Liturgical Questions.We purpose in this number of theRecordto answer a few practical questions connected with the office of the dead, which have been forwarded to us:1. Is it proper for the president of the choir to wear the alb and cincture during the recitation of the office of the dead—the matins and lauds?2. Should he wear stole and cope, or either?3. Is it correct to say the Requiem aeternam after the prayer at lauds when the Mass follows?4. is it proper for the priest who presides in the choir to perform the absolution after Mass?1. It is not proper for the president of the choir to wear the alb and cincture at matins and lauds. There is a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites which appears to bear on this subject.The question proposed was:“Dubium LXI. Juxta Rituale, dum in officio dicuntur laudes: sacerdos cum ministris paratur ad celebrandam missam solemnem pro defuncto. Exinde autem oriuntur dubia de modo concludendi laudes: nempe 1oUbi sunt duo vel plures Presbyteri, alius debetne concludere Laudes dum celebrans qui officium inchoavit paratur in sacristia? 2. Ubi unicus est Presbyter debetne iste relinquere officium Laudum sine Praeside et adire sacristiam ut paretur ad missam et deinde opportuno tempore redire in Chorum, vel ante Altare, alba, cingulo, et stola indutus ut concludat Laudes?“Ad LXI. Affirmative ad primam partem. Quoad secundam debet concludere laudes et postea sacristiam petere ut sese vestiat pro Missae celebratione. Die 12 Augusti, 1864”.It is evident from this decree that the vestments are not to be worn at the office of the dead, for they are not allowed even in a case which would appear one of necessity, viz.: when there is only one priest present, and when some delay must necessarily occur between the office and the mass, if the celebrant must wait to say the prayer at the end of Lauds before he puts on the vestments. If in such an extreme case, when there arises some delay between the office and mass, which is most objectionable and always to be avoided in ceremonies, the alb and cincture cannot be worn, they cannot surely be used on ordinary occasions when such necessity does not exist.2. With regard to the second question, the Roman Ritual does not prescribe even the use of a stole or of a cope, as far as we are aware, and we think that the practice of not wearing one or the other at the office is the most correct and to be recommended,[pg 501]though we are well aware that the contrary practice is adopted by many. The Roman Ritual, treating of the procession in which the remains are carried to the church, has the following words:“Parochus indutus superpelliceo et stola nigra vel pluvali ejusdem coloris, clerico praeferente crucem et alio aquam benedictam ad domum defuncti una cum aliis procedit”.But these words do not apply to the office. The Caeremoniale Episcoporum, treating of the ceremony on All Souls' Day, does make mention of the stole and cope (book ii., chap. 10, n. 10):“Haec ut dixi servantur si ipse episcopus sit in his vesperis aut matutinis officium facturus; sin minus posset manere cum cappa in choro in loco suo et Canonicus hebdomadarius paratus pluviali nigro supra Rocchetum vel cottam aut saltem stola nigra faceret aut diceret omnia praedicta”.The words of theCaeremonialegave rise to the following question proposed to the Sacred Congregation of Rites:“An in officio defunctorum celebrans inducre debeat stolam vel saltem possit, uti erui posse videtur ex Caeremoniali lib 2o. cap. 10.“Resp.Negative extra casum in caeremoniali contemplatum. 7 Septembris, 1850”.There is another decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites referring to this matter:—“Dubium LVIII. An sacerdos qui juxta Rituale, superpelliceo et stola indutus praefuit clationi corporis debeat retinere stolam dum praeest matutino et Laudibus quae immediate sequuntur? Saltem si in hac Functione utatur Pluviali, quum in eo casu non possit deponere stolam quin per aliquantis Pluviale exuat?“Ad LVIII. In utroque casu licere. Die 12 Augusti, 1864”.We may observe that a direct answer is not given to the question, which was proposed with the view of ascertaining what should be done in two special cases, and the only answer given was“in utroque casu licere”. Hence a priest might wear the stole and cope, but should he not do so, he would not follow a course at variance with this decree. No doubt, in some rubrical works, express mention is made of the stole and cope, and still more frequently of one or the other; but the Roman Ritual, as we said, does not prescribe either at the office of the dead, and when their use is pointed out, it generally refers to the cathedral churches, where the ceremonies are carried out with greater pomp and solemnity, than in those rural churches to which our correspondent refers. We may also observe that the decree above quoted, does not contemplate the use of the stole and cope apart from the procession. On the whole, considering the circumstances of our churches, we would in practice[pg 502]dispense with stole and cope at the office, while we would be slow to condemn the use of the cope, if such a custom existed in any church that in other respects carried out the ceremonies of the Church with accuracy and decorum. But we consider that the decree of 7th September, 1850, above quoted, clearly lays down that the stole ought not to be used, though we find it more frequently used on such occasions than the cope, on the ground, perhaps, that it is an emblem of jurisdiction in the person who presides.3. In reply to the third question, we beg to say that the Mass should commence immediately at the end of the lauds, which terminate with the prayer, and after the prayer, the Requiem aeternam, etc., and Requiescant in pace should not be said: it is only when the ceremony concludes that these are to be said.“In fine Laudum dicta oratione, non adduntur versus Requiem aeternam, nec Requiescant, sive sequatur Missa sive hac omissa statim procedatur ad absolutionem, quia hi versus, qui deserviunt in ultimum vale defunctis, sunt in fine precum reservandi”.64The prayer at the end of Lauds on such occasions should be said cum conclusione brevi. We give the following extracts from Cavalieri, a distinguished rubricist, who writes, in tom. 3, cap. 2, decr. 16, n. 13:—“In Rituali oratio poniturcum conclusione brevi, sed hoc ideo, quia supponit, quod non ibi terminetur officium, sed continenti filo pergatur ad exequias: quare ut ponatur concordia Rituals inter et Breviarium, quod longiorem notat conclusionem, concludendi orationes haec erit regula; quoties una tantum dicitur oratio, et ibi terminatur officium, conclusio sit integra; brevis vero quando sequantur exequiae, seu absolutio ab tumulum, sive haec fiant praesente vel absente corpore sive diebus 3. 7. 30., anniversario, vel alio officio quolibet. Confirmatur ex Rubricis Breviarii Romani trium Ordinum S. Francisci, quae approbatae fuerunt a Pio VI. an. 1785. In die Commemor. omnium Fidelium Def. additur haec annotatio:Conclusiones (orationum in officio pro defunct.) longiores adhibentur semper, quando unica dicitur oratio; nisi statim sequatur Missa de Requiem, vel absolutio ad tumulum; tunc enim dicitur conclusio brevis.“(2) Cavalieri,ib. n.14. quia Rituale, terminata oratione sub brevi conclusione, non subdit versiculosRequiem aeternam, sed statim transit ad Missam, et quatenus haec non sit dicenda, ad orationemNon intres, nec dubitamus, quod praedicti versiculi taceri debeant, quoties post Defunctorum officium sequitur Missa de requiem, aut absolutio ad tumulum. Tunc enim ex hujusmodi officiis fit unum veluti continuatum, unde versus illi, qui deserviunt ad dandum ultimum vale Defunctis, sunt in fine precum reservandi. Huic doctrinae conformis[pg 503]est praescriptio Rubricarum in praedicto Breviario Fr. S. Francisci. Loco cit. dicitur:Duo autem Versiculi (Requiem aeternam, et Requiescant) post orationem omittuntur, si statim sequatur Missa de Requiem, vel Absolutio ad tumulum”.With regard to the fourth question the Roman ritual is quite clear.“Finita Missa sacerdos deposita casula seu planeta et manipulo accipit pluviale nigri coloris”.... It is always laid down that the celebrant of the Mass, unless the bishop be present, performs this part of the ceremony. TheCaeremoniale Episcoporum, cap. 37, lib. 2o, has the following words, which we here quote:—“Aliquo die non impedito infra octavam Defunctorum arbitrio Episcopi, Canonicus aliquis, seu dignitas Ecclesiae Cathedralis celebrabit Missam pro animabus omnium Episcoporum et Ecclesiae Cathedralis Canonicorum defunctorum cum paramentis nigris et caeremoniis prout supra dictum est, cui Missae Episcopus praesens erit cum cappa et in fine si voluerit, poterit, immo debebit deposita cappa et accepto pluviali absolvere, prout dicitur capite praecedenti.“Quod si Episcopus hujusmodi Missae praesens non erit, vel absolvere nequiverit, celebrans finita Missa, accedet ad cornu Epistolae altaris, ubi in plano, deposita planeta et manipulo accipiet pluviale nigrum et stans in dicto cornu Epistolae versus ad altare expectabit finem responsorii”....It is evident from all this what answer is to be given to the fourth question, viz.: that in all cases the celebrant, and no other priest, should give the absolution when the bishop is not present.Notices Of Books.Adjamenta Oratoris Sacri, seu, Divisiones, Sententiae, et Documenta de iis Christianae vitae veritatibus et officiis, quae frequentius e sacro pulpito proponenda sunt, collecta atque ordine digesta opera Francisci Xaverii Schouppe, S.J. Brussels, Goemare, pp. 543. 1865.From the materials here collected and prepared by Father Schouppe, the preacher may build his discourse with ease and advantage. And yet, though the materials are placed ready to his hand, the work will still be all his own. The author does not undertake to supersede labour, but to lighten the preacher's fatigue by lending his friendly help. He supplies matter for the discourse, he even traces the outline of its form, and then leaves to the preacher himself the task of construction. In the opening pages he addresses himself to the question,how is a priest, especially a young priest, to render himself a useful and even a perfect preacher of the Word of God?In[pg 504]answer to this question, he touches in a masterly way on these two points, 1. What is a preacher of the Gospel, and what is the perfection that belongs to him? 2. By what process may a preacher attain to this perfection? Part of this process consists, of course, in the preparation of the sermon, and it is to facilitate this preparation that the work before us has been compiled. The author reduces to fifty heads the entire cycle of subjects suited for pastoral exhortation, embracing in this number whatever can serve to bring the sinner to justification, to guide him in the path of a Christian life, and to conduct him to Heaven. He gives on each of these fifty subjects a treatise which is a marvel of brevity and fulness. So judicious is the arrangement of the texts bearing on the subject; so clear and full the statement of the case; so simple the division of the arguments, that each of these little treatises makes the reader complete master of the subject of which it treats. On the more important subjects, and on those which require more frequent handling, the author supplies many and different divisions or outlines of sermons, thus guarding against the monotony that arises when a subject is presented often under the same form. One other merit we would signalise in this work. It deals with the wants, defects, and vices of the men of our own times. The books of sermons which are to be found on the shelves of the clergy generally belong to an extinct period; the exhortations they contain are coloured by circumstances that have long ceased to exist. Modern modes of thought, modern manners, modern literature, have given rise to a peculiar class of temptations and of dangers, and as these differ quite from those of a century ago, so also do they demand peculiar treatment and special remedies.Father Schouppe has not forgotten this, and takes care to grapple with the difficulties that beset the Christian life of the nineteenth century. Two indexes close the volume. One exhibits a general synopsis of the contents; the other refers to the various passages whence materials may be drawn for a sermon appropriate to the gospel of each Sunday and holiday in the year. Both indexes enhance the practical value of this excellent book, which we do not hesitate to call a real boon for the clergy.The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland.By John P. Prendergast, Esq. London: Longmans, 1865.This is a valuable accession to Irish history. It gives an account of the cruelties practised on our people in the Cromwellian Confiscations. It confirms, from official sources, the painful details contained in Dr. Moran's lately published sketch of the persecutions of the Irish Catholics in the seventeenth century. The Irish land question cannot be well understood without the aid of Mr. Prendergast's excellent book.
Liturgical Questions.We purpose in this number of theRecordto answer a few practical questions connected with the office of the dead, which have been forwarded to us:1. Is it proper for the president of the choir to wear the alb and cincture during the recitation of the office of the dead—the matins and lauds?2. Should he wear stole and cope, or either?3. Is it correct to say the Requiem aeternam after the prayer at lauds when the Mass follows?4. is it proper for the priest who presides in the choir to perform the absolution after Mass?1. It is not proper for the president of the choir to wear the alb and cincture at matins and lauds. There is a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites which appears to bear on this subject.The question proposed was:“Dubium LXI. Juxta Rituale, dum in officio dicuntur laudes: sacerdos cum ministris paratur ad celebrandam missam solemnem pro defuncto. Exinde autem oriuntur dubia de modo concludendi laudes: nempe 1oUbi sunt duo vel plures Presbyteri, alius debetne concludere Laudes dum celebrans qui officium inchoavit paratur in sacristia? 2. Ubi unicus est Presbyter debetne iste relinquere officium Laudum sine Praeside et adire sacristiam ut paretur ad missam et deinde opportuno tempore redire in Chorum, vel ante Altare, alba, cingulo, et stola indutus ut concludat Laudes?“Ad LXI. Affirmative ad primam partem. Quoad secundam debet concludere laudes et postea sacristiam petere ut sese vestiat pro Missae celebratione. Die 12 Augusti, 1864”.It is evident from this decree that the vestments are not to be worn at the office of the dead, for they are not allowed even in a case which would appear one of necessity, viz.: when there is only one priest present, and when some delay must necessarily occur between the office and the mass, if the celebrant must wait to say the prayer at the end of Lauds before he puts on the vestments. If in such an extreme case, when there arises some delay between the office and mass, which is most objectionable and always to be avoided in ceremonies, the alb and cincture cannot be worn, they cannot surely be used on ordinary occasions when such necessity does not exist.2. With regard to the second question, the Roman Ritual does not prescribe even the use of a stole or of a cope, as far as we are aware, and we think that the practice of not wearing one or the other at the office is the most correct and to be recommended,[pg 501]though we are well aware that the contrary practice is adopted by many. The Roman Ritual, treating of the procession in which the remains are carried to the church, has the following words:“Parochus indutus superpelliceo et stola nigra vel pluvali ejusdem coloris, clerico praeferente crucem et alio aquam benedictam ad domum defuncti una cum aliis procedit”.But these words do not apply to the office. The Caeremoniale Episcoporum, treating of the ceremony on All Souls' Day, does make mention of the stole and cope (book ii., chap. 10, n. 10):“Haec ut dixi servantur si ipse episcopus sit in his vesperis aut matutinis officium facturus; sin minus posset manere cum cappa in choro in loco suo et Canonicus hebdomadarius paratus pluviali nigro supra Rocchetum vel cottam aut saltem stola nigra faceret aut diceret omnia praedicta”.The words of theCaeremonialegave rise to the following question proposed to the Sacred Congregation of Rites:“An in officio defunctorum celebrans inducre debeat stolam vel saltem possit, uti erui posse videtur ex Caeremoniali lib 2o. cap. 10.“Resp.Negative extra casum in caeremoniali contemplatum. 7 Septembris, 1850”.There is another decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites referring to this matter:—“Dubium LVIII. An sacerdos qui juxta Rituale, superpelliceo et stola indutus praefuit clationi corporis debeat retinere stolam dum praeest matutino et Laudibus quae immediate sequuntur? Saltem si in hac Functione utatur Pluviali, quum in eo casu non possit deponere stolam quin per aliquantis Pluviale exuat?“Ad LVIII. In utroque casu licere. Die 12 Augusti, 1864”.We may observe that a direct answer is not given to the question, which was proposed with the view of ascertaining what should be done in two special cases, and the only answer given was“in utroque casu licere”. Hence a priest might wear the stole and cope, but should he not do so, he would not follow a course at variance with this decree. No doubt, in some rubrical works, express mention is made of the stole and cope, and still more frequently of one or the other; but the Roman Ritual, as we said, does not prescribe either at the office of the dead, and when their use is pointed out, it generally refers to the cathedral churches, where the ceremonies are carried out with greater pomp and solemnity, than in those rural churches to which our correspondent refers. We may also observe that the decree above quoted, does not contemplate the use of the stole and cope apart from the procession. On the whole, considering the circumstances of our churches, we would in practice[pg 502]dispense with stole and cope at the office, while we would be slow to condemn the use of the cope, if such a custom existed in any church that in other respects carried out the ceremonies of the Church with accuracy and decorum. But we consider that the decree of 7th September, 1850, above quoted, clearly lays down that the stole ought not to be used, though we find it more frequently used on such occasions than the cope, on the ground, perhaps, that it is an emblem of jurisdiction in the person who presides.3. In reply to the third question, we beg to say that the Mass should commence immediately at the end of the lauds, which terminate with the prayer, and after the prayer, the Requiem aeternam, etc., and Requiescant in pace should not be said: it is only when the ceremony concludes that these are to be said.“In fine Laudum dicta oratione, non adduntur versus Requiem aeternam, nec Requiescant, sive sequatur Missa sive hac omissa statim procedatur ad absolutionem, quia hi versus, qui deserviunt in ultimum vale defunctis, sunt in fine precum reservandi”.64The prayer at the end of Lauds on such occasions should be said cum conclusione brevi. We give the following extracts from Cavalieri, a distinguished rubricist, who writes, in tom. 3, cap. 2, decr. 16, n. 13:—“In Rituali oratio poniturcum conclusione brevi, sed hoc ideo, quia supponit, quod non ibi terminetur officium, sed continenti filo pergatur ad exequias: quare ut ponatur concordia Rituals inter et Breviarium, quod longiorem notat conclusionem, concludendi orationes haec erit regula; quoties una tantum dicitur oratio, et ibi terminatur officium, conclusio sit integra; brevis vero quando sequantur exequiae, seu absolutio ab tumulum, sive haec fiant praesente vel absente corpore sive diebus 3. 7. 30., anniversario, vel alio officio quolibet. Confirmatur ex Rubricis Breviarii Romani trium Ordinum S. Francisci, quae approbatae fuerunt a Pio VI. an. 1785. In die Commemor. omnium Fidelium Def. additur haec annotatio:Conclusiones (orationum in officio pro defunct.) longiores adhibentur semper, quando unica dicitur oratio; nisi statim sequatur Missa de Requiem, vel absolutio ad tumulum; tunc enim dicitur conclusio brevis.“(2) Cavalieri,ib. n.14. quia Rituale, terminata oratione sub brevi conclusione, non subdit versiculosRequiem aeternam, sed statim transit ad Missam, et quatenus haec non sit dicenda, ad orationemNon intres, nec dubitamus, quod praedicti versiculi taceri debeant, quoties post Defunctorum officium sequitur Missa de requiem, aut absolutio ad tumulum. Tunc enim ex hujusmodi officiis fit unum veluti continuatum, unde versus illi, qui deserviunt ad dandum ultimum vale Defunctis, sunt in fine precum reservandi. Huic doctrinae conformis[pg 503]est praescriptio Rubricarum in praedicto Breviario Fr. S. Francisci. Loco cit. dicitur:Duo autem Versiculi (Requiem aeternam, et Requiescant) post orationem omittuntur, si statim sequatur Missa de Requiem, vel Absolutio ad tumulum”.With regard to the fourth question the Roman ritual is quite clear.“Finita Missa sacerdos deposita casula seu planeta et manipulo accipit pluviale nigri coloris”.... It is always laid down that the celebrant of the Mass, unless the bishop be present, performs this part of the ceremony. TheCaeremoniale Episcoporum, cap. 37, lib. 2o, has the following words, which we here quote:—“Aliquo die non impedito infra octavam Defunctorum arbitrio Episcopi, Canonicus aliquis, seu dignitas Ecclesiae Cathedralis celebrabit Missam pro animabus omnium Episcoporum et Ecclesiae Cathedralis Canonicorum defunctorum cum paramentis nigris et caeremoniis prout supra dictum est, cui Missae Episcopus praesens erit cum cappa et in fine si voluerit, poterit, immo debebit deposita cappa et accepto pluviali absolvere, prout dicitur capite praecedenti.“Quod si Episcopus hujusmodi Missae praesens non erit, vel absolvere nequiverit, celebrans finita Missa, accedet ad cornu Epistolae altaris, ubi in plano, deposita planeta et manipulo accipiet pluviale nigrum et stans in dicto cornu Epistolae versus ad altare expectabit finem responsorii”....It is evident from all this what answer is to be given to the fourth question, viz.: that in all cases the celebrant, and no other priest, should give the absolution when the bishop is not present.Notices Of Books.Adjamenta Oratoris Sacri, seu, Divisiones, Sententiae, et Documenta de iis Christianae vitae veritatibus et officiis, quae frequentius e sacro pulpito proponenda sunt, collecta atque ordine digesta opera Francisci Xaverii Schouppe, S.J. Brussels, Goemare, pp. 543. 1865.From the materials here collected and prepared by Father Schouppe, the preacher may build his discourse with ease and advantage. And yet, though the materials are placed ready to his hand, the work will still be all his own. The author does not undertake to supersede labour, but to lighten the preacher's fatigue by lending his friendly help. He supplies matter for the discourse, he even traces the outline of its form, and then leaves to the preacher himself the task of construction. In the opening pages he addresses himself to the question,how is a priest, especially a young priest, to render himself a useful and even a perfect preacher of the Word of God?In[pg 504]answer to this question, he touches in a masterly way on these two points, 1. What is a preacher of the Gospel, and what is the perfection that belongs to him? 2. By what process may a preacher attain to this perfection? Part of this process consists, of course, in the preparation of the sermon, and it is to facilitate this preparation that the work before us has been compiled. The author reduces to fifty heads the entire cycle of subjects suited for pastoral exhortation, embracing in this number whatever can serve to bring the sinner to justification, to guide him in the path of a Christian life, and to conduct him to Heaven. He gives on each of these fifty subjects a treatise which is a marvel of brevity and fulness. So judicious is the arrangement of the texts bearing on the subject; so clear and full the statement of the case; so simple the division of the arguments, that each of these little treatises makes the reader complete master of the subject of which it treats. On the more important subjects, and on those which require more frequent handling, the author supplies many and different divisions or outlines of sermons, thus guarding against the monotony that arises when a subject is presented often under the same form. One other merit we would signalise in this work. It deals with the wants, defects, and vices of the men of our own times. The books of sermons which are to be found on the shelves of the clergy generally belong to an extinct period; the exhortations they contain are coloured by circumstances that have long ceased to exist. Modern modes of thought, modern manners, modern literature, have given rise to a peculiar class of temptations and of dangers, and as these differ quite from those of a century ago, so also do they demand peculiar treatment and special remedies.Father Schouppe has not forgotten this, and takes care to grapple with the difficulties that beset the Christian life of the nineteenth century. Two indexes close the volume. One exhibits a general synopsis of the contents; the other refers to the various passages whence materials may be drawn for a sermon appropriate to the gospel of each Sunday and holiday in the year. Both indexes enhance the practical value of this excellent book, which we do not hesitate to call a real boon for the clergy.The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland.By John P. Prendergast, Esq. London: Longmans, 1865.This is a valuable accession to Irish history. It gives an account of the cruelties practised on our people in the Cromwellian Confiscations. It confirms, from official sources, the painful details contained in Dr. Moran's lately published sketch of the persecutions of the Irish Catholics in the seventeenth century. The Irish land question cannot be well understood without the aid of Mr. Prendergast's excellent book.
Liturgical Questions.We purpose in this number of theRecordto answer a few practical questions connected with the office of the dead, which have been forwarded to us:1. Is it proper for the president of the choir to wear the alb and cincture during the recitation of the office of the dead—the matins and lauds?2. Should he wear stole and cope, or either?3. Is it correct to say the Requiem aeternam after the prayer at lauds when the Mass follows?4. is it proper for the priest who presides in the choir to perform the absolution after Mass?1. It is not proper for the president of the choir to wear the alb and cincture at matins and lauds. There is a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites which appears to bear on this subject.The question proposed was:“Dubium LXI. Juxta Rituale, dum in officio dicuntur laudes: sacerdos cum ministris paratur ad celebrandam missam solemnem pro defuncto. Exinde autem oriuntur dubia de modo concludendi laudes: nempe 1oUbi sunt duo vel plures Presbyteri, alius debetne concludere Laudes dum celebrans qui officium inchoavit paratur in sacristia? 2. Ubi unicus est Presbyter debetne iste relinquere officium Laudum sine Praeside et adire sacristiam ut paretur ad missam et deinde opportuno tempore redire in Chorum, vel ante Altare, alba, cingulo, et stola indutus ut concludat Laudes?“Ad LXI. Affirmative ad primam partem. Quoad secundam debet concludere laudes et postea sacristiam petere ut sese vestiat pro Missae celebratione. Die 12 Augusti, 1864”.It is evident from this decree that the vestments are not to be worn at the office of the dead, for they are not allowed even in a case which would appear one of necessity, viz.: when there is only one priest present, and when some delay must necessarily occur between the office and the mass, if the celebrant must wait to say the prayer at the end of Lauds before he puts on the vestments. If in such an extreme case, when there arises some delay between the office and mass, which is most objectionable and always to be avoided in ceremonies, the alb and cincture cannot be worn, they cannot surely be used on ordinary occasions when such necessity does not exist.2. With regard to the second question, the Roman Ritual does not prescribe even the use of a stole or of a cope, as far as we are aware, and we think that the practice of not wearing one or the other at the office is the most correct and to be recommended,[pg 501]though we are well aware that the contrary practice is adopted by many. The Roman Ritual, treating of the procession in which the remains are carried to the church, has the following words:“Parochus indutus superpelliceo et stola nigra vel pluvali ejusdem coloris, clerico praeferente crucem et alio aquam benedictam ad domum defuncti una cum aliis procedit”.But these words do not apply to the office. The Caeremoniale Episcoporum, treating of the ceremony on All Souls' Day, does make mention of the stole and cope (book ii., chap. 10, n. 10):“Haec ut dixi servantur si ipse episcopus sit in his vesperis aut matutinis officium facturus; sin minus posset manere cum cappa in choro in loco suo et Canonicus hebdomadarius paratus pluviali nigro supra Rocchetum vel cottam aut saltem stola nigra faceret aut diceret omnia praedicta”.The words of theCaeremonialegave rise to the following question proposed to the Sacred Congregation of Rites:“An in officio defunctorum celebrans inducre debeat stolam vel saltem possit, uti erui posse videtur ex Caeremoniali lib 2o. cap. 10.“Resp.Negative extra casum in caeremoniali contemplatum. 7 Septembris, 1850”.There is another decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites referring to this matter:—“Dubium LVIII. An sacerdos qui juxta Rituale, superpelliceo et stola indutus praefuit clationi corporis debeat retinere stolam dum praeest matutino et Laudibus quae immediate sequuntur? Saltem si in hac Functione utatur Pluviali, quum in eo casu non possit deponere stolam quin per aliquantis Pluviale exuat?“Ad LVIII. In utroque casu licere. Die 12 Augusti, 1864”.We may observe that a direct answer is not given to the question, which was proposed with the view of ascertaining what should be done in two special cases, and the only answer given was“in utroque casu licere”. Hence a priest might wear the stole and cope, but should he not do so, he would not follow a course at variance with this decree. No doubt, in some rubrical works, express mention is made of the stole and cope, and still more frequently of one or the other; but the Roman Ritual, as we said, does not prescribe either at the office of the dead, and when their use is pointed out, it generally refers to the cathedral churches, where the ceremonies are carried out with greater pomp and solemnity, than in those rural churches to which our correspondent refers. We may also observe that the decree above quoted, does not contemplate the use of the stole and cope apart from the procession. On the whole, considering the circumstances of our churches, we would in practice[pg 502]dispense with stole and cope at the office, while we would be slow to condemn the use of the cope, if such a custom existed in any church that in other respects carried out the ceremonies of the Church with accuracy and decorum. But we consider that the decree of 7th September, 1850, above quoted, clearly lays down that the stole ought not to be used, though we find it more frequently used on such occasions than the cope, on the ground, perhaps, that it is an emblem of jurisdiction in the person who presides.3. In reply to the third question, we beg to say that the Mass should commence immediately at the end of the lauds, which terminate with the prayer, and after the prayer, the Requiem aeternam, etc., and Requiescant in pace should not be said: it is only when the ceremony concludes that these are to be said.“In fine Laudum dicta oratione, non adduntur versus Requiem aeternam, nec Requiescant, sive sequatur Missa sive hac omissa statim procedatur ad absolutionem, quia hi versus, qui deserviunt in ultimum vale defunctis, sunt in fine precum reservandi”.64The prayer at the end of Lauds on such occasions should be said cum conclusione brevi. We give the following extracts from Cavalieri, a distinguished rubricist, who writes, in tom. 3, cap. 2, decr. 16, n. 13:—“In Rituali oratio poniturcum conclusione brevi, sed hoc ideo, quia supponit, quod non ibi terminetur officium, sed continenti filo pergatur ad exequias: quare ut ponatur concordia Rituals inter et Breviarium, quod longiorem notat conclusionem, concludendi orationes haec erit regula; quoties una tantum dicitur oratio, et ibi terminatur officium, conclusio sit integra; brevis vero quando sequantur exequiae, seu absolutio ab tumulum, sive haec fiant praesente vel absente corpore sive diebus 3. 7. 30., anniversario, vel alio officio quolibet. Confirmatur ex Rubricis Breviarii Romani trium Ordinum S. Francisci, quae approbatae fuerunt a Pio VI. an. 1785. In die Commemor. omnium Fidelium Def. additur haec annotatio:Conclusiones (orationum in officio pro defunct.) longiores adhibentur semper, quando unica dicitur oratio; nisi statim sequatur Missa de Requiem, vel absolutio ad tumulum; tunc enim dicitur conclusio brevis.“(2) Cavalieri,ib. n.14. quia Rituale, terminata oratione sub brevi conclusione, non subdit versiculosRequiem aeternam, sed statim transit ad Missam, et quatenus haec non sit dicenda, ad orationemNon intres, nec dubitamus, quod praedicti versiculi taceri debeant, quoties post Defunctorum officium sequitur Missa de requiem, aut absolutio ad tumulum. Tunc enim ex hujusmodi officiis fit unum veluti continuatum, unde versus illi, qui deserviunt ad dandum ultimum vale Defunctis, sunt in fine precum reservandi. Huic doctrinae conformis[pg 503]est praescriptio Rubricarum in praedicto Breviario Fr. S. Francisci. Loco cit. dicitur:Duo autem Versiculi (Requiem aeternam, et Requiescant) post orationem omittuntur, si statim sequatur Missa de Requiem, vel Absolutio ad tumulum”.With regard to the fourth question the Roman ritual is quite clear.“Finita Missa sacerdos deposita casula seu planeta et manipulo accipit pluviale nigri coloris”.... It is always laid down that the celebrant of the Mass, unless the bishop be present, performs this part of the ceremony. TheCaeremoniale Episcoporum, cap. 37, lib. 2o, has the following words, which we here quote:—“Aliquo die non impedito infra octavam Defunctorum arbitrio Episcopi, Canonicus aliquis, seu dignitas Ecclesiae Cathedralis celebrabit Missam pro animabus omnium Episcoporum et Ecclesiae Cathedralis Canonicorum defunctorum cum paramentis nigris et caeremoniis prout supra dictum est, cui Missae Episcopus praesens erit cum cappa et in fine si voluerit, poterit, immo debebit deposita cappa et accepto pluviali absolvere, prout dicitur capite praecedenti.“Quod si Episcopus hujusmodi Missae praesens non erit, vel absolvere nequiverit, celebrans finita Missa, accedet ad cornu Epistolae altaris, ubi in plano, deposita planeta et manipulo accipiet pluviale nigrum et stans in dicto cornu Epistolae versus ad altare expectabit finem responsorii”....It is evident from all this what answer is to be given to the fourth question, viz.: that in all cases the celebrant, and no other priest, should give the absolution when the bishop is not present.
We purpose in this number of theRecordto answer a few practical questions connected with the office of the dead, which have been forwarded to us:
1. Is it proper for the president of the choir to wear the alb and cincture during the recitation of the office of the dead—the matins and lauds?
2. Should he wear stole and cope, or either?
3. Is it correct to say the Requiem aeternam after the prayer at lauds when the Mass follows?
4. is it proper for the priest who presides in the choir to perform the absolution after Mass?
1. It is not proper for the president of the choir to wear the alb and cincture at matins and lauds. There is a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites which appears to bear on this subject.
The question proposed was:
“Dubium LXI. Juxta Rituale, dum in officio dicuntur laudes: sacerdos cum ministris paratur ad celebrandam missam solemnem pro defuncto. Exinde autem oriuntur dubia de modo concludendi laudes: nempe 1oUbi sunt duo vel plures Presbyteri, alius debetne concludere Laudes dum celebrans qui officium inchoavit paratur in sacristia? 2. Ubi unicus est Presbyter debetne iste relinquere officium Laudum sine Praeside et adire sacristiam ut paretur ad missam et deinde opportuno tempore redire in Chorum, vel ante Altare, alba, cingulo, et stola indutus ut concludat Laudes?“Ad LXI. Affirmative ad primam partem. Quoad secundam debet concludere laudes et postea sacristiam petere ut sese vestiat pro Missae celebratione. Die 12 Augusti, 1864”.
“Dubium LXI. Juxta Rituale, dum in officio dicuntur laudes: sacerdos cum ministris paratur ad celebrandam missam solemnem pro defuncto. Exinde autem oriuntur dubia de modo concludendi laudes: nempe 1oUbi sunt duo vel plures Presbyteri, alius debetne concludere Laudes dum celebrans qui officium inchoavit paratur in sacristia? 2. Ubi unicus est Presbyter debetne iste relinquere officium Laudum sine Praeside et adire sacristiam ut paretur ad missam et deinde opportuno tempore redire in Chorum, vel ante Altare, alba, cingulo, et stola indutus ut concludat Laudes?
“Ad LXI. Affirmative ad primam partem. Quoad secundam debet concludere laudes et postea sacristiam petere ut sese vestiat pro Missae celebratione. Die 12 Augusti, 1864”.
It is evident from this decree that the vestments are not to be worn at the office of the dead, for they are not allowed even in a case which would appear one of necessity, viz.: when there is only one priest present, and when some delay must necessarily occur between the office and the mass, if the celebrant must wait to say the prayer at the end of Lauds before he puts on the vestments. If in such an extreme case, when there arises some delay between the office and mass, which is most objectionable and always to be avoided in ceremonies, the alb and cincture cannot be worn, they cannot surely be used on ordinary occasions when such necessity does not exist.
2. With regard to the second question, the Roman Ritual does not prescribe even the use of a stole or of a cope, as far as we are aware, and we think that the practice of not wearing one or the other at the office is the most correct and to be recommended,[pg 501]though we are well aware that the contrary practice is adopted by many. The Roman Ritual, treating of the procession in which the remains are carried to the church, has the following words:
“Parochus indutus superpelliceo et stola nigra vel pluvali ejusdem coloris, clerico praeferente crucem et alio aquam benedictam ad domum defuncti una cum aliis procedit”.
But these words do not apply to the office. The Caeremoniale Episcoporum, treating of the ceremony on All Souls' Day, does make mention of the stole and cope (book ii., chap. 10, n. 10):
“Haec ut dixi servantur si ipse episcopus sit in his vesperis aut matutinis officium facturus; sin minus posset manere cum cappa in choro in loco suo et Canonicus hebdomadarius paratus pluviali nigro supra Rocchetum vel cottam aut saltem stola nigra faceret aut diceret omnia praedicta”.
The words of theCaeremonialegave rise to the following question proposed to the Sacred Congregation of Rites:“An in officio defunctorum celebrans inducre debeat stolam vel saltem possit, uti erui posse videtur ex Caeremoniali lib 2o. cap. 10.
“Resp.Negative extra casum in caeremoniali contemplatum. 7 Septembris, 1850”.
There is another decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites referring to this matter:—
“Dubium LVIII. An sacerdos qui juxta Rituale, superpelliceo et stola indutus praefuit clationi corporis debeat retinere stolam dum praeest matutino et Laudibus quae immediate sequuntur? Saltem si in hac Functione utatur Pluviali, quum in eo casu non possit deponere stolam quin per aliquantis Pluviale exuat?“Ad LVIII. In utroque casu licere. Die 12 Augusti, 1864”.
“Dubium LVIII. An sacerdos qui juxta Rituale, superpelliceo et stola indutus praefuit clationi corporis debeat retinere stolam dum praeest matutino et Laudibus quae immediate sequuntur? Saltem si in hac Functione utatur Pluviali, quum in eo casu non possit deponere stolam quin per aliquantis Pluviale exuat?
“Ad LVIII. In utroque casu licere. Die 12 Augusti, 1864”.
We may observe that a direct answer is not given to the question, which was proposed with the view of ascertaining what should be done in two special cases, and the only answer given was“in utroque casu licere”. Hence a priest might wear the stole and cope, but should he not do so, he would not follow a course at variance with this decree. No doubt, in some rubrical works, express mention is made of the stole and cope, and still more frequently of one or the other; but the Roman Ritual, as we said, does not prescribe either at the office of the dead, and when their use is pointed out, it generally refers to the cathedral churches, where the ceremonies are carried out with greater pomp and solemnity, than in those rural churches to which our correspondent refers. We may also observe that the decree above quoted, does not contemplate the use of the stole and cope apart from the procession. On the whole, considering the circumstances of our churches, we would in practice[pg 502]dispense with stole and cope at the office, while we would be slow to condemn the use of the cope, if such a custom existed in any church that in other respects carried out the ceremonies of the Church with accuracy and decorum. But we consider that the decree of 7th September, 1850, above quoted, clearly lays down that the stole ought not to be used, though we find it more frequently used on such occasions than the cope, on the ground, perhaps, that it is an emblem of jurisdiction in the person who presides.
3. In reply to the third question, we beg to say that the Mass should commence immediately at the end of the lauds, which terminate with the prayer, and after the prayer, the Requiem aeternam, etc., and Requiescant in pace should not be said: it is only when the ceremony concludes that these are to be said.
“In fine Laudum dicta oratione, non adduntur versus Requiem aeternam, nec Requiescant, sive sequatur Missa sive hac omissa statim procedatur ad absolutionem, quia hi versus, qui deserviunt in ultimum vale defunctis, sunt in fine precum reservandi”.64
The prayer at the end of Lauds on such occasions should be said cum conclusione brevi. We give the following extracts from Cavalieri, a distinguished rubricist, who writes, in tom. 3, cap. 2, decr. 16, n. 13:—
“In Rituali oratio poniturcum conclusione brevi, sed hoc ideo, quia supponit, quod non ibi terminetur officium, sed continenti filo pergatur ad exequias: quare ut ponatur concordia Rituals inter et Breviarium, quod longiorem notat conclusionem, concludendi orationes haec erit regula; quoties una tantum dicitur oratio, et ibi terminatur officium, conclusio sit integra; brevis vero quando sequantur exequiae, seu absolutio ab tumulum, sive haec fiant praesente vel absente corpore sive diebus 3. 7. 30., anniversario, vel alio officio quolibet. Confirmatur ex Rubricis Breviarii Romani trium Ordinum S. Francisci, quae approbatae fuerunt a Pio VI. an. 1785. In die Commemor. omnium Fidelium Def. additur haec annotatio:Conclusiones (orationum in officio pro defunct.) longiores adhibentur semper, quando unica dicitur oratio; nisi statim sequatur Missa de Requiem, vel absolutio ad tumulum; tunc enim dicitur conclusio brevis.“(2) Cavalieri,ib. n.14. quia Rituale, terminata oratione sub brevi conclusione, non subdit versiculosRequiem aeternam, sed statim transit ad Missam, et quatenus haec non sit dicenda, ad orationemNon intres, nec dubitamus, quod praedicti versiculi taceri debeant, quoties post Defunctorum officium sequitur Missa de requiem, aut absolutio ad tumulum. Tunc enim ex hujusmodi officiis fit unum veluti continuatum, unde versus illi, qui deserviunt ad dandum ultimum vale Defunctis, sunt in fine precum reservandi. Huic doctrinae conformis[pg 503]est praescriptio Rubricarum in praedicto Breviario Fr. S. Francisci. Loco cit. dicitur:Duo autem Versiculi (Requiem aeternam, et Requiescant) post orationem omittuntur, si statim sequatur Missa de Requiem, vel Absolutio ad tumulum”.
“In Rituali oratio poniturcum conclusione brevi, sed hoc ideo, quia supponit, quod non ibi terminetur officium, sed continenti filo pergatur ad exequias: quare ut ponatur concordia Rituals inter et Breviarium, quod longiorem notat conclusionem, concludendi orationes haec erit regula; quoties una tantum dicitur oratio, et ibi terminatur officium, conclusio sit integra; brevis vero quando sequantur exequiae, seu absolutio ab tumulum, sive haec fiant praesente vel absente corpore sive diebus 3. 7. 30., anniversario, vel alio officio quolibet. Confirmatur ex Rubricis Breviarii Romani trium Ordinum S. Francisci, quae approbatae fuerunt a Pio VI. an. 1785. In die Commemor. omnium Fidelium Def. additur haec annotatio:Conclusiones (orationum in officio pro defunct.) longiores adhibentur semper, quando unica dicitur oratio; nisi statim sequatur Missa de Requiem, vel absolutio ad tumulum; tunc enim dicitur conclusio brevis.
“(2) Cavalieri,ib. n.14. quia Rituale, terminata oratione sub brevi conclusione, non subdit versiculosRequiem aeternam, sed statim transit ad Missam, et quatenus haec non sit dicenda, ad orationemNon intres, nec dubitamus, quod praedicti versiculi taceri debeant, quoties post Defunctorum officium sequitur Missa de requiem, aut absolutio ad tumulum. Tunc enim ex hujusmodi officiis fit unum veluti continuatum, unde versus illi, qui deserviunt ad dandum ultimum vale Defunctis, sunt in fine precum reservandi. Huic doctrinae conformis[pg 503]est praescriptio Rubricarum in praedicto Breviario Fr. S. Francisci. Loco cit. dicitur:Duo autem Versiculi (Requiem aeternam, et Requiescant) post orationem omittuntur, si statim sequatur Missa de Requiem, vel Absolutio ad tumulum”.
With regard to the fourth question the Roman ritual is quite clear.“Finita Missa sacerdos deposita casula seu planeta et manipulo accipit pluviale nigri coloris”.... It is always laid down that the celebrant of the Mass, unless the bishop be present, performs this part of the ceremony. TheCaeremoniale Episcoporum, cap. 37, lib. 2o, has the following words, which we here quote:—
“Aliquo die non impedito infra octavam Defunctorum arbitrio Episcopi, Canonicus aliquis, seu dignitas Ecclesiae Cathedralis celebrabit Missam pro animabus omnium Episcoporum et Ecclesiae Cathedralis Canonicorum defunctorum cum paramentis nigris et caeremoniis prout supra dictum est, cui Missae Episcopus praesens erit cum cappa et in fine si voluerit, poterit, immo debebit deposita cappa et accepto pluviali absolvere, prout dicitur capite praecedenti.“Quod si Episcopus hujusmodi Missae praesens non erit, vel absolvere nequiverit, celebrans finita Missa, accedet ad cornu Epistolae altaris, ubi in plano, deposita planeta et manipulo accipiet pluviale nigrum et stans in dicto cornu Epistolae versus ad altare expectabit finem responsorii”....
“Aliquo die non impedito infra octavam Defunctorum arbitrio Episcopi, Canonicus aliquis, seu dignitas Ecclesiae Cathedralis celebrabit Missam pro animabus omnium Episcoporum et Ecclesiae Cathedralis Canonicorum defunctorum cum paramentis nigris et caeremoniis prout supra dictum est, cui Missae Episcopus praesens erit cum cappa et in fine si voluerit, poterit, immo debebit deposita cappa et accepto pluviali absolvere, prout dicitur capite praecedenti.
“Quod si Episcopus hujusmodi Missae praesens non erit, vel absolvere nequiverit, celebrans finita Missa, accedet ad cornu Epistolae altaris, ubi in plano, deposita planeta et manipulo accipiet pluviale nigrum et stans in dicto cornu Epistolae versus ad altare expectabit finem responsorii”....
It is evident from all this what answer is to be given to the fourth question, viz.: that in all cases the celebrant, and no other priest, should give the absolution when the bishop is not present.
Notices Of Books.Adjamenta Oratoris Sacri, seu, Divisiones, Sententiae, et Documenta de iis Christianae vitae veritatibus et officiis, quae frequentius e sacro pulpito proponenda sunt, collecta atque ordine digesta opera Francisci Xaverii Schouppe, S.J. Brussels, Goemare, pp. 543. 1865.From the materials here collected and prepared by Father Schouppe, the preacher may build his discourse with ease and advantage. And yet, though the materials are placed ready to his hand, the work will still be all his own. The author does not undertake to supersede labour, but to lighten the preacher's fatigue by lending his friendly help. He supplies matter for the discourse, he even traces the outline of its form, and then leaves to the preacher himself the task of construction. In the opening pages he addresses himself to the question,how is a priest, especially a young priest, to render himself a useful and even a perfect preacher of the Word of God?In[pg 504]answer to this question, he touches in a masterly way on these two points, 1. What is a preacher of the Gospel, and what is the perfection that belongs to him? 2. By what process may a preacher attain to this perfection? Part of this process consists, of course, in the preparation of the sermon, and it is to facilitate this preparation that the work before us has been compiled. The author reduces to fifty heads the entire cycle of subjects suited for pastoral exhortation, embracing in this number whatever can serve to bring the sinner to justification, to guide him in the path of a Christian life, and to conduct him to Heaven. He gives on each of these fifty subjects a treatise which is a marvel of brevity and fulness. So judicious is the arrangement of the texts bearing on the subject; so clear and full the statement of the case; so simple the division of the arguments, that each of these little treatises makes the reader complete master of the subject of which it treats. On the more important subjects, and on those which require more frequent handling, the author supplies many and different divisions or outlines of sermons, thus guarding against the monotony that arises when a subject is presented often under the same form. One other merit we would signalise in this work. It deals with the wants, defects, and vices of the men of our own times. The books of sermons which are to be found on the shelves of the clergy generally belong to an extinct period; the exhortations they contain are coloured by circumstances that have long ceased to exist. Modern modes of thought, modern manners, modern literature, have given rise to a peculiar class of temptations and of dangers, and as these differ quite from those of a century ago, so also do they demand peculiar treatment and special remedies.Father Schouppe has not forgotten this, and takes care to grapple with the difficulties that beset the Christian life of the nineteenth century. Two indexes close the volume. One exhibits a general synopsis of the contents; the other refers to the various passages whence materials may be drawn for a sermon appropriate to the gospel of each Sunday and holiday in the year. Both indexes enhance the practical value of this excellent book, which we do not hesitate to call a real boon for the clergy.The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland.By John P. Prendergast, Esq. London: Longmans, 1865.This is a valuable accession to Irish history. It gives an account of the cruelties practised on our people in the Cromwellian Confiscations. It confirms, from official sources, the painful details contained in Dr. Moran's lately published sketch of the persecutions of the Irish Catholics in the seventeenth century. The Irish land question cannot be well understood without the aid of Mr. Prendergast's excellent book.
Adjamenta Oratoris Sacri, seu, Divisiones, Sententiae, et Documenta de iis Christianae vitae veritatibus et officiis, quae frequentius e sacro pulpito proponenda sunt, collecta atque ordine digesta opera Francisci Xaverii Schouppe, S.J. Brussels, Goemare, pp. 543. 1865.
From the materials here collected and prepared by Father Schouppe, the preacher may build his discourse with ease and advantage. And yet, though the materials are placed ready to his hand, the work will still be all his own. The author does not undertake to supersede labour, but to lighten the preacher's fatigue by lending his friendly help. He supplies matter for the discourse, he even traces the outline of its form, and then leaves to the preacher himself the task of construction. In the opening pages he addresses himself to the question,how is a priest, especially a young priest, to render himself a useful and even a perfect preacher of the Word of God?In[pg 504]answer to this question, he touches in a masterly way on these two points, 1. What is a preacher of the Gospel, and what is the perfection that belongs to him? 2. By what process may a preacher attain to this perfection? Part of this process consists, of course, in the preparation of the sermon, and it is to facilitate this preparation that the work before us has been compiled. The author reduces to fifty heads the entire cycle of subjects suited for pastoral exhortation, embracing in this number whatever can serve to bring the sinner to justification, to guide him in the path of a Christian life, and to conduct him to Heaven. He gives on each of these fifty subjects a treatise which is a marvel of brevity and fulness. So judicious is the arrangement of the texts bearing on the subject; so clear and full the statement of the case; so simple the division of the arguments, that each of these little treatises makes the reader complete master of the subject of which it treats. On the more important subjects, and on those which require more frequent handling, the author supplies many and different divisions or outlines of sermons, thus guarding against the monotony that arises when a subject is presented often under the same form. One other merit we would signalise in this work. It deals with the wants, defects, and vices of the men of our own times. The books of sermons which are to be found on the shelves of the clergy generally belong to an extinct period; the exhortations they contain are coloured by circumstances that have long ceased to exist. Modern modes of thought, modern manners, modern literature, have given rise to a peculiar class of temptations and of dangers, and as these differ quite from those of a century ago, so also do they demand peculiar treatment and special remedies.
Father Schouppe has not forgotten this, and takes care to grapple with the difficulties that beset the Christian life of the nineteenth century. Two indexes close the volume. One exhibits a general synopsis of the contents; the other refers to the various passages whence materials may be drawn for a sermon appropriate to the gospel of each Sunday and holiday in the year. Both indexes enhance the practical value of this excellent book, which we do not hesitate to call a real boon for the clergy.
The Cromwellian Settlement of Ireland.By John P. Prendergast, Esq. London: Longmans, 1865.
This is a valuable accession to Irish history. It gives an account of the cruelties practised on our people in the Cromwellian Confiscations. It confirms, from official sources, the painful details contained in Dr. Moran's lately published sketch of the persecutions of the Irish Catholics in the seventeenth century. The Irish land question cannot be well understood without the aid of Mr. Prendergast's excellent book.