and ascribes my comparatively moderate statement to the creation of my own imagination or that of the DUBLIN REVIEW! He says

"Dr. Gillow's pupil

might come and measure himself from time to time against the foppish exquisites' and 'barbarized athletes' into whom his imagination, or that of his authority, the DUBLIN REVIEW, has led him to transform so large a portion as seventy per cent. of our young

men."

It cannot be a matter of much surprise that the Month, although it does take credit to itself for its own "controversial fairness," should insert, without comment on this point, the letter of this "Oxford Resident"; for it does duty as a sort of second to sustain his positive assertion that Mr. Pattison has not said what I have attributed to him.

This Oxford writer does, indeed, do me, the justice of allowing the DUBLIN REVIEW to share with me the alleged fabrication. The writer in the Month, on the contrary, not I presume moved to spare the DUBLIN REVIEW on account of any special affection for it, or for its editor, thinks it fair to say that "he refers to me alone when he affirms that Mr. Pattison has not said a great many of the things that people have been told that he has said." But against this I have most conclusively proved that Mr. Pattison has said all that I have ascribed to him, and even much more; and that the DUBLIN REVIEW has reported his statements much more in accordance with the real extent of Mr. Pattison's words than I have done. But the editor of the Month is not now intent upon damaging the DUBLIN REVIEW. He has already on former occasions tried abundantly to do this, and he can return to the task when he pleases. His present object, for reasons best known to himself, is to damage me, and, therefore, he carefully separates the DUBLIN from his aim in order that the assault, concentrated upon one point, may fall with more telling effect on the trustworthiness of my little defence of our Catholic Collegiate education.

But is this doing justice to the writer in the Month when he says that he has not read the article in the DUBLIN from which I quote? Well, if really he has not read that article, his plea of justification is one of ignorantia affectata, which is worse than no justification at all. For he knew full well that I took and professed to take all my statements exclusively from the article to which I invited particular attention. If, then, he really wished to judge honestly, and to report to others honestly whether I had dealt honestly with the materials, in my hands, he ought to have seen what those materials were. But, after all, is it certain that he has not read the article? What he says is, "We have not read the article from which he (Dr. Gillow) quotes, except for the purpose of verifying his references to Mr. Pattison's pages " to which he knows I never referred at all! But how much did he read for this purpose? As far as this information goes he may have read every line, or he may not have read a single line. It matters little, however, whether he has read it or not, for either horn of the dilemma is equally galling.

The only two points that these writers have really proved by their criticisms are-1st. Their own persevering determination to sift out from my letter

whatever they could find in any degree vulnerable; and, 2nd, their utter inability to make a single point, except by the most palpable misrepresentation of the clearest statements. The motives that have stimulated such feelings and arts it is not for me to investigate. They must remain, therefore, a matter of conjecture for the minds of your intelligent readers.

I remain, Sir,

Faithfully yours,

J. GILLOW.

5th August, 1869.

DEAN STANLEY AND REV. MR. MILLS.

SIR,-You have been good enough to allow me a little space in which I may notice a reply to my last letter, put forth by the Dean of Westminster in the July number of "Macmillan's Magazine." The question between us is still the same, and has been considered already, at some length, in a late number of the DUBLIN REVIEW (see last April, pp. 512-517). The matter in debate is not regarding the various postures, in the reception of Holy Communion, allowed and in usage at different times. It is, on the contrary, just simply this; whether the statement made in "Good Words," that at the present day "at Communion, while others kneel, the Pope sits," is a correct or an incorrect statement. At the time it appeared I ventured to assert that it was the latter, and I produced authorities in support of my counterstatement. The Dean of Westminster replied, quoting Durandus, Bona, and Gerbet. To this answer was made that Durandus* positively speaks for the standing posture; that Bona† is merely quoting a work, whose authority he himself calls in question; and that Gerbet states that the Pontiff receives "à demi assis," which phrase the Protestant ritualist Bingham renders most correctly by the words "standing with inclination."

Now in summing up this question in "Macmillan's Magazine," the Dean has repeated the above quotations, and has added some others; and it is of these latter, and indeed of his remarks in general, that I have your permission to say a few words.

The fresh authorities adduced are Martene, Moroni, Eustace; and among Protestant ritualists, Neale, Maskell, and Bingham; not to mention the "English traveller who, on Easter-day 1868, was very forcibly struck, but cannot state on oath that the Pope remained sitting." Let me endeavour in a few words to cross-question some of his witnesses.

*The Dean is surely incorrect in translating "consistens " keeping his place sitting." Is not its exact meaning "standing firmly"? Does not "ad mensam consistere" signify "standing to wait upon others at table"?

It is not true (as it is re-stated) that Bona gives his own authority for the sitting posture; he takes care to tell us that he does not. The passage quoted is not a law: it is a description of the spectacle of the Pontifical Mass,

Martene, whose work is in great measure an explanation of the rites of the very earliest Christian times, merely uses the phrase of Durandus, “in sede consistens." "The obvious meaning of this passage," says the Dean, “is, that the Pope remains in his place sitting." I have ventured to state that it means just the contrary. But then we have Moroni, who says, "In Roma il Papa communicavasi sedendo nel suo trono"; "and these words," adds the Dean, "may be taken as a testimony to the practice of the late Pope, and to the usage of modern times." If so, how exceedingly strange that the same writer should have these words: "Ricavasi del Martene che in Roma il Papa communicavasi sedendo nel suo trono ma oggi non è più in uso tal rito." And again: "Accompanied by the Master of Ceremonies, he carries the Blessed Sacrament to the Pope, who, on his knees at his throne, adores, and at once rises (indi il Pontifice si alza, e resta in atto di adorare fermandosi in piedi).” And again: "Il Cardinal diacono lo porta al Papa, il quale genuflesso l'adora, come l'ostia, e si alza." Is not this testimony to "the usage of modern times"? "It is hardly necessary," continues the Dean, "to confirm these high Roman authorities by the testimony of Protestant ritualists. But that it was the received opinion amongst such writers that the Pope sits, appears from the unhesitating assertions to this effect by Bingham, Neale,* and Maskell." The recklessness of this sentence simply fills one with amazement, and creates a difficulty against proceeding further. The only possible explanation that occurs to me is, that the writer can never have seen the works about which he speaks so confidently. For what is the fact? Why, Maskell writes as follows:-"The Popes were accustomed to receive the Eucharist sitting, but it would seem that now they stand, as other bishops do, and do not resume their seats until after the rite is finished of washing the hands. It is not out of place to add briefly that Angelo Rocca appears to doubt that the bishops of Rome ever received sitting." And what does Bingham say? "Cardinal Perron labours hard to prove that the Apostles received sitting; but his vanity is abundantly chastised and exposed. . As to sitting, there is no example of it, nor any intimation leading toward it in any ancient writer. . posture is wholly without example in the ancient Church." And then, having quoted our very passage from Bona, Bingham concludes thus :"We are told it is the singular privilege of the Pope to communicate sitting. I go on with the practice of the ancient Church." And all this is what the Dean of Westminster has ventured to call "a mass of testimony sufficient to establish his fact."

This

But now, what can be said of his treatment of Benedict XIV.? In his work (de Sacro MSS. Sac.), this great Pontiff states that some of his predecessors sat to receive, but this practice was then no longer known, for that the attitude of the Pope at Communion was that of one "standing at his throne." And in a letter to his Master of Ceremonies, Benedict XIV. repeats this

* After a rather diligent search, I cannot find in Neale any mention of the rite at all. Of course it may have escaped my observation, and the Dean has given no reference.

statement:--"The Roman Pontiff receives standing, not sitting, as some have erroneously written." This, says the Dean, is a curious example of what may be "called the audacity which sometimes characterizes expressions of Pontifical opinion." Benedict XIV. says that formerly some of the Popes sat to receive, but that now they do not; and that, therefore, to say that they do is an error into which some have fallen. And this simple sentenceis an example of "audacity," and the assertions it contains are "irreconcilable." The whole scope of the letter of Pope Benedict, the meaning and arguments contained in which have been so singularly misunderstood and misapplied, is evident at a glance to the unprejudiced reader. It is a free communication to a dear friend (Reale), written during the holy Pontiff's illness, in which he states, that having lost the use of his limbs, he wishes to know whether he shall be obliged to content himself with receiving Holy Communion as any other invalid, or whether it may be allowed him, under the circumstances, to celebrate Mass sitting. He is not thinking in the least of our case, that of solemn Pontifical Communion, but merely whether he may be permitted to celebrate Mass every day in a sitting posture. In the letter itself, he uses these words, "agitur de integrâ Missâ sedendo celebrandâ cujus exemplum haud extare dicitur." He is speaking of himself as an infirm priest, wishing to say Mass, and he sets to work to examine in this letter, whether he can be allowed to sit at part, or during the whole of it. What has this to do with our general question, as to whether, at the time of Holy Communion on the three great occasions when the Pontiff celebrates solemnly, he receives sitting?

66

But even in the concluding words of Pope Benedict's letter (than which nothing can be more natural and every-day), the Dean discovers a depth of design and subtlety :-" And since we have resolved to celebrate Mass sitting, it will be your duty to prepare the altar, &c. ; and confidently leaving everything to your singular dexterity, we very lovingly bestow upon you our Apostolical Benediction." This, and all such other matters of arrangement, however plain and simple, when in connection with the Pope, have, in the eyes of our author, but one intention. He is resolved to think that they are meant to deceive. That wise permission by which a sick Pontiff can still enjoy the grace and the consolations of the Holy Sacrifice, and that dexterous arrangement by means of which the Pope (generally of infirm age) can be supported on great festival days through the fatigues of a long ceremony, are all parts of a deep scheme. Successive Popes are endeavouring to combine a prescribed attitude either with convenience or with change of sentiment." Their dicta are "characteristic specimens of that singular dexterity which Benedict XIV. attributes to his Master of Ceremonies, and which has so often marked the proceedings of the Roman Court-a minute example of the subtle genius of that institution which could produce a Syllabus," &c. No enthusiast of the Presbyterian school has ever surpassed this in his wildest imaginings.

Before concluding, I may advert to another singular mistake into which the Dean has fallen. "The Pope, in his chief cathedral, celebrates on a wooden plank or table." This is a repetition from his former article, in which (arguing against the Mass) the Dean had stated that the Pope cele

brates on the table used by S. Peter in the house of Pudens. Had he looked into Aringhus or Martene, he would have found the following:-" Extat in ecclesiâ S. Praxidis altare in quo B. Petrus, ut pia fert traditio, immortali Deo sacrificium offerebat, lignea autem altaris tabula, præ vetustate nimiâ consumpta, cernitur, et sub altari lapideo locata est."

Let me revert, however, to my main subject. "The variation in the statement of Martene and Gerbet," says the Dean, "is met by the silence, or by the express contradiction of other authorities, not indeed so high, but still of considerable weight." That is to say, the authority of the Roman “Ordo,” and that of such writers as Patricio, Georgio, Marcello, Catelani, Rocca, Urban VIII., and Benedict XIV., is less than that of Martene, who is not a rubrician, but an archæologist,-less than that of Gerbet, who never wrote a word upon the rubrics in his life! This will be fresh knowledge for our students in rites and ceremonies.

But we will sum up this matter in short. The position of the Sovereign Pontiff at the time of Communion, even on the few great days when he receives at the throne, is the standing position. Such it has been, says Marcello," ab antiquissimis temporibus." We have notice of this particular rubric more than a thousand years ago. That at the time of Communion some Popes in ancient days occasionally sat, we know from the statements of our own writers to this effect. In the absence of other motive, it is quite natural for us to suppose it to have been the same as would hold good at the present time; namely, infirmity. Dr. Baggs writes as follows: "Perhaps the most probable reason for the Pope's Communion at the throne, is, that he may more readily sit down, if the infirmity incidental to his advanced age should require it." But that the rule is that he shall stand, cannot for a moment be questioned. "The Pontiff receives standing in (or at) his throne." These are the words of one of the most illustrious of all the Popes. Who is the more likely to be correct, the Dean of Westminster or Benedict XIV.? I am, Sir,

Yours very truly,

ALEXIUS MILLS.