dioceses still tenaciously clung to the old discipline. This long adherence to it in the north is chiefly to be ascribed to the great influence which the members of the Columbian order there possessed, and which they so long exerted for its preservation. We have already adverted to the devotion which these religious entertained for everything received from S. Patrick. This devotion, indeed, has ever been common to all the Catholics of Ireland with them, but it seems that at the time of which we speak, they felt it more intensely than the rest. Hence, when the change of the cycle was proposed to them, they at once declared against it. Even after the return of the deputies, who had been sent to Rome by the Synod of Old Leighlin, they still clung to the old system as much as ever. And they followed it not only at home, but wherever else they sojourned. We have already seen that the Irish monk Aidan, brought the Irish discipline into Northumbria. When it was resolved that the Roman method should be introduced there in its stead, Coleman, one of Aidan's successors in the see of Lindisfarne, retired thence to his monastery at Hy. These religious of the Columbian order were very numerous in the North of Ireland, where they were held in the highest estimation. This estimation for them was to be attributed partly to their venerated founder, and partly to their own acknowledged learning and sanctity. Now, when the rest of Ireland had set aside the old cycle, the members of the Columbian order used all their influence to have it retained in the north, and this. influence succeeded in causing it to be preserved there for nearly another century. An archbishop of Armagh, named Thomian, seeing the conflict of opinion which the controversy created, directed another letter to Rome on the subject. This letter was addressed to Pope Severinus, but, as he died soon after his election, he never received it. However, his successor, John IV., and the other heads of the Roman Church, forwarded an answer to the prelates of the north. This letter arrived in Ireland, A.D. 640. Besides referring to other things, it exhorted them to adopt the new cycle without delay. Notwithstanding this document, the old practice of celebrating Easter was generally adhered to in the northern province of Ireland until the year 704. At that time the celebrated Adamum of Hy, acknowledged the Roman cycle, and by his influence caused it to be shortly afterwards acknowledged throughout the whole north of Ireland. The method of counting the cycle thus adopted, has ever since been persevered in as well in the north as in every other part of the country.

This brief explanation, which we have given of the nature

of the Paschal question and of the controversies about it in Ireland, leaves to us little more to say on the subject. The purport of our paper was to confute the assertion that the time for celebrating Easter was the same with the early Irish and with the early Christians of Asia Minor. We thought we could best do so by giving a short sketch of the whole subject, and after this we do not see the necessity of further argument. It is as clear as any historical fact can be, that the disciplines in Ireland and the east were totally different. The great point of diversity between them was that the easterns used always celebrate the festival on the fourteenth day of the month, no matter whether that day were Sunday or not, whilst the Irish used never celebrate it except on a Sunday. There was, therefore, an essential point of difference between the two disciplines, and this difference arose from the fact that the two peoples deliberately adopted different rules for regulating the time of the celebration. The easterns looked to the fourteenth day of the month as the proper day on which to celebrate the festival: the Irish looked to the Sunday on which their national apostle directed them to celebrate it. We see, therefore, that there is not the slightest foundation for the Protestant assertion, that the time of the celebration of the Pasch was the same with the early Irish and with the early Christians of the east.

The Paschal controversy, far from being an argument against the communion of the early Irish Church with the See of Rome, supplies a very strong argument in its favour. We have seen the resistance which the clergy and people of the country made herein in a mere matter of discipline, because they considered it in opposition to the discipline brought to them by S. Patrick. So attached were they to everything delivered to them by their beloved apostle, that they for a long time resisted the new cycle, which the rest of the church had adopted, and which reason must have taught them to be the more correct. What, then, would have been the opposition if anything contrary to his instructions in faith or morals had been introduced? In such an event the voice of reclamation would have been heard from one end to the other of the land; the new doctrine would have been denounced in the strongest terms and scouted with universal resent. But we have never heard of any such reclamation. The only words addressed by Ireland to Rome that have ever been heard of, are words of unshaken loyalty and love. No doctrines, therefore, have ever been imported thence which are not in perfect accord with those delivered to us by S. Patrick.

In concluding this paper, we shall briefly advert to the differ

1

ent lights in which the Irish and the eastern customs of celebrating Easter were viewed by the Apostolic See. The Roman Pontiffs, from the beginning, looked upon the eastern practice with the greatest suspicion, while they regarded that of the Irish without distrust. The reason is obvious. One of the greatest struggles which the early church had to sustain was in combating Judaism. It was with extreme difficulty the first Jewish converts could comprehend why they were to give up the time-honoured customs of their country. The Mosaic rites and ceremonies were fixed in their minds as almost essential elements of true religion. Hence they made unceasing efforts to preserve them in conjunction with the ordinances of the new dispensation. The church, of course, was opposed to such practices, and made every prudent effort to eliminate them. Now the eastern custom of celebrating Easter strongly savoured of Judaism; and hence we see why it was always looked upon with such suspicion, and why its advocates were ultimately separated from the church. Far different was the discipline of the early Irish Christians. It savoured of nothing but of veneration for the great apostle who brought it into the country. The Roman Pontiffs, therefore, were not disturbed about it; their letters to the Irish prelates on the subject were only mild remonstrances to bring about the sooner that uniformity of discipline which they well knew would come in the course of time. And, in truth, there was no cause for uneasiness. Even at the period of which we speak, our national church had given ample proofs of her regard for the Roman See. If the light of after ages could have been cast before, the value of this early devotion would have been infinitely enhanced. Fidelity to the faith delivered to her by Patrick is the one thing that has remained unchanged mid all the changes of Ireland's chequered history. This fidelity has been manifested in many a form, but in no way more strongly than in devotion to the successors of him from whom Patrick received his mission.

J. C.

459

CORRESPONDENCE.

THE KENMARE JUBILEE MANUAL."

[In the early part of this month we received a letter from Sister M. F. Clare complaining of a criticism on her "Jubilee Manual" which appeared in the last issue of the RECORD. As there was nothing in the criticism referred to of which we did not fully approve we could not withdraw it; neither could we for reasons we have explained to Sister M. F. Clare publish in its original form the letter she sent us. Being desirous, however, of affording her the earliest opportunity of replying to the criticism complained of, we determined to delay the appearance of the present number till we should receive her answer. The answer came to us on Wednesday, July 21st.—ED.]

To the Editor of the IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

DEAR REV. SIR,

My attention has been called to some remarks in your June number on my little Book for the Jubilee.1 You have made a very grave charge against me as a writer, which I would hope, for many reasons, was not well weighed before it was written. You commence by showing the danger that arises from the compilation of "books of devotion by incompetent persons," and you immediately after select my little book as an instance in point. Personally, I admit my incompetence; but, as regards the "responsibility attached to such publications," I had so very serious a sense of it, that when the work had been carefully revised by the Very Rev. Dr. M'Carthy, Vice-President of St. Patrick's College, Maynooth, whose name and authority as a theologian will scarcely be questioned, I asked and obtained the favour of a further revision from the Most Rev. Dr. Moriarty, whose name alone should shield the work from such peculiar and hard criticism.

You will, at least, admit that I was not ignorant of my responsibility, and that I took every precaution, and extraordinary precaution, as it happened, to secure even verbal accuracy. It was precisely because of my deep sense of responsibility, hearing that our little publications have had so very large a circulation, that I took more than ordinary pains to secure that both the moral and dogmatic theology of the little book should be accurate.

Your charges, apart from assertions of my incompetency, and doubts if I have considered my responsibility, which I pass over, resolve themselves into two. As I am not competent to enter into a theological discussion, I append the reply of the eminent and professional theologian who has been

1 "Instructions and Devotions for the Jubilee." By Sister M. F. Clare.

appointed by the bishop of this diocese to revise my works. The same opinion was expressed fully by the Right Rev. Dr. Moriarty at the Diocesan Synod.

"Your book of Devotions for the Jubilee had the solemn Imprimatur of the most learned bishop in the Irish Church; and this circumstance of itself should have restrained your

censors.

"Their charges against you are two-First: That one sentence in the Summary of Contents is unmeaning, because there is reference to the above intention, whereas, in the preceding paragraph, there is no reference, direct or indirect, to any intention whatever. That is so, simply because the summary was, by mistake of the binder, put at the beginning

instead of the end of the book.

"The error is an obvious one, just as venal is a misprint for venial. I wonder why your censor did not say the printer's mistake did not expose the pious reader to the risk of losing the benefits of the Jubilee.

"Are there no errors-no misprints-in the RECORD over the signature of your censor or his colleagues?

"The second charge is a grave one, very grave, indeed, if unjust.

"Your censor says: 'In the same "Manual" certain forms of prayer for the intentions of the Jubilee are set forth, apparently transcribed from some work published on the occasion of a former Jubilee, but, at all events, so plainly at variance with the provisions of the Encyclical gravibus Ecclesiae, that they are altogether unsuited for the present occasion.'

"The writer then specifies one great defect. Instead of a prayer for the peace and prosperity of the whole Christian people, we find two distinct prayers for all Christian kings and princes, which, as is obvious from what has been stated at the commencement of this paper, however edifying they may be, are not in conformity with the provisions of the Encyclical.' His Holiness requires the faithful to pray for the prosperity and exaltation of the Catholic Church and the Apostolic See, for the destruction of heresy, for the conversion of all that err, for the peace and unity of the whole Christian people, and for his intention-pro Catholicae Ecclesiae et hujus Apostolicae sedis prosperitate et exaltatione, pro extirpatione haeresum, omniumque errantium conversione, pro totius populi Christiani pace ac unitate ac juxta mentem nostram.' You have in your little book an explicit prayer (1) for the Holy Catholic Church, p. 51; (2) for the conversion of heretics, of apostates, of all who have strayed from God's holy Church, and for all the faithful, living and dead; (3) for all Christian kings and princes,