of St. Patrick, he will have in his possession the method of reasoning which shall show that Beda’s silence about the Roman mission of St. Patrick is not such a death- blow to the Catholic theory as he thinks. Furthermore, he is bound, by his own principles, to answer Ledwich before he has any right, as a consistent gentleman, to talk to the Catho- lics about the silence of Beda, Arguments like the one which I am dissecting, taken from the silence of no more than an author or two, are very bad. I will show that they may end in notoriously wrong conclu- sions. Josephus, for instance, is regarded, in general, as a reliable authority upon the history of the Jews. Yet while Josephus relates the history of the giving of the Command^ PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. 149 ments to Moses he is perfectly silent as to the fact that while Moses was upon the mountain receiving them, the Jews were adoring the Golden Calf: and also as to the fact that when Moses witnessed this idolatry, he let fall the two tables of the law and broke them ; in short, the utmost silence is observed re- garding the whole incident of the Golden Calf What would the writer of the leaflet, who is so impressive about the silence of Beda, say, if some one were to argue that the silence of Josephus upon the incidents just mentioned is proof positive that the Jewish historian knew nothing of them ; that they were not found in the copies of the Pentateuch extant in the time of Josephus ; that they had been foisted in afterwards ? Now, a person reasoning thus would have a better case for his theory than the author of the leaflet possesses in the silence of Beda for his theory ; for while the author of the leaflet could not say that Beda is an authority upon Irish history^ the other gentleman could say that Josephus, by the consent of all, is an authority upon Jewish history. Yet no one is prepared to conclude from the silence of Josephus that the incident of the Golden Calf is an interpolation of the Bible. However, to be consistent, the author of the leaflet ought to arrive at such a conclusion. If not, he is only play* ing fast and loose with arguments. The argument which is bad against the Bible is excellent, unanswerable, &c., &c., against ‘‘ Popery.’* And so it is ever. If this were the pro- per place to do so, I could give manifest examples to show that the arguments brought against the Catholic Church, in many cases, are precisely those which infidels use against Revelation, In reading the controversial works of Whitaker, Willet, &G., &c., I registered, for after use, numerous in- stances of this. But it is time to think of Mr. Kane. I am about to atone for my neglect of him through so many pages. Mr, Kane asserts that the Irish Christians never recog- nised the Pope as the visible head of the Church till Henry the Second invaded this country in the twelfth century, and, by some means so marvellously secret and silent as to have occasioned no disturbance, and to have remained untold in history, overthrew the Protestant doctrine upon the subject, and converted all the good Protestant Irishmen of that time into blind vassals of the Pope ! I began to read Mr. Kane’s sermon upon Papal supremacy in Ireland in the full belief that it was all over with such giants in Irish ecclesiastical antiqui- ties as Colgan, Rothe, Lynch, &c. But, alas, what an injury I had done to those great names by my suspicions ! Accord- to his wont, he had nothing to say, even upon the subject 150 PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. selected by himself. His discourse was neither sermon nor profound historical disquisition. What Irish writers of elder time did he cite in proof of his proposition that Papal supre- macy was not known in Ireland till Henry the Second’s time? Not one. Did he attempt to explain why the Irish as great writers and excellent Protestants (according to him) did not denounce the rest of Europe for being, as he himself will admit, firm believers in the doctrine of the Pope’s supremacy, for many centuries before the Norman invasion? No. Oh, dear, oh, dear, what apathetic ‘‘ Protestants” those ancient Irish were ! Where was their zeal against ‘‘ Popery?” The supremacy of the Pope was acknowledged all over Europe for many hundreds of years before the time of Henry the Second, and Ireland, the last refuge of Protestant doctrine upon that question, had not the courage to proclaim the truth — nay, succumbed herself without a struggle when Henry the Second said: — “Acknowledge that the Pope is the visible head of the Church !” Such, in brief, is Mr. Kane’s position. His sole evidence, in support, is a document purporting to emanate from Pope Adrian the Fourth, the only Englishman who ever sat in the Chair of Peter, empowering Henry the Second to take possession of Ireland, and correct ecclesiastical abuses alleged to exist therein. It is strange, if Mr. Kane’s notion be true, that the Pope did not complain in this bull that the Irish did not acknowledge him as head of the Church, It is true he says that they did not give him Peter’s Pence, But in Peter’s Pence we have not a necessary adjunct of the doctrine of the Pope’s supremacy. Eminent critics have pro- nounced this bull a forgery ; but, even if we accept it as free from all suspicion in point of authenticity, it cannot be of much service to Mr. Kane in establishing his assertion. It will rather tend to prove the contrary ; for, if the Irish nation down to Henry the Second’s time had possessed a Church paying no spiritual obedience to the See of Rome, that cir- cumstance, if it were a fact, must have been known to both the Pope and the English King. Then comes the question whether, in the supposition that Ireland believed in no visible head of the Church, a Papal bull was just the sort of credential for Henry the Second to provide himself with when intending to invade, for ostensibly religious purposes, an island where, according to Mr. Kane’s theory, a Papal bull relative to a matter of religion must have \\2l men, or even more, to be in Rome, during the above agesj at one time. In short, there seem to have been but few of the Irish abbots or bishops who had not made the pilgrimage to Rome, in person, or by deputy. The numerous ancient “ Lives” of them which are extant record this pilgrimage as the great desire of their hearts. What induced so many Irishmen, mostly monks and bishops, to undertake so toiF some a journey, through forests peopled by banditti, across^ sometimes, inhospitable regions, where privation and danger attended their every step? Was it merely that spirit of curiosity which annually prompts John Bull to take Murray’s “ Guide to Italy’^ in his hand and hide a geologist’s hammer in his portmanteau, that he may surreptitiously chop off* bits of every memorable tomb to be visited by him on his route ? Or, was it not rather an irrepressible longing, originating in the fervour of their Catholic faith, to behold the centre of Christian unity, and pay their loving homage to the revered successor of the Fisherman ? I assert that the Irishmen of the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries went to Rome, impelled by the same motive as that which sends devout Catholics thither at the present day. Those multitudes of pilgrims wended their way through countries where the doctrine of Papal supremacy reigned supreme, and were hospitably entertained, in the course of their journey, by their brethren of the continent Would houses have been specially 156 PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. set apart for their reception, in France, for instance, if those Irish pilgrims had denied the supremacy of the Pope ? Would the care of those houses have engaged the watchful attention of the provincial councils of France, if the Irish had been tainted with what the French of the period would have con- sidered rank heresy? Would those Irish wayfarers have been welcomed in the monasteries and in the episcopal palaces of Europe, upon the supposition that the early Irish agreed with modern Protestants respecting the Pope ? The affirma- tive is altogether improbable when we recollect for how small a suspicion of heterodoxy, the most violent animosity took possession of men’s bosoms, in the ages which are the sub- ject of observation. Again, if the ancient Irish were all Pro- testants with regard to the Pope, while it is undeniable that the European world revered him as the supreme visible head of the Church, why, I ask to be told, do those numerous monastic chroniclers, Papists” to a man, who, living during the fever of pilgrimage, have praised the Irish for that ardent faith which made them pilgrims to Rome, never so much as once breathe a distant hint that the Irish people were unortho- dox from their (the chroniclers’) point of view, with respect to the position and office of the Pope ? And why, if those flocks of Irish pilgrims were Protestants in their ideas regarding the Pope, do those ancient Irish monks (supposed Protestants also), who have recorded the Roman pilgrimages undertaken by Irishmen, never so much as once whisper that their pilgrim countrymen had (marvellous to relate) journeyed for months through provinces and kingdoms where the primitive Christian and Irish Protestant faith had become corrupted by the unu versal belief that the Bishop of Rome was, by divine appoint- ment, Christ's vicar on earth ? This mysterious silence upon both sides leaves candour no alternative but to conclude that the Irish nation, and the nations of the continent, were in perfect accord respecting the authority of the Pope ; and that, as the continental nations between the eighth and eleventh centuries, unquestionably believed that the Pope was the supreme visible head of the Church, the Irish nation must have adhered to that doctrine also. There is but one loophole through which to escape from this conclusion ; but it cannot be employed without laying bare the desperate nature of the Case attempted to be made against the Irish Catholics. It is to allege that the French, and Italians, and other nations, and even His Holiness agreed not to suspect the doctrine of the Irish, and the Irish, never outdone in generosity, returned the compliment, and conspired not to suspect the doctrine of •papal supremacy in IRELAND. 1 57 the French, or that of the Italians, or that of the other nations, or (oh, high-souled ancient Irish Protestants !) that even of the Pope himself! ! Not to dwell upon the numerous continental sees which were ruled by Irish Bishops, during the ages engaging our attention, further than to express my wonder that Bishops who, to accept for the moment the Protestant theory, did not hold the supremacy of the Pope, were chosen to rule clergy and laity who did^ I will content myself with asking why, almost under the very eye of the Pope, the see of Fiesole in Italy was possessed by Donatus, an Irishman, in the ninth century, if Irishmen of the ninth century were Protestants in their rejection of the Pope’s authority? We have no reason to believe that Donatus differed from the rest of his country- men in theological views. To be brief, more than 200 Irish patron saints of continental sees and cities can be reckoned up, at least one-half of whom flourished in the period embraced by my argument. It is the duty of Mr. Kane to tell us why, in sees and cities wedded to the doctrine of Papal supremacy, patron saints were selected, who, according to his theory of ancient Irish Christianity, would have scouted that doctrine. While the fact is incontestable that the continental writers who flourished in times when the doctrine of the Pope’s supremacy was everywhere received upon the continent, pre- serve a rigid silence regarding the alleged Protestant views of the Irish, relative to that question, and, on the other hand, the Irish writers preserve an equally mysterious silence re- garding the views of the continental nations, it must be remarked that excellent opportunities were afforded for ren- dering Ireland and the continent thoroughly acquainted with the entirety of each other’s theological beliefs. I have already spoken of the pilgrimages to Rome which, naturally, would have had that tendency ; the continental sees filled by Irish bishops have been alluded to, and that circumstance would tend in the same direction ; while the fame of the Irish schools will go to strengthen the argument further. Fain would I dwell upon their glory ; but brevity forbids. Let it suffice to say that we are speaking of a period when students from all parts of Europe, and some even from Egypt, flocked in thousands to the Green Isle to study profane and sacred letters. Now, if the Ireland of those ages was Protestant respecting the Pope, w^e are confronted with the stupendously marvellous and absolutely unique spectacle of “ Popish*^ students, leaving their own “Popish” schools on the conti- nent to perfect themselves in Protestant schools ! In what? PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. 158 It makes a man gasp to write it ; but it must be put down/ — in the theology of Popery!” This manifest absurdity is, in itself, destructive of the pretty little theory which gives over all Europe to the Pope while it claims an exemption regarding Papal supremacy for Ireland. The custom of resorting to Ireland for secular and religious instruction grew so common that in some countries it became a proverb to say of a man whose whereabouts people did not know: — He must be in Ireland.” In reading the ancient biographies of the early continental scholars, the chances are about equal between finding those scholars either to have spent some years in Ire- land, or to have been the disciples of some Irish monk resident upon the continent. In the words of Dr. Milner: — “At length a residence in Ireland, like a residence now at a University, was considered as almost essential to establish a literary character. (See his “ Inquiry into Certain Vulgar Opinions Concerning the Catholic Inhabitants and the Antiquities of Ireland,” p. 10, London, 1808). As the natives of the continent thronged into Ireland, so the Irish in those ages poured in upon the continent Walafrid Strabo, a German, writing in the ninth century, declares that “ the habit of travelling had become like second nature to the Irish” — (consuetudinem peregrinandi in naturam conversam esse) ; and Eric of Auxerre addressing Charles the Bald of France, says : — “ Need I mention Ireland? She, despising the dangers of the deep, emigrates to our shores, with almost the e^itire host of her philosophers.'^'^ (Quid Hiberniam memorem,contempto pelagidiscrimine,pene totam, cum grege philosophorum ad littora nostra, migrantem, &C> See Dn Lynch’s “ Cambrensis Eversus,” c. 25, vol. 2, pp. 640-641, Dublin, i85o)» Osbern of Canterbury, quoted in the same place, speaks of the travelling propensities of the Irish as still active in his time, which was the eleventh century. Accordingly, Irish scholars and European scholars at this period had the most ample opportunities of becoming thoroughly acquainted with the theological tenets professed in their respective countries. Yet the Irish writers and the continental writers never reproach each other with reference to the Pope, although it is Mr. Kane’s theory that long before the twelfth century, all Europe held the doctrine of Papal supremacy, while that doctrine, he contends, had no footing in Ireland till the twelfth century! Come, Mr. Kane, explain to us this unaccountable silence, or stand for ever con* founded ! No scholar will risk his reputation for learning by maintaining PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. *39 that the Emperor Charlemagne did not believe the Pope to be the supreme visible head of the Church. Now, numbers of Irish monks visited his court and partook of his royal bounty. For instance, Colcha, abbot of Clonmacnoise was there in 791 ; and received, in token of his esteem, a present from him of fifty shekels. He placed at the head of his schools two Irish monks named Clement and Albinus. If Mr. Kane’s theory of the origin of Papal supremacy in Ireland be correct, Charlemagne was constantly patronising men who, in the imperial estimation, were heretics. Is such a supposition reconcilable with Charlemagne’s known character? His son Lothaire placed the Irish monk Dungal at the head of the great school of Pavia. Will any one vouch for the probability of Lothaire’s doing such an honour to one whom, if Mr, Kane’s theory of the origin of Papal supremacy in Ireland be correct, he must have considered unorthodox? Granting for the sake of argument that he knew of the supposed heterodoxy, or Protestantism, of Dungal, and elevated him because of his talents or for any other reason, where is the outcry of admittedly “ Popish” Europe? Where, at least, is the outcry of Popish ” Italy, whither he was sent to teach? Where, above all, is the outcry of the decidedly ^‘Popish” Pope ? Such a shock to universally received ideas could not have passed without noise in an age when very little was required to fix upon a man the stigma of heresy. Besides, Dungal wrote against the errors of Claudius of Turin. Why did not Claudius of Turin retort upon Dungal, if the Irish did not hold the doctrine of Papal supremacy, and demand why he, who differed from the universal belief respecting the Supreme Pontiff, dared to reproach him (Claudius) with deviating from the received doctrine upon other matters? When the errors of Claudius of Turin were condemned by the Church, why was Dungal not condemned also, if he dissented from the received doctrine regarding the Pope ? Again, we have the famous Irish philosopher and scholar, Erigena, in the ninth century, beloved by Charles the Bald of France and Alfred the Great of England. Is it probable that one, so devoted to the Pope as the latter monarch, would have invited Erigena to teach at Oxford, had Erigena been what Alfred the Great would have deemed heretical regarding the Pope ? Although Erigena’s philosophical speculations eventually led him into theological errors, and he was expelled trom the Uni- versity of Paris, at the request of the Pope ; is there the least hint given by the ancient writers who mention his errors that pne of those errors was a denial of the supremacy of the Pope ,? i6o PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND, Between the eighth and eleventh centuries numerous monasteries were built by the French and German monarchs in their dominions solely for Irish monks. Would princes, who, themselves, were fast adherents to the doctrine of Papal supremacy, have encouraged to reside in their dominions men who were heterodox upon that doctrine? Would Europe which held the supremacy of the Pope have conferred upon Ireland the title of “island of saints and doctors,’* (insula sanctorum et doctorum), had not Ireland agreed with it about the Pope ? Would Marianus Scotus the great Irish monk, who died 85 years before Henry the Second invaded Ireland, have received the praise of his pupil, Pope Adrian the Fourth, had he denied the supremacy of the Pope? (See Dr. Lynch’s “ Cambrensis Eversus,” c. 21, vol, 2, pp. 400-401, Dublin, 1850). Would Marianus Scotus have been ordained by a German Bishop, had he not agreed with Germany upon the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope? Would he have written a universal Chronicle and never have mentioned the fact that while other countries had admitted the supremacy of the Pope, his nation never had done so, had he himself or the Irish nation rejected the supremacy of the Pope ? Had he rejected that doctrine, would the Germans, after his long residence among them, have almost considered him a saint, as the Protestant Cave tell us they did? (See his “ Historia Litteraria,” article “Marianus Scotus,” p. 530, Geneva, 1705). Would so devoted a believer in Papal supremacy as St. Bernard, who died at a ripe age eighteen years before Henry the Second invaded Ireland, have omitted to castigate the Irish, had they refused to admit the spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope? He has not spared our faults in the “ Life” which he has left of his bosom friend St. Malachy. Had St. Malachy denied the supremacy of the Pope, would he have had for his biographer St. Bernard who held the supremacy of the Pope? Would St. Bernard have written for the edification of the world the “ Life^’ of a man whose religious principles had been what the biographer would have turned from, as heretical ? Would St. Bernard have praised the piety of so many Irish bishops, had he known that Ireland scouted the supremacy of the Pope ? And could he have remained in ignorance of the doctrines held by the Irish when he had such a man as St. Malachy for his friend? Did the Irish Church rise up in scorn of St. Malachy when in the year 1137, as I read in Cave’s “ Historia Litteraria,” (article “ Malachias,” p. 578, Geneva, 1705), just 35 years before Henry the Second forced us to acknowledge the Pope, St. Malachy, a sterling PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. i6i Irishman, returned from Rome with the dignity of Papal legate? And why did not Ireland reject him from her bosom, if, according to Mr. Kane, she then knew nothing about any spiritual supremacy vested in the Pope ? If the Irish Church never held the supremacy of the Pope till the twelfth century, why, I ask Mr. Kane, were there councils and councils called for the condemnation of indi’- viduals upon the continent, while a whole nation stood out from the rest of the Western world, as he assumes, upon so important a doctrine as Papal supremacy was then deemed ; and not one native of that country, much less the entire nation, ever formed the subject of any council called to anathematize Irish heterodoxy with respect to the jurisdiction of the Pope? Writers silent; councils silent; even Popes silent ; and all this time (preposterous supposition !) Ireland denied the supremacy of the Pope ! ! During the ages which elapsed before the period at which Mr. Kane says the doctrine of Papal supremacy was intro- duced into Ireland, several pontiffs of great ambition and zeal for the Papacy sat in the Chair of Peter. It is only ne- cessary to mention Gregory the Seventh as one. Where are his anathemas against the Irish Church for not acknowledging his supremacy ? Had the Irish Church not held the supre- macy of the Pope, can we say, with the knowledge of that Pope’s character present to our judgments, that the most terrible ecclesiastical censures would not have been fulminated by him against the Irish hierarchy and nation? Dr. Rock, in his able work, “ Did the Early Irish Church Acknowledge the Pope’s Supremacy?"’ (pp. iii — 112, Dublin, 1844), prints a letter from Gregory the Seventh to the Irish Bishops. It is not such a letter as would be written by an ambitious pon- tiff to a nation rejecting his spiritual supremacy. It is affectionate in its tenor. He addresses the Irish Bishops as his “most dear children.” (Vos autem ut charissimos filios exhortamur, &c.). Of all the Popes that ever reigned, Hilde- brand was the least likely to address as “ most dear children,” a hierarchy which not only repudiated his claims to supre- macy, but never had, according to Mr. Kane, acknowledged the supremacy of any Pope before him. A volume might be filled with displaying the immense body of indirect evidence which exists to show the utter absurdity of supposing that Ireland, alone, out of so many Western nations, never be- lieved the doctrine of Papal supremacy till she was compelled to do so, according to Mr. Kane, by Henry the Second in the twelfth century, who seems to have been a most successful U PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. l6t apostle. If Ireland was Protestant with regard to the Pope till the Norman King invaded the country, I can only say for those “Protestant*' Irish that no boasts ought ever to be made about them in respect of any attachment to their faith ; for judging from the silence of history, they appear to have given up their Protestantism just at the King’s call. But the unamiable Kane’s theory of the introduction of Papal supre- macy into Ireland in the twelfth century is not a whit wiser than the amiable Pickwick’s “theory of tittlebats.” Let us give it the coup de grace with direct evidence. It will be appropriate to begin by proving that the early Irish were not Protestants, but Catholics, with regard to the position occupied by St. Peter. My initial proof shall be drawn from the Missal of St. Columbanus, who flourished partly in the sixth and partly in the seventh century. After having been preserved for ages in the celebrated Monastery of Bobbio in Italy, founded by that ardent Irish missionary, this Missal was transferred by Cardinal Frederick Borromeo to the famous Ambrosian Library at Milan. It was first pub- lished by the indefatigable Benedictine, Mabillon, in his “ Museum Italicum.” Among its masses (for the early Irish “ Protestants” all went to mass and prayed to the saints and for t\it dead thereat) there is one for the Feast of the Chair of St. Peter. This to begin with, looks bad for our early Irish Protestantism. But alas, worse has to come ! In this mass St. Peter's primacy is acknowledged when he is said to have been endowed with “ all authority over both Jews and Gentiles” (omne jus gentium Judaeorumque) ; but more ex- plicitly still in the first Collect, beginning with: — “O God, who on this day didst give us, after Thyself y the Blessed Peter to be the head of the Churchy &c.” (Deus qui hodierna die Beatum Petrum, post Te, dedisti caput ecclesiae, &c. See the “ Museum Italicum” of Mabillon, vol. I, p. 297, Paris, 1724). This, it must be admitted, is not Protestantism. In the ancient Irish monastery at Reichenau, the eminent Ger- man archaeologist, Mone, discovered a Latin hymn, composed by an Irish monk of the eighth or ninth century. He pub- lished it in his “ Hymni Latini Medii ^vi,” (vol. 3, p. 58, Fr*burg, 1858). In the seventeenth stanza of this hymn, St. Peter is apostrophized thus: — “ O thou who rulest the king- dom of the apostles, &c.” (Qui regis regnum aposto- lorum). Now, the “ kingdom” of the apostles is the entire religious or spiritual world ; and of this that Irish monk makes St. Peter “ ruler.” It is indisputable that the writer who cpuld pen such an expression must have been nurtured PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. 163 in the belief that St. Peter had been constituted the visible head of the Church. Claudius Clemens, an Irishman of the ninth century who became Bishop of Auxerre in France, says of St. Peter in one of his exegetical works : — He received the princedom of judiciary authority. ” (Principatum judiciariae potestatis accepit. See Dr. Moran’s ‘‘ Essays on the Early Irish Church,” p. 108, Dublin, 1864). When this is the man- ner in which the ancient Irish Christians speak of St. Peter, it would be singular, indeed, if after all, they were found to agree with Protestants in rupudiating the supremacy of the Pope. When St. Mochta, one of the earliest of the Irish pilgrims, was in Rome about the year 460, he was thought by some to have been infected with the errors of Celestius ; and he, in vindication of his orthodoxy, presented a profession of his belief to Pope Leo the Great, a copy of which, written about the year 700, was discovered by the illustrious Muratori among the MSS. of the Irish Monastery of Bobbio* In it, St. Mochta says that though several heresies had their origin in the city of Rome, nevertheless none of them could get hold of or contaminate the Chair of Peter — that is to say, THE See of Faith.” (Tamen nulla earum Cathedram Petri, hoc est, sedem fidei, tenere potuit aut movere. See Dr. Moran’s •• Essays on the Early Irish Church,” pp. 94—95*, Dublin, 1864). An Irishman of the fifth century pronounces Rome “Me SeeofFaithV^ Comment is altogether superfluous. St Columbanus, writing to Pope Gregory the Great to obtain his decision relative to the correct time for celebrating Easter, says; — “ It is in accordance neither with place nor with ORDER that anything should be set before thy great AUTHORITY by way of discussion.” (Nec loci namque nec ordinis est ut magnae auctoritati aliquid quasi discutiendo inrogetur. See Dr. Rock’s work, “Did the Early Irish Irish Church Acknowledge the Pope’s Supremacy?” p. 38, Dublin, 1844). Now, if Irishmen in the sixth century, when this letter was written, believed themselves religiously inde- pendent of the Pope, why, first of all, did St. Columbanus seek the Pope’s decision upon the correct time for celebrating Easter ? And what does he mean by saying that the Pope’s “authority” is so “great” that questions are not to be laid before him “by way of discussion.” Such language is unintelligible, unless we suppose that the Pope is, in his mind, the supreme judge on earth in ecclesiastical matters, who, furthermore, is not to be disputed with. It is simply impossible to place any other interpretation upon it. Besides, i64 papal supremacy IN IRELAND. he submits several questions to Pope Gregory the Great in this letter for decision. He requests him to determine whether communion should be held with men who had ascended to episcopal dignity through simony. I ask Mr. Kane to explain why Columbanus submitted such a question to the determi- nation of the Pope if the Irish were not then taught the doctrine of Papal supremacy, which, he says, they never held till six centuries later ? Again, Columbanus contrasts the relative positions occupied by himself and the Pope in the economy of the Church, in a passage which is a plain acknow- ledgment of Papalauthority. He says: — “Mine it was to call upon, to question, to beseech theee ; thine to give, at Christ’s behest, the bread of doctrine to him who sought it from thee."’ (Meum fuit provocare, interrogare, rogare ; tuum *** petenti te panem doctrinae, Christo praecipiente, dare. See Dr. Rock"s work, “Did the Early Irish Church Acknowledge the Pope’s Supremacy?” p. 42, Dublin, 1844). The above passage contains three important statements: — (i) that Columbanus recognised his obligation to appeal to the Pope upon a difficult theological question ; (2) that he did so appeal ; (3) that it was the Pope’s office to declare what was the Church’s doctrine. He addresses that Pope as the “ illustrious watchman” — (egregio speculatori). The expres- sion needs no comment. It speaks volumes for the Pope’s care of the Universal Church. Again, Columbanus begins a letter to Pope Boniface the Fourth by calling him “ the most beautiful head of all the Churches of Europe” — (pulcherrimo omnium totius Europse ecclesiarum capiti). He also names the Pope “pastor of pastors” — (pastorum pastori). He proceeds to say that he (Columbanus) writes as “the lowliest to the HIGHEST, the last to the first — (humillimus celsiss- imo extremus primo). In his intense zeal for the pre- servation of the true faith, he exhorts the Pope to bear in mind the great responsibility of his exalted position, thus ; — Watch, therefore, for the peace of the Church ; help thy sheep already affrighted at the dread as it were of wolves. Where- fore, use, O Pope, the whistlings and the well-known voice of the true shepherd, and stand betwixt thy sheep and the wolves ; so that, casting away their fear, thy sheep may in everything know thee the first pastor. (Vigilate itaque pro Ecclesise pace ; subvenite ovibus vestris, jam tamquam luporum terroribus pavidis. Quamobrem utere veri, O Papa, pastoris sibilis notaque voce, et sta inter illas «t lupos, ut, deposito pavore, tunc primum te ex integro cognoscant pastorem). He also says to the Pope with regard to the PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. 165 faith: — ‘‘Confirm it by thy witness; strengthen it by thy writing ; fence it in by a synod, that no one may, by law, WITHSTAND THEE.*’ (Confirma testimonio ; robora scripto ; muni synodo, ut nullus tibi jure resistat). Further on, Columbanus styles the Pope, “ the prince of the leaders” — (ducum principem). The “ leaders” are the bishops ; and of the bishops, the Pope, according to the great. Irish monk Columbanus, is the “ prince.*^ What plainer evidence could we have that Papal supremacy was held by the Irish of the seventh century ? Again, to rouse up a proper zeal in the Pope, he says: — “ Everything is waiting for thee who hast THE POWER OF SETTING ALL THINGS IN ORDER.” (Te totum expectat qui potestatem habens omnia ordinandi, &c.). Let Protestants ponder what Columbanus means w’hen he says of the Irish : — “ We are, as I said before, bound to the Chair of Peter ; for although Rome is great and thoroughly well known, it is only through this Chair that she is great and bright AMONG us.” (Nos enim, ut ante dixi, devincti sumus Cathedrse Sancti Petri ; licet enim Roma magna est et vulgata, per istam Cathedram tantum apud nos est magna et clara). This last passage is worth reading again. No one can weigh it without coming to the conclusion that the ancient Irish were the devoted children of the Pope. They cared not for the remains of amphitheatres and baths, recalling the days when pagan Rome was the mistress of the world. Rome held the Chair of Peter, upon which sat the visible head of the Church ; and that was the only consideration which made Romevaluableintheireyes. How anti-Protestant! Columbanus describes the Pope as “set, in a manner, higher than all mortals, and becoming thus raised near unto celestial beings”— (quasi cunctis mortalibus altior positus vicinusque caelestium effectus). Again, of the Pope; — “You are almost HEAVENLY, and Rome is the head of the Churches of all the world, saving the singular prerogative of the place of the Lord’s resurrection.” (Vos prope cselestes estis, et Roma orbis terrarum caput est ecclesiarum, salva loci dominicae resurrectionis singulari praerogativa). He reserves a local honour to Jerusalem as that privileged city sacred in a special manner to Jesus Christ as the scene of His bodily presence, and therefore surpassingly holy In the eyes of all Christians. Again, Columbanus describes the Popes as: — “The MASTERS, the steersmen, the mystic pilots of the ship spiritual” — (magistris, ac spiritualis navis gubernatoribus, ac mysticis proretis). If by such eloquent expressions he does not convey that the Popes have the guidance of the whole PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. 1 66 Church, there is an end to all language, and words have lost their meaning. The entire letter of Columbanus to Boniface the Fourth may be read in Dr. Rock’s admirable work: — “Did the Early Irish Church Acknowledge the Pope’s Supremacy?” (pp. 45 — 54, Dublin, 1844). Another Irishman, St. Cummian, writing to Segienus, abbot of Hy, upon the paschal question in 634, adopts St. Jerome’s famous words as the expression of his sentiments: — “ I shout out : " If any one is joined to the chair of Peter, he IS MiNE.^” (Ego interim clamito ; si quis Cathedrae Petri jungitur, meus est). He says that upon this question Irish- men had been sent to Rome “as sons to their mother/’ (velut natos ad matrem) “ in virtue of the synodical decree (St. Patrick’s, before quoted) that if causes should be of great moment, they must be referred to the head of cities.” (Ut si causae fuerint majores, juxta decretum synodicum, ad caput urbium sint referendae). There were two Irish saints named Cummian flourishing at this time ; but the Cummian quoted above is believed to have been St. Cummian the Fair. For the reverence due to Rome, we have also the testimony of his contemporary St. Cummian Fota (or the Tall) in his “Penitential.” This “Penitential” prescribes that should any one, through ignorance, permit a heretic to celebrate mass in a Catholic Church, he shall fast forty days by way of penance; but should he permit such celebration “through contempt for the Catholic Church and for the customs of the ROMANS, he himself shall be cast off from the Church as a heretic unless he do penance, and his penance shall be ten years.” (Si pro damnatione Ecclesiae Catholicae et consuetu- dinis Romanorum, projiciatur ab Ecclesia sicut hereticus, nisi habeat pcenitentiam ; si habuerit, decern annos poeniteat. See Dr, Moran’s “Essays on the Early Irish Church,” p. s6o, Dublin, 1864). What a singular respect those early Irish “Protestants,” forsooth, had for Rome I Another Irish “Penitential” of the eighth century impresses upon Irish pastors, with reference to the reconciliation of sinners, the great care which they must exercise, “according to Gregory,” (i.e. Pope Gregory the Great), lest “they should bind what should not be bound and not loosen what should be loosened.” (Et secundum Gregorium magnopere pastori- bus procurandum ne incaute alligaverint quod non alligandum est,et non solverint quod solvendum. See Dr. Moran, ib,p. 275). Why this deference to Pope Gregory the Great in our early Irish “ Protestants ? ” In 807 or 808 there was a synod held in Ire- land, at which Torbach, archbishop of Armagh, and numerous PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND. 167 other Irish prelates were present. The acts of this synod say that Pope Leo the Third presided, (cui praefuit Leo Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae). Some scholars think that the Pope may have actually come to Ireland, as, about this time, he visited France and Germany at the request of Charlemagne. How- ever, it is more probable that he presided by deputy. But I have another purpose in mentioning this synod. In this synod, a canon was made relative to priests who had fallen into impurity. A penance of ten years was imposed upon such offenders, “according to the authority of Blessed Pope Sylvester/* (juxta auctoritatem Beati Sylvestri Papse). The penance was of a most severe character. If, by the end of seven years, the priest’s conduct as a penitent shall have given edification to his brethren, his Bishop may reinstate him, “ according to the authority of Pope Calixtus.*^ (Episcopus in pristinum honorem, juxta B. Callisti Papse auctoritatem, eum revocare poterit. See Dr. Moran’s “ Essays on the Early Irish Church,*" pp. 180 and 321, Dublin, 1864). Why is the “ authority ” of Popes appealed to, if the ancient Irish rejected the authority of the Pope? In a collection of Irish canons made about the year 700, it is enacted that controversies shall not be referred to heretics or those who “separate themselves from roman usages and from the unity of the Church.” (Qui *** a Romano more et ab unitate ecclesiae abscedunt. See Dr. Moran, ib, p. 127). Most marvellous respect for Rome, if Mr. Kane’s theory be correct! The ancient “Life’" of St. Dichuill, written before the year 900, relating that Irish saint’S' pilgrimage to Rome, says that he desired to have the charter of his monastery “ sealed by APOSTOLICAL authority,” (apostolica auctoritate sigillatam. See Dr. Moran, ib, p. 143). Although St. Dichuill lived in the seventh century, I will be generous, and put forward this “ Life ” as evidence only of the belief of the Irish who were contemporary with its author, namely those of the ninth century. It will prove that the Irish then recog- nised Papal supremacy, because St. Dichuill’s biographer makes him address the Pope as “Head Bishop,” (Prassul capitalis). Additional proofs of the recognition of Papal supremacy by the ancient Irish are afforded by the old “Lives” of St. Patrick. The “Vita Tertia” characterises Rome as the head of all Churches.” (Romam caput videlicet omnium ecclesi- arum). The “Vita Quarta,” written in the eighth century, says that St. Patrick, before setting out for Ireland, went to Rome, “that he might go forth to preach with the i68 PAPAL SUPREMACY IN IRELAND, of the Bishop of the apostolic see ; for due order so re- quired.” (Ut cum Apostolicae Sedis Episcopi licentia ad praedicationem exiret ; sic enim ordo exigebat). The “Vita Septima” says of our apostle : — “ He resolved first to visit Rome, the citadel and teacher of Christian faith.” (Statuit prius Romam ad doctrinae et fidei Christianas arcem et magis- tram proficisci. See Dr. Moran^s “ Essays on the Early Irish Church,''’ p. 1 17, Dublin, 1864). Coennechaire, better known by his Latin name of Probus, an Irishman of the ninth century, in his “Vita S. Patricii ” says : — “Patrick went, as he had wished, to the head of all Churches, to Rome.” (Patricius venit ad caput, ut postularat, omnium ecclesiarum, Romam. See Dr. Rock’s work, “Did the Early Irish Church Acknow- ledge the Pope’s Supremacy,” p. 25, Dublin, 1844). In a most ancient ecclesiastical treatise, preserved in Irish in the venerable “ Leabhar Breac,” occurs this passage : — “Which is the highest dignity in the Church ? Answer — The dignity of a Bishop, and the highest of Bishops is the Bishop of Peter’s Church," Again, after settling the fine to be paid by such as injure ecclesiastics, this treatise justifies the enact- ment by declaring: — “It is thus, according to the rule of the Church of Peter, empress of the world.” (See Dr. Moran’s “Essays on the Early Irish Church,” p. 116, Dublin, 1864). To pursue this subject further is unnecessary. No remarks of mine could enhance the value of the above testimonies. They speak for themselves ; and totally overthrow the absurd theory, sometimes put forward by the enemies of the Catholic Church, and recently adopted (though not strengthened) by Mr. Kane, viz. : that the doctrine of Papal supremacy was introduced into Ireland by the Norman invader, Henry the Second, so late as the twelfth century. “S. J." CATHOLICS AND THE SECOND COMMANDMENT, TO THE EDITOR OF THE ‘‘BELFAST MORNING NEWS,** — Pray inform the public, if you can, whose contro- versial skillet (I beg pardon, I mean “spirit”) has lately boiled over on the dead walls and hoardings that abound in Our midst. Hitherto, in the regions sacred to the noble guild of billstickers, the eye encountered nothing making any nearer approach to polemics than was contained in an occa- sional announcement^ implying that there were other people besides Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, entitled to be called “Evangelists;” and encouraging backsliders with the intelligence that two of these gentry (for they generally hunt in pairs) were shortly to dawn on this benighted city. But, sir, there has been a “new departure** in religious athletics as well as in other matters ; and some ingenious wight, who deserves to be commemorated by some future Beckmann, has invented a novel substitute for the well-known and well- stuffed bag of the itinerant tract-server. Soup was good ; but soup, like so many good things, has had its day. Pro- testantism, itself a constant enigma, is now assailing the Church of Nations by means of the combined aid of print, paste, and conundrums. I am induced to write thus in consequence of observing, in Royal Avenue and elsewhere, a large poster which propounds the following query — “Why is the Second Commandment le!t out of the new catechism ordered by the National Synod of Maynooth, &c. ? *’ — and which insinuates that the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin and the Catholic hierarchy of Ireland havCi for an unworthy purpose, suppressed what it pleases V 170 THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. modern Protestants to recognise as the Second Command- ment. It is well known that there is a slight difference in the manner in which Catholics and Protestants number the Ten Commandments. Protestants reckon as the Second Commandment what Catholics consider as but part of the First Commandment, when the First is expressed in all its fulness as contained in the 20th Chapter of Exodus. Pro- ceeding thus, the Commandment which is the Third in Catholic catechisms is the Fourth with our separated brethren, and so on ; while they manage still to adhere to the total of ten, by making but one Commandment out of those which, according to the Catholic division, are the Ninth and Tenth. Now, Mr. Editor, the particular system which a person may favour in numbering the precepts of the Decalogue does not concern the essentials of religion, as is sufficiently evinced when we reflect that it shall be asked of each of us hereafter by the Great Judge how we kept them, and not how we numbered them. As to the present division of the Command- ments, they were not arranged numerically when committed to Moses by the Almighty; and if the Protestants have chosen to agree with one chain of tradition, the Catholics have attached themselves to another, to say the least of it, quite as well sustained. With the historical evidence usually adduced for either ride, I do not propose to trespass on your readers ; but I desire to submit a few considerations, from reason alone, to establish the unobjectionable character of the Catholic system of division. The so-called Second Com- mandment, which we are accused of hiding, is as follows : — “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, &c. Thou shalt not adore them nor serve them.’’ (Exodus, xx. 4). Now, sir, the sin here forbidden is the adoration of images, instead of the true God ; and this sin, we say, has been prohibited inclusively in the preceding verse, where it is written, “Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me for to adore images instead of the true God is no other than to have strange gods before God Almighty. Accordingly, Catholic theologians justly maintain that this so-called Second Commandment is only an elaboration or explanation of what precedes it, and not a separate Commandment. It may be left out then ; for nothing can be fuller than “Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me.” The following consideration will still further render it manifest that these two supposed distinct prohibitions are equivalent to one after all. The worship of an image in place of God may be sinful in two ways. Either THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. 171 you believe the image to be Gody and so worship not the true God but the image \ or you degrade God to the level of an image by believing Him to be the imaje ; and in that case you worship not the true God, but your idea of God. In each instance, by worshiping mdiat is not the true God^ the image-worshipper commits exactly what is forbidden when it is said “Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.’^ But the Protestant may allege that taking into consideration the form of words used, “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing,” &c.,anew Commandment is evidently begun. Well, let him, then, preserve consistency, and pay the penalty by increasing the number of Commandments to eleven, for immediately afterwards you have — “Thou shalt not adore nor serve them.” The reasoning, commented on, will make this a separate Commandment also. Therefore it is bad. If we reflect another moment, it will be seen that the Ninth and Tenth Commandments are properly disjoined by Catholics as against the Protestant practice. It will not be denied that ‘‘Thou shalt not commit adultery and “Thou shalt not steal ” are distinct injunctions. Now, the sin which is here in each case forbidden in action^ is elsewhere forbidden in thought \ and, judging by analogy, we ought to form two dis^ tinct Commandments for said sins of thought^ since the corresponding sins of action are distinct Commandments^ The respective sins of thought are prohibited when it is said| “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife,” which is to think of committing adultery, and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s goods,” which is practically to think of getting unlawful possession of them, or stealing them. Besides, why should coveting a man’s wife be classed with coveting his ox or his ass ? Crimes of distinct natures are involved, unless people wildly go so far as to assert that the desire to commit an act of impurity belongs to the same order of sin^ tul desires as the desire to possess a man’s cattle dis- honestly. So, sir, it has been shown that the supposed Second Com- mandment is only 2^ part^ and an unessential party of the First Commandment, seeing, that, even when it is left out, every possible form of erroneous worship is still guarded against when we are simply told to adore the Lord our God, and not to have strange gods before Him. And if the passage, the omission of which is complained of, is not to be found in all our catechisms, it is because some of them are intended for children, whose memories are not to be needlessly tasked ; but we have many larger catechisms for advanced students in 172 THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. which the Commandment in its entire Biblical fulness may be read, one of which the writer recollects having been frequently eKamioed in when he was a schoolboy. But if we have taken an unwarrantable liberty with the revealed Word, if we have mutilated the Decalogue, oh, Mr. Editor, let the blessed Luther himself come in for a share of the odium — not, sir, Luther when a mere besotted and benighted “Papist,** but (my pen actually staggers to write it!) Luther the Spirit- illumined, the Heaven-sent instrument, the godly ! ! I tremble to assert this of that benign creature; but it is a fact, very imperfectly known, however, owing to the singular con- tempt into which the Reformed party have allowed his seven folio volumes to fall — works which, in the phrase of the Pro- testant Hallam, (see his “ Introduction to the Literature of Europe,’* c. 6, paragraph 26, p. 183, London, 1882), are only so much “bellowing in bad Latin. Luther, sir, wrote and published two catechisms — the “ Catechismus Major** and the “Catechismus Minor” — both of which, in Latin, are at my elbow as I pen this ; and truly, in all fairness, another poster ought to be got out by the originator of the one against the Catholics, to ask why the very Father of the Reformation was no better than the blinded kingdom of Antichrist which he “reformed,** in the article of the sup- posed “Second” Commandment. He, in neither of the above catechisms, has a s} liable about the making or adoring of images in his recital of the “First** Commandment, and his ‘‘ Second ” Commandment is the same as it is in the cate- chism authorised by Cardinal M‘Cabe and the Catholic Bishops. Here it is, verbatim et litteratim, for your learned readers in the very words of the Deformer — “H PraB eptiim. Non apgttmes nomen Domini Dei tui in vaniirn.** Sir, shall we survive, I wonder, to witness the time when Protestants will employ the resources of the noble and, I may add, cognate arts of printing and billsticking to give the great Martin his due proportion of the infamy which they now charitably wish to cast about their unoffending Catholic brethren in this matter? Permit me to extract the opinion of the distinguished Pro- testant theologian, Dr. Paley, who has acknowledged the reasonableness of the Catholic system of dividing the Com- mandments. He says (“ Sermon on Exodus xx,” “Works,** vol. 3, p. 320, London, 1825) : — “The First and Second Com- mandments may be considered as one, inasmuch as they relate to one subject, or nearly so. For many ages, and by THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. 173 many Churches, they were put together and considered as one Commandment. The subject to which they both relate is false worship, or the worship of false gods. This is the single subject to which the prohibition of both Command- ments relates, the single class of sins which is guarded against.” I will also request candid persons to ponder what has been written by a writer who was, in general, hostile to the Catholic Church, namely, Isaac D’Israeli. That fine scholar in a paper on Political Forgeries and Fictions,” in his “ Curiosities of Literature,” (p. 426, London, 1840) has the following declaration of a fact — “The Protestant persists in falsely imputing to the Catholic public formularies the systematic omission of the Second Commandment.” I am, sir. Your obedient servant, A Catholic Layman. Belfast, 27th November, 1884. TO THE EDITOR OF THE “BELFAST MORNING NEWS.’^ Sir, — My attention has just been drawn to a letter which appeared in your paper a few days ago with the above head- ing, and I much regret that I did not see it sooner. It gives me real pleasure to see that a “ Catholic Layman ” still exer- cises the right of free thought, and, as I hope, of private judgment. It is evident to ail honest-minded men that even your witty and able correspondent has given no satisfactory reason for the omission of the Second Commandment, Divested of the many words that surround it, the explanation is that the catechisms in which it is wanting are “intended for children whose memories are not to be needlessly tasked,** Now, sir, the catechism in which it is wanting is not intended merely for children, but “for general use throughout the Irish Church.” Is the Second Commandment so long as to be a formidable task even for children ? Is it not short com- pared with the length of that catechism, which contains sixty-four pages? Did not God enjoin that all the Com- mandments should be taught to the children? When any Church keeps back a part, is she not proving false to her trust and setting herself up as knowing better than God what it is necessary for children to learn? If not learned in childhood when will the Commandments be learned? Is it not evident to all unbiassed minds that the real reason why the Second Commandment is not taught is because it forbids the use and adoration of images, as in the Roman Catholic Church ? If 174 THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. this be not the real reason, why omit it, whether you call it part of the First or the Second Commandment? As regards the authors cited by your correspondent, I may say that I acknowledge no infallible guide in the interpretation of Holy Scripture — not even Isaac D’Israeli. Did Dr. Paley ever sanction the omission of any part of the Commandments? I rejoice to see your correspondent quoting Luther as a biblical interpreter, and I trust that he may still further study that genuine Reformer. Yours, &c., Protestant. P.S. — I would not close without acknowledging the kindly spirit which exceptionally marks the letter of your widely- read and racy correspondent. Would that more of this friendly spirit pervaded our modern controversial sallies. It reminds one of the good old days w’’hen the genial, versatile, popular, and eloquent Father Tom Maguire stood brilliantly forth as the champion of his Church. [Our correspondent makes no attempt to reply to the argu* ments in the letter to wdiich he refers, and as the contro- versy does not promise to lead to any useful purpose, w'e cannot undertake to continue it further. Editor B. M. iV.] _________ If I am so far honoured as to have among my readers the Rev. gentleman who wrote the above courteous letter, I pray him to accept my sincere thanks for his flattering expressions in my regard. The impression left upon me by his letter, which I read when it was published, was that he was a kindly gentleman. I reciprocate his good feeling, and am satisfied that whoever may at any time engage in debate with him, will meet an honourable adversary. But will he permit me to say that he made a mistake (inadvertently, 1 am sure) when he understood me to represent that the reason why the so-called “Second’^ Commandment is omitted in the little catechisms is — lest children’s minds should be over-tasked. That is not the primary reason. It is only the secondary one. The primary reason, as my arguments are intended to show, is — because the Second ” Commandment (as Protestants reckon it) is only an unessential part of the First Commandment. If I have proved this, the Rev. gentleman will admit that to leave it out can be no harm. It is left out of the smalt cate- chisms for two reasons ; primarilyy because to express it adds nothing tangible to the force of the Commandment, ‘'Thou shalt not have gods before me,” and secondarily y THE SECOND COMMANDMENT, i7S with a view not to task the minds of young children with what is not essential to the spirit of the Commandment. True, as the Rev. gentleman indicates, the catechism in which the om’ssion occurs was not intended merely for children, but then it was intended chiefly for children ; and, in that case, the correct course was, manifestly, to frame it for children, as if for them only. The Rev. gentleman says, with perfect accuracy, that the part omitted is short, com- pared with the length of the entire catechism which has to be committed to memory. Therefore, he thinks, there is no justification for the omission. I will only remark that similar reasoning wiU put an end to all abridgments made for the use of students ; for, following the Rev. gentleman, a person might say to the abridger of a book : — “ Oh, why leave out such and such paragraphs ? They are all short compared with the length of the book which the student has to master ! ** If we treated this Commandment exceptionally, some foundation might exist for a charge against us. But we do not. For instance we only say : — Honour thy father and thy mother,** without adding what is in the Bible, viz ‘‘That thou mayst be long-lived upon the land which the Lord thy God shall give thee ; ** yet no Protestant, I believe, has ever made this omission, a ground of accusation against us. We omit the above words because theycontain nothingessen- tial to the Commandment, just so with the “ Second ” Com- mandment, so-called. The Protestant who attacks us hereon, must, to be successful, accomplish one of two things, namely, he must prove that the clause which we leave out in some of our catechisms is an indispensable part oi the First Command- ment, containing something not previously implied^ or he must show that it is a distinct Commandment ; which is, practically, the same thing. I have sufficiently shown in my letter that to do either is not easy. The Rev. gentleman concludes by saying that he ‘‘rejoices"* to see me quoting Luther ; and he hopes I may “ still further study that genuine Reformer.’* I am the happy possessor of a few of Luther’s writings, first editions, bearing date during the Deformer’s lifetime, and containing those delectable pas- sages which Melancthon wisely expunged from Luther’s collected works as too detrimental to his friend’s reputation ; and I can assure the Rev. gentleman that 1 do not feel at all like a Protestant when I read them. But why should the Rev. gentleman “rejoice’’ because 1 quote Luther against present Potestantism. His satisfaction, 1 confess, forces me to smile. Is it very pleasant for a man THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. 176 to see one of his own worthies turned against him? If it be a pleasure, it must be a very singular one. An ancient prince once offered great rewards for the discovery of a new pleasure. The one which my affable opponent professes to feel is decidedly new ; but, alas, the discovery of it comes too late to win the promised guerdon ! If he will analyse his sensation, which must be a psychological phenomenon, I will go any distance to hear him. In the meantime, I cannot but think that disappointment and regret supervene when the person “rejoicing,’* in such a case, takes time to bethink him. ^ TO THE EDITOR OF THE “BELFAST MORNING NEWS.” Sir, — The letter of a “Catholic Layman” under the above heading, in your issue of the 20th ult. , has been put into my hands within the last few days, otherwise it would have re- ceived an earlier reply. In the spirit of fairness, which, I trust, is cherished by every Irishman, I ask you to publish this letter, which 1 shall endeavour to' make as brief as possible. I am not going to enter into a discussion on the merits or demerits of individuals ; nor to entertain the idea that because isolated members of the Protestant Church hold certain ideas, or engage in certain practices, therefore the Protestant Church is bound by those ideas, or binds herself to those practices. The question at issue is simply this — Why does the Church of Rome omit a large portion of the law of God which she herself admits to be binding on her children ? Is there any ground for the suspicion that the Church of Rome, for a reason outside that of your correspondent (namely — the over- burdening the minds of children), has omitted the greater portion of what Rome calls the First Commandment, or the whole of what Protestants call the Second Commandment? I freely admit, and cordially agree wiili, the statement of the “Catholic Layman,” that “the particular system which a person may favour in numbering the precepts of the Deca- logue does not concern the essentials of religion, as is sufficientlyevinced when vve reflect that we shall be asked here- after by the Great Judge how we kept them, and not how we numbered them.” Will the Church of Rome be content to abide by that decision? Allow me to submit a few facts which, I think, will eiitablliih the charge brought against that Church, that THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. 177 she has, for a motive known to herself, omitted that (to her) dangerous portion of the Decalogue. Your correspondent gives the omitted portion thus: — “Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, &c. ; thou shalt not adore them nor serve them.” “Now, sir,” he continues, “the sin here forbidden is the adoration of images.” Is the Church of Rome guilty of that sin ? If she be, there is proof sufficient for the suspi- cion that she has had an unworthy motive in suppressing that portion of the Decalogue to which we allude. Let us test her by her authorised formularies. In the Roman Pontifical (Pars ii. De Benedic. Novsb Crucis) we read : — “ Tunc Pontifex flexis ante crucem genibus ipsam, devote adorat, et osculatur” / — i.e., “Then the Pontiff, falling on his knees before the cross, devoutly adores the same and kisses it.” Again, in the same book, in “ The order for receiving an Emperor pro- cessionally,” we read: — “Crux legati quia debetur ei latria erit a dexteris at gladius imperatoris a sinistris,” (Rom. Pont. Mech., 1845, 8vo., p. 712) — i.e., ‘‘The cross of the legate, because ‘ latria* is due to it, shall be on the right hand, &C.*'' Here we have “ latria** given to a cross. What is “latria?** Let Dr. Doyle, R.C. Bishop, answer. In his “Christian Doctrine*^ we read: — “ Q. — What are we for- bidden by this precept ? (First Commandment of Church of Rome). Ans. — To worship any creature for a god, or to give to it the honour due to God. Q. — What is the honour due to God? Ans. — A supreme, sovereign honour, which is called by divines ‘ latria.* ** The Church of Rome, then, teaches her Supreme Pontiff* to adore a creature, and to give to it “ latria,” or “the honour due to God,’* which, by her own teaching, is forbidden by the law of God to be given to any creature. Is she not con- demned out of her own mouth ? Is there not ample ground for the assertion that the “ elaboration or explanation,” (as your correspondent styles the omitted portion), is specially needed, and was added by an all-wise God, who foresaw its necessity, but omitted by the Church of Rome ? I remain, sir, The Author of the Document Referred to. 16th Dec., 1884. TO THE EDITOR OF THE “BELFAST MORNING NEWS.” Sir, — T he public will not fail to appreciate the spirit of fairness with which you have allowed your columns to be re- w THE SECOND COMMANDMENT 178 opened for the benefit of the author of the now famous poster on the above subject, notwithstanding your intention, re- cently announced, not to continue this controversy in your paper. Under these circumstances, I again seek the favour of some portion of your space, with the view of showing that even one of the Catholic laity, when Catholics are slandered, is not loth to close in polemical combat with a gentleman to whom the postman, I suppose, brings epistles bearing on the envelope an abbreviation indicative of Holy Orders. 1 shall not enter into the question further than to meet the two points raised by your correspondent. He thinks (good, easy man !) to prove his Catholic brethren guilty of idolatry because the Latin verb “adorare'* happens to occur in a passage taken from the “Pontificale Romanum,** and turned by him into English as follows: — Then the Pon- tiff, falling on his knees before the cross, devoutly adores the same and kisses it.” Passing on from your correspondent’s mistake in supposing the Pope to be the Pontiff in question, I impeach his translation as erroneous when he renders the Latin “ adorat” by “ adores and I assert that he has taken disingenuous advantage of an ambiguous Latin word to malign us foully, risking even his own claims to scholarship, whatever they are, rather than not succeed in his attempt. But detection and exposure await him. While the English verb “ to adore” is not in common use, except for the purpose of expressing the sovereign worship belonging to God alone, every classical scholar is aware that the Latin verb “ adorare” may and does denote, in addition, the act of paying a homage which is not in its nature divine. Having laid down this position, it is incumbent on me to establish it clearly ; and accordingly I address myself to the performance of that task forthwith. Not only does “ adorare” mean “ to adore,” but it has other meanings which enable it to be legitimately applied by the Catholics to an image without involving them in any difficulty as to divine worship. These meanings are “to honour,” “to reverence,” “ to venerate.” “to bow down before,” &c., and may be seen in any good Latin dictionary, such as Ainsworth’s, with appropriate extracts from the clas- sical writers, illustrative of each signification. As such passages from pagan Latin authors are easily found by the help of dictionaries, I may pass on to ihe evidence of Chris- tian antiquity, to ascertain what signification the word bore over and above expressing the supreme worship due to the Almighty. Tertullian says — “ 1 revere the fulness of the Scripture,” His Latin is “ Adoro Scriptur® plenitudinem,” THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. 179 (“ Adversus Hermogenem,”c. 12, p. 236, Franeker, 1597), using “ adoro ” to convey what I have rendered by ‘‘revere.” Will your correspondent dare to say that Tertullian “ adored’^ the Scripture according to the ordinary meaning of our English word “adore?” The Vulgate, too, will furnish numerous instances of the use of “adorare” in a sense having no rela- tion to divine worship. In the Second Book of Kings, xviii. 21, (it is Second Book of Samuel in the Authorised Version), we read that “ Chusai bowed down to Joab.” Still the verb that expresses this action is “ adorare”^ — (“ Adoravit Chusi Joab”). If your correspondent entertained the same hatred towards Chusai that he has exhibited towards the Catholic Church, he would endeavour to make the action idolatrous by a trick of translation, and maintain, from the use of “adorare,” that Chusai paid to Joab that supreme homage which is the peculiar right of the Creator. Again, sir, we read in Genesis xxiii. 7, that “ Abraham rose up and bowed down to the people of the land. ** The word that denotes the act of prostration, a prostration which was civil as opposed to religious^ is the inevitable “adorare” — (Surrexit Abraham, et^doravit populum terree). Further examples are needless ; but many more may be read in the “ Institutiones Catholicse” of the learned Sor^ bonnist Pouget, (voK 5, pp. 421—2, Louvain, 1774). Let me revert to the instance of Abraham for one momenta If an enemy of the Scriptures, by virtue of “adorare,” were to accuse that patriarch of idolatry with respect to the people, the man who now discerns no meaning in that word but “to adore” would soon imitate the Catholics and contend for a lower and innocent interpretation^ In vain, too, would he fly to the Hebrew text and to the Greek ; for it is remarkable that not one of those three languages can furnish a word which so exclusively defines the homage due to God as not to signify, in addition, that reverence which may be paid to living crea= tures and to inanimate objects. This fact, so far as the Hebrew is concerned, is admitted by an old opponent of Bel- larmine’s, Daniel Chamier, and for the Scriptures generally and the Greek and Latin Fathers by the redoubtable Calvinist divine, Aubertin. (See Hawarden’s “True Church of Christ Shown”* — Preface to the Treatise on Invocation of Saints, vol. 2, Dublin, 1808; also Dr. Trevern’s “Amicable Dis- cussion,” vol. 2, p. 337, London, 1828). The First Book of Paralipomenon, xxix. 20, (Chronicles in the Authorised Ver- sion), affords an example of one and the same word carrying both meanings, where it is said that the people “worshipped God and then the King,” i8o THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. But to come back to the so often repeated “adorare.*’ This much is now undeniably settled, that it is of a most flexible nature, and frequently bears a signification far below to adore,” as adore” is generally understood. I fearlessly appeal on this part of the question to the most learned Pro- testant professor of Latin in Belfast, and I challenge correction. Was your correspondent ignorant of the manifold significa- tions of which the word is capable ? But 1 beg his pardon for even suspecting ignorance of the niceties of Latin to exist in a gentleman who has attained the proud pre-eminence of being a writer for bill-stickers, an author whose literary off- spring has been dignified with the enviable honours of the paste-pot ! Some one may here inquire what right have 1 to assume that “adorare,” in the passage taken from the “Pontificale,^^ should be interpreted in the lower sense of prostration or reverence? Such a question, sir, is easily answered. I have every right to settle the exact meaning of the ambiguous term by calling for the recognised and well-defined dogmatic pronouncements of the Catholic Church. If it can be shown from them that the rendering of divine honour to images is plainly excluded, I have at once the certain clue that will lead me to the correct meaning of the admittedly ambiguous word “adorare” in any particular instance where it may appear in our Latin ceremonial works ; and I can then defy all its mis- representers, whether malignant or only ignorant, since the advent of the Reformers. The distinction between the ador- ation which we give to our Maker and the reverence paid by us to images is clearly implied in the following from the Decrees of the Council of Trent (Session 25) : — “The images of Christ, of the Virgin Mother of God, and the other saints, are to be had and retained, particularly in the churches, and due honour and veneration to be paid to them ; not that we believe there is any divinity or power in them for which we respect them, or that anything is to be asked of them, or that trust is to be placed in them, as the heathens of old trusted in their idols,” &c. I hope, sir, it will be admitted that those matters which we are not to believe as regards images, we really do believe respecting God Almighty — namely, that there is a “ divinity ” in Him for which He is to be w^orship- ped, that something may be “asked” of Him, and that “trust” may be placed in Him. But your correspondent makes another effort, by induction, to convict us of idolatry with the aid of a quibble on the word “latria.” Dr. Doyle is cited in evidence to prove that by THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. i8i ** iatria we profess to understand the sovereign worship due to God ; and then comes the application of this dehnition to a passage in the “ Pontificale,’' where it is stated that “ Iatria ” is due to the cross. The conclusion hoped to be drawn irom this neat reasoning is that, by the witness of our own formu- laries, we stand convicted of according to the cross the identical worship which we pay to the Almighty. This, sir, I deny. But let me explain. It is perfectly true that our theologians, in general, have concurred in describing the worship due to God by the name of “ Iatria ; ” but it by no means follows that there are not latrias and latrias ; nor can your correspondent expect to prove from the bare use of the word “Iatria” with regard to the cross in the “ Pontificale ” that therefore, and in consequence, we mean to say that the very same homage which we reiider to God is due to the cross also. Thomas Aquinas employs the word “ Iatria” to betoken the veneration offered to the cross ; yet those who are acquainted with his writings well know that he marks out the difference between this inferior “Iatria” and the higher “Iatria” belonging to the Almighty. In short, he and other theologians use, I concede, the word “Iatria” as of the cross ; but in a relative sense well understood, and with due distinction between the reverence so given to the cross and the worship offered to God. (See GreisePs “ Defensio Bellarmini,” Ingolstadt, 1609, tom. 2, col. 940). If the influence of the Thomasine theology has atlected the “ Pontificale ” with respect to this word “iatria,” it is only fair to give the word at least the signification of those that used it, and not that given to it by other theologians, no matter how general. At any rate the “Pontificale” is no formal exposition of Catholic doctrine, notwithstanding its excellence in its own way, but only a book of ceremonies. I protest against all quirks and quibbles and refinements on mere words, and cannot refrain from stating that when the true doctrine of the Catholic Church is wanted, the inquirer, it honest, will manfully avoid them, and will seek our tenets in those dogmatic decrees which we are bound to accept at the peril of our salvation. Nothing can ever be produced from them to prove us guilty of the awiul crime of giving to images, things ot wood and stone, that unspeakable homage ol the soul which cannot be alienated from God Almighty. He be* fore whom the sentiments of ail hearts lie naked knows how we abominate the detestable sin of idolatry, and to Him we lay our appeal against the malevolent and the liar. We have olten been acquitted of idolatry by Protestant authors. That i 82 THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. fair-minded Anglican divine, Thorndyke, says in his ‘‘Just Weights and Measures,^’ c. 2 — “ Let not those who suppose the Pope to be Antichrist and Papists idolaters lead the people by the nose to believe that they can prove their sup- position when they cannot.’* (See Hawarden’s “True Church of Christ Shown,” vol. i. Preface, p. ix, Dublin, 1808). Several generous-hearted Protestants in my hearing have already condemned the infamous poster that was composed and put up for no other purpose than to engender animosity towards 100,000 of our population. That it should be taken as the act of Belfast Protestantism at large nothing will make me believe. The idea found its origin in some one hateful bosom, and was carried into effect by the individual whom scholars will laugh at for his “adorare,” and whom honour- able Protestants will shun for the wantonness of his provoca- tion, Should he appear in print again, I must only once more entreat the hospitality of your columns, and crave from you a fitting arena in which publicly to brand him with a final note of disgrace. The days have not yet gone by when lay- men will battle for the venerable Catholic Church. Bellar- mine is still studied even on the banks of the unsavoury Lagan ; and the glorious example of Charles Butler and Daniel French, who vanquished the great clerical firebrands of their time, may perhaps find some weak imitation in your obedient servant, A Catholic Layman* Belfast, Dec. 20, 1884, to THE EDITOR OF THE “BELFAST MORNING NEWS.'* Sir,— I have to thank you for your courtesy in giving a place to my reply to the first letter of a “ Catholic Layman.^ May I again beg your indulgence, and ask you insert this reply to his of 23rd inst. “ C. L.” says — “I impeach his (my) translation as erroneous, when he renders the Latin ‘ adorat " as ‘ adores.’ ” He says also, “ The English word, ‘to adore,’ is not in common use, except for the purpose of expressing the sovereign worship belonging to God alone.” Now, sir, if my translation of adorare^ used in regard to re- ligious worship, is erroneous, what shall we say of the Douay, or R. C. translation of the Vulgate? This very Commandment which we are now discussing, will show, by comparison of the Vulgate with the Douay, that my transla- tion is not without precedent. Exodus xx. 5, reads, “ Non THE SECOND COMMANDMENT 83 adorabis ea.** Douay translates — -‘‘Thou shalt not adore.'' The same words, with similar translation, are found in Deut. V. 9. When Satan asked Christ to worship him, he used this word, “Tu ergo si adoraveris coram me,” &c. Douay translates, “ If thou wilt, therefore, adore before me/' Our Lord’s reply is, “ Deum tuum adorabis.” Douay — ‘"Thou shalt adore the Lord thy God.” Will “ C. L.” bring any text from the Bible where adorare is given to an image with the approbation of God ? I was quite aware of the flexible nature of the word adorare^ but contend, that flexible though it be, to adore an image, be that adoration “honour,” “reverence,” "‘veneration,” or “bowing down before” of a religious nature, is absolutely forbidden by the Command- ment. The cases of Abraham and Chusai do not touch the subject, as we are dealing with adoration in its ecclesiastical and religious use, not in its classical and ‘" civil sense. That the adoration of images goes far beyond the “re- spect,” “veneration,” &c., of a kind inferior to that given to the Lord, I am prepared to prove. “C. L.^' says he refers me to the “recognised, well-defined, dogmatic pronounce- ments of the Catholic Church,” I ask, where are such to be found? The Canons of Trent say, “That due honour and veneration” are to be given to images. Let me show how this “ well-defined ” pronouncement is understood and misunder- stood, by members of the Church of Rome — members, not ignorant nor unlearned, but her saints and profound theolo- gians. Imprimis, Bellarmine, one of the greatest casuists of Rome, says — “The question proposed is, with what sort of worship are images to be honoured? There are THREE OPINIONS” (Tres sunt sententise). What! Three opinions in an infallibly-guided Church on a question of such vital importance! Three opinions on a doctrine “well- defined by that Church ” ! Let me cite one of these three, that of a saint, whose writings have been recommended to the faithful by the present Sovereign Pontiff. St. Thomas Aquinas says (Theo. Sum. Ques. 25, Art. 3) — “The same reverence should be paid to the images of Christ as to Christ Himself. Since, therefore, Christ is to be adored with the worship of latria^ it follows that His images are to be adored with the worship of latria," Bellarmine (as above) states that this same opinion was held by Bonaventura, Cajetan, Almayne, and others. This quotation will, I think, throw somewhat more light on the opinion of Aquinas than the comment on his writings by your correspondent, when he says, "‘That he (Aquinas) and other theologians use, I con* THE SECOND COMMANDMENT 184 cede, the word lati'ia as of the cross, but in a relative sense, well understood, and with due distinction between the reve- rence so given to the cross and the worship offered to God/’ If, as L.” says, the Pontifical has been effected by Thomasine doctrine, it has been affected by a doctrine which pays to the crucifix the same reverence as to Christ Himself, which is giving to the creature the worship which is due to the Creator alone. Let us contrast the teaching of Aquinas and the Roman Pontifical with the doctrine of the Second Council of Nicea. That Council (held as a General Council by Rome) decreed: — ‘‘And give them (images) salutation and honorary worship, not the true ‘ latria ’ which, according to our faith, belongs only to God” (Labbe’s Councils), The Church of Rome boasts that her doctrines have been always the same — does this go to prove it? The “Angelic Doctor” and the Pontifical say one thing, while the Council of Nicea and a “ Catholic Layman ” say another, I fear to lengthen my letter, but one point more, “ C* L,” says that the dis- tinction between “adoration” as given to God, and that given to an image is, that “there is a Divinity in Him, for which He is to be worshipped ; that something may be asked of Him, and that trust may be placed in Him.” Let us test this, again, from the authorised formulas of the Church of Rome. Does she teach her children to “ ” anything of images, or teach them to “/rz/s*/” in images? The following is from the Roman Breviary (Sept. 14): “O crux ave spes unica ! In hac triumphi gloria. Piis adauge gratiam Reisque dele crimina.” “ O cross, only hope, hail in this glory of thy triumph ; give an increase of grace to the pious ; blot out the crimes of the guilty.” Is this not asking'^ of a creature? Is it not trusting''' in it as our “only hope.” It may be argued that this is said of Him who died on the cross, and is not really meant to be addressed to the actual cross, but through it to Him. But judging by the explanation of Aquinas, given above, as to the worship due to a crucifix, and by the words which follow in the same service of the Breviary, we assert that the Church of Rome asks of a creature blessings which it is the prerogative of God alone to bestow, and p'As such trust in it, which God alone should receive. The following is the passage alluded to: — “O cross ! O sweet wood/ Sweet nails! bearing a sweet burden, SAVE THIS PRESENT MULTITUDE ^assembled in thy praise.” Sir, I pray most earnestly that God the Holy Spirit may THE SECOND COMMANDMENT, 185 teach us aright. I argue not for the sake of argument, nor to triumph in it, but that the truth may be brought to lights and God’s name receive the glory due to Him. I remain, Sir, “ The Author of the Placard in question.” Dec., 1884. Before dealing with the above, I must request the reader’s indulgence while I make a statement of facts. After my second letter relative to “Catholics and the Second Com- mandment had been published, I watched the columns of the Morning News closely for many weeks in the expectation of meeting with some reply. No reply appeared in that paper. The present volume had arrived, in the course of printing, within some pages of where we now are, when I first became aware that although no reply had been made through the Morning News^ one had reached the public through another channel. This was in a leaflet purporting to emanate frcm the Irish Church Mission Society in Dublin. I fell in with this leaflet, accidentally, in the house of a friend to whom it had come with a bundle of other tracts the night before by post. In this leaflet were contained three docu- ments, viz. : — a copy of the poster, the first letter of the author of the poster to the Editor of the Morning News^ and the above letter. In the absence of any explanation, the public were allowed to surmise that this second letter had appeared in the Morning News, I at once thought that it had so ap- peared, and had escaped my notice. I went to the Morning News office and carefully inspected the file. The letter never had appeared in that newspaper. I then submitted the leaflet to the Editor, and learned from that obliging gentle- man that the manuscript had been sent to him for publica- cation, but he had not deemed it advisable to prolong the controversy. While tendering to the author of the poster my regret at his not having secured the desired publication, I will take the liberty of saying that as the leaflet was calculated to deceive, he ought, when he brought out his letters in a tract, to have recognised the necessity of confessing that his second letter had noi appeared in the Morning News, I would also say to the gentleman that when he resolved to publish his own letters for conversion purposes^ a delicate sense of honour should have suggested to him the propriety of print- ing mine also. Was he afraid of the comparison ? The expense of giving my letters as well as his own would, prpbably; have been nothing additional to a Society which, I i86 THE SECOND COMMANDMENT, suppose, has all its printing done by contract ; and, even if it had, the Irish Church Mission Society surely possesses money enough to be able to pay for the maintenance of that character for upright dealing which it desires to enjoy in the eyes of the public. Could it be a part of the Irish Church Mission Society’s code of honour that fair treatment must suc- cumb to considerations of s. d. ? With what face I ask (except a brazen one) can a clergyman sit down to compose a placard accusing Catholics of suppressing one of the Com- mandments, when he himself, is prepared to suppress what- ever may be said by them in refutation of the charge ? It is a pity that the gentleman who rushed, uncalled for, into print to vindicate the law of God from alleged mutilation, should have known so little of the usages of honest men. No doubt I am in many qualities both of head and heart infinitely be- neath this gentleman, but I cannot help telling him that I would scorn to regulate my conduct, as a controversialist, by the example which he has set me. Of course I am but arv “ idolater,” and one who does not indulge in the unnecessary cant of praying in letters intended for newspaper publication ; but I have no hesitation in printing along with my own com- positions anything which may be written against me, whether it be a hundred pages or only ten. The suppression of my letters is a flattering attestation of their merit and cogency ; but, although the Irish Church OMISSION Society has com- plimented me by the very act, I am thankless enough to say to it that if it cannot allow common justice to guide it in its bootless efforts to Protestantise the Catholic poor, it had better cease to provoke controversial encounters in future. Sensible Protestants will soon begin to see what the policy of concealment means ; and the worst I have to wish the OMISSION Society is, that it may never waver in its career of omitting what may be published against it. In that way, it might be the means of bringing many souls to the Catholic Church ; and, in time, the Catholic Church might rank it as an auxiliary second only to some of her great re- ligious orders! The suppression of my letters enables the gentleman to appear a perfect Genghis Khan of controversialists. The Vulgate is quoted so freely to prove what I never dejiiedy but what I distinctly said^ namely, that “adorare” in certain cases bears the signification of supreme divine worship, that I am almost tempted to believe the gentleman has never had a copy of it in his hands. People who have the opportunity of reading my letters will wonder what all this useless display THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. 187 of pretended familiarity with the Vulgate means. ‘‘Adorare*’ has a lower religious sense than ‘‘to adore,’’ as I have proved by quoting Tertullian who uses “ adorare ” to express his vener- ation for the Scripture. Veneration for the Scripture is not civil respect but religious respect. At the same time it is not “ adoration,” according to the meaning which “adoration” invariably has in English. Although the gentleman, by tak- ing every recurrence of “adorare” in the Bible, were to show that when used there in a religious sense it never means any- thing but supreme divine worship, that circumstance would be no evidence to prove that when it is used in Catholic books in a religious sense it must always mean supreme divine wor- ship. Taken even in a sense, “adorare” maybe employed relatively^ as I have shown by the example of Tertullian ; and so long as the genius of the Latin language permits this, it is no good to appeal to the usage of the Bible to settle the meaning of “adorare** in the “Pontificale.** To do so is to claim for the Bible a use which it was never intended to have. It was not written to be a dictionary. To suggest that people must not use a word in a sense not specially sanctioned by the Bible is absurd ; and this the gentleman seems to do when he appeals to the Bible to show that in t ^ “ adorare,** taken in a religious sense, never means anything but supreme divine worship. If we must not use words in religious senses not sanctioned by the Bible, a fortiori we must not adopt into our religious vocabulary words which are not in the Bible at alL “ Trinity,” “ Con® substantiality,’^ and others must, in this hypothesis, be at once rejected; for they never occur in the Bible. So much for the word. Now for the thing. The gentleman next asserts, for of proof he gives none, that religious respect of any sort, whether you call it “honour,” “veneration,’" or, “bowing down before,” is absolutely forbidden by the Commandment, Suppose, for the sake of argument, that such was forbidden when the Commandment was given, because of the extreme proneness of the Jews to idolatry, it would yet be incum* bent upon the gentleman to show that the prohibition is now in force as regards Christians. I hope virtuous Protestants will not be startled by this suggestion, or think to meet it by saying that no Scriptural abrogation of the precept can be produced. Is there any Scriptural abrogation of the obligation to observe Saturday as the Jews were commanded ? Learned Protestants admit that there is none. But if any Protestant should think that a Scriptural case can be made out for the transference of the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, there Js certainly no Scriptural THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. 1 88 abrogation of the injunction laidupon the early Christians by the Apostles, guided by the Holy Ghost, to refrain from partak- ing of strangled things and blood (Acts xv) ; yet if it be not abrogated, every one who eats a black pudding is a trans- gressor of the law. The want, therefore, of a written abro- gation is nothing to oppose to us if, granting for the moment that even the lowest veneration was forbidden to the Jews to be ^iven to images, we say that it was only a temporary ordinance, made upon account of their proneness to idolatry, and one not now applicable to Christians who are not in such danger. I have beside me the “ Systema Theologicum of the great Protestant Leibnitz ; and that profound thinker (p. 73, Tubingen, i860) maintains the above view. Upon refer- ring to Pouget’s “ Institutiones Catholicae,** (vol. 5, p. 418, Louvain, 1774), I find the celebrated Grotius, another Pro- testant, of the same opinion. Dr. Arnold, likewise a Pro- testant, (Letter 42, “Life** by Stanley, quoted in Ryder’s ‘‘Reply to Littledale,” p. 113, London, 1883) says: — ‘"The Second Commandment is, in the letter, utterly done away with by the fact of the Incarnation. To refuse, then, the benefit which we might derive from the frequent use of the crucifix, under pretence of the Second Commandment, is a folly ; because God has sanctioned one conceivable similitude of Himself when He declared Himself in the person of Christ,** If the giving of religious veneration of any description to an image be entirely prohibited, the gentleman must make a grave accusation against St. Paul, who says (Phil, ii, 10) that “ at the name of Jesus every knee should bow.” This bow- ing is not civil but religious homage ; and is enjoined by the Church of England, A 7 iame is nothing but an image^ as the Protestant Leibnitz says, whose philosophic mind could discern no more idolatry in the respect which Catholics pay to sacred images than in the reverence with which the name of God is treated by Protestants. (See his “Systema Theologicum,” p. 81, Tubingen, i860). When a Protestant kisses his Bible and clasps it to his heart, as I have myself seen one or two doing on a bed of sickness, declaring what a comfort the volume was to them, what is he doing but giving religious honour to an image ? Strictly speaking, although the Bible is called the Word of God, it is not the Word of God. How could a volume be more than the representation of the Word of God? It is an imagCy and, like a crucifix, made with hands. If the volume, being, as it is, but an image, is not to be regarded with religious honour upon account of what it represents, then it may be treated like a novel, kicked about THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. 189 or burned, without any disrespect being thereby offered to God. But what Protestant will say this? Not one I am sure. Protestants reverence their Bibles too highly for that. But unless they say that it may be so treated without any disrespect being thereby shown to God, they are bound to admit that religious veneration may lawfully be given to an image of Christ upon account of Him Whom it represents, and that, too, without committing the sin of idolatry. The material image occupies, with regard to Christ, in every way the same position as the material volume does to the Word of God. If one (the Bible) not only may but must be treated with religious respect, why not the other ? We have in the Old Law, to take only one instance out of many, the greatest respect paid to the ark of the covenant. Will any one say that that respect was civily not religious^ Will any one say that the religious respect paid to the ark was a transgression of God’s law ? Even though Protestants were able to show that we are forbidden to worship Christ by honouring an image of Him, that circumstance ^would not prove Catholics guilty of idolatry in using images of Christ, any more than it would be adultery in a woman to kiss her husband’s picture when he forbade her. Disobedience there would be in each case ; but idolatry or adultery in neither. (See ** Catholicks No Idola- ters, ’ by “T. G.,” i.e,, Thomas Godden, President of Douay College, published sine loco in 1672, p. 181). The gentleman next quotes Bellarmine ‘‘one of the greatest casuists of Rome.” He is either strangely ignorant of the precise meaning of theological terms or as strangely ignorant of the nature of Bellarmine’s writings, Bellarmine has written upon dogmatic theology, not moral theology ; and a casuist is one who is an authority upon the latter. Bellarmine is not an authority upon moral theology ; there- fore he is no casuist. But Bellarmine says that there are three schools of opinion in the Catholic Church relative to the honour given to images; therefore, the gentleman argues, the Catholic Church has no unity of doctrine upon the sub- ject. If those three opinions do not touch the theology of the question, I maintain she has ; and with those three opinions before me, I say the only difference between their respective supporters is with reference to the philosophy involved in the question. The Church never makes definitions in philosophy^ All three schools are in perfect accord respecting the question of doctrine. The Schoolmen, it is well-known, were very lond of fine-spun disputation. Does any one of them say 190 THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. that we must give supreme divine worship to an image? ‘*Oh, yes/’ the gentleman will say — ‘‘there is Thomas Aquinas. Latria is the worship which the Catholic Church gives to God ; and Thomas Aquinas gives latria to Christ and the images of Christ. Therefore Thomas Aquinas was an idolater.” Now in every accusation the character of the accused is entitled to be considered as evidence pro or con ; and so 1 will ask reading Protestants who know with what stupendous powers of intellect Thomas Aquinas has written upon the frreatness and majesty of the Creator, whether it seems a likely thing that such a man would have given to a wooden crucifix that supreme divine adoration which he gave to God? In the minds of those who think for themselves a suspicion will doubtless arise, upon reflection, that perhaps after all Thomas Aquinas has been misunderstood. But then latria to Christ and latria to the cross — how is that to be got over? Could he apply latria to Christ and latria to the cross and not mean the same thing, namely supreme divine adora* tion ? I say that he could ; and will prove it by a plain example. The virtue of charity is one. When we love God above all things, we do so by charity. When we love, fof His sake, our neighbour who is His image, we do so by charity. Yet will any one conclude that when we love God above all things by charity, and love our neighbour by charity that, therefore, we love our neighbour above all things and place him on a level with God ? Certainly not — ■ Yet w’e love our neighbour by that identical virtue which is the love of God above all things. It is manifest then that though charity is one^ it has two tendencies of different degrees, one to God and the other to our neighbour. Just so with Thomas Aquinas. As charity, denominatively, is one ; so worship, denominatively, is one^ because, as he argues, the motion of the mind to an image and its prototype is one. As then by the one virtue of charity we love both God and our neighbour at the same time, yet in vastly different degrees ; so by the one worship of latria we honour Christ and the cross, yet in vastly different degrees also. And as wc say that we love God and our neighbour by charity,, so, in the Angelic Doctor’s way of speaking, we honour Christ and the cross by latria ; but he distinguishes between absolute latria given to Christ and relative latria given to the cross. Both are embraced in the word “latria,” just as absolute love of God and relative love of our neighbour are embraced in the word “charity.” Aquinas never once says that supreme divine honour is due to the cross or any image. So far is he THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. 191 from teaching that it is, that he says : — Properly we do not adore the cross but Christ critcijied on iV (Proprie non adoramus crucem; sed Christum crucifixum in ipsa. “Ad Heb. xi, Lect. 5 Again : — “ It is idolatry when one gives to an image the honour due to God.^’ (Idololatria est quando quis cxhibet alicui imagini honorem debitum Deo. “Ad Col. iii, Lect. I.** See Dr. Hawarden’s “True Church of Christ Shown,*’ vol. 3, p. 10, Dublin, 1808 ; and the Rev. Robert Manning’s “Answer to Lesley,” pp. 462-463, Dublin, 1839). The whole dispute is then one of nomenclature ; and the Angelic Doctor has been rnost grossly misrepresented in the attempt to show that he taught idolatry. The prayer said before the cross : — O cross, only hope, &c., give an increase of grace to the pious; blot out the crimes of the guilty,” is then adduced by the gentleman to show, as he hopes, that Catholics place their trust in a piece of wood and ask favours from >t. The credulity of Prot- estants must be vast if they believe this of Catholics, They are truly pitiable if they do. The above prayer contains that figure of speech which St. Paul uses, (Gal. vi, 14) when he says Why should I glory save in the trmir ot Christ ? ” Now St. Paul did not glory in the material cross. “Cross” is there a figure of speech for “Christ crucified.” Is St. Paul to use metaphors, and are Catholics to use none? Understand for “cross” in the above prayer “ Christ cruci- fied ; ” and what becomes of the attempt, at once malicious and insane, to make Catholics idolaters in spite of them- selves? “ Cross’^ is a common figure of speech in the New Testament for “ Christ crucified ; ” as for instance where St. Paul speaks (Coloss, i, 20) of “peace through the blood of his cross, i.e., the blood of Christ crucified; again (ist Corinth, i, 20) “for the preaching of the cross Christ crucified) is to them that perish, foolishness ; ” and again in the preceding verse “ lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect,” i.e., lest Christ crucified should be made of none effect. I quote the Protestant Bible. The gentleman thinks that the continuation of this prayer proves beyond question, that Catholics “ask of a creature blessings which it is the prerogative of God alone to bestow, &c.” The prayer continues thus: — “O cross, O sweet wood, sweet nails, bearing a sweet burden, save this present multitude assembled in thy praise.” I answer that the figure of speech, mentioned above, one which has the sanction of Scripture, runs all the ^vay through the prayer. We have seen that “cross” is Scriptural for “ Christ crucified.” The expres- 193 THE SECOND COMMANDMENT, sions “wood” and “nails” are a dissection of the cross into parts. The sum of the parts is equivalent to the whole ; and as the which is “cross” means “ Christ crucified,” so the parts which are “ wood ” and “ nails,” being but a verbal amplification of the same figure of speech as “cross,” mean the same thing as their whole which is “cross,” namely “ Christ crucified.” The entire is highly poetical, and is a prayer to Christ to save us through His sufferings. That is its signification when turned into every-day prose. We no more trust in wood and nails to save us than the Israelites trusted to be saved by the wood of the ark when they said (i Kings iv, 3, i Samuel in Protestant Bible) “ Let us fetch the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of Shiloh unto us, that when it cometh among us it may save us out of the hand of our enemies. ” The figure of speech is the same in both cases. Though only a layman, and never intended for the Chujrch, I possess a Breviary ; and upon referring to where the above prayer occurs (Sept. 14, yol. 3, p. 376. Lisbon, 1786), I find it immediately followed by one to the Deity, beseeching Him to grant us salvation through Christ, Now if we trust so entirely to the wood of the cross as the gentleman insists, where is the necessity of addressing God Almighty at all ? And as God is addressed, immediately following the above poetical prayer, thoughtful Protestants may be apt to think that the gentleman’s case is not so unimpeachable as, by saying nothing at all about the prayer to God as well as by misunderstanding the preceding one, he would fain have ignorant people to think. To have said that immediately following there was a prayer to God would have suggested a suspicion that might have proved fatal to the uncharitable object which he had in view. Therefore silence was preserved upon that point. In dubbing the association to which the gentleman belongs, the OMISSION Society, facts show that I have not given it an unmeaning title. If prayers are to be interpreted with so much deference to literality as it is the gentleman’s interest to support, the Lord’s Prayer itself, Christ’s own composition, is not safe from cavil. In it, addressing God, we say : — “ Lead us not into temptation.” Taken literally, this is ascribing to God the Devil’s office, that of tempter^ and requesting Him to abstain from exercising that office in Hi? petitioner’s regard! Zuinglius and Calvin appeal to this as evidence of the truth of their blasphemous doctrine which makes God the author and worker of our sins. One other remark before I conclude. It is the gentle- THE SECOND COMMANDMENT. 19s man’s contention all through that the Catholic Church enjoins idolatry with respect to sacred images. Now the Catholic Church compels vo one to tise sacred images. This is admitted by the Protestant Grotius, quoted in Poiiget’s ‘Mnstitutiones Catholicae, (vol. 5, p. 418, Louvain, 1774). Yet the gentleman expects to force this absurdity down the throats of the public — that w^hen we ^(7 use them, the Catholic Church desires that we should trust to them in the same manner as we trust to our Redeemer, and give to them the same honour as we give to Him ! ! ! The last paragraph of the gentleman’s first letter, as re- printed in the leaflet, is w’orded differently from the same paragraph as originally printed in the Morning Nen's, How- ever, as no new point is suggested by this difference, I will not dwell upon it, except to tell the gentleman that I observe he has carefully expunged the sentence in which he made the mistake, noticed by me in my second letter, of taking the Latin word “ Pontifex ” to mean the “Pope.” His notion at the time seemed to be this: — “Pontifex” means “pontiff,” and of course the “pontiff” must be the Pope. People who are not skilled in the minutiae of a foreign tongue often comi- mit blunders by depending, for the meaning of words, upon verbal resemblance. Such persons translate by the eye rather than by knowledge. Thus “ adorare ” looks as if it could never mean anything but “to adore,” whereas it has, in addition, several meanings unconnected with “adoration.” “Pontifex,” when unaccompanied by an intensifying means, in ecclesiastical Latin, only an ordinary Bishop, Such is its meaning in the passage cited from the “ Pontificate” by the gentleman, and not “Pope.” Summus Pontifex” and ^‘Pontifex Maximus'^ mean ^"Pope;” or w’ith the local designation, as “ Pontifex Rcma^ins f but “ Pontifex” alone does not. As a layman, I must blush to have to correct a clergyman for his singular misapprehensions regarding ecclesi- astical terms. In a friendly spirit, I w^ould advise him to be at least able to read our books wuth accuracy before quoting them in future ; also to beware of confounding “dogmatic theologians” with “casuists,” and to be sure that he is well acquainted with the teaching of a great writer like Thomas Aquinas before venturing to lecture an instructed Catholic in the matter. His adversary may then have to record having had to do something more flattering in his regard than smile at him in pity. A Catholic Laykak« Y 194 E R R A T A . At page 24, 9th line from bottom, for “ Wy read ‘‘ Why,'* J) 46, lOth yy for “least” read J J 72, 12th yy for “ hasards” read ards** 73, 6th y* for “ vengance ” read vengeance,** yj 99, 2ist yy for “p. 126” read 146.** yy 1 12, 13th line from top. for “fo” read ‘‘of.** yy 1 18, 22nd yy after “ solemn” read “and.** yy 146, I ith yy for “ hy ” read “by.** y y ,, 12th ^y for “ sholars ” read . “scholars,** y y 1 60, 1 1 th y y for “85 years” read “ /j years.** yy ,, >5th n for “ Would Marianus Scotus ” read “ Would the still elder Martantis Scotus. ** „ a4th yy for “ tell ” read “tells,** Thi End. T). T Doherty, Printer, Ann Street, Belfast. \ y i / ' '# /