confirmation or administer the holy sacraments to any person
divorced, for any cause arising after marriage, or married
again to another in violation of this canon, or during the
lifetime of such divorced wife or husband; but this prohibition
shall not extend to the innocent party where the divorce has
been for the cause of adultery, nor to any truly penitent
person.
“SEC. 5. Questions touching the facts of any case arising under
this canon shall be referred to the bishop of the diocese, or,
if there be a vacancy in the episcopate, then to some bishop
designated by the Standing Committee, who shall thereupon make
enquiry by a commissionary or otherwise, and deliver his godly
judgment in the premises.
“SEC. 6. This canon, so far as it affixes penalties, does not
apply to cases occurring before its taking effect, according to
canon iv., title iv.”
From the Roman Catholic point of view there are at least two objections
to this canon. There is no authority pointed out whereby it may be
decided what it is that “God’s word doth allow” respecting marriage;
and the permission for the re-marriage of one of the parties in a
divorce is repugnant to the rule of the church, and could not for a
moment be assented to by any one who holds the Catholic and Christian
doctrine of marriage. In the debate upon the canon it was urged that
the second section could not be enforced among the Indians nor among
the negroes; and some of the clergymen objected to the section which
provides for the reference of doubtful cases to the bishop. Especial
ridicule was cast upon the sixth section, which, as one delegate
expressed it, asserts that “the longer a man has continued in sin the
less sin he has.” More than one clerical delegate, on the other hand,
lifted up his voice in favor of “greater freedom in the matter,” and
they drew pathetic pictures of the sad condition of a woman divorced
from her husband for incompatibility of temper, for example, and, under
this canon, unable to marry again. But at length the canon was passed.
Our readers can scarcely be expected to take much interest in the other
proceedings of the convention. There was a debate, lasting through
several days, upon a proposed canon for the creation and development of
orders of deaconesses, or “sisterhoods,” in imitation of our own
societies of holy women. The bishops wished to retain strict control
over these possible organizations; the lower house desired them to be
left quite free, or subject only to the supervision of the parish
clergyman. The two houses could not agree, and the matter was dropped.
A still more tedious debate arose from propositions for the adoption of
a “shortened service,” lay preaching, and the permissible use of the
English Lectionary. There was very little talk about dogma; and it is
noticeable that the quarrels between the Ritualists and the
Evangelicals were kept entirely suppressed during the convention. The
only doctrinal breeze which animated the gathering was caused by the
introduction of a paper by Mr. Judd, of Illinois, which, on the whole,
is so queer that we reproduce it here:
“_Whereas_, A majority of the bishops of the Anglican communion
at the Lambeth Conference, held in the year of our Lord 1867,
while solemnly ‘professing the faith delivered to us in Holy
Scripture, maintained in the primitive church and by the
fathers of the English Reformation,’ did also ‘express the deep
sorrow with which we view the divided condition of the flock of
Christ throughout the world, ardently longing for the
fulfilment of the prayer of our Lord, “that all may be one,”’
and did furthermore ‘solemnly record’ and set forth the means
by which ‘that unity will be more effectually promoted’; and
“_Whereas_, The Lambeth declaration was not only signed by all
the nineteen American bishops then and there present, but the
whole House of Bishops, at the General Convention of 1868, also
formally resolved that they ‘cordially united in the language
and spirit’ of the same; and
“_Whereas_, Our fervent prayer, daily offered, ‘that all who
profess and call themselves Christians may hold the faith in
unity of spirit,’ cannot receive fulfilment unless there be a
clear and steadfast clinging to ‘the faith once for all
delivered to the Saints’; and
“_Whereas_, The restoration of this ‘unity of spirit’ in the
apostolic ‘bond of peace’ among all the Christian people, for
which we thus daily pray, ought also to be the object of our
most earnest efforts; and
“_Whereas_, This unity manifestly cannot be restored by the
submission of all other parts to any one part of the divided
body of Christ, but must be reached by the glad reunion of all
in that faith which was held by all before the separation of
corrupt times began; and
“_Whereas_, The venerable documents in which the undisputed
councils summed up the Catholic faith are not easily accessible
to many of the clergy, and have never been fully set forth to
our laity in a language ‘understanded of the people’; therefore
“_Resolved_, by the House of Deputies of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States of America, That a
memorial be presented to the Lambeth Conference at its second
session, expressing our cordial thanks for the action of its
first session in 1867, in which it enjoined upon us all the
promotion of unity ‘_by maintaining the faith in its purity and
integrity, as taught by the Holy Scriptures, held by the
primitive church, summed up in the creeds, and affirmed by the
undisputed general councils_’; and, in furtherance of the good
work thus recommended and enjoined, we humbly request the said
Lambeth Conference, by a joint commission of learned divines,
or otherwise, to provide for the setting forth of an accurate
and authentic version, in the English language, of the creeds
and the other acts of the said undisputed general councils
concerning the faith thus proclaimed by them, as the standards
of orthodox belief for the whole church.
“_Resolved, also_, That the House of Bishops be respectfully
requested to take order that this memorial shall be duly laid
before the next session of the Lambeth Conference by the hand
of such of its members as may be present thereat.”
The debate on this paper was somewhat amusing. It was pointed out that
rather serious consequences might follow the general dissemination of
“an accurate and authentic version, in the English language, of the
creeds and the other acts of the said undisputed general councils
concerning the faith”; and the awful question was asked, “Who is to
decide how many undisputed councils there have been?” But at last the
preamble and resolution were adopted, and we congratulate our
Protestant Episcopalian brethren upon that decision. Many of
them—clergymen as well as laymen—said they did not know what even the
first six œcumenical councils had decided. If they now acquire this
knowledge, they will learn enough to convince them that they are living
in heresy, and that their first duty is to seek for admission into the
church.
“The Church Congress,” which commenced its sessions in New York on the
30th of October and continued to sit for four days, was in some degree
a supplement to the “convention.” At the congress, however, nothing was
to be _done_; affairs were simply to be talked about. In four days much
can be said: the papers read and the speeches made before the Congress
will make a large volume when collected. A Catholic would arise from
their perusal with a feeling of profound melancholy. He would see the
blind leading the blind and tumbling into the ditch. In Protestantism
the opinion of one man is as good as that of another; views the most
discordant may be expressed on the same platform, and there is no
arbiter to pronounce with infallible voice what is truth. In the
congress, for instance, several of its clerical members took occasion
to lavish praises upon the Roman Catholic Church—one of them declared
that the true spirit of the Roman Catholic Church had always been
“tender, true, and noble”; another, a bishop, extolled the work of our
missionaries among the Indians, saying that they “had done the best
work,” and that their conduct was in glorious contrast with that of the
missionaries of the sects, who acted too often like “carpet-baggers.”
These declarations did not prevent other members when speaking from
indulging in bitter denunciations of “Romanism.” Bishop Potter, at the
opening of the congress, warned the members that they must not expect
to settle anything; the only good to be expected from their discussions
was such as might follow the interchange of opinion. A discussion on
church architecture was ended by a minister who said that churches
should be built wholly with respect to acoustics, and that the ideal
church would be a plain hall where the voice of the preacher could be
distinctly heard. The question of the relation of the church to the
state and to society was discussed at much length—some of the speakers
arguing for a union of church and state, and others advocating strict
abstinence on the part of the church from all political affairs. Bishop
Littlejohn, of Long Island, declared that
“The most urgent duty of the church to the nation was first to
vindicate its moral fitness to sway all in and around it. It
should show that its charter was divine. It should be able to
say to the grosser personality of the nation, ‘Come up higher;
this is the way, walk ye in it.’ The first duty of the church
to the national life was to put its own house in order. Again,
the church having elevated itself to the level whence it had a
right to teach and authority to guide, its habitual attention
should not be diverted from its great duties to society and to
the nation. The church’s best work was at the root and upon the
sap of the social tree of life, not with the withered and dead
branches. It was here that the church was to exercise its
highest functions upon society and upon the nation. Let it keep
before it that one of its highest duties was to show, both to
society and the individual, that they did not derive their
personality from each other, but from God. There was a warrant
for such teaching, for it rested upon a theological principle.
Humanity, in the genuine whole and in the individual man, had
its foundation in Christ, and, therefore, for each there was
infinite sacredness, even in Christ himself. But the church had
instructions for society, and especially for American society.
It had some teaching for those who in dreams and in revolutions
cried out for liberty, equality, and fraternity. By how many
was this cry raised, even to those who would have no sloping
sides, no top, but all bottom to the social pyramid! It seemed
that that was a cry which the church might answer. Liberty,
equality, fraternity! The land was full of false idols under
those names. The perversion was of man; the movement itself was
of God. The perversion could be brought about by forgetting the
movement itself. God in Christ not only willed that all men
should be free and equal, but he told them in what sense and
how they were to become so. It was by the ministry of the word,
not by the sword, not by the law, not by abstract speculation,
that man was to learn what these things were for which he so
thirsted. Modern society and the Gospel must be reconciled, and
to do this there was no competent authority except the church.”
Bishop Littlejohn, when speaking of “the church,” has in his mind his
own body. That society can never accomplish the work he points out; men
know that it has no authority to teach them, and those who speak in its
name speak with divided and inconsistent voices. The church of God,
however, can do this work and is doing it. She has no need “to
vindicate her moral fitness” or to “elevate herself to the level whence
she has a right to teach and authority to guide.” She had all this done
for her eighteen hundred years ago, when her divine charter was given
her. And that charter never has been and never will be revoked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE _CIVILTA CATTOLICA_ ON THE FORTIFICATIONS OF ROME.
There is no European periodical which treats of the great political
movements of the day with more complete knowledge and consummate
ability and sagacity than the _Civiltà Cattolica_, especially in
respect to all that has a bearing on the Roman question. In the number
of October 6 an article of great interest takes up the topic of the
fortifications around Rome and Civita Vecchia which have been ordered
by the Italian government, and casts some light on the motives which
have induced the persons at the head of Victor Emanuel’s administration
to adopt this extraordinary measure.
The pretext put forth, that it is necessary to protect Rome against
armed invasion by the reactionary party of the _clericals_, is so
ridiculous that it has deceived no one, but has excited the ridicule
even of the Italian liberals. But one probable and credible reason can
be given for an undertaking involving such a great expenditure at a
time when the finances of the state are in such a wretched condition.
This reason is that the measure has been undertaken by the dictation of
Bismarck, in virtue of a secret treaty between Prussia and Italy, and
in view of a proposed war of the two combined powers against France.
The Italian kingdom was set up, as is well known to all, by Napoleon
III. for the sake of using its alliance and employing its military
power to the advantage of the French Empire. The control of this
convenient instrument was, however, wrested from the unfortunate
emperor by his conqueror and destroyer, Bismarck, who has continued to
govern not only William and his empire, but Victor Emanuel and his
kingdom, to the great and increasing disgust of the majority of
Italians, including a large portion even of the liberals. The intention
of Bismarck to seize upon the speediest convenient opportunity of
making a new invasion of France has been too openly manifested to admit
of any doubt. The execution of this purpose has been delayed at the
instance of Russia, in order to leave that power more free and
unembarrassed for its great enterprise of destroying the Ottoman Empire
and taking possession of Constantinople. In the Bismarckian scheme the
war against the Papacy and the Catholic Church, against France and
Austria, is all one thing, with one motive and end—the exaltation of
the infidel Teutonic empire on the ruins of Latin Christianity and
civilization; and the possession of Constantinople by the Russians as
the capital of another great schismatical empire, dividing with Prussia
the hegemony of the world, harmonizes with this scheme, as planned long
ago by the two astute and powerful chancellors, Gortchakoff and
Bismarck.
The papers have been saying of late that Bismarck, whose ambitious mind
triumphs over the shattered nerves and dropsical body which seem soon
about to become the prey of dissolution, has been lately threatening
Europe with a general war for the coming vernal equinox. This means, of
course, that he is preparing an equinoctial storm of “blood and iron”
to mark for ever in history the close of his own career as the
beginning of a new European epoch. The sagacious writer in the
_Civiltà_ considers the order for fortifying Rome and Civita Vecchia as
a strong confirmation of the fact of a military alliance between the
anti-Christian government of Italy and the Bismarckian empire, and of
the probability of an approaching war by the two allied powers against
France. He prudently abstains from carrying his prognostics any
further, wittily observing that it would be proof of a scanty amount of
brains if he were to attempt anything of the kind. We can easily
understand that, for men writing and publishing in Florence, a certain
caution and reserve are necessary in the open, explicit expression of
the hopes and expectations which they know how to awaken in other minds
by a significant silence. Nevertheless, as we happily enjoy more
liberty of speech than is conceded to Italians when they happen to be
_clericals_, we will run the risk of passing for a man of “scarso
cervello,” and give utterance to a few of the conjectures which sprang
up in our own mind upon reading the remarks of our able contemporary.
Both the Bismarckian and the Cavourian political fabrics are in a
precarious condition. It is perhaps less desperate to undertake a
hazardous enterprise on the chance of success than to remain quiet with
the certainty of being swept away by the current of coming events.
Nevertheless, the ruin may be hastened, and even directly brought
about, by the very means which are used to avert the crisis, if the
undertaking is really desperate. Perhaps the _bête noir_ which harasses
the sleepless nights of the Prussian, which the servile Italian
minister threatens upon the people grumbling at their excessive
taxation, which the political apes of French radicalism pretend to
dread, may be the nightmare of a prophetic dream. As the unhappy
victims of a divine fate in the Greek tragedies accomplish the direful
woes foretold at their birth by the very means used to avert them, the
accomplices in the anti-Christian conspiracy may bring upon themselves
the catastrophe they seem to fear—a reactionary movement in which they
will be submerged. If Italy consents to incur the unknown risks of an
alliance with Prussia, and play the part of a subservient tool to the
insane ambition of Bismarck, one of the consequences may be that her
speedily and falsely constructed unity will be shattered. Russia is at
present too deeply engaged in her deadly struggle with Turkey to be
either a formidable ally or enemy to any other great power for some
time to come, even if she comes off victorious in the end. In respect
to Russia, Austria has now her favorable, perhaps her last, opportunity
to secure her own stability and equality by a repression of her other
antagonist, Prussia. An invasion of France makes Austria, with her army
of one million, the natural ally of France. There are urgent motives
which might draw England into the same coalition. And what is there
improbable in the conjecture that one of the great events in such a war
would be the occupation of the Pontifical States by the allied troops,
and the restoration of the pontifical sovereignty? If the Pope recovers
his royal capital well fortified, the advantage of the fortifications
will be his, and make him more secure in future against lawless
invasion of banditti.
We are not at all certain that a prospective triumph of Russia bodes so
much good to the party of anti-Christian revolution as many suppose.
The interest, the safety even, of that empire requires of her that she
should exert all her power, and co-operate with every other legitimate
power exerted in Europe, to put down Freemasonry and restore the
Christian political order in the civilized world. It is very probable
that when the European congress meets, after the present cycle of wars,
to pacificate Europe and readjust the equilibrium of nations, neither
Gortchakoff nor Bismarck will be numbered among living statesmen; and
that the catalogue of disasters by which the enemies of the Holy See
are punished will be so far completed for the present century, as to
serve a salutary purpose in warning and instructing the rising and
coming statesmen and sovereigns of Christendom.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SONNET.
There is a castle of most royal state,
Wherein no warder watches from the walls,
Nor groom nor squire abides in court or halls:
Silent are they, grass-grown and desolate.
A thousand steeds a thousand knights await,
Sleeping, all harnessed, in the marble halls
Until the Appointed One upon them calls,
Winding the horn that hangs beside the gate.
Then shall the doors fly open, and the steeds
Neigh, and the knights leap, shouting, to the selle,
And they shall follow him and do such deeds
All men must own him master. But the spell
Who knows not and, uncalled, essays the horn,
Falls at the fated doors and dies forlorn.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE IRISH HEDGE-POETS.
The music of the ancient Irish has been preserved because no
interpreter was needed to translate its beauties into another tongue.
The poetry which accompanied the music has well-nigh perished, and what
remains attracts but little attention. For this there are two reasons:
the students of Celtic literature have been few, and of those who have
endeavored to translate its poetry into English there are but one or
two who have succeeded in any fortunate degree in retaining the spirit
and beauty of the original. The best as well as earliest collection of
Irish poetry is Hardiman’s _Minstrelsy of Ireland_, but it is
accompanied by feeble and conventional translations. A literal
translation of the poetry would make this a most valuable collection
for the general reader; as it stands, it is only of worth to those who
can read the original Irish. Several other collections, smaller and of
less value, are in existence, but a real and full collection of Irish
poetry has yet to be made. We are aided in the present article by two
small volumes entitled _Munster Poetry_, collected by John O’Daly, a
well-known Dublin bookseller and antiquarian, and translated, the first
series by the unfortunate James Clarence Mangan, and the second by Dr.
George Sigurson. They do not attempt to deal with the general subject,
but only profess to be a collection of popular poetry current in
Munster from eighty to one hundred years ago, and composed by the last
of the Irish bards who sang in their native tongue, and were called
“hedge-poets.”
The race of bards or hedge-poets—whichever title may be preferred—who
sang in their native language virtually became extinct at the beginning
of the present century. The history of their lives, as well as most of
their poetry, exists only in tradition, and, but for a few incomplete
collections, would soon vanish for ever. It is not too late, however,
to form some picture of them, and the value of their poetry is such as
to make us deeply regret that no more has been preserved. And, even
without intrinsic merit, the national poetry of a people is always
worth preserving.
During the eighteenth century, as is well known, the Celtic Irish were
at a very low stage of political fortune. The entire subjugation of
Ireland, for the time, occurred at the battle of Limerick. The flower
of the army of Sarsfield followed its gallant leader to the plains of
Minden, and made the reputation of their race as soldiers under the
French banners. Those who remained in Ireland were crushed into outward
subjection. The tyranny of the conquerors, exasperated by the doubtful
and desperate struggle, placed no bounds to the humiliation which it
endeavored to inflict. The penal laws were cruel and barbarous beyond
those of any nation on record. All intellectual as well as religious
education was denied the Irish people, and it was only by stealth that
they could gratify their thirst for either.