his plans. A committee was formed of the best men in Rathcash parish
to send a challenge to the men of Shanvilla to hurl another match on
Glanveigh Common upon Patrick's Day. Tom Murdock himself was not on
the committee; he had too much tact for that. "Big M'Dermott" had
emigrated, leaving a younger brother behind him--a good man, no doubt;
but as the Shanvilla boys had been latterly bragging of Emon-a-knock
as their best man, Tom had no doubt that the challenge would be
accepted, and that young Lennon, as a matter of course, would be
chosen as their champion. Had he doubted this last circumstance, he
might not have cared to originate the match at all. He had not
forgotten the poker-and-tongs jig about four months before. His
humiliation on that occasion had sunk deeper into his heart than any
person who witnessed it was aware of; and although never afterward
adverted to, had still to be avenged. If, then, at the head of his
hundred men, he could beat back young Lennon with an equal number
twice out of thrice before the assembled parishes, it would in {515}
some degree wash out the humiliation of his defeat in the dance.
Upon the acceptance of this challenge not only the character of the
Shanvilla boys depended, but their pride and confidence in
Emon-a-knock as their best man.
At once, upon the posting of the challenge, with the names of the
committee, upon the chapel-gate of Rathcash, a counter-committee was
formed for Shanvilla, and, taking a leaf from their opponents' book,
their best man's name was left out. But he at the same time accepted
the leadership of the party, which was unanimously placed upon him.
Thus far matters had tended to the private exultation of Tom Murdock,
who was determined to make Patrick's Day a day of disgrace to his
rival, for since the scene he had witnessed with the dog and the
handkerchief he could no longer doubt the fact.
The whole population of the parishes were sure to be assembled, and
Winny Cavana, of course, amongst the rest. What a triumph to degrade
him in her eyes before his friends and hers! Surely he would put forth
all his energies to attain so glorious a result. He would show before
the assembled multitude that, physically at least, "that whelp" was no
match for Tom Murdock--his defeat Pat the poker-and-tongs jig was a
mere mischance.
The preliminaries were now finally settled for this, the greatest
hurling-match which for many years had come off, or was likely to come
off, in the province. Rathcash had been victorious on the last great
occasion of the kind, just three years before, when Tom Murdock had
led the parish, as a mere stripling, against "Big M'Dermott" and his
men. The additional three years had now given more manliness to Tom's
heart, in one sense at least, and a greater development to the muscle
and sinew of his frame than he could boast of on that occasion. He was
an inch, or an inch and a half, over Emon-a-knock in height, upwards
of a stone-weight heavier, and nearly two years his senior in age. His
men were on an average as good men, and as well accustomed to the use
of the hurl, as those of Shanvilla--their hurls were as well seasoned
and as sound, and their pluck was proverbially high. What wonder,
then, if Tom Murdock anticipated a certain, if not an easy, victory?
As hurling, however, has gone very much out of fashion since those
days, and is now seldom seen--never, indeed, in the glorious strength
of two populous parishes pitted against each other--it may be well for
those who have never seen or perhaps heard of it, to close this
chapter with a short description of it.
A large flat field or common, the larger the better, is selected for
the performance. Two large blocks of stone are placed about fifteen or
twenty feet apart toward either end of the field. One pair of these
stones forms the goal of one party, and the other pair that of their
opponents. They are about four hundred yards distant from each other,
and are generally whitewashed, that they may the more easily catch the
attention of the players. A ball, somewhat larger than a cricket-ball,
but pretty much of the same nature, is produced by each party, which
will be more fully explained by-and-bye. The hurlers assemble, ranged
in two opposing parties in the centre between the goals. The hurls are
admirably calculated for the kind of work they are intended to
perform--viz., to _puck_ the ball toward the respective goals. But
they would be very formidable weapons should a fight arise between the
contending parties. This, ere now, we regret to say, has not
unfrequently been the case--leading sometimes to bloodshed, and on, a
few occasions to manslaughter, if not to murder. The hurl is
invariably made of a piece of well-seasoned ash. It is between three
and four feet long, having a flat surface of about four inches broad
and an inch thick, turned at the lower end. Many and close searches in
those days have been made through the woods. {516} and in cartmaker's
shops, for pieces of ash with the necessary turn, grown by nature in
the wood; but failing this fortunate chance, the object was pretty
well effected by a process of steaming, and the application of cramps,
until the desired shape was attained. But these were never considered
as good as those grown _designedly_ by nature _for the purpose_.
The contending parties being drawn up, as we have said, in the centre
of the ground, the respective leaders step forward and shake hands,
like two pugilists, to show that there is no malice. Although this act
of the leaders is supposed to guarantee the good feeling of the men as
well, yet the example is generally followed by such of the opposing
players as are near each other.
"A toss" then takes place, as to which side shall "sky" their ball.
These balls are closely inspected by the leaders of the opposite
parties, and pronounced upon before the game begins. There is no
choice of goals, as the parties generally set them up at the end of
the field next the parish they belong to. Whichever side wins "the
toss" then "skies" their ball, the leader throwing it from his hand to
the full height of his power, and "the game is on." But after this no
hand, under any circumstances, is permitted to touch the ball; an
apparently unnecessary rule, for it would be a mad act to attempt it,
as in all probability the hand would be smashed to pieces. The game
then is, to puck the ball through the opponents' goal. Two
goal-masters are stationed at either goal, belonging one to each
party, and they must be men of well-known experience as such. Their
principal business is to see that the ball is put fairly between the
stones; but they are not prohibited from using their hurls in the
final struggle at the spot, the one to assist, the other to obstruct,
as the state of their party may required.
Sometimes a game is nearly won, when a fortunate young fellow on the
losing side slips the ball from the crowd to the open, where one of
his party curls it into the air with the flat of his hurl, and the
whole assembly--for there is always one--hears the puck it gets,
sending it half-way toward the other goal. The rush to it then is
tremendous by both sides, and another crowded clashing of hurls takes
place.
When the ball is fairly put through the goal of one party by the
other, the game is won, and the shouts of the victors and their
friends are deafening.
CHAPTER XXII.
A hurling match in those days was no light matter, particularly when
it was on so extensive a scale as that which we are about to
describe--between two large parishes. They were supposed, and intended
to be, amicable tests of the prowess and activity of the young men at
a healthy game of recreation, as the cricket-matches of the present
day are that of the athletic aristocracy of the land. In all these
great matches, numbers of men, women, and children used to collect to
look on, and cheer as the success of the game swayed one way or the
other; and as most of the players were unmarried men, it is not to be
wondered at if there were many young women amongst the crowd, with
their hearts swaying accordingly.
It had been decided by the committees upon the occasion of this great
match, that a sort of distinguishing dress--they would not, of course,
call it uniform--should be worn by the men. To hurl in coats of any
kind had never in this or any other parish match been thought of. The
committee left the choice of the distinguishing colors to the
respective leaders, recommending, however, that the same manner should
be adopted of exhibiting it. It was agreed that sleeves of different
colors should be worn over the shirt sleeves, with a broad piece of
ribbon tied at the throat to match.
Tom Murdock had chosen green for his party, and not only that, but
{517} with a determination to make himself popular, and to throw his
rival as far as possible into the background, had purchased a
sufficient quantity of calico and ribbon to supply his men gratis with
sleeves and neck-ties.
Poor Emon-a-knock could not afford this liberality, and he felt the
object with which it had been puffed and paraded on the other side for
a whole week previous. He was not afraid, however, that his men would
think the less of him on that account. They knew he was only a
laboring man, depending upon his day's wages; and many of those who
would wield the hurl by his side upon the 17th of March were
well-to-do sons of comfortable farmers. Many, no doubt, were laboring
boys like himself, and many servant-boys to the farming class.
A deputation of Shanvillas had waited on Emon-a-knock to ascertain his
choice of a color for their sleeves and ribbon.
He thought for a few moments, and then taking a red
pocket-handkerchief from his box he said, "Boys, this is the only
color I can think of. It is as good as any."
"I don't like it, Emon," said M'Dermott, the next best man in the
parish.
"Why so, Phil?" said another.
"Well, I hardly know why. It is too much the color of blood. I'd
rather have white."
"Don't be superstitious, Phil _a-wochal_," said Emon; "white is a
cowardly color all over the world, and red is the best contrast we can
have to their color."
"So be it," said Phil.
"So be it," re-echoed the rest of the deputation; "sure, Emon has a
right to the choice. Lend us the handkerchief, that we may match it as
near as possible."
"And welcome, boys; here it is; but take good care of it for me, as it
is the only one I have _now_."
The deputation did not know, but the readers do, that he had given the
fellow to it--off the same piece--to Winny Cavana with the dog. Hence
his emphasis upon the last word.
No time was lost by the deputation when they left Emon. They had
scarcely got out of hearing, when Phil M'Dermott said, "Boys, you all
know that Tom Murdock has bestowed his men with a pair of sleeves, and
half a yard of ribbon each. Now if he was as well liked as he lets on,
he needn't have done that; and in my opinion he done it by way of
casting a slur upon our man's poverty. Tom Murdock can afford a
hundred yards of green calico and fifty yards of tuppenny ribbon very
well;--at least he ought to be able to do so. Now I vote that amongst
the best of us we bestow our man with a pair of silk sleeves, and a
silk cap and ribbon, for the battle. There's my tenpenny-bit toward
it."
"An' I second that vote, boys; there's mine," said another.
"Aisy, boys, an' listen to me," broke in a young Solon, who formed one
of the deputation. "There's none of us that wouldn't give a tenpenny
bit, if it was the last he had, to do what you say, Phil; but the
whole thing--sleeves, ribbon, and cap--won't cost more than a couple
of crowns; an' many's the one of the Shanvilla boys would like to have
part in it. I vote all them that can afford it may give a fippenny-bit
apiece, an' say nothing about it to the boys that can't afford it. If
we do, there isn't a man of them but what id want to put in his penny;
and I know Emon would not like that. It wouldn't sound well, an' might
be laughed at by that rich chap, Murdock. Here's my fippenny, Phil."
There was much good sense in this. It met not only the approbation of
the whole deputation, but the pockets of some, and was unanimously
adopted. The necessary amount of money was made up before an hour's
time; and a smart fellow--the very Solon who had spoken, and who was
as smart of limb as he was of mind--was despatched forthwith to C.O.S.
for three yards of silk and two yards of ribbon, to match as nearly as
possible {518} Emon-a-knock's handkerchief, which was secured in the
crown of his cap.
The very next afternoon--for Shanvilla did not sleep on its resolve--
there was no lion in the street for them;--the same deputation walked
up to Emon's house at dinner-hour, when they knew he would be at home.
He had just finished, and was on his way out, to continue a job of
planting "a few gets" of early potatoes on the hill behind the house,
when he met them near the door.
M'Dermott carried a paper parcel in his hand.
"Well, boys," said Emon, "what's the matter now? I thought we settled
everything yesterday morning."
"You did, Emon _a-wochal_; but we had a trifle to do after we left
you. I hope you done nothing about your own sleeves as yet."
"No, Phil, I did not; but never fear, I'll be up to time. But I don't
wish to change the color, if that's what brought you."
"The sorra change Emon; it is almost too late for that now. But some
of the boys heerd that Tom Murdock is givin' his men, every man of
'em, sleeves an' ribbon for this match. We don't expect the likes from
you, Emon; and we don't mind that fellow's puffery and pride. We think
it better that the Shanvilla boys should present their leader with one
pair of sleeves than that he should give a hundred pairs to them. We
have them here, Emon _a-wochal_; an' there isn't a boy in the parish
of Shanvilla, or a man, woman, or child, that won't cheer to see you
win in them."
"An' maybe some one in the parish of Rathcash," whispered Solon to
Phil.
Here Phil M'Dermott untied his parcel and exhibited the sleeves,
finished off in the best style by his sister Peggy. What would fit
Phil would fit Emon; and she was at no loss upon that point.
"Here they are, made and all, Emon. Peggy made them on my fit; and we
wish you luck to win in them. Faix, if you don't, it won't be your
fault nor ours. Here's your hankicher; you see there isn't the differ
of a _milthiogue's_ wing in the two colors."
Perhaps it was the proximity to Boher-na-milthiogue that had suggested
the comparison.
"Indeed, boys, I'm entirely obliged to you, and I don't think we can
fail of success. It shall not be my fault if we do, and I'm certain it
won't be yours. But I'm sorry--"
"_Bidh a hurst_, Emon; don't say wan word, or I'll choke you. But thry
them on."
Emon's coat was forthwith slipped off his back and thrown upon the end
of a turf-stack hard by, and Phil M'Dermott drew the sleeves upon his
arms, and tied them artistically over his shoulders.
"Dam' the wan, Emon, but they were med for you!" said Phil, smoothing
them down toward the wrists.
"Divil a word of lie in _that_, any way, Phil," said Solon. "Tell us
something we don't know."
"Well, I may tell them that you have too much wit in your head to have
any room for sense," replied M'Dermott, seemingly a little annoyed at
the remark.
Solon grinned and drew in his horns.
"They are, indeed, the very thing," said Emon, turning his head from
one to the other and admiring them. He could have wished, however,
that it had been a Rathcash girl who had made them instead of Peggy
M'Dermott. "But I cannot have everything my own way," sighed he to
himself.
M'Dermott then quietly removed Emon's hat with one hand, while with
the other he slily placed die silk cap jauntily upon his head. There
was a general murmur of approbation at the effect, in which Emon
himself could not choose but join. He felt that he was looking the
thing.
After a sufficient time had been allowed for the admiration and
verdict of the committee as to their fit and appearance, Phil
M'Dermott took them {519} off again, and, folding them up carefully in
the paper, handed it to Emon, wishing him on his own part, and that of
the whole parish, health to wear and win in them on Patrick's Day--
"Every man of as will have our own colors ready the day before," he
added.
Emon then thanked them heartily, and turned into the house, to show
them to his father, and the deputation returned to their homes.
TO BE CONTINUED.
------
Translated from the German.
MALINES AND WÜRZBURG.
SKETCH OF THE CATHOLIC CONGRESSES HELD AT MALINES AND WÜRZBURG.
BY ANDREW NIEDERMASSER.
CHAPTER IV.
CHARITY
Himioben, in a speech delivered at the convention of Salzburg,
September 24, 1857, spoke as follows: "All grumblers and pessimists
should strive to understand that we live in a great age--great because
it is destined to witness the triumph of the truth. I feel that it is
a great age, and I thank God for the happiness of living in the
nineteenth century. Except the age of the apostles and that of
Constantine, no period in the history of the Church can compare with
the present."
Notwithstanding my frequent and intimate intercourse with some of the
most extreme pessimists in Germany, I own I am convinced of the
correctness of Himioben's opinion. The first and principal reason of
this conviction is the heroic achievements of Christian charity, of
which every part of the globe has been the scene in our days. Where
such deeds are done as those which we have witnessed and heard of so
often, God's kingdom on earth must flourish. The rays of Christian
charity illuminate the whole world.
We cannot deny that the century beginning with the year 1764 and
closing in 1864 has been an age of spoliation for the Church. The
suppression of the Society of Jesus by King Joseph Emmanuel, of
Portugal, in 1759, was followed by a similar measure in France in
November, 1764. On April 3, 1767, the Spanish, and on the 20th of
November, 1767, the Neapolitan, Jesuits met with the same fate. Joseph
II. of Austria, who was chosen Emperor of Germany in 1764, suppressed
700 monasteries in his hereditary dominions, whilst the champions of
the French Revolution were still more ruthless in the work of
destruction. In Germany most of the Church property was secularized,
under circumstances of great cruelty, in 1803. On May 28, 1824, the
King of Portugal decreed the suppression of all religious orders in
his kingdom. In 1835 the Spanish government confiscated the property
of 900 monasteries, and a royal decree, dated March 9, 1836,
pronounced the same doom on all the remaining religious houses in
Spain. Since 1860 the Sardinians have suppressed at least 800
convents, and the remaining Church property will doubtless fare in the
same manner, for the rapacity of these sacrilegious robbers is never
appeased. On the 28th November, 1864, the Czar of Russia ordered 125
of the 155 Polish convents to be {520} closed, and the monks were
treated with great cruelty.
Truly this age of enlightenment can boast of glorious exploits.
Sacrilegious robbery has been the order of the day throughout Europe,
and civilized governments have trampled under foot rights that have
been sanctioned during many successive ages. But their efforts have
proved abortive, for the Church flourishes more and more, and develops
new seeds of life. The religious orders and congregations of the
nineteenth century rival in purity, austerity, and holy zeal the monks
of the most prosperous ages of the Church, and devoted disciples of
Christian charity are countless as the stars of the firmament, whilst
their activity cannot fail to elicit the admiration of every impartial
witness. Charity has engaged, in a particular manner, the attention of
the Catholic re-unions; it is their proper province--even more so than
science and art. It is the culminating point of their activity; for
what is religion but practical love of God and our neighbor? Art is
the proper object of our fancy; science, of our intellect; and
charity, of the will--and free will is the distinguishing
characteristic of the human soul. Art requires facility; science,
thought; but charity supposes action, the real living act which always
turns the balance. Truth must not only be proved, but felt; science
and art are the necessary fruits of true religion; science is not the
light, but is to give testimony of the light. The object of art is the
beautiful; of science, the true; and of charity, the good; but the
beautiful, the true, and the good are the three highest
categories--the indispensable conditions of intellectual activity--the
connecting links between the intellect and God, who is the
fountain-head and prototype of all being, as well as the last end of
human investigation and aspirations. If it is true that the intellect
can find repose only in the unity of three relations, and that we meet
with the emblem of the Trinity in all places, then I know not where
this trinity finds a more perfect expression than in art, science, and
charity. Whoever has comprehended these three, has grasped everything
of which man is capable, and an assembly of men who occupy themselves
with art, science, and charity is at all times of great importance,
for it bears a truly universal character.
Let not the reader expect that I will enter into all the details of
the proceedings of the general conventions concerning the subject of
Christian charity. To do this would require a book even more
voluminous than Bishop Dupanloup's work on Christian charity. At
Malines alone how many great and weighty questions were discussed by
the first and second sections ("OEuvres Religieuses" and "Economic
Chrétienne"), not to speak of the fifth section, which treated of
similar subjects. We shall mention a few of the questions proposed.
"What," it was asked, "can a layman do to preserve the people in the
faith of their ancestors, to induce them to observe the laws of God
and the Church, and to teach them to resist strenuously every attack
of infidelity?" It was recommended to establish in every city
conferences of men, and to explain for them the principal truths of
our faith. It was further agreed that, during Lent, the people should
have an opportunity of following some spiritual exercises and thus
refreshing their souls. Good books, likewise, are to be furnished to
the poor at a moderate price. The assembly next debated what measures
should be taken to revive pilgrimages not only to Rome and Jerusalem,
but also to the places of pilgrimage existing in every country--
shrines with the history of which the people should be made familiar.
Then followed a discussion on the prevention of abuses, so that every
pilgrimage may preserve its religious and edifying character. It was
decided to foster all societies whose object is the assembling,
edification, and instruction of apprentices and journeymen. How, {521}
it was asked, are the meetings in the evenings to be carried on? how
the religious exercises on Sundays? how are sick members to be
visited? etc. The Malines congress also declared that it is the duty
of the state to fix by law the age at which children may be allowed to
work in factories and mines; to procure healthy dwellings for the
workmen; to determine the duration of a day's work; and to see that
males and females work in _separate_ apartments. The congress sought
to impress on owners of factories the obligation devolving on them to
take care of the children of their employees, to provide for their
laborers when sick, not to force women suckling infants to work--in
short, to treat their employees in a Christian manner. Jean Dollfus,
of Mühlhausen, and Lowell in America, were proposed as models worthy
of imitation. Amietus Digard and Audigaime, of Paris, placed at the
disposition of the central committee the results of their long
experience. De Riancey, of Paris, was the zealous advocate of the
"Patronage," which he wishes to be founded on charity and freedom, and
to spread over every country. It was urgently recommended to establish
clubs for journeymen in Romanic countries. Count Lemercier and
Marbeau, of Paris, submitted to the consideration of the central
committee an elaborate paper on the amelioration of the social
condition of the laboring classes, insisting particularly on the
necessity of providing them with suitable dwellings; this paper proved
of great value in preparing the programme. The debate on the best way
of checking the habits of intemperance which are now unfortunately
becoming so general among all classes of the laborers, was unusually
interesting. During the present century no one has done more to attain
this desirable end than Father Matthew in Ireland, who has probably
thereby conferred even greater benefits on his countrymen than the
great O'Connell. Nor were the prisoners neglected at Malines; the
congress declared itself in favor of solitary confinement, and at the
same time recommended most earnestly societies for aiding discharged
convicts. In short, these men were occupied with all that might prove
beneficial to their neighbor.
Among the most prominent speakers in the second section were de
Riancey, Count Lemercier, Perin, Jacobs, of Antwerp, Dognée,
Lenormant, Digard, Beslay, Jean Casier, F. de Robiano, Count Legrelle,
de Richecourt, de Gendt, Vandenest, and especially Viscount de Melun,
who, together with Marbeau and Baudon, is the leading spirit of every
charitable undertaking in Paris.
In the first section, of which, as before mentioned, Count Villermont
was chairman, the proceedings were very animated, nay, at times solemn
and grand; the most active members were de Hemptinne, of Ghent, the
jurist Wauters, of Ghent, Lamy, of Louvain, de Haulleville, of
Brussels, O'Reilly, of Ireland, the Bollandist fathers Gay, Boone, and
de Buck, Lemmens, Abel Le Tellier, Count Edgar du Val de Beaulieu,
Abbé Kestens, of Louvain, Abbé Géandre, Abbé Geslin, of Kersolon in
France, editor of "L'Ouvrier," F. Van Caloen, F. Antoine, Demulliez,
Terwecoren, Abbé Gaultier, of Brussels, Fassin, of Verviers, Chevalier
Van Troyen, Bosaerts, Verspeyen, Abbé Battaille, de Caulincourt, Paga
Sartundur, of Madrid, Malengié, Peeters Beckers, de la Royère,
Viscount d'Authenaisse, Devaux, Putsaert, and some others whose names
have escaped my memory--all of them edifying Christians, men of strong
and sound intellect, seeing the realities of life, and of feeling
hearts, sympathizing with the joys and loves of their fellow-men, and
taking cognizance of their necessities. They will long be remembered
and blessed by the posterity of those to whose spiritual and corporeal
wants they have attended.
The religious orders, which in modern times have been so often mocked
at and slandered, found many warm {522} defenders at Malines. Baron
von Gerlache devoted the most brilliant passage of his opening speech
to their defence. Woeste, a lawyer of Brussels, delivered a masterly
discourse on religious communities before a full meeting of the
congress. Many speakers touched on the same theme, and Count
Villermont made it the special order of the day. This subject was
exhausted by the able speeches of de la Royère, Verspeyen, O'Reilly,
Count du Val de Beaulieu, Viscount d'Authenaisse, Lamy, Viscount de
Kerckhove, Ducpetiaux, and others.
The Würzburg general convention passed a resolution in favor of
religious orders, and at Frankfort the "Broschürenverein" will shortly
publish a pamphlet on this subject. The Malines congress also resolved
to encourage popular works on the origin, the nature, and the spread
of religious orders, and to give a fair exposition of the manifold
benefits they have conferred on mankind. It was also recommended to
publish the lives of the founders of these societies, to give an
account of their history in schools and other educational
institutions, and, by means of the pulpit and the press, to make known
as widely as possible the principles of religious orders. In this way
the members of these societies will be compensated to some extent for
the countless slanders and calumnies which are continually heaped on
them. The laymen present at Malines pledged themselves to pass no
opportunity of rendering them a service, and defending their rights;
of showing them reverence, and of spreading more and more their
communities.
For the sake of completeness, I shall mention the names of a few who
spoke at Malines in the fifth section, Religious Liberty, where many
important questions were discussed. It is impossible to enter into
details concerning all, for who can be present in five places at the
same time? Beside, there were assembled at Malines and Würzburg more
than 7,000 delegates, so that I cannot give even the names of all. In
a grand painting the artist does not represent all his figures in
full; he contents himself with giving us an outline of their features.
Dechamps and Neut, men of great merit and able to control the most
animated debate, presided in this section. Dumortier, of Brussels, and
Coomans, of Antwerp, both veteran members of the Belgian parliament,
managed admirably the details of business. Senator Della Faille and
Count de Thenx, as well as Cardinal Sterex, made many valuable
suggestions from the rich fund of their experience. The young and able
jurist, Woeste, of Brussels, Digard, of Paris, and the journalist
Lasserre were the most active members of this section. Here, too,
spoke Don Almeida, of Portugal, an orator sweet and strong as the
wines of his native country, and one of the most handsome men in the
congress. Here, also, we renew our acquaintance with Ducpetiaux,
Dognée, of Villers, Verspeyen, Geslin, of Kersolon, and Abbé Géandre.
To these names we may add those of Don Ignatio Montes de Oca, grand
almoner of the Emperor of Mexico, Abbé Pacquet, professor of the
University of Quebec, in Canada, Canon Rousseau, Jalheau, Stoffelt,
Collinet, Landrien, de Smedt, Baron von Montreuil, Chevalier
Schouteste, Nellaroya, Wigley, of London, Ch. Thellier, of
Poncheville, and Abbé Huybrechts. Abbé Mullois, of Paris, is well
known in Germany. In this section we also noticed Generals de
Capiaumont, Baron Grindl, and Lamoy, whose remarks were always
received with applause.
Le Camus, of Paris, represented the "Society for the Diffusion of Good
Books," founded in 1862 by Viscount de Melun. More than 12,000 good
books have already been distributed. The executive committee consists
of eighteen members, who are assisted in their charitable labors by
another committee of fifty.
And now we shall bid farewell to Malines.
{523}
The German conventions have called into existence many charitable
institutions. Foremost among these is the Society of St. Boniface,
founded at Regensburg in 1849. Even long before, Count Joseph von
Stolberg had visited every part of the German empire to enlist the
sympathies of high and low for the noble object of this society, and
had thus prepared the way for its establishment. At Regensburg he was
elected president, and thus crowned his labors. Since its institution
the society has founded 67 missionary parishes, 114 chapels, and 98
schools for about 100,000 Catholics in northern Europe. Forty-two of
these stations are entirely maintained by the association, whilst most
of the remaining ones receive considerable pecuniary assistance. Much,
however, remains to be done; many stations will go to ruin unless
speedy aid is afforded them. All Catholic Germany must contribute, by
its exertions, its prayers, and its sacrifices, to bring to a
successful issue the greatest of our national undertakings, the
reunion of all Germany in the one true faith.
An annual report of the results achieved by this society is presented
to the general conventions. At Würzburg Canon Bieling spoke in the
name of Bishop Conrad Martin, of Paderborn, who by his great work has
created an immense sensation among the German Protestants. Great
exertions are making to spread the society of St. Boniface; may they
prove successful.
At Würzburg the Hungarian Society of St. Ladislaus was represented by
Canon Kubinszky, and the Bavarian Missionary Society by Monsignore
Baron von Overkamp.
I must next speak of the St Joseph's Society. It was founded at
Aix-la-Chapelle for the purpose of enabling the German Catholics
living at Paris, London, Havre, and Lyons to secure places of divine
worship. Canon Prisac, of Aix-la-Chapelle, is the business manager of
the society, and is assisted in his labors by Laurent Lingens and
others. During the first two years of its existence the society
accomplished very little.
The missionaries of the poor Catholic Germans in the great emporiums
of England and France have already been three times in our midst. For
years the pastor of the Germans in London, Rev. Arthur Dillon Purcell,
has done everything in his power to establish the German mission in
that city on a sure basis, and his efforts have at last been crowned
with success. Although an Englishman by birth, he speaks our mother
tongue very fluently and without fault. His speeches will not inspire
enthusiasm, but will convince and obtain their end. At
Aix-la-Chapelle, in 1862, the German mission in London was represented
by Adler, missionary priest of the diocese of Würzburg, and at
Frankfort, in 1863, by Böddinghaus, of Münster. The Jesuit father
Modeste has thrice urged the claims of the Germans in Paris. He is a
native of Lorraine, and, therefore, speaks French and German equally
well. His speeches are carefully prepared, and produce a great
sensation, for they are addressed not only to the mind but also to the
heart. The Lazarist Müllijans, a native of Cologne, spoke for the
German mission in the Quartier St. Marceau, which has been committed
to his care. Abbé Braun, who has done much for the Germans in Paris,
was likewise present at the Würzburg meeting. Father Lambert, of
Havre, a pious and devoted priest, privately represented to us the
misery of the German emigrants in the French seaport. But of what use
are these cries for help, unless we are willing to make some
sacrifice? Will not twenty-five million German Catholics do something
for their poor forlorn brethren?
In the third place, I must mention the journeymen associations. There
are at present more than 400 of these in Germany, and a few in
Switzerland and Belgium. Of late, similar {524} societies have been
established at Bucharest, Rome, Paris, London, St. Louis, Cincinnati,
and Milwaukee. The prefects of the society at Cologne, Vienna, and
Munich have lately received special marks of esteem from the Holy
Father in recognition of their services, whilst the Emperor Francis
Joseph has honored the Vienna association by his presence, and the
young King of Bavaria, Louis II., has accepted the protectorship of
all the Bavarian associations. The second general convention at
Mayence earnestly recommended these societies, but Kolping of Cologne
was the instrument chosen by God to undertake and carry out the great
work. Of Kolping it may truly be said that he has the welfare of
mankind at heart, and thousands will bless his name. In his own way,
he is one of the foremost social reformers of the nineteenth century.
At Würzburg he convened many of the prefects from every part of
Germany, and secured the future of the societies by the introduction
of the religious element. Kolping is not only a powerful speaker, but
also a journalist, and one of the most popular writers in Germany.
Gruscha, of Vienna, has often taken Kolping's place at the general
conventions. As an orator, Gruscha seems to exert a magic power over
his hearers, and it is useless to combat his views, for he carries
everything before him. Gruscha is general-prefect of all the
journeymen associations in Austria. Alban Stolz, the founder of the
Freiburg association, has spared no pains to promote Kolping's
undertaking. He is the most eminent and successful popular writer in
Germany. His pamphlets attract universal attention, and his almanacs
are read by thousands. Stolz does not approve of everything done by
the Catholic conventions, still he has been present at several of
them; for instance, at Aix-la-Chapelle and Frankfort. Müller, of
Berlin, is one of the most energetic prefects; he succeeded in
founding for the Catholics at Berlin a splendid club-house. He
publishes an able religious weekly, and an excellent almanac, founds
new missions every day, and does all in his power to extend the
kingdom of Christ in the north of Germany. He is a talented and
interesting speaker, although his style is not very harmonious or
elegant. George Mayr, of Munich, general-prefect of more than a
hundred associations in Bavaria, and a general favorite, has built,
probably, the finest club-house in Germany. The most zealous promoter
of this enterprise was Dr. Louis Merz, of Munich, who spared neither
labor nor sacrifice whenever there was question of furthering the
interests of the Church: his memory is enshrined in the hearts of all
his friends.
The memorial submitted by Kolping to the German bishops was signed by
the following diocesan prefects: Beckert, of Würzburg, Pohholzer, of
Augsburg, J. Weizenhofer, of Eichstädt, Benkcr, of Bamberg, Schaeffer,
of Treves, G. Arminger, of Linz, B. Hölbrigl, of St. Pölten, Max
Jäger, of Freiburg, F. Riedinger, of Spires, F. Nacke, of Paderborn,
and the prefects, Jos. Mayr, of Innsbruck, F. Höpperger, of Agram, and
C. Ziegler, of Rottenburg.
To mention more names would be tedious, but I hope and trust that God
will reward in a special manner the prefects of these societies. For
the last few years the social question has occupied the attention of
the Catholic conventions, and Rossbach, of Würzburg, Vosen, of
Cologne, and Schüren, of Aix-la-Chapelle, have delivered interesting
discourses on this subject.
The reading-room associations and social clubs or casinos next demand
a notice. We are justly proud of possessing four hundred Catholic
journeymen associations, but we will have more reason to boast when
there will be in Germany two or three hundred casinos, all united
together by the closest ties, and particularly when we will again
possess several purely Catholic universities, and when our {525}
scholars and educated men will form reunions such as that established
by five hundred students of Louvain in Belgium previous to the
congress of 1864.
Adams, a lawyer of Coblenz, has, so to say, identified himself with
these clubs. The affairs of the casino in his own native city are
conducted by him with extraordinary skill, and to his exertions
chiefly the Rhenish Casino Union, which will be shortly joined by many
cities in the Rhenish countries, owes its existence. Adams is an able
and pleasing speaker, full of confidence in the future and in the
power of sound principles. May Adams become to the social clubs in
Germany what Kolping is to the journeymen associations.
Falk, of Mayence, has accomplished very much for the social club of
his native city. To him belongs the credit of securing for the Mayence
Reading-room Association the celebrated "Frankfurter Hof." On the
twentieth of November, 1864, when the casino of the "Frankfurter Hof"
was solemnly inaugurated, President Falk delivered his most successful
speech, for Falk, although a mechanic, is an orator by no means to be
despised by the enemies of the Church. His words are like the blows of
a hammer, and his voice sounds like the rolling thunder. Falk's
speeches are not distinguished by any artistic merit, but there is
something in them which calls forth immense applause, and he generally
leaves the tribune amidst deafening cheers.
In Belgium more than twenty casinos have been established since 1863.
At the beginning of 1865, Germany could boast of almost fifty similar
associations. Let us spare no exertions to promote the welfare of
these clubs, and we will soon have a league of Catholic gentlemen
extending not only from the Danube to the Rhine, but from the Adriatic
to the German ocean.
We must also devote a few words to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul.
Among its most energetic members are Lawyer Lingens, of
Aix-la-Chapelle, one of the most regular and active Members of the
German conventions, and Von Brentano, a merchant of Augsburg, who is a
very eloquent speaker. I must not forget to mention Baudon of Paris,
general-president of all the societies of St. Vincent de Paul in
France; Legentil also and Meniolle, of Paris, deserve to be noticed.
The energetic and pious Capuchin, Father Theodosius of Chur, in
Switzerland, a powerful man of immense stature, will close this array
of the champions of charity. He has made many attempts to solve the
social question from a Christian point of view, and has displayed
incomparable ingenuity in alleviating the miseries of his fellow-men.
He has founded congregations, built convents, for them, and
established seminaries and colleges which are model institutions; but,
above all, he has brought the blessing of God on the Swiss factories,
and has introduced contentment and happiness among the working
classes. His success in prevailing upon the Swiss capitalists to
conduct their factories upon Catholic principles is certainly one of
the sublimest triumphs of Christian charity.
The congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Cross, founded by Father
Theodosius about twelve years ago in Chur-Ingenbohl, numbers already
112 houses, spread over Switzerland, Bohemia, Austria, Sigmaringen,
and Baden.
Among the most prominent Catholics of Switzerland are Sigwart Müller,
of Uri, the venerable Councillor Haudt, of Lucerne, Charles von
Schmid, of Bödstein, the leader of the Catholics in Aargau, Von Moos,
of Lucerne, Engineer Müller, of Altorf, Dean Schlumpf, of Zug, Canon
Fiala, of Solothurn, an excellent archaeologist, Canons Winkler and
Tanner, of Lucerne, both eminent theologians, P, Segesser, of Lucerne,
Canon Keller, of St. Gall, James Baumgartner, the {526} ablest Swiss
statesman, F. Gallus-Morel, of Einsiedeln, the journalists Schleineger
in Aargau, Reding and Eberle in Schwyz, the historian Kopp, of
Lucerne, Muelinen, and Burgener, the learned Dr. Schmeitzl, pastor in
Glarus, Director Greith, of St. Gall, the painter Deschwander, and the
publisher Benzigcr. Count Theodore von Scheerer is the leading spirit
of the Catholic societies in Switzerland, and admirably fitted to be
the president of the general conventions of the Swiss "Piusverein."
'Mermillod, of Geneva, who for the past eighteen years has incessantly
toiled in the vineyard of the Lord, has lately been appointed bishop
by Pope Pius IX. Bishop Marilley, of Lausanne, is a modern confessor
of the Church, whilst Bishop Greith, of St. Gall, is an eminent
scholar.
CHAPTER V.
CONCLUSION.
Not all the doings of the Catholic conventions deserve our
approbation, nor is all that is said there worthy of praise. At the
sixteen general conventions held since 1848, many absurd and trifling
measures have been proposed. Silence is a virtue unknown to many
delegates, and conciseness is a quality not to be found in the remarks
of many a speaker. These gentlemen should remember the wise old saw,
"_Ne quid nimis_," especially when about to address an assembly.
Braggadocio should be mercilessly put down. Some persons there are who
every year regale the convention with the self-same concretions;
others speak when there is no occasion whatever for opening their
mouths; whilst others again are unacquainted with parliamentary rules,
and cannot clothe their ideas in suitable language. Many a speaker has
been carried away by his enthusiasm, and exposed himself to ridicule;
others were mercilessly hooted from the tribune; whilst not a few
delivered productions which bore a strange resemblance to an _ignis
fatuus_ or an over-done beefsteak. At Malines many words were wasted
in mutual compliments, and there was a tendency in several of the
orators to court applause by piquant and exaggerated expressions. We
must expect that among several thousand delegates there will be many
insignificant men, whose chief merit consists in opening now and then
the floodgates of their trashy eloquence. Were I to permit myself to
indulge in malicious remarks, I might enumerate a long list of
singular characters, who were living examples of the faults in
question.
For these and other reasons the duties of the presiding officer at the
general conventions are by no means easy, still, thus far there has
been no want of able presidents, and many of them were chosen from
among the nobility. The following gentlemen were honored with this
office: Chevalier von Buss; Count Joseph von Stolberg; Baron von
Andlaff, who presided both at Linz and at Munich; Baron Wilderich von
Ketteler, who was chosen chairman at Münster and at Frankfort; Maurice
Lieber, who was elected president at Breslau and at Salzburg;
Chevalier von Hartmann presided at Mayence; Count O'Donnell, of
Vienna, at Linz and at Prague; Count Brandis, at Aix-la-Chapelle and
Freiburg; Councillor Zell at Vienna; A. Reichensperger at Cologne; and
Baron von Moy at Würzburg. Germany may justly be proud of these
men--men of agreeable manners, distinguished not only by their social
position but also by their literary taste and nobility of character,
each of whom can boast of an honorable career.
It may not be inappropriate to mention in this place some of the
noblemen who graced by their presence the Catholic conventions.
Prominent among these were Don Miguel, duke of Braganza, and the young
prince, Don Miguel, Prince Charles of Loewenstein-Werthheim, and
Prince Charles of {527} Isenburg; Count von Hompesch, of Rurich, Count
Augustus von Spee, of Heltorf, Count Schaesberg, Baron Felix von Leë,
of Missen, Count Hoensbroich, and Baron von Halberg-Broich, of
Aix-la-Chapelle, represented the Rhenish nobility; whilst Westphalia
was represented by Count von Vischering, the Counts Max and Ferdinand
von Galen, the Barons von Schorlemer, the Count von Stolberg, Baron
von Twickel, Baron von Ketteler, Baron von Hereman, Baron von Oer,
Baron von Drüffel, and others.
Of the Austrian nobles I shall mention Count von Migazzi, Baron von
Mayerhofer, a field-marshal of the empire, Count Adolphus Lewis von
Barth-Barthenheim, Count Maurice von Fries, Count Henry von
Hoyos-Sprenzenstein. Count Henry von O'Donnell, Chevalier von
Hartmann, Baron von Stillfried, of Salzburg, a very zealous and
energetic man, and Count Frederick von Thun. Count von Thun was chosen
vice-president at Würzburg, and delivered a speech. Tall and of a
commanding figure, a thorough-bred nobleman, a diplomat well
acquainted with the ways of the world, a man of refined manners, a
Catholic distinguished by his living faith and his ardent love for the
Church, as well as by his intimate knowledge of every shade of
religious life, Count Thun appeared as the representative of the
Austrian nobility, which, for the most part, is still animated by
truly Catholic sentiments, and of the mighty empire, as a delegate
from imperial Vienna, where Catholicity is daily acquiring new vigor,
and as the bearer of an illustrious name, which reminds every Catholic
of the concordat between Francis Joseph and the Pope, which has been
so beneficial to the Church in its results. Among the German Church
dignitaries Dr. Baudri, coadjutor-bishop of Cologne, is especially
distinguished by his zeal for the success of the conventions, many of
which he has opened by a glowing discourse. Archbishop Gregory and
Bishop Ignatius, of Regensburg, spoke at Munich, and Bishop Wedekind,
of Hildestein, at Aix-la-Chapelle. The apostolic words of Bishop von
Stahl will always ring in the memory of his hearers. The Bishop of
Limburg, Peter Joseph Blum, was represented at Frankfort by his
vicar-general, Dr. Klein. Dr. Götz, dean of the cathedral at Würzburg,
deserves great praise for his efficient arrangements at the last
general convention. I may still notice Buchegger, vicar-general at
Freiburg, Canon Broix, of Cologne, Krabbe, dean of the cathedral at
Münster, Dean Schiedemayr, of Linz, Canon Wiery, of Salzburg, Canon
Freund, of Passau, Schmitt, vicar-general at Bamberg, Abbot Mislin, of
Groswardein, Provost Pelldram, of Berlin, Canon Henry Szajbely, of
Gran, Abbot Michael von Fogarasy, of Grosswardein, Canon Michael
Kubinsky, of Kalocza, Canon Dr. Molitor, of Spires, Canon Dr. Malkmus,
of Fulda, Provost Nübel, of Soest, Dr. Stadler, dean of the Augsburg
cathedral, Provost Kalliski, of Gnesen, Canon Büchinger, of Gratz,
Strehle, of Freiburg, Dr. Häusle, of Vienna, and Müller, of Munich.
The general conventions were also attended by Bishop Mermillot, of
Geneva, one of the best pulpit orators in Europe, and by the Roman
prelate, Monsignore Nardi, who is able to speak in four languages. The
Catholic congresses were marked by several grand and imposing scenes.
It was a glorious sight to behold 5,000 men, from every part of the
known world, walk in procession to the cathedral of St. Rombau at
Malines, but it was no less edifying to see hundreds of delegates
making a pilgrimage from Salzburg to Maria Plain, and paying their
devotions to the Mother of God. We can never forget the dedication of
the column erected in honor of the Blessed Virgin, which took place at
Cologne on the 8th of September, 1858, in presence of the whole
congress. The enthusiastic welcome extended to the Bishop of Orleans
at Malines defies all description, but the reception of the Hungarian
prelates by the Viennese convention (Sept. 21, 22, 1853) was still
more solemn. By {528} his speech delivered on the evening of Sept 2,
1864, Father Felix produced a profound impression. Döllinger, too, at
the Munich convention in 1861, called forth a storm of applause by his
well-known declarations. Unique in its kind was the scene in the
Kaiser-saal at Aix-la-Chapelle already described. When, after the
discourse of Father Felix on Sept 2, 1864, the Redemptorist father
Dechamps, and the Carmelite, F. Hermann, weeping tears of joy,
thankfully embraced the Jesuit, and a Belgian bishop, joining the
group, shook hands with the three religious, no heart remained
unmoved. At Würzburg, also, on the 14th Sept., 1864, a solemn,
touching scene took place, which joined in bonds of the sincerest
friendship the Catholic Hungarians and Germans. Von Majer, a Hungarian
lawyer and land-owner, had charmed all of us; his manly and chivalrous
appearance, the romantic costume of his country, and his able speech,
did not fail to produce an overpowering effect; Vice-President Adams
expressed the opinion of the assembly, and then followed cheer upon
cheer for the noble Hungarian.
Now and then there appears a speaker who possesses the talent of a
demagogue, and causes a great though transient sensation. A Tyrolese,
Greuter, now a member of the Austrian "Reichsrath," is an orator whom
I delight to hear; he spoke at Salzburg and Aix-la-Chapelle. At
Würzburg, likewise, a speaker of the same class, Brummel, a lawyer of
Baden, addressed the assembly. I transcribe an account of his speech,
which I wrote at the time. "After F. Modeste had left the tribune,
amid thundering applause, a tall, stately figure, betraying at once
the military career of the speaker, took the floor. The hero who now
confronts us fought at the side of Pimodan and La Moricière for the
Holy Father; distinguished himself at Castelfidardo; took part in the
defence of Ancona; and for six months was held a captive by the
Piedmontese. It is Brummel, of Baden. His voice sounds like the
clarion's shrill tones summoning an army to battle. His speech is a
violent attack on the shameful abuses existing in Baden. He combines
force of expression with warmth of feeling, unflinching bravery, and a
burning hatred of everything base, with a childlike love for the
Church and the truth. He was the Tancred in the crusade against the
self-styled saviors of the people of Baden, and nobly did battle for
the venerable and much persecuted Archbishop of Freiburg, Hermann von
Vicari."
Having thus concluded these unpretending sketches, those of my readers
who have been disappointed will indulgently consider that it was
written to assist a Catholic congregation to build a church. But thus
to extend the divine worship is more pleasing to the Almighty than to
write a good book.
------
{529}
From The Literary Workman.
ST. ELIZABETH.
"Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my
brethren, you have done it to me."
A shrill and joyous summons
At Wartburg's postern rang.
And lightly from his panting steed
The princely Landgrave sprang.
Comes forth his stately mother
To meet him in her pride,
But the quick glance of Louis seeks
The sweet face of his bride.
Then scornful spoke the Landgravine,
"Fair son, thy lady sweet
Hath cares too urgent thus in haste
Thy coming step to greet.
Upon thy couch so stately,
Within thy chamber fair,
A vile and loathsome leper
She tends with pious care."
A wrathful man was Louis,
Yet not a word he said,
But up the castle's echoing stair
In quivering haste he sped--
Within her silent chamber,
As o'er the couch she hung,
Her lord's returning bugle
Had all unheeded rung.
In silent ecstacy she knelt,
Her heart so hushed in prayer.
It thrilled not at his longed-for step,
Now echoing on the stair.
With hasty hand young Louis tore
The coverlid aside--
The lifeless form before him lay
Of Jesus crucified,
Bleeding and pale, as in the hour
When for our sins he died.
"See, mother, see the Leper
She brings to be our guest,
Whom only she prefers to me--
May his dear name be blest
Elizabeth, sweet sister.
Still bring such guests to me;
Sinful and all unworthy
I am of him and thee;
Yet train me in thy patient love
His guest in heaven to be."
----
{530}
From The Month.
DR. PUSEY ON THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
It is just twenty years since the great movement in the Anglican
Church, which took its rise and its name from the University of Oxford
and the "Tracts for the Times," was broken, as it were, into two
streams of very different direction by the submission of Mr. Newman to
the Catholic Church. It happens that the circumstances of the last
year and a half have brought the history of the movement prominently
before the world; and they have occasioned an interesting set of
publications from men of eminent position, whose names were at the
time hardly less watchwords than at present. No one of the few most
conspicuous Oxford leaders of thought who belonged in any sense to the
Tractarian party has yet been removed by death. Dr. Pusey is still at
Christ Church, Mr. Keble still at Hursley; but Mr. Newman has become
the founder of the English Oratory of St. Philip Neri, and Archdeacon
Manning is the present Catholic archbishop of Westminster. These four
names were more than any others in the mouths of the adherents of the
Oxford movement twenty years ago. Archdeacon Wilberforce lived in the
country, and had, we believe, hardly begun to publish that series of
theological treatises which soon after made his name second to none in
the Anglican Church as a writer on doctrine: Isaac Williams, loved and
venerated by all who knew him, had left Trinity and was occupied on
his "Commentary on the Gospels" without taking any further part in the
movement: the influence of Charles Marriott was hardly felt except by
his immediate acquaintance. There were of course others whose
position--such as that of Mr. Oakeley and Mr. Dodsworth in London
--gave them much influence in particular places; but, speaking
broadly, and without reference to the actual connection of individuals
with the "Tracts"--in which, we think, Archdeacon Manning took no
part at all--the four names we have just mentioned might be said to
constitute the High-Church Quadrilateral. It must be remembered,
moreover, that among the Anglicans, whose church had at that time not
even so much liberty to speak in convocation as has since been allowed
to it, and whose bishops were probably unanimous in nothing except in
suspicion of Tractarianism, personal influence went for far more than
is ever the case among Catholics. Whether they liked it or not, the
position and responsibilities of party leaders were thrust upon the
persons we have named; veneration and confidence haunted them, and
their words were made into oracles. A little later than the time of
which we are speaking, an enthusiastic admirer--now a colonial
bishop--dedicated a volume of sermons to the three first, under the
name of the three valiant men of David's band, who had broken through
the ranks of the enemy to fetch water from the well of Bethlehem, the
fountain of ancient doctrine; one of the three, he plaintively added
in his dedication, was taken prisoner by the enemy in the attempt!
This was after the submission of Dr. Newman.
Recent circumstances, as we have said, have drawn from three of these
four distinguished persons declarations of opinion and feeling with
regard to the Anglican establishment which it may well be worth while
to place {531} side by side. The first in point Of time was Dr.
Newman, in his celebrated "_Apologia pro Vita suâ_," in the appendix
to which he had occasion to speak his mind about Anglicanism. The
passage will be fresh in the memories of most of our readers; and it
has been preserved as part of a note in the second edition of the
"Apologia" lately published by Dr. Newman as the "History of my
Religions Opinions." It contains, as a passage from Dr. Newman was
sure to do, most that can be said for or against the establishment in
the happiest words:
"When I looked back upon the poor Anglican Church" [after becoming
acquainted with Catholicism], "for which I had labored so hard, and
upon all that appertained to it, and thought of our various attempts
to dress it up doctrinally and aesthetically, it seemed to me to be
the veriest of nonentities."
He then says that, looked at as a human institution, it is great:
"I recognize in the Anglican establishment a time-honored institution,
of noble historical memories--a monument of ancient wisdom, a
momentous arm of political strength, a great national organ, a source
of vast popular advantage, and, _to a certain point, a witness and
teacher of religious truth_: . . . . but that it is something sacred;
that it is an oracle of revealed doctrine; that it can claim a share
in St. Ignatius and St Cyprian; that it can take the rank, contest the
teaching, and stop the path of the Church of St. Peter; that it can
call itself 'the Bride of the Lamb'--this is the view which simply
disappeared from my mind on my conversion, and which it would be
almost a miracle to reproduce. I went by, and, lo! it was gone; I
sought it, but its place could nowhere be found, and nothing can bring
it back to me. And as to its possession of an episcopal succession
from the time of the apostles--well, it may have it; and if the Holy
See ever so decide, I will believe it, as being the decision of a
higher judgment than my own; but for myself, I must have St. Philip's
gift, who saw the sacerdotal character on the forehead of a
gaily-attired youngster, before I can by my own wit acquiesce in it;
for antiquarian arguments are altogether unequal to the urgency of
visible facts."
Dr. Newman then expresses his sense of the benefits he received by
being born an Anglican, not a Dissenter, and so having been baptized
and sent to Oxford:
"And as I have received so much good from the Anglican establishment
itself, can I have the heart, or rather the want of charity,
considering that it does for so many others what it has done for me,
to wish to see it overthrown? I have no such wish while it is what
it is, and while we are so small a body. Not for its own sake, but
for the sake of the many congregations to which it ministers, I will
do nothing against it. While Catholics are so weak in England, it is
doing our work; and though it does us harm in a measure, the balance
is in our favor" (p. 342).
Here is a plain, definite view about the establishment--giving it
certainly not less than its full meed of praise as a human
institution, and acknowledging benefits providentially received in it
with all the warmth of a most affectionate heart, which never lets a
single touching memory fade away. But its claim to a divine origin and
supernatural character is set aside as a palpably absurd one. Without
questioning whether it be heretical or schismatical or both, Dr.
Newman declares that he cannot even believe its orders to be valid
unless the Holy See declares them so to be. But Dr. Newman does not
wish for the destruction of the establishment until the Catholic
ministry is numerous enough to supply its place as the teacher of the
mass of the population--an office at present discharged by Anglicans,
not indeed adequately, not without many shortcomings and some errors,
but still better {532} than might be the case if no such institution
existed.
In expressing his own views about the establishment, Dr. Manning was
obliged in the course of last year to speak at greater length, and to
explain more in detail the Catholic doctrine with regard to baptized
persons involuntarily outside the pale of the visible Church. The
occasion of his declaration was the judgment of the Privy Council on
the case of the "Essays and Reviews." This last of the series of
similar decisions of the same tribunal, the ultimate court of appeal
for Anglicans in matters of doctrine, naturally gave an opportunity
for reviewing the gradual retirement of the High-Church party from the
bold ground which they had taken up in 1850, at the time of the Gorham
case. The facts only required to be pointed out; the mere narrative
spoke more forcibly than any possible commentary. History, either
political or ecclesiastical, scarcely contains such another example of
a set of high-minded and earnest men having so ostentatiously to
shrink from their implied pledges, and belie their most solemn
declarations. Immediately after the Gorham decision the leaders of the
High-Church party published a series of resolutions, the purport of
which was that the Church of England would be "eventually" committed
to heresy unless she "openly and expressly" rejected the erroneous
doctrine sanctioned by the decision. The consequences were drawn out,
involving the loss on the part of the Church of England of the office
and authority to witness and teach as a member of the universal
church; and it was said that she would thus become "formally separated
from the Catholic body, and be no longer able to assure to her members
the grace of the sacraments and the remission of sins." Dr. Manning's
task was therefore easy; here were men who had pledged themselves in
this way in 1850, and, as far as in them lay, pledged the party of
which they were leaders. What were they doing in the Church of England
in 1864, after fourteen years in which she had not only not cleared
herself from the Gorham judgment, but acquiesced in it? She had spoken
in convocation on a number of subjects, never on this; she had
moreover seen a controversy on the Lord's Supper within her pale, the
issue of which was thought a triumph to the High-Church party--not
because it proscribed the heretical doctrine held by the larger number
of clergy in the Church, but because it just shielded their own
doctrine from being proscribed in turn; finally, the "Essays and
Reviews" had appeared, and their writers also had been protected from
proscription by the crown in council. Dr. Manning might well say that
it seemed as if Providence had been mercifully striving to open men's
eyes to the position of the Church of England. On the ground taken by
the resolutionists of 1850, she had forfeited whatever claim she ever
had to allegiance over and over again.
This is hard truth; but it was not urged by Dr. Manning in a hard way,
nor with the intention of taunting with their inconsistencies men of
whom he has always spoken with respect and affection. The only
important matter, after all, is, whether the High-Church party, whose
opinions were expressed by the resolutions lately referred to, have in
reality receded from their former ground. This is a very serious
question; because, unless it can be answered in the negative, it
involves an abandonment on their part, not of this or that particular
doctrine, but of the whole Catholic idea of a church. The resolutions
of 1850 proceeded on the hypothesis that a church that _tolerated_
heresy became itself guilty of it; and that the Church of England was
responsible for the acts of the courts to which she submitted without
protest. From a Catholic point of view, a very grave change must have
come over a set of men who held this principle, if they afterward
contented themselves with a church that tolerates heresy on {533} the
ground that it also tolerates orthodoxy; that its prayers are
orthodox, that its formularies _admit_ of an orthodox sense. Yet it
seems quite impossible to draw from the declarations of Dr. Pusey and
others anything but an acknowledgment that such a change has taken
place. It is not therefore a question as to their view of the present
effect of the Gorham decision or any other, but as to their view of
the character of the Church in which they hope to be saved.
Dr. Manning's pamphlet was noticed by Dr. Pusey, in a preface placed
by him before a legal statement as to the immediate effect of Lord
Westbury's decision in the case of the "Essays and Reviews." This
preface, like many of Dr. Pusey's _brochures_, was marked by
considerable strength of language against those whom he was assailing,
and contained distinct threats that he and his friends might set up a
free church if their demands for a reconstitution of the court of
appeal were disregarded. It was implied that the chancellor had acted
from "the pure love of the heresy, and the desire of throwing open to
unbelief an article of faith against which rationalism rebels," at the
price "of breaking off churches of the colonies from the Mother
Church" (no colonial churches are named), "and familiarizing devoted
minds among us at home to thoughts of organic severance from the
Church whose discipline is fettered by such a tribunal;" and so on.
"The Church of England has necessarily more tenacity than the Scotch
establishment. For, having a divine original" [origin?], "it is an
organic body, and knows more of the value of intercommunion, not
_indeed as a condition absolutely necessary_, but as the natural fruit
of divine unity. It is then the more remarkable when members of the
Church of England begin to speak (_as they have_) of a free church.
Our extension in the colonies, which has so enlarged the Church and
its episcopate, makes such a rent possible, even though not one bishop
in England should join it. And 'if ever there should be a rent in the
Church of England,' said one, 'the rent in Scotland would be nothing
to it.'" At the end of the preface, men were urged to league together
as in the days of the Anti-Corn-Law agitation: no candidate was to
receive support at the next election who would not pledge himself to
do his best to bring about a change in the court of appeal. And a note
was appended, suggesting that "no church should be offered for
consecration, no sums given for the building of churches, which by
consecration should become the property of the present Church of
England, no sums given for endowment in perpetuity, until the present
heresy-legalizing court shall be modified."
It must surely have occurred to Dr. Pusey, as it did to so many of his
readers, that this threatening language accorded very ill with another
passage in his pamphlet, in which he avowed his retirement from the
threats he had joined in making in 1850. No fair-minded man can doubt
that the resolutions to which we have alluded implied a threat of
secession from Anglicanism, unless the Church of England cleared
herself from the Gorham decision. Unless she cleared herself, the
resolutionists declared she would "eventually" be bound. Dr. Pusey in
explanation says that he wished the word to be "ultimately." We can
see no great difference between the two. He then (p. 17, note) says
that the resolutions were modified so as to be made acceptable to him;
all the more, we suppose, is he responsible for their wording, having
signed them. He also says that the difference between the line of
action adopted by the different persons who signed them is to be
accounted for by the fact that some of them thought that the judgment,
in _itself_, committed the Church of England; others, that it did not.
Surely men must be judged by their words. We may think as we please of
the conduct of those who afterward left {534} the Church of England,
or of those who remained in it; but it cannot be doubted that, as far
as these resolutions are concerned, the former acted consistently, the
Latter inconsistently, with them. Moreover, in the page we are
quoting, Dr. Pusey seems to us to retire altogether from his position,
without saying so openly. He tells us that when he signed the
resolutions, "not having a parochial cure, and worshipping mostly in a
cathedral where baptism did not enter into the service, I felt the
value of the baptismal office as a witness to truth rather than as a
teacher of it." Since that time he has come to realize more distinctly
"the value of the Prayer-book, speaking, as it does, to the hearts of
the people in their own tongue, in teaching and impressing on the
people the doctrines which it embodies." This seems to us to imply,
that as long as the formularies used in public offices speak an
orthodox language, the Church may in other ways be committed to heresy
without losing her character. On the same ground, as long as the words
of consecration are used in the "Lord's Supper," any doctrine whatever
may be taught concerning it. At all events, this is all that Dr. Pusey
says as to his adherence to or disavowal of the resolutions of 1850.
He cannot be surprised if his threats in 1864 have been taken as worth
no more than his declarations fourteen years ago--if the politicians
on whose will the decision of these questions depends have found out
that the bark of the High-Church leaders is worse than their bite.
"Hi motus animorum, atque haec certamina tanta
Pulveris exigui jactu compressa quiescunt."
So long as the Bible is read and the Prayer-book used, they will
impress on the people the doctrines which they embody; and the
Essayists and Reviewers and Dr. Colenso will labor so entirely in vain
to pervert them, that no court at all will be necessary to punish the
propagators of false doctrines. At all events, it may fairly be
presumed that the threats about a free church are worth just as much,
and no more, as the threats about secession.
But our immediate subject is the course of the controversy about the
Anglican establishment. Some expressions in Dr. Pusey's preface, in
which he said that some Catholics "seemed to be in an ecstasy at this
victory of Satan" (the decision of the Privy Council as to the "Essays
and Reviews") appear to have suggested attacks on Dr. Manning with
reference to his "Crown in Council," in which he was said to have
rejoiced in the troubles of his former friends, and to be merry over
the miseries of the Church of England. The same kind of charge has
often been made against Catholics, especially converts; and it is in
the nature of things that it should be made. Every "trouble" in the
Church of England of the kind of which we are speaking, while it
weakens it as a teacher of fragments of Catholic truth, weakens also
its hold on the minds of many who have hitherto been in the habit of
making it the object of that allegiance and that obedience which the
instincts of every Christian heart urge it to pay to the one mother of
the children of God. So far, therefore, as the Gorham case or the
Denison case, or the question of the "Essays and Reviews" and the
Colenso decision, tend to expose the true and simply human character
of the institution that calls itself the Church of England, so far,
many good and loyal souls are set free from a delusion, and their
affections transferred to their right and legitimate object. This, in
the case of individuals, is a matter of rejoicing. On the other hand,
on the grounds stated so clearly by Dr. Newman, it is no matter of
rejoicing that a body which has to teach so large a number of baptized
souls all that they will ever know of Catholic truth should have the
truths that it yet retains diminished in number and in certainty, and
should lose all power of preserving them from corruption.
{535}
Dr. Manning's letter to Dr. Pusey contains a clear and calm statement
of the doctrines on which the feelings of Catholics toward bodies like
the Church of England are based. Dr. Pusey had declared that he knew
that "a very earnest body of Roman Catholics rejoice in all the
workings of God the Holy Ghost in the Church of England," and had
contrasted them with others who are in "ecstasy at the victory of
Satan." It became necessary therefore to state in what sense a
Catholic can admit that the Holy Ghost works in the Church of England.
No Catholic, then, by denying utterly and entirely anything like the
character of a church to the Church of England, denies thereby the
workings of the Holy Ghost or the operations of grace among those who
are its members; nor when these operations are affirmed and rejoiced
in is any affirmation thereby made that the Church of England is in
any sense whatever a church at all. Dr. Manning states in full the
reasons why we affirm the workings of the Holy Ghost among the English
people; and these parts of his pamphlet--indeed, the whole of it--are
extremely valuable, as a clear statement of truths which it is very
difficult to get Englishmen generally to understand, on account of
their prevalent ignorance or misconception of the doctrine of grace.
The truths in question, we need hardly say, enable Catholics to
rejoice heartily in the effects of grace among the Dissenters, not
less than among Anglicans. Dr. Manning has a few pages also on the
specific truths that have been preserved by Anglicanism, and the fear
with which he regards the process of undermining the Christianity of
England which is going on. He also explains how naturally he rejoices
at conversions, which are to him the bringing of souls from the
imperfect to the perfect knowledge of the truth; and sums up by an
argument to prove that the Anglican establishment, instead of being,
as Dr. Pusey had called it, "the great bulwark against infidelity in
this land," is in reality responsible for that infidelity; as having
been the source of the present spiritual anarchy in England; as having
weakened even those truths which it retains by detaching them from
others and from the divine voice of the Church, which is the guarantee
of their immortality; and as being a source of unbelief by the denial
of the truths it has rejected and also of the perpetual and
ever-present assistance of the Holy Ghost to preserve the Church from
error. We may add, having quoted Dr. Newman on the subject of Anglican
orders, that Dr. Manning speaks with equal clearness as to their
entire invalidity.
Dr. Pusey's controversial appearances are generally rather late in the
day: the method of his mind is inductive, and he rejoices above all
things in the accumulation of a vast amount of materials, which he
does not always succeed in clearly arranging or lucidly epitomizing.
He has taken a year to answer Dr. Manning's short pamphlet of less
than fifty pages, or rather a part of it. The volume teems with
undigested learning; and a very large share of it is taken up with a
long postscript and a set of notes. It will not be our business at
present to do more than state concisely in what the answer to Dr.
Manning consists, and endeavor to draw out from the pages of Dr. Pusey
what _his_ idea is of the Anglican Church, and what his own position
in her.
There is nothing in direct answer to Dr. Manning's explanation of the
doctrine as to the working of the Holy Ghost outside the visible
Church--an explanation which of course places the Anglican Church on
the same ground with the Dissenting sects. The satisfactory answer to
this would of course be some proof that the Anglicans have orders and
sacraments, and that grace is given _through_ them, not merely to the
dispositions of the individual who receives it. Dr. Pusey, of coarse,
maintains the {536} validity of Anglican orders, but he adds nothing
to the controversy, except the remark that the form of consecration
used in the case of Parker was taken from that used in the case of
Chichele a century before. As the controversy does not turn solely
upon the form used in Parker's consecration, the fact adduced by Dr.
Pusey has little to do with it. [Footnote 74]
[Footnote 74: Practically speaking, it is surely a matter of
surprise that so few Anglicans should have interested themselves in
ascertaining what is thought about their orders by others than
themselves. No portion of the Catholic Church (as they consider it)
has ever been persuaded to acknowledge them in any way. It is of
course their business to obtain their acceptance, not ours to
disprove them; all the more, as so very large a number of those who
have borne these orders have never believed in their sacramental
character. Dr. Pusey says (p. 278), "I do not believe that God
maintains the faith where there is not the reality." He is speaking
directly of the real presence. By how large a proportion of the
bishops and clergy and laity of the Church of England since the
Reformation has it been believed, even with all the force of the old
Catholic traditions to maintain it? And as to the priesthood and its
correlative, the sacrifice, a strong argument, on Dr. Pusey's own
ground, against their existence in Anglicanism, might be found in
the fact that all practical belief in them has so completely died
out in the mass of the people. If there had been the reality, there
would have been the faith; and so it is with Eastern heretics and
schismatics.]
With regard to the other point, it is of course impossible, or very
difficult, to prove the connection between the effect of a supposed
means of grace and that supposed means itself, independent of the
subjective dispositions and belief of the recipient. Dr. Pusey has no
proofs which would not equally show that any one who thought himself a
priest was one, and that any one who thought he received a sacrament
from him would receive it. But the statement of Dr. Manning on which
Dr. Pusey fastens more particularly is that which accuses the Anglican
establishment of being the "cause and spring of the prevailing
unbelief." Dr. Pusey remarks first that there is plenty of unbelief
everywhere. That is true; and everywhere it can be traced to some
cause; the charge is, that the Reformation has produced it in England,
which was free from it before. Dr. Manning's first proof--that
Anglicanism rejects much Christian truth--is met by a statement of the
amount of truth which both communions hold. In this part of his
argument Dr. Pusey seems to us to avoid the real question at issue.
Dr. Manning speaks of the formularies of the Church of England, no
doubt, as well as of her practical teaching, such as it has been for
the last three hundred years, and such as it is throughout the length
and breadth of England at this day. But in a question as to the amount
of truth with which she claims to be "the great bulwark against
infidelity," it is obvious that her formularies must be judged
according to the sense commonly attached to them, and according to the
interpretation of them supplied by the ordinary teaching of her
clergy. Every one knows that various senses have been applied to the
Anglican formularies; and it was the object of the celebrated No. 90
of the "Tracts for the Times" to prove that, in some cases, it was the
intention of the compilers of the articles to allow men of various
schools to sign them. Still, it is going far beyond this to put
forward the so-called "Catholic" interpretation of the formularies as
_the_ sense of the Church of England. It would be untrue even if we
consider the matter as a simply literary question; much more is it in
the highest degree unfair to put forward this interpretation in a
controversy which turns upon what actually has been and is taught by
her. If a foreigner--as unacquainted with the real teaching of
Anglicanism as Dr. Pusey is with that of Catholicism--were to take up
this book and believe what he finds in it, he would, we venture to
say, derive a totally false impression of the doctrine of the English
Church as it lies on the face of her formularies, and as it has always
been understood and acted upon by nine-tenths of her clergy and
people. He would find an assurance that she holds the three creeds,
which would give him to understand that she interpreted them in the
same sense as the Catholic Church. {537} He would learn with surprise
that there is no difference between Anglicans and Catholics on
justification. "There is not one statement in the elaborate chapters
on justification in the Council of Trent which _any of us_ could fail
in receiving," says Dr. Pusey. He would find that Dr. Manning had
quite falsely said that "the Church of England sustains a belief in
two sacraments, but formally propagates unbelief in the other five."
In fact, that the Church of England holds all seven to be sacraments,
with only a difference in dignity. Still more to his astonishment, he
would read that the Church of England does not, in particular, object
to extreme unction; she "_only_ objects to the later abuse of it,"
which is not the Catholic practicer--namely, the custom of not
administering it except to the dying. Then, if some one told him that
the Church of England has discontinued the practice altogether, and
that any one would be called a simple papist who attempted to
introduce it in any way, he might naturally be inclined to find fault
with the treacherous guide who had so misled him. It is the same with
other points. Dr. Pusey tells us that the Church of England does _not_
deny the infallibility of general councils or of the Church. His
reasoning on this last head is so good a specimen of his method, that
we may dwell on it for a moment. One of the articles teaches, that as
the other churches have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred
--even in matters of faith. Dr. Manning sums this up, very naturally,
as a statement that all churches have erred. "The article," says Dr.
Pusey, "was a puzzle to me when young." He supposed, it seems, that
the condemnation must have been meant to fall on doctrinal decrees.
"The two clauses, being put antithetically, must correspond. On
further information, I found that there were no canons of Jerusalem,
Alexandria, and Antioch that were intended; then it followed--the
same principle of the correspondence of the two clauses--that neither
were canons of the Church of Rome spoken of. The article moreover does
not say that the Church of Rome _is_ in error in the present, but
_hath_ erred in time past."
It is strange to see so much ingenuity wasted in a hopeless cause. Dr.
Pusey remembers perfectly that the attempt to put forward the
interpretations for which he contends, not as _the_ sense or teaching
of the Church of England, but as a sense of her articles barely
tolerated by her in certain individuals of Catholic opinions whom she
wished to retain, as others, in her service, was met many years ago by
an outcry such as has not been heard in our day in England, save in
the case of the Catholic hierarchy. And yet he thinks it fair and just
to argue as if the Church of England not only allowed such
interpretations, but as if the views which they embody were her
regular teaching, so that she has a right to claim that she has put
forward boldly in face of the infidelity around her those portions of
Christian truth to which they relate. Her people then are, and always
have been, really taught that there are seven sacraments, that there
is a real presence on the altar, that there is a eucharistic
sacrifice, that the Church is infallible, and so on. And as he speaks
of her ministers being vowed to banish and drive away strange
doctrine, his position implies that any heresy which might contradict
these great Catholic truths could not be permitted within her pale.
And now, suppose he was taken at his word; suppose, in consequence of
this so-called _Eirenicon_, negotiations were opened and emissaries
sent from Rome to the bishops and convocation of the English Church to
treat of reunion. What would be the first step of the Anglican
authorities, those who really have a right to speak for their
communion, and who would be backed by the great body of the clergy and
laity in the country? It would certainly be to repudiate the false
face put upon their teaching by Dr. Pusey, and to {538} declare that
their Church had always been, and meant to be, thoroughly and simply
Protestant on the points at issue.
If, therefore, Dr. Pusey cannot answer Dr. Manning's charge except by
attributing to the Church of England the ordinary and regular
teaching, as against infidelity, of doctrines which she practically
disclaims--even if it be allowed that she does not formally proscribe
them--it is clear that he thinks little better of that ordinary and
regular teaching as it is in fact than Dr. Manning himself. His book
is in reality more a long excuse of himself and others for remaining
in her than anything else. This is quite a different question. She
_may_ tolerate Catholic opinions in her ministers, and Catholic
interpretations of her articles. Her defenders have then to give an
account of what sort of church it is which can compromise truth by
purposely ambiguous formularies, and allow side by side in her pulpits
men who must consider each other as heretics. But Dr. Manning's
question relates to her actual teaching as a "bulwark against
infidelity;" and Dr. Pusey knows very well that for every clergyman
who teaches more sacraments than two, or the eucharistic sacrifice,
there are twenty who deny them.
Perhaps the most elaborate part of Dr. Pusey's volume is that in which
he endeavors to prove that the unity of the visible church need not be
visible, and that it is sufficiently secured by orders and sacraments,
"through its union with Christ, as head, by the sacraments, and the
indwelling of God the Holy Ghost." He naively asks, How can we be said
to deny the indissoluble unity of the Church when we cannot approach
communion without repeating the Nicene Creed? Certainly, few people
could ever be convicted of false doctrine if the repetition of the
creed in public service was enough to absolve them. In this part of
the work, however, Dr. Pusey more than ever leaves out of sight the
real nature of the charge which he has undertaken to answer--the
charge of having denied the indissoluble unity of the Church, its
visible head, and its perpetual voice. The question is, whether these
truths can be considered as a part of the system which the Church of
England teaches and defends. Here, of course, there is more divergence
as to the doctrine between the two controversialists; and Dr. Pusey
answers only by a theory of his own. But in fact, even if he fairly
represents Anglicanism, he cannot escape the charge, as to the unity
of the Church, any more than that as to its infallibility. He really
maintains that for all practical purposes the Church _was_ infallible
up to the division of East and West--we meet in his pages that phrase
of which his friends are so fond, the "Holy Undivided Church." _Now_
it is difficult to find what infallible teacher Dr. Pusey
acknowledges; to what he would submit a conclusion, we will say, as to
the Immaculate Conception, which he has drawn by his own reason from
his study of Scripture or the fathers. His position may be understood
from the following passage:
"This, I understand, is a favorite formula with Dr. Manning--'By
whom does God the Holy Ghost speak? By the Roman Church? or by the
Eastern? or by the Anglican?' I have been wont to say, by all
concurrently, in so far as they teach the same faith which was from
the beginning, which is the great body of all their teaching; and,
if need require, they could at this day declare concurrently any
truth, if it should appear that it had not as yet been sufficiently
defined, against some fresh heresy which should emerge" (p. 84).
The faith of Christians is therefore proposed to them by an authority
on which they are bound to receive it; but that authority has in the
first place to be tested by Christians themselves, who must decide by
their own reason--for they can have no other guide--whether in any
particular point the three churches teach the same faith which was
from the beginning. {539} Further this authority cannot speak at all
precisely on those points as to which Christians must most desire its
guidance--those points on which these three churches differ. Dr.
Pusey speaks of his reciting the Nicene Creed. On what authority does
he believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son?
He may _think_ that the Eastern faith comes to much the same thing as
the Western; but that is a conclusion of his own reason. And we must
leave to our readers to make out for themselves the way in which he
tries to show that the churches could still act concurrently, if the
occasion were to arise; especially in the very obvious and, according
to the Anglican teaching, perfectly possible case, that one of these
three churches themselves should be the victim of the new heresy,
which, according to him, would constitute the occasion for a new
definition. [Footnote 75]
[Footnote 75: We are not, of course, answering Dr. Pusey's book; but
we cannot help quoting a single passage from the treatise "On the
Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost," lately published by his grace
the Archbishop of Westminster, which simply destroys the whole
theory on which Dr. Pusey reasons. Few things of the kind can be
more refreshing than to turn from the pages of Dr. Pusey to the
clear, bright, simple, and precise statements of Dr. Manning. It is
like breathing pure country air after groping about in a London fog;
and the fanciful and unsubstantial images that bewilder the readers
of the _Eirenicon_ vanish like so much mist and vapor as the
majestic outlines of the Church, as sketched by the archbishop, take
possession of the mind. No one who reads this book will need any
other answer to that of Dr. Pusey. On the point before us the
archbishop says: "There are some who appeal from the voice of the
living Church to antiquity, professing to believe that while the
Church was united was infallible; that when it became divided it
ceased to speak infallibly; and that the only certain rule or faith
is to believe that which the Church held and taught while yet it was
united, and therefore infallible. Such reasoners fail to observe
that since the supposed division and cessation of the infallible
voice there remains no divine certainty as to what was then
infallibly taught. To affirm that this or that doctrine was taught
then where it is now disputed, is to beg the question. The
infallible Church of the first six centuries--that is, before the
division--was infallible to those who lived in those ages, but is
not infallible to us. It spoke to them; to us it is silent. The
infallibility does not reach to us; for the Church of the last
twelve hundred years is by the hypothesis fallible, and may
therefore err in delivering to us what was taught before the
division. And it is certain that either the East or the West, as it
is called, must err in this, for they contradict each other as to
the faith before the division. I do not speak of the protests of
later separations, because no one can invest them with an
infallibility which they not only disclaim for themselves, but deny
anywhere to exists" (pp. 74, 75).]
It is clear that, according to Dr. Pusey, we must ascertain what the
"Undivided Church" taught for ourselves, and then receive it on her
authority. Far more than this in reality; for we are to find out for
ourselves negative conclusions as well as positive. There is what he
speaks of as a vast practical system in the Catholic Church, the honor
paid to our Blessed Lady, and other things of that kind, which
penetrate the daily life and the ordinary thoughts of the great mass
of her children. On this Dr. Pusey sits in judgment, and declares it
to be alien to the teaching of the "Undivided Church," because he does
not find it himself in the fathers. We do not see that he places his
objections to it on the authority of his own Church. This leads us to
our question, what, to him, is Anglicanism? Is he content to be its
dutiful child, to catch its genuine spirit, to echo without further
question its definitions, to "rest and be thankful" with whatever it
may give him? We believe that no one who has ever known anything about
the subject has suspected Dr. Pusey of any intention to secede from
the Anglican Church: this makes it all the more strange that he should
give it so wavering and niggardly an allegiance. Other people openly
avow that they simply put up with it as a convenient lodging-place for
men of no particular opinions; it exacts little, leaves them pretty
much alone, and yet furnishes them handsomely with the outward
paraphernalia of a church. Like the Roman Senate in the old story
about Tiberius, it admits the gods of all nations easily into its
Pantheon. One set of opinions alone it objects to, because they are so
exclusive! Except in that case, its courts always shield the
persecuted. Mr. Gorham is attacked for a heresy, and they shield him;
Mr. Denison for a truth, and they absolve him; even the "Essays and
Reviews" do not deprive their authors of this comprehensive
protection. Its toleration gives, as a statesman expressed it,
"general {540} satisfaction." Who can refuse to be loyal, when the
yoke is so light?
"Quod si nec nomen, nec me tua forma teneret,
Posset servitiam mite tenere tuum;"
and so Dr. Pusey himself seems to feel, save in those moods of
rebelliousness which now and then come over him. We have seen how he
once almost pledged himself to secede if the Gorham judgment was not
disavowed. He was too old then to be excused on the plea of youthful
impetuosity; at all events, the fit passed away: the baptismal service
contents him. We have seen the threats he threw out more than a year
ago about a free church if the court of appeal were not modified: that
mood too has passed away. His present book speaks in the most
contented manner: "Essay and Reviewism a passing storm," is the title
that runs along the top of one of his pages; and he speaks of "the
bright promise of the year of ingathering which the Lord has blessed!"
He has forgotten his despair of last year, and boldly proposes to the
Catholic Church terms on which reunion may be made,--terms, we
venture to say, which would be rejected at once by every authority of
the Church of England itself. Still, with all this, we do not see in
his book any indication that, except as to the validity of Anglican
orders, he really thinks much better of Anglicanism than Dr. Manning
or Dr. Newman. Its authority is nothing to him; and they, on the other
hand, do not deny that, though a mere human institution, it teaches
many truths which might otherwise be untaught. He is ready to leave it
if it "accepts heresy;" but it seems that _what_ is heresy, and what
is its acceptance, must be left to himself to decide. This is the
language of one party in a contract or a compromise to another; not
that of a pupil to a teacher, a child to a parent--above all, not that
of a Catholic to his Church. He does not aver that "the Church of
England is the best possible bulwark against infidelity," but only "as
a matter of fact, that it is at this moment, under God's providence, a
real and chief bulwark against it." He complains of Dr. Manning's
statement that she "rejects _much_ Christian truth" in a way that
looks very much as if he thought she rejected _some_ and he only
defends her even then by putting an entirely strange face upon her. He
hoists a false flag, and fights for her under it.
We are unwilling to speak personally of an amiable and excellent man;
but Dr. Pusey, if there are few exactly like him, is still in his way
a representative man; and his work shows thus the position of many
others beside himself. It is obvious that he is really in the Church
of England because he has nowhere else to go. He is loyal to her, not
because he loves and admires her, but because he thinks he can find no
other resting-place. Deeply versed in the Scriptures, especially of
the Old Testament, and with a large acquaintance with some of the
fathers, he has studied them under that fatal disadvantage which
consists in the entire ignorance of the living system in which the
authors whom he has read lived and breathed. The fathers especially,
if they are studied without a knowledge of the ever-living Church, are
certain to be misunderstood and to convey inadequate ideas of their
own practice and belief. The Church alone explains and completes their
testimony. It is exactly the everyday life, the things and customs and
ideas that are too familiar to be chronicled, that must ever be
unknown to those who have a merely literary knowledge of any system or
any set of men. The strange thing is that any reasonable man should
suppose it to be otherwise. Dr. Pusey, if we may judge from the
opening of his postscript, really seems to think that if St. Augustine
were to arrive to-morrow in London, he would go to worship in St.
Paul's or Westminster Abbey, rather than at Moorfields or Warwick
Street--St. Augustine, who, in a well-known passage, {541} has pointed
out the unfailing mark which the common sense of mankind has fixed
upon the true Church by the simple popular use of the name Catholic!
The result of Dr. Pusey's thought and study may be summed up in two
simple heads. The first is an attitude of mind utterly and entirely
alien from that which is the first condition of the relation of a
Catholic to the Church. He has never been taught by a church, guided
by a church, moulded by a church; he is self-educated and
self-reliant; he has made his own teacher for himself, and has never
sat at the feet of any other, except of the author of a book of which
he was himself the interpreter. Speaking of the possibility of
"secession" in his own case, he tells us, "I have always felt that I
could have gone in on no other way than that of closing my eyes and
accepting whatever was put before me" (p. 98). What a revolution that
would be! This attitude of simple, uncriticising, ungrudging docility
and obedience, is a thing which to him is a perfect novelty. It is one
thing to take our faith from an abstraction of our own brain; quite
another to receive it from a living reality, outside and independent
of ourselves. This is the first thing that strikes us in men like Dr.
Pusey, as their minds are reflected in books such as that before us.
The second is an amount of misconception, misunderstanding, and
positive ignorance of the Catholic system, which would be simply
unintelligible did we not consider the great disadvantages under which
any one in his position must have studied it. He is not one of the
more rabid school of Anglican controversialists; his character and
habits of mind are quite alien from wilful misrepresentation and
conscious unfairness. And yet there is hardly a fair statement in his
book on matters which belong to Catholicism; and there are many most
provoking misstatements, as well as many most ludicrous and childish
blunders. The book presents an easy victory to any moderately-informed
Catholic theologian who may take the trouble to refute it. This has
not been our purpose at present. We have been content with pointing
out that his defence of Anglicanism really condemns it, because it
implies that he cannot defend it without misrepresenting it. In a
future article we may deal with him as a controversialist, and point
out, by way of specimen, some few of the mistakes into which he has
fallen in his attack on the Catholic Church.
------
From The Literary Workman.
IRELAND BEFORE CHRISTIANITY.
The ignorance of true Irish history that prevails, and the absurdity
of the things given as facts to a large mass of moderately educated
people, is painfully surprising. For instance, it is generally
believed among a great number of people, and it is taught to them in
books, that Ireland was a land of desolate bogs, and forests filled
with wolves, and inhabited by lawless savages, till converted to a
"sort of Christianity" by the English, of which Christianity the
remarkable part was that it had nothing to do with the Pope. Many
people believe St. Patrick to have been an Englishman; others think he
was a Welshman, and a few bold spirits of the present day declare that
they can prove him to have been an excellent Protestant. Savages,
bogs, wolves, and desolation, having been taken {542} compassion upon
by the English, they subjugated the people, taught them, gave them
laws, and in the reign of Henry II. of England attached Ireland to the
British crown, when that country began to have a history. Before that
date, that is, before the twelfth century, for Henry II. ascended the
throne in 1154, Ireland had had no history worth remembering or worth
noting. This is a short summary of the chief points of the Protestant
belief on that matter. And although true knowledge concerning many
things has struck root and spread amazingly of late years, there is so
much still to learn about Ireland, and the history of that country is
at once so interesting and so edifying, that "Papers on Irish History"
are offered to the readers of the "Workman" with a conviction that
they will find a welcome both in that country and in England.
In looking back to the earliest years of the history of Ireland, our
instructor is tradition. It is a very curious thing, however, to see
that the old tales, which have passed with many for poetic fables,
have assumed in these days a remarkable importance, because in so many
instances science is proving tradition to be truth. Speaking of
Ireland, Camden says: "If what the Irish historians relate be true,
this island was not without reason called _Agygia_ or _most ancient_,
by Plutarch. For they begin their histories from the remotest period
of antiquity, so that compared with them all other nations are of
modern date, and but in a kind of infancy. They tell us that one
_Caesarea_, granddaughter to Noah, lived here before the flood, and
that afterward came _Bartholanus_ (_Partholanus_), a Scythian, 300
years after the flood, and waged fierce war with the giants. Long
after this, Nemethus, the Scythian, landed, and was presently driven
off by the giants. Afterward, Dela, with some Greeks, made themselves
masters of the island; then _Gaothelus_ with his wife _Scota_,
daughter of Pharaoh, arrived here, and called the island from her
Scotia, and from him _Gaothela_, and this at the time of the
Israelites' departure out of Egypt. A few ages after, _Hiberus_ and
_Hermione_ (or as the Irish called them, _Ever_ and _Erimon_), sons of
_Milesius_, king of Spain, led some colonies into this island, which
had been depopulated by a plague. These stories I neither mean to
affirm nor refute, making all due allowance for antiquity." Then
Camden gives his own opinion in these words: "That this island was
originally inhabited upon the general dispersion of mankind, I have
not the least doubt." And at this date, no one who may be quoted as
understanding the subject, has any doubt of the immense antiquity of
the Irish; an antiquity which, in fact, defies calculation. But it is
in some measure proved by the discovery in Ireland of those weapons
which are the earliest weapons of defence used by man. They are flints
chipped into a shape like the head of a spear. They were used before
men knew how to use metal; and they belong to that earliest time which
geologists have called by the name of the stone age. Geologists have
divided the early ages into three: the stone, the bronze, and the iron
period. In the stone age, Ireland had a people, and the celts, or
flint stones chipped into a form like a spear head, were their
weapons.
The debated point of whether or not Ireland was peopled from England,
is one which is of little interest. There was a time in the history of
man when people could have walked over from France to England, and
when Ireland was joined to Wales. Strange as this may read to some
persons, it is less strange than the greater instance of, for example,
Australia being found peopled, and yet parted from the rest of the
world by a great sea. The people of Australia had not gone there in
vessels. They had got there by land; and whether, by the gradual work
of time, during which the land sunk, and the sea {543} flowed in over
it, and by this means gave islands to the world, or whether by
enormous convulsions rocks shivered, and the land was rent apart and
sunk, as between us and France, where the chasm may be said to be
filled in by the water that makes the Straits of Dover--however it was
done, whether suddenly or not, the researches of modern science have
settled that these things occurred, and that the people who were our
forefathers in this manner were separated from each other. Accepting
this theory as a truth, it is idle to ask whether Ireland was peopled
from this country or not. But in the presence of such a theory, no
person can any longer laugh at Ireland's traditional antiquity; it is
more reasonable to accept it, and to allow that they have proved their
ancient and hereditary intelligence by preserving history.
And this theory of the manner in which islands were divided from
continents is, in fact, constantly proving itself before our eyes. Not
to go out of England, we may see the progress of such a change now in
Lincolnshire. The reason why the great embankments against the sea are
necessary there, and have become more than ever necessary of late
years, is, that the land is sinking; and but for the preventions that
science and labor effect, a part of Lincolnshire would become an
island.
There are now a few words to be said about the name Scotia, as applied
to Ireland. The Romans called all the far "western people" Scots, or
Scythians. It meant a people who sailed--a maritime people--they
learnt the word in these countries, for it is _Teutonic_, or northern
Celtic; and we use the word ourselves when we speak of a boat
_scudding_ over the waves.
That the people from Spain came to Ireland, and that the existing
Irish are their descendants, is not disputed. Hiberus and Hermione,
called by the Irish Ever and Erimon, left their names in _Hibernia_,
from the Spanish for one brother, and in the Irish _Erin_ for the
other. But yet Hibernia is a comparatively modern name; and Ireland is
the ancient _Scotia_, called Ierne by the Roman poet Claudian and
other Roman writers, and Ivvorna by Diodoms Siculus, and many beside.
One word more about the rude flint weapon called everywhere a celt. It
took its name undoubtedly from the people who used it. It was the
weapon of the northern or Celtic nations. When Celts are found they
indicate to us the existence of the men who used them, and their state
of civilization. Wherever they are found they are called by this name,
and their name is derived from the northern people.
Ireland has always been considered a most healthy country, and in
Campbell's Philosophical Survey of Ireland, Dr. Rutty tells us, "The
bogs are not injurious to health, and agues are very unfrequent here."
And again, these "bogs are not, as may be supposed from their
blackness, masses of putrefaction, but, on the contrary, are of such a
texture as to resist putrefaction above any other substance we know
of." Of such assertions we have now constant proof, and the durability
of the beautiful and often highly polished ornaments made out of Irish
bogwood is too well known to dwell upon.
The people seem to have been, in very early times, great feeders of
sheep, cattle, and pigs. But the richness of the soil of this
beautiful island yields to the labor of the scientific former great
gain.
Very curious speculations have arisen as to the gold that has been
found in Ireland. It remains a mystery. Mr. O'Connor, in his
dissertations on the history of Ireland, says, "that, soon after the
arrival of the Scots from Spain, we read of Uchadan of Cuala, who
rendered himself famous by his skill in the fabrication of metals."
This places the civilization of Ireland very far back; and taken
together with the early renown of the Irish in music, puts them at
once in a {544} position of their own. When a people are musicians and
workers in gold, Silver, and other metals, they have advanced a good
way in what is meant by the word civilization. Their music is
described as being of the most affecting and tender kind; and they
seem to have met together, as afterward at Tara, for such accomplished
recreations before anything of that kind would have been understood in
England.
It will be interesting to give, from "Gough's Additions" to Camden's
account of Ireland, some notes of the buried gold that has been found:
"In the bog near Cullen, in the county of Tipperary, in 1732, a
laborer found a piece of worked gold, a little less than half the size
of a small egg. It weighed 3 ozs. 4 dwts. and 7 grs."
"In 1739, a boy found a circular plate of beaten gold, about eight
inches in diameter, which, lapped up in the form of a triangle,
enclosed three ingots of gold, which they say could not weigh less
than a pound; for the boy no sooner brought them home than his mother,
a poor widow, gave them to a merchant, on whose land she had a cabin,
as brass to make weights."
This is one of the great many instances in which large pieces of gold
were sold as brass. Gold was found in these lumps, and in thin plates,
as follows:
"1742. A child found on the brink of a hole a thin plate of gold.
1747. A girl found in the turf-dust a thin plate of gold, rolled on
another, which when extended was 14 inches long, and a quarter of an
inch broad; of which a fellow standing by took about half from her;
what he left weighed 6 dwts. 13 grs. Soon after, an apprentice girl
found 1 oz. 5 dwts. of the same kind, rolled after the same manner, in
a sod of turf as she made the fire."
Vessels of a "yellow metal," as the people said, were frequently found
in this bog. They used to sell them for brass. One was four-sided, and
8 inches high, with a handle on each side; the sisters who possessed
it sold it to a tinker, who mended a pot and gave thirteenpence for
it. The page of Irish history which the sight of these vessels, and
the consideration of their shape and workmanship, might have revealed,
has been, doubtless, lost with them in the melting pot.
------
From The St. James Magazine.
THE COLOSSUS OF RHODES.
In the elementary works for the instruction of young people we find
every day frequent mention of the Colossus of Rhodes. The statue is
always represented with gigantic limbs, each leg resting on the
enormous rocks which face both sides of the entrance to the principal
port of the island of Rhodes, and ships in full sail pass easily, it
is said, between its legs; for Pliny the ancient tells us that its
height was seventy cubits.
This colossus was reckoned among the seven wonders of the world, the
six others being, as is well known, the suspended gardens of Babylon,
devised by Nitocris, wife of Nebuchadnezzar; the pyramids of Egypt;
the statue of Jupiter Olympicus; the mausoleum of Halicarnassus; the
temple of Diana at Ephesus; and the pharos of Alexandria, erected in
the year of Rome 470, and completely destroyed by an earthquake A.D.
1303.
{545}
Nowhere has any authority been found for the assertion that the
Colossus of Rhodes spanned the entrance to the island, and admitted
the passage of vessels in fall sail between its wide-stretched limbs.
No old drawing even of that epoch exists, when the statue was yet
supposed to be standing; several modern engravings may be seen, but
they are mere works of the imagination, executed to gratify the
curiosity of amateur antiquarians, or to feed the naive credulity of
the ignorant.
A century ago, the Comte de Cayius, a distinguished French
archaeologist, found fault with his countrymen for admitting this
fiction into the schoolbooks [Footnote 76] for young people; but he
sought in vain to trace its origin.
[Footnote 76: "_Memoires de l'Académie des Inscriptions_," t. xxiv.,
p. 369]
Vigenère, in his "_Tableaux de Philostrate_," is supposed to have been
the first who ventured to make an imaginary drawing of the colossus.
He was followed by Bergier and Chevreau, [Footnote 77] the latter
adding a lamp to the hand of the statue.
[Footnote 77: "_Histoire du Monde_," iv., p. 319.]
The greater number of French dictionaries, Rollin, in his "Ancient
History," and even some encyclopaedic dictionaries, have adopted the
fiction of their predecessors.
A fictitious Greek manuscript, quoted by the mythologist Dachoul,
[Footnote 78] further adorns the colossus by giving him a sword and
lance, and by hanging a mirror round his neck.
[Footnote 78: "_Religion des Anciens Romains_," p. 211.]
The Comte Ghoisel-Grouffier, in his picturesque "Journey through
Greece," published about the year 1780, declares the colossus with the
outstretched legs to be fabulous. He says: "This fable has for years
enjoyed the privilege so readily accorded to error. It is commonly
received, and discarded only by the few who have made ancient history
their study. Most people have accepted, without investigation, an
assertion which is unsupported by any authority from ancient authors."
Nevertheless, the Belgian, Colonel Rottiers, and the English
geologist, Hamilton, [Footnote 79] do not yield to this respectable
authority, but endeavor to place the site of the statue at the
entrance to one of the smaller harbors of the island, scarcely forty
feet wide. Rottier goes still further, and gives a superb engraving of
the colossus under the form of an Apollo, the bow and quiver on his
shoulders, his forehead encircled by rays of light, and holding a
beacon flame above his head.
[Footnote 79: "Researches in Asia Minor," etc. London, 1842.]
Polybius is the first among the ancient writers who mentions the
Colossus of Rhodes, in enumerating the donations received by the
inhabitants of the island after the fearful earthquake they
experienced in 222 or 224 b.c. We quote the passage: "The Rhodians
have benefited by the catastrophe which befel them, owing to which not
only the huge colossus, but also a number of houses and a portion of
the surrounding walls, were demolished." Then follows a list of the
rich gifts they received from all parts. Among the benefactors
Polybius mentions the three kings, Ptolemy III. of Egypt, Antigone
Doson, of Macedonia, and Seleucus, of Syria, father of Antiochus. The
ancient Pliny records that the colossus, after having stood for
sixty-six years, was overthrown by an earthquake, and that it took the
artist Charès de Lindos, to whom the Rhodians had intrusted its
construction, twelve years to complete his task.
The tendency in art to produce grand effects by colossal works became
perceptible twenty-five year's before Phidias; for we find that 463
years before Christ the inhabitants of Syracuse caused a huge statue
to be erected to Jupiter Eleutherius, after the death of the tyrant
Thrasybulus. This tendency was an indication of the decline of art,
traceable during and after the period of Alexander the Great.
But to return to the colossus. One Philo-Byzantius wrote a short
treatise on the seven wonders of the ancient world, about 150 years
B.C. [Footnote 80] In it he {546} gives an explanation of the
construction of the colossus, but nowhere speaks of the extended legs,
under which vessels in full sail entered the port. On the contrary, he
mentions one sole pedestal, which was of white marble. Moreover, the
statue was said to be 105 feet in height, and the harbor entrance,
according to modern researches, was 350 feet wide; it could not,
therefore, possibly reach across this space. Lastly, if the statue had
stood at the entrance of the port, the earthquake must have overthrown
it into the sea; whereas Strabo and Pliny tell us that its fragments
remained for a considerable time imbedded in the earth, and attracted
much attention by their wonderful size and dimensions.
[Footnote 80: It was reprinted with a Latin translation, by J. C.
Orelli, at Leipzic, in 1816. Strabo also mentions the colossus as
one of the seven wonders of the world.]
Now this is the real truth concerning the colossus:
Toward the year 305 B.C., Demetrius Poliorcetes laid siege to Rhodes,
and the inhabitants defended themselves with so much bravery that,
after a whole year of struggle and endurance, they forced the enemy to
retire from the island. The Rhodians, by whom the sun-god (Helios) was
worshipped as their patron (having emerged from the waves of the
AEgean Sea), inspired by sentiments of devotion, and excited by
fervent gratitude for so signal a proof of the divine favor, commanded
Charès de Lindos to erect a colossal statue to the honor of their
deity. An inscription explained that the expenses of its construction
were defrayed out of the sale of the materials of war left by
Demetrius on his retreat from the island of Rhodes. This statue was
erected on an open space of ground near the great harbor, and near the
spot where the pacha's seraglio now actually stands; and its fragments
for many years after its destruction were seen and admired by
travellers. This explanation is still further supported by the fact,
that a chapel built on this ground in the time of the Knights of
Rhodes is named _Fanum Sancti Joannis Colossensis_.
We have seen that Strabo, who wrote and travelled during the reigns of
the first two Roman emperors, was the earliest author after Polybius
who mentioned the fall of the Colossus of Rhodes, and that very
concisely. Pliny enters into somewhat fuller details, and speaks of
the dimensions of the mutilated limbs. "Even while prostrate," says
he, "this statue excited the greatest admiration. Few men could span
one of its thumbs with his arms; and each of its fingers was as large
as an ordinary full-sized statue. Its broken limbs appeared to
strangers like caverns, in the interior of which enormous blocks of
stone were seen."
From this time we find no further mention whatever of these fragments;
but it is curious that toward the end of the second century several
writers speak of a colossal statue at Rhodes as still existing. It is
possible that one was again constructed, but of smaller dimensions.
Indeed, Leo Allazzi tells us that the Colossus of Rhodes was
reconstructed and completed under the Emperor Vespasian; but later
Greek authors give us nothing in support of this opinion.