links to connect the Past with the Present, and in reference to persons who have attained eminence, or closed their career during the period embraced in the Handbook, it gives biographical notices remarkable for their accuracy and conciseness.

The book is divided into three parts. The first is an alphabetical register of facts, dates, and events, in fact a compendious history of the year, and is particularly rich in biographical notices. The second is a chronological register of occurrences, foreign and domestic. The third part consists of appendices to the alphabetical register, and includes all the principal public documents of the year. Nor is this section limited to Great Britain,-the legislative history of Europe is also carefully compiled, and the principal Foreign Cabinets are enumerated. Its fourth and fifth appendices contain all the information hitherto distributed over books of the Peerage, House of Commons, Parliamentary Guides, &c., besides containing an account of the changes in the distribution of seats effected by the Reform Acts of 1832 and 1867-8. In thoroughness of design and completeness of execution we believe this Handbook of the Year 1868 to be unequalled.

AN accident obliges us to delay to our next number a review of the second volume of Mr. Allies's brilliant and learned work on 66 the Formation of Christendom." Meantime we may refer our readers to an admirable criticism which has appeared in the last number of "The Month."

Correspondence.

WE

E have received the following note from the Dean of Westminster :

The Dean of Westminster presents his compliments to the Editor of the DUBLIN REVIEW, and begs to call his attention to a remark which occurred in the last number of the REVIEW (p. 251), to the effect that a statement made by the Dean that "the Holy Father receives communion in a sitting posture" is "the purest romance."

The statement which is thus described as "the purest romance," or (in the words of the work to which the DUBLIN REVIEW refers with commendation) as "absolutely false," is as follows:-" At the reception of the Holy Communion, whilst others kneel, the Pope sits."

The authorities for this statement are numerous. the 13th, from the 17th, and from the 19th century :

Three are selected, from

(1.) Durandus, Chaplain and Auditor of the Sacred Palace, and Legate to Gregory X. at the Council of Lyons, in his work on Rationale Divinorum Officiorum (iv. 54, p. 203).—" The Roman Pontiff... ascending his seat, there communicates" ("Romanus Pontifex, ascendens sedem, ibi communicat”).

(2.) Cardinal Bona, in his "Rerum Liturgicarum," lib. ii. c. 17, 8, vol. iii. p. 395.-"The chief Pontiff, when he solemnly celebrates, communicates sitting" ("Summus Pontifex, cum solemniter celebrat, sedens communicat"). (3.) The Abbé Gerbet, afterwards Archbishop of Perpignan, in his "Rome Chrétienne," ii. 86, 87.—“ Le Pape descend de l'autel, traverse le sanctuaire et monte au siège Pontifical. Là à demi-assis, quoique inclinant par respect, il communie . . . . . L'attitude du Pape et cette communion. . . . retraçent la première communion des Apôtres assis à la table du Sauveur.”

We forwarded this note to the Rev. Alexius Mills, whose book we were noticing in the sentence to which Dean Stanley refers. Mr. Mills replies as follows:

SIR, The Dean of Westminster has asserted that, "at the reception of the Holy Communion, whilst others kneel, he (the Pope) sits." This statement a writer in the DUBLIN REVIEW designates as "the purest romance"; and in a little pamphlet, criticising the remarks of the Dean, I have said of this, his assertion, that it is "absolutely false," though of course I did not mean, nor

would any one who read my pamphlet understand me to mean, that he knew it to be false. The Dean of Westminster has now quoted three authorities in support of his statement. Before examining them, it will perhaps be better to state the case just as it has been brought before the public lately.

To a well-known magazine (Good Words) Dean Stanley contributed two articles, entitled, "Some Characteristics of the Papacy." In his introduction, the writer declared his intention to be, "not to attack nor to defend but only to discuss this great dignitary (the Pope) calmly, dispassionately, and charitably." There was to be no prejudice and no mistake; least of all no slander and no calumny. He knew that those whom he was addressing (thanks to the candour of their teachers for 300 years) were as ignorant of all concerning the Head of Christendom as they were of the longitude. And one of the statements he puts before this most enlightened class is that, "at the reception of Holy Communion, whilst others kneel, he (the Pope) sits." This is certainly a general sweeping assertion, without limitation, without mention of any exception. Yet all the while it is absolutely undeniable, that on nearly every day throughout the year the Holy Father celebrates Mass and communicates, standing at an altar, like any one of his priests. The only question that can by any possibility be raised is regarding his posture at Communion on three or four extraordinary festival days during the whole twelve months. Were it even true that on these few great occasions, for some symbolical purpose, the Pope does sit to receive, still the statement of the Dean of Westminster, as it stands, would be most inaccurate. But what if there be no truth at all in it?

May we ask, who was it that Dean Stanley intended to write about when he was preparing the articles which I am considering? Was it the Pontiff of the present day, or of the present century, or of ten ages ago? I do not put this question through any fear I have regarding our ground in antiquity, but merely for the sake of fairness. They who read his papers, which appeared a few months ago, did they think he was speaking of the Papacy of the present time, or that of centuries past? Why, he himself declared, in those very articles, that he wished "to discuss the great dignitary," who had survived (to use his own objectionable language) "his defunct brother the Emperor, who disappeared in 1815." Then most unmistakably the Dean of Westminster meant to discuss the Papacy of the present century; and if so, he has no right to disregard the assertions of modern liturgical writers, or to think them of no value by the side of more ancient authors upon the same subject. Upon points of discipline, one Pontiff is just as absolute as another, and the Church admits of change and diversity in these matters. The Catholic Church is a living organization, not a dead fossil, and any writer of whom she approves is an authority for the age in which he writes, God the Spirit being with her always in all her judgments. Now Dr. Baggs (an approved authority upon this point) writes regarding the Pontifical High Mass, "The Pope does not receive sitting, as Eustace and others assert. When the subdeacon has reached the throne, the Pope adores the Sacred Host, the Cardinal Deacon then takes the chalice and shows it to the Pope and the people. . . . it is carried by the deacon to the Pope, who, having adored, remains standing" (Pont. Mass. Baggs. 1840). But the Dean of

Westminster does not think much of any modern writer upon liturgies or rubrics, although he himself quotes Gerbet, who is of no authority whatever, and never pretended to be, in liturgical matters. When I come, a little later on, to examine the quotations which my opponent advances as favouring his side, I shall then find the proper opportunity to speak of that work of the able and saintly Archbishop of Perpignan which Dean Stanley has so thoroughly misapprehended. But at present I wish to do his pleasure, and to give him all the benefit of what ancient liturgical writers say.

Moreri, the eighteenth edition of whose great work was published in 1740, writes thus upon our subject:—" Il (le sous-diacre) porte la Hostie au Pape, qui adore par une profonde inclination de la moitie du corps, pourtant en se tenant debout." Patricio and Marcello have these words :-" Postquam Pontifex pacem dederit episcopo, capite discooperto, ascendit ad sedem eminentem, et ibi stans," &c. Catalani, their commentator, says :-“ These ceremonies come down to us "ab antiquissimis temporibus." Cajetan writes "Papa vadit ad sedem suam, et stando, detecto capite, expectat subdiaconum cum patenâ et Hostiâ, et diaconum cum calice et Sanguine." Upon which the old commentator remarks:-" Similia legere est in variis Missæ Pontificalis ordinibus, ex Codicibus Vaticanis, ab erudito Georgio descriptis." The "Ordo" of Urban VIII. says:-"Cum Pontifex pervenerit ad sedem, ubi stans expectat Sacramentum," &c. And further on :66 Subdiaconus accipit patenam cum Sacramento, et discedens vadit ad sedem eminentem, ubi est Pontifex, qui inclinatus, flectens genua, cum acceserit subdiaconus cum Sacramento, statim surgit." Again, speaking of the reception of the chalice, we read in the same Ordo" of Urban VIII. :"Pontifex genuflexus, Sanguinem adorat et statim surgit." And immediately afterwards occur these words :-"Interim Pontifex stans apud sedem ut prius, dicit, 'Quod ore,'" &c. Crispus, of whom his commentator writes that he was "Diu versatus in praxi cæremoniarum Capella Papalis" (he was in fact subdeacon to Clement XI.) says, "Dum vero ibidem Pontifex in cathedram stans, et veluti erectus in Cruce, Sanguinem sugit, demonstrat," &c. And they take care to tell us when the Pontiff does sit down. Thus Crispus and Catalani say, “Factâ purificatione " (that is, of course, after Communion), "mitram accipit et sedens," &c. So also the "Ordo" of Urban VIII., "Peractâ Communione, Pontifex acceptâ mitrâ, sedit," &c. It is mentioned as an event worth remembering that on Easter Sunday, 1481, Sixtus IV. was obliged by infirmity to sit during the Communion of High Mass. Would this be entitled to notice as something extraordinary if it were the rule, that "whilst others kneel, he (the Pope) sits?"

66

And now, having perhaps quoted sufficiently from other authors, it will be only fair to examine into those cited by the Dean of Westminster, as supporting his assertion. They are, Durandus, Cardinal Bona, and Archbishop Gerbet. I will look into them one by one. The Dean having stated, that "at the reception of the Holy Communion the Pope sits," produces as an authority, in the first place, Durandus. I maintain that Durandus says just the contrary. What he says is this :--"Romanus Pontifex ad sedem communicaţ;" that is, "receives at the throne." Then, later on, occur these words:" Post osculum pacis, ad sedem ascendens, ibique consistens universis

cernentibus," &c. And lastly (after quoting a symbolical interpretation, from lib. vi. c. 9, de Myst. Miss.), he concludes thus:-" Secundum Inn. III., igitur ascendens sedem, ibi communicat." This is all that Durandus says in the "Rationale," in connection with our subject. "Ascendere ad sedem" does not signify to sit down, but "to go up to the throne." "Ascendens ad sedem," or "ad sedem eminentem," is the common phrase when speaking of the procession of the Sovereign Pontiff from any place to his throne. So, in fact, what Durandus states is just this: that, after the "Pax," the Pope goes up to his throne, and (“ibi consistens," "there standing") receives. Exactly what the rubric lays down.

With regard to Cardinal Bona, it is true that in describing the peculiarities of the Pontifical Communion on the few solemn occasions that occur each year, he does say, "The chief Pontiff when he solemnly celebrates communicates sitting." But a dozen lines farther on we find these words :-"These details are taken from a ceremonial of the Papal Chapel. They differ in some parts from the instructions laid down in the most ancient Roman ‘Ordo,' as any one can see who will compare the two together." This remark comes in the very same paragraph with the statement quoted by the Dean of Westminster, yet it appears to have escaped his observation. It is almost like a disclaimer on the part of Bona, of any responsibility for the correctness of all the details of what he has been describing. Moreover, it is quite evident (and must be seen to be so by any who will read the passage) that Bona is not there stating like a rubrician what is to be done or left undone--he is merely describing the ceremony of the Pope's Communion on extraordinary occasions, and he concludes by saying, "The details I have given come in a certain work which differs from the Roman 'Ordo.'" Having no clue to the unknown writer whom he quotes, it is impossible to pass an opinion upon him; but is it quite fair to cite the Cardinal as an authority against us, without stating that he himself takes care to say, "These details are not mine; I found them in a work which, I am aware, differs in several points from the admitted authority in these matters"? Is an historian ever considered responsible for the assertion of a fact about which he says nothing of his own knowledge one way or the other, which he tells us he takes from a writer of whom at the same time he gives this damaging testimony: "What I relate I have taken from a pamphlet which is at variance with the highest authority"? As the third writer who speaks in his favour, the Dean of Westminster quotes Archbishop Gerbet. I cannot think that he has treated quite fairly this illustrious ecclesiastic. He has put a character upon him which this venerable and saintly man would have been the last to assume. Whilst expressing the utmost respect for this noble scholar, we say confidently that he never wrote one line that is of authority in rubrical matters. His admirable "Sketch of Christian Rome" contains some of the finest prose writing in the French language; but the work itself has no more to do with rubrics than the "differential calculus," or "the art of shipbuilding." Of the fourteen works published by Gerbet, not one is rubrical. One might as well call "Eustace's Tour," or Maguire's "Rome and her Ruler," authorities on the Liturgy and the Rubrics, as assert the same of the splendid "Esquisse." But, after all, what does Gerbet say? "Il (le Pape) monte au siège pontifical.