denying this we are not limited to holding that they must thereby become all removable. No; they may well be (what their essence allows) either removable or irremovable.. Some the Church leaves in the former state; to others (and they are the greater number) she accords the right of irremovability. It is her gift, and no right inherent in the office. Itself and the office are alike the creation of her will and power. The Reverend author (Counterpoints, No. 154) calls in question our veracity. This is not polite, but we overlook it, though perhaps it should not have been overlooked by the friendly revisers who undertook to reform his controversial style. We stated that Cardinal Soglia recognized such a thing as removable parish priests, and in proof quoted his words, "sive perpetui sive amovibiles parochi sint," and as a necessary precaution, we marked the edition by the place of printing, year, vol. ume, and page. It is rather hard, after this, to be suspected of coining the passage. We are willing to take his word, that it is not found in the Neapolitan edition he cites. He will not take ours, that it is found in that of Bois-le-duc, 1857. Our copy is at his service, or that of any of his friends, that they may verify the quotation, if they will.

Again, speaking of Ferraris, we ventured to say that, looking through our edition, we had not been able to find the words quoted from him by Dr. Smith, viz., "rectores stabiles, perpetui," but that we would admit them on his authority. This acknowledgment, of which no one need be ashamed, elicited only a coarse jocular reply from Dr. Smith, in his Letters, wisely weeded out of the pamphlet by his cautious advisers. Little did we then know of the Doctor's loose style of quotation, or we might have used our eyes to better advantage. It turns out that the word "perpetui" has been dragged up from a distance of eleven paragraphs, and placed by the side of "stabiles," the latter word being in §3, and the former in § 14. It is true that it makes not much difference in sense, but it is rather unkind to sneer at him, who had accepted it as a bona fide quotation.

And besides (quod minime reris) that staid old German Jesuit, Leurenius, proved a great source of vulgar merriment to the author of the Letters. The Reviewer candidly confessed that he had no copy of Leurenius, and was, therefore, unable to verify the quotations adduced by Dr. Smith. But he ventured to add, that he felt sure they would turn out on examination to be nothing more than reiterations, more or less diffuse, of the Tridentine formula, "perpetuum peculiaremque parochum.' The mirth, which this elicited in the Letters, was considered by the revisers too low and indecorous to be retained in the pamphlet, but in its place they have allowed to appear a misrepresentation. In "Counterpoints" (No. 138), it is said that the Reviewer gives three reasons against the correctness of Dr. Smith's statement of the question about essential irremovability. He states them in order (a, b, c), and thus quotes the third; "(c) that Leurenius does not stand up for the affirmative side." To say nothing of the awkward, improper, and incorrect way in which these words have been dragged out of their natural context, we merely ask a question: Did Dr. Smith really mistake for positive argument on the Reviewer's part, a surmise, a mere guess as to the possible contents of a book he acknowledged never having read? Or did the Reviewer ever say, much less offer as argument, that "Leurenius DOES not stand up for, etc.?" He knows that the Reviewer never said anything of the kind. But he states it nevertheless, and thus artfully prepares the reader's mind for a future page (Nos. 159, 160) where the disclosure will be made, that this barefaced Reviewer by his own acknowledgment has never read a line of Leurenius. Again, we ask, is this fashion of con

troversy fair and honest? Would it not be unseemly in a man, who possesses nothing but mere worldly honor? Then, what must it be in men of our calling, who should aspire to something higher than the glory of carrying our petty point for the moment by dint of cavil and sophistry, making light of truth and wounding charity? "Crede mihi Torquate" (we must say with the grand old Pagan philosopher), "ad altiora et magnificentiora nati sumus."

The Reverend author insists that the Reviewer has totally misconceived the meaning of the Tridentine expression, "perpetuum parochum." He says that the "perpetuum" means "irremovable." This we never denied, but merely stated that the Fathers in their use of the word were thinking of something very different from "essential irremovability." By these words "perpetuum peculiaremque parochum,” the privilege (or right as far as it now exists) of irremovability was extended to parish priests-not to all, but to the greater number. This is stated by Soglia, Ferraris, and others, whom our author quotes approvingly. But he thinks we are "incorrect" (No. 168) in saying that, in passing such law, or according such right, the Fathers had in their minds and intended to abolish forever the abominable practice of administering parishes through "parochi conductitii" or clerical hirelings. If we have erred, we can plead in our defence the best authority. Without falling back on Devoti, Zallinger, Corradi, Barbosa, Pirrhing, or other musty canonists of times gone by, we appeal to an author of our day, whose testimony Dr. Smith is not likely to reject. Here are his words. quoting the legislation of the Council of Trent on this point, he says: "The law of the immovableness of priests having the care of souls was enacted, as we have just seen, in order to put an end to the hiring of temporary substitutes' (Rev. Dr. Smith, Notes on the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. New York, 1874. Sect. 25. Irremovability of Parish Priests, No. 121).

After

We come to the last topic treated of by the reverend author of Counterpoints, viz.: the lawful exaction of voluntary offerings. If there be anything ludicrous in the juxtaposition of such words, the fault is not ours. Even here he must have recourse to his usual unscrupulous mode of quotation. He says (No. 186), "Next the QUARTERLY in support of its assertion that priests have no right to claim even per modum stipenair any offering for baptisms, etc.,' quotes the words of the Roman Ritual." This putting of words into our mouth which we never used, by the help of quotation-marks, is intolerable. Did we or any one else attempt it in his case, it is very likely that his perceptions of right and wrong would be aroused, and he would denounce it as dishonest. Dr. Smith, we say it without any disposition to flatter him, has talent and ability enough to argue his case without having recourse to these despicable artifices, and he should be ashamed to employ them. Their use is not to his credit, and detracts from whatever there may be that is sound or worthy of consideration in his argument. We do not tender advice, for probably he would resent it, but merely throw out a thought which he may ponder with advantage. If it had not been for these arts of his, our reply to his reasoning would not have extended beyond a few paragraphs. Let him in future consult his own interests and those of the reading public by giving his opponent only argument to refute, and allowing him no chance of exposing trickery.

We never wrote any such passage, but on the contrary grant elsewhere that the priest's maintenance may furnish just cause for fees, etc., limiting it, however, to its due meaning and becoming expression. The giving such alms, when necessary (or appointed by authority) " ad con

gruam sacerdotis sustentationem," is the result of duty on the part of the people. They are bound by divine obligation to support him who ministers at their altars; but to say that a priest may and ought to exact this, is a needlessly offensive way of stating it. It may suit the dry, heartless style of a canonist, writing in a learned language; it is not the ordinary style of the Church. For one line that she has written in favor of the priest's "claims," she has written a thousand and more "ad coercendam clericorum cupiditatem," to use her own expression. And what is still worse, this talk about the right "to exact" is extended to matters where it cannot possibly exist. Dr. Smith sneers at our calling the practice of exacting a price for burials and funeral service "something wicked and horrible." Let him remember that the words are not ours, but of a Sovereign Pontiff, Alexander III., in the Third Council of Lateran, and reaffirmed in the Fourth Council of Lateran.

are

The Reverend author contends that "eleemosyna” and “exaction" not incompatible, because the Fathers of Baltimore in the Decrees (No. 386), speak of alms to be required in certain matrimonial dispensations. This is true, but does not warrant his general inference. And the author himself has told us why, in another of his books (Notes on the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, p. 318), "It is a penance imposed on the petitioner for the liberty granted by the dispensation.' Both in her internal and external forum the Church can exact voluntary actions as a penance. And she exercises this power every day. Will the reverend author call funeral offerings "a penance imposed" by the Church? But let us learn a lesson from the Church, who is wiser and choicer in her speech than some of her thoughtless ministers and her rugged canonists of the Ferrea vox, or iron tongue. With them it is ever "rights" and "claims,' demanding," "exacting," and "compelling." How significant and suggestive, on the contrary, how much more in unison with the Gospel we preach in her name, is the word she loves to use, eleemosyna? Even when these voluntary offerings are absolutely needed for the due maintenance of her ministers, though an obligation of conscience thereby arises on the part of the Christian people, yet she will not use the harsh words debt or claim, but holds still to the gentler, softer, original name of alms. And though she gives a parish priest full sway in spirituals and the control of temporalities in his church, she will allow no one to be his own judge in this case, but will have the offerings regulated by higher authority: "Illis eleemosynis contenti sint. quas ordinarius constituerit," says the Roman Ritual

(De Exeq.).

99 66

But, besides the "eleemosynæ" approved or appointed by the bishop, are there not other voluntary offerings, depending only on pious custom ("laudabilis consuetudo"), which may be exacted as a right, and recusants compelled to pay by the bishop's court? This is affirmed by our author, after Craisson, who follows Devoti, who follows N. N., etc., who pretends to have got it out of the Council of Lateran, whose decrees charity compels us to hope they never read. To these names the author in his pamphlet adds several; he might have added a great many more. But cui bono? He would only succeed in proving that some canonists, like parrots, may repeat each other's words; and like silly sheep (pecore matte, as the great poet calls them), blindly follow their blind guides in the interpretation of passages, without even taking the trouble to read the canonical text they pretend to gloze. But all this was known already. And why should it not happen among canonists, when it happens daily amongst moral theologians and other tractators of theology and its supplemental branches? Every petty professor (or at

least two out of three) of Canon Law, Moral Theology, Liturgy, etc., nowadays must give out his "Course," multiplying textbooks without necessity, having no claim to originality, no pretence of deep study or research. Now and then something of sterling value may appear, but how rarely! Any one acquainted with the current theological literature of Italy, France, and Germany in our day (for it is to these countries our observations are chiefly directed), say during the last fifty years, must be aware of this. They only cull from this and that quarter, not always tastefully; repeat in a slovenly way what had been better said before them, and if their guide has blundered, they innocently blunder in his footsteps.

Why, then, does Dr. Smith seek to terrify us by an array of names? Witnesses, in our case, are to be counted by weight not number-ponderandi non numerandi. Otherwise the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore could be proved to be the work of the first centuries. One or two of them are great names. We are willing to give way before them, with all deference and humility, in any matter of speculative opinion. But in a plain matter of fact, we do not feel equally willing to be led by the nose. For the sake of argument we will grant, that the payment of voluntary offerings is compulsory, and that the faithful who break the law may be (ought to be, if you will, cogendi) prosecuted in the ecclesiastical courts and compelled to pay. This, then, is the law; and the only question left is Where is it written? Reiffenstuel and Laymann, and consequently the whole servum pecus of their modern copyists, all without exception, give the sixty-sixth canon of the Fourth Lateran Council. We can only conclude that they have not read it; if they have, they have read it so carelessly as to misunderstand and misinterpret its meaning. They would have us think that the canon was directed against recalcitrant laymen. It was directed, as its heading shows, against clerical greed. De eadem (sc.simonia) circa cupiditatem clericorum." What is said of the laity, comes in as an afterthought, only per incidens. They think the canon contemplates close-handed parishioners, unwilling to pay their dues. On the contrary the portion of the canon in question was framed against laymen who were heretics, and who under the guise of a purer Christianity (they called themselves Cathari or Puritans), made war upon the Church and her clergy. They say such reluctant Catholic parishioners are to be dragged into the bishop's court for having refused payment, and condemed to pay the missing fees. Not a word of this in the canon. But these wicked laymen, not Catholics, but Patarini, imbued with the leaven of heresy and influenced by the same (EX fermento hæreticæ pravitatis), and who on that account (not refuse or neglect once or twice to pay their dues, but) exert themselves to break down the pious practice of voluntary oblations, are to be summoned by the bishop of the diocese, and brought before his court, not disciplinary but inquisitorial, for this is a matter of faith not of discipline. There is he to take cognizance of the truth of the allegation, and if he find them guilty, he is to restrain them, keep them within bounds, punish them. Guilty of what? Of non-payment of dues? So says M. Craisson ("Recusantes"), amongst others. But the Council knew and understood, and knew how to explain, its own mind better than canonists have since succeeded in doing, because they would not take the trouble to read the Decree: The Fathers of Lateran say "guilty of malice in striving to overthrow a laudable custom.” It is not then a disobedience springing from avarice or penuriousness, but a contempt openly evinced for Church usages, and originating in malice, i. e., heretical hatred of the Church and her sacred ministry. Is there any

foundation in all this for the assertions of Craisson and Dr. Smith? We have conceded for the present that offerings are compulsory dues and that they may be collected by legal process in the bishop's court. But is it so written in the Council of Lateran, to which all of them refer, and on which solely they rely? This is a question of fact, which any student is as competent to examine as Laymann, Craisson, or Dr. Smith. The latter studiously avoids all discussion of the canon itself, content to pile up the names of those who understand the canon as he does. Our opinion may be singular, but if convinced we are ready to change it. That our readers may have a chance of judging for themselves, here is the Canon itself with translation:

"Ad Apostolicam audientiam frequenti relatione pervenit, quod quidam clerici pro exequiis mortuorum et benedictionibus nubentium et similibus pecuniam exigunt et extorquent ; et, si forte cupiditati eorum non fuerit satisfactum, impedimenta fictitia fraudulenter opponunt. E contra vero quidam laici laudabilem consuetudinem erga sanctam Ecclesiam, pia devotione fidelium introductam, EX FERMENTO HÆRETICÆ PRAVITATIS nituntur infringere sub praetextu canonicæ pietatis. Quapropter et pravas exactiones super his fieri prohibemus, et pias consuetudines præcipimus observari: statuentes ut libere conferantur ecclesiastica sacramenta, sed per Episcopum loci, veritate cognita, compescantur qui malitiose nituntur laudabilem consuetudinem immutare.”. (Mansi's Collection of Councils, Venetiis, 1778, tom. xxii. col. 1054.) "By frequent reports it has been brought to the knowledge of the Apostolic See, that some clergymen exact and extort money for funeral services, for the nuptial blessing, and for other things of the kind; and unless their greed be satisfied (by the parties who apply) they fraudulently bring forward fictitious impediments. And on the other hand some laymen being imbued with the leaven of heresy, under pretext of pious observance of the canons, try to break down the laudable usage (of offerings) in regard to Holy Church, which has been introduced by the pious devotion of the faithful. Wherefore we forbid these wicked exactions and order that pious usages be maintained; decreeing hereby that the Sacraments of the Church shall be imparted gratuitously, but that all those who maliciously endeavor to change the (above mentioned) laudaable usage shall, after judicial inquiry, be kept within bounds by the bishop of the place."

In this whole matter at issue, we are aware of the disadvantage under which we labor. Dr. Smith finds himself on what in more than one sense may be called the popular side. He is not unconscious of the vantage-ground which he occupies, nor does he fail to use it for his purpose. And he, too, in turn, is used, for their own purposes, by his friends and backers, from the puny village paper to the grave and sober magazine. Let him rest content with his partisan advantage, and not eke it out further by invoking impartial names, great and honored, to bury us under the weight of the argument ad verecundiam. He omits no opportunity of informing the reader, that the authors whom he quotes and follows, and with whom we have presumed to disagree, are praised and commended by Popes and Prelates. Thus De Herdt's Praxis was highly extolled by Cardinal Bartolini. M. Craisson's book was examined by Roman censors, and bears in front a congratulatory epistle of Pius IX. to the author. Cardinal Soglia's work was honored by letters from two Pontiffs, Gregory XVI. and Pius IX. The inference from all thisthe author does not venture to put it in words, but wishes it to creep silently into the reader's mind-may be stated as follows: "My reverence for Pius IX., of blessed memory, and for the Holy See, to which I