a smaller foundation been found for so large a superstructure; his authorities are Theiner and Moran, Papal Bulls, Archives, and MSS.

Of the authors: Theiner, whose trustworthiness has been tolerably well gauged by this time by all competent judges, Dr. Brady never once quotes; in his quotations from and references to Dr. Moran's history Dr. Brady is not even decently accurate; he makes one reference, in his four editions, to page 579 of Moran, whose work only contains 478 pages: the place referred to is at page 179, and the statement there is left unattested. Again (page 15) Dr. Brady refers to Moran; for the fact referred to Moran gives no authority, and Lynch contradicts it: page 22, Brady refers to Moran; Moran at page 17, the reference given in four editions, has nothing at all on the subject; at page 184 there is a statement apposite but unauthenticated. Dr. Brady tells us that we are to give Dr. Moran credit for the accurate transcription of documents; what an authority on the subject of accuracy Dr. Brady is! Dr. Brady's wilful and contemptuous disregard of accuracy is indeed well illustrated by the following:

His education in Trinity College, Dublin, where he evidently did not graduate in historical studies, ought to have taught Dr. Brady that a "University" cannot, any more than other bodies, sole or corporate, be drowned twenty-six years before its birth; or was it that the writer took a malicious delight in throwing some discredit on the most worshipful institution in Ireland, that he mistranscribed the abstract (as it stands in Cal. Stat. Papers) of Weston's letter, "The Irish universally drowned in idolatry and infidelity." He makes no acknowledgment of the debt he owes to Mr. E. P. Shirley for setting him right. Such bad faith in one who offers himself as a great historical discoverer is peculiarly discreditable to the writer, and specially irritating to the reviewer.

In the matter of the Bulls-most important on this question, for the See is conferred by the Bull-Dr. Brady refers to only one. Theiner refers to the register of Bulls for a period earlier than A.D. 1600. The one Bull referred to by Dr. Brady is connected with the name of Matthew de Oviedo. On this point Mr. Stopford says:

"Of the Papal succession in the See of Dublin Dr. Brady says, (p. 20,) 'The Roman Catholic succession of Bishops suffered, at this period, in the See of Dublin, a lengthened interruption. . . . Upon the longest computation, that is, placing Curwin's defection from Roman Catholicism in the year 1558, and allowing nothing for the episcopate

of Donald, the predecessor of Oviedo, Dublin was without a Roman Catholic prelate for a space of forty-two years.'

"I now confront Dr. Brady and Dr. Moran. Dr. Brady says, as above quoted, that, upon the longest computation, the vacancy was forty-two years. Dr. Moran says, in his Dedication to his History of the Archbishops of Dublin, (p. iv.,) After a vacancy of almost seventy years, during which the See of Dublin groaned under the usurped authority of the three first Protestant Bishops,' &c. Dr. Brady's "longest computation' appears to proceed on assuming that George Brown, Archbishop of Dublin, was a Roman Catholic !

On

"Dr. Moran's seventy years must be extended still further. Matthew de Oviedo never was Archbishop of Dublin. He was a military and political agent, sent by the King of Spain, with the army of Don Juan d'Aguila, in 1601, to wage war and stir up rebellion in Ireland. the defeat of that army Oviedo went back with it to Spain, and never returned to Ireland. (Dalton's [a Roman Catholic] Archbishops of Dublin, pp. 370-4.) He was to have been Archbishop of Dublin if Ireland had been conquered, and he had a Bull of appointment from the Pope; but he never was consecrated."-P. 104.

And this is confirmed by the trial of Richard Lalor (1605,) Vicar-General of the See Apostolic within the Archbishopric of Dublin, and by the Franciscan Annals in 1603, where Oviedo is spoken of as "Electus Archiepiscopus Dublinensis, in Hiberniâ, postea translatus ad Ecclesiam Aririensem in Hispaniâ." (Moran's Archbishops of Dublin, 218, note.) So much for Dr. Brady's Bull-in this instance a very Irish one indeed.

But beside his authors and his bulls, we have to consider Dr. Brady's archives and manuscripts. These are records at Rome(2.) Ex actis consistorialibus, Romæ. What these documents are Dr. Brady does not tell us. Without any further reference he decides in only two cases on the authority of these documents. (3.) Barberini Archives, Acta Consistorialia, vol. xvii. This Dr. Brady quotes only twice, therefore it is not a register. Archdeacon Stopford's analysis of the two quotations is thus stated:

"Here, then, we have (1) an act of consistory, dated 16 January, 1573, relied on by Dr. Moran in October, 1864, for the appointment of Richard McBrady to Ardagh; and stated, in August, 1865, to have contained the appointment of the same man to Dromore also, with a further statement that those sees continued thenceforward united for a quarter of a century.

"2. We have also two consistorial acts, furnished by Dr. Moran to Dr. Brady, and published in 1866, each bearing the date of 23 January, 1576; the one giving Ardagh to the aforesaid McBrady, the other giving Dromore to Maccual; just one week later than the act of consistory of 16 January in the Irish ecclesiastical record, which gives both sees to McBrady."-P. 71.

We now come to (4) the Barberini Archives, Rome, and (5) Va

tican MSS. These are Dr. Brady's chief authorities, and neither is taken from an official registry; and "fancy going to Rome to find a document with this only reference, Vatican MSS. !'" These authorities were transcribed at Rome by Dr. Moran, and have not been tested by Dr. Brady. Of what value they are may thus be ascertained. The Barberini Archives are quoted to prove that Eugene O'Dogherty succeeded by the Pope's authority to, and held for fifteen years, the See of Derry. Yet the Professor of Ecclesiastical History at Maynooth declares, in the notes of his edition of Philip O'Sullivan Bear, (1850, p. 77,) that he was never Bishop of Derry, as he was a schismatic nominee of Edward or Elizabeth. Now, obviously, these archives are not registers. There are such registers at Rome, or there are not. If there are such Bulls, why are they not produced? if there are not, the case for Dr. Moran and Dr. Brady is closed. Occasional Bulls there are, and these are not quoted, because they would disprove the Roman succession.

We must deny our readers and ourselves the pleasure of following Archdeacon Stopford through his sixth and seventh chapters. In the former he discusses the consecration by Curwin only; in the latter the succession in each see. The arguments of Dr. Brady on the former topic are met by the allegation of the known fact that the chief consecrator alone is mentioned in all cases; and so in the case of Curwin. If the records only furnish his name, it is because the same records never profess to give more than the name of the archbishop or leading agent in the consecration; and Archdeacon Stopford appositely quotes the argument of O'Hart, Bishop of Achonry, who, arguing at the Council of Trent against the proposed declaration that the episcopal jurisdiction was derived immediately from GOD, says, " In Anglia Rex se vocat Caput Ecclesiæ Angliæ et creat episcopos qui consecrantur à tribus episcopis, aiuntque se veros episcopos quia sunt à Deo. Nos vero id negamus, quia non sunt à Pontifice Romano adsciti: et recte dicimus, hacque tantum ratione illos convincimus, non alia." On the other side it is proved that whatever succession the Roman body had in Ireland was derived through one consecrator. In the Bull appointing McEgan to Clonmacnoise (A.D. 1725) is the clause directing the archbishop to consecrate, assisted by presbyters, eorumloco totidem presbyteris, in case bishops "commode adesse non poterunt. (P. 146.) In the seventh chapter, in tracing the succession in the See of Tuam, we come to the memorable name of Bodkin. This Bodkin, Bishop of Kilmacduagh, Dr. Moran tells us, seized on the archbishopric of Tuam, but was never recognized as archbishop by Rome. Dr. Brady says, "David Wolfe, the Papal delegate, esta

1 Quoted from the Professor of Maynooth's edition of Philip O'Sullivan Bear.

blishes the orthodoxy, in a Roman Catholic point of view, of another prelate, Bodkin of Tuam."

"The orthodoxy, 'in a Roman Catholic point of view,' of a 'prelate,' as a link in a Papal succession, can mean nothing less than that he acknowledged the supremacy of the Pope, and held his see under that supremacy. Now, the evidence of Wolfe is, that Bodkin took the oath of Elizabeth, renouncing the Pope and his supremacy, (as he had taken the oath of Henry VIII.,) and that he held his see in opposition to the Papal archbishop, whom he had expelled. Dr. Brady had also open before him (when he made his quotation about Papal succession in Armagh, p. 13) these words of Dr. Moran, from whom he professes to take Wolfe's evidence: he (Bodkin) was never recognized as archbishop by Rome.' What then becomes of the orthodoxy, in a Roman Catholic point of view,' of this 'prelate ?"-P. 131.

The question seems really decided by two admissions quoted by Mr. Stopford. The Papal Synod of Drogheda in 1614 admits that "all the suffragan sees of that province were vacant.” Dr. Moran, in his account of the Papal Synod of Dublin held in that same year, confesses that all the suffragan sees of that province were vacant. (P. 144.) We cannot forbear giving, in conclusion, Mr. Stopford's summary :

Seeing that the Bishop of Rome, from the union of the Irish with the Anglican Church in the Council of Cashel, and the introduction of English Common Law into Ireland A.D. 1172 has ever sought to intrude bishops into Irish Sees by provision;

"And that such claim to appoint by provision was always resisted and denied by the Irish Parliament ;

"And that such provisors' never had any succession of their own ;"And that such provisors' before the Reformation were never admitted as bishops of the Anglican Church, except on renouncing their titles from the Pope;

་

"And that such provisors' had never possession against the bishops who held under the Crown in the reigns of Henry VIII., Edward VI., and Mary ;

"And that many Papal bishops in the reign of Elizabeth were mere military agents, under the Pope and the King of Spain, for foreign invasion and rebellion, or never had possession; and that many of them abandoned Ireland and took bishoprics in Spain, and that it became customary for them so to do ;

"And that alleged Papal succession in Ireland is made up in great part of bishops who held their sees under the Crown by virtue of renouncing the authority of the Bishop of Rome ;

"And that the evidence for succession of Papal bishops is, in some cases, suspicious, or contradictory; and that many Papal bishops are stated to have succeeded without any evidence whatsoever;

“And that such succession was, in the latter part of Queen Elizabeth's reign, upon counsel, and confessedly abandoned ;

"And that an attempt at general reconstruction of such succession was not made until the Great Rebellion, after 1641;—

"And that such Papal bishops were afterwards customarily consecrated by one bishop only, against the canons of the Universal Church;

"And that such succession, first and last, was in violation of the canons of the Universal Church, made specially against the Bishop of Rome; and that such succession never had any foundation save in the feigned supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, claiming, by a falsely alleged Right Divine, to violate and abrogate all laws of the Church Universal and of the realm ;

"I have proved that Roman bishops in Ireland have neither canonical nor actual succession."—P. 159.

FFOULKES ON THE GREAT SCHISM.

Christendom's Divisions. Part II., Greeks and Latins. Being a full and connected History of their Dissensions and Overtures for Peace down to the Reformation. By EDMUND S. FFOULKES, formerly Fellow and Tutor of Jesus College, Oxford. London Longmans. 1867.

:

It is a remarkable fact that we have no regular history, in our own language, of the great schism between the East and the West; and equally curious that Church historians who have written on the subject are not agreed as to the immediate cause of the schism. Of ecclesiastical historians, Fleury is by far the most trustworthy and the best; for he takes a more impartial view of the doings of the Roman Court and the Western Councils than most Roman writers. Pitzipios, a Greek by family, a Roman by religion, has given us an elaborate history of "the Oriental Church, her separation and reunion with that of Rome." This work is written in French, and is published by the Propaganda: it gives, therefore, the Roman view of the question. Maintaining throughout that the Eastern Church, by her representatives at the Council of Florence, did submit to the supremacy of Rome, and that the rejection since that time of the supremacy of the Pope is an act of rebellion, we cannot regard the history as an impartial account, either of the Eastern Church generally, or of the supposed reunion at Florence. We hail, therefore, with pleasure the volume of Mr. Ffoulkes, as furnishing us at last with an account of the great disaster on which we can rely. We cannot help wishing, however, that the author had taken a little more pains with his style; that his periods were more flowing, and his meaning more easily expressed. His book is not pleasant reading, nor will it attract