London Monitor And New Era Newspaper Archives

- Page 4

Issue Date:
Pages Available: 16

About London Monitor And New Era

  • Publication Name: London Monitor And New Era
  • Location: London, Middlesex
  • Pages Available: 12,320
  • Years Available: 1900 - 1915
Learn More About This Publication


  • 2.17+ Billion Articles and Growing Everyday!
  • More Than 400 Years of Papers. From 1607 to Today!
  • Articles Covering 50 U.S.States + 22 Other Countries
  • Powerful, Time Saving Search Features!
Find Your Ancestors Now

View Sample Pages : London Monitor And New Era, May 28, 1910

Get Access to These Newspapers Plus 2.17+ Billion Other Articles

OCR Text

London Monitor And New Era (Newspaper) - May 28, 1910, London, Middlesex T&ë Monitor sod Soma of the letters which we publish upon this matter make interesting reading, but they do hot give iis a very high opinion of the persons who áre endeavouring to <o,btairi .a footing for the “ Old Catholics in this . Country. The whole thing seems a very sordid intrigue, and the “unity ” which seems to prevail amongst the various persons involved, proves them to be very fit indeed to take ■up .the queistfion oí ré-unitiáie Christendom and bringing the Catholic Church to merge itself with Bishop Mathew and his handful of followers. The first letter we publish is írom Bishop Mathew himself. We have no wish, in view of the statements made, to question the consecration of Bishop Mathew by the “ Old Catholic " Bishops referred to But we think it far from candic that persons who pretend to be working for the re-union of Christendom, and to tee no bitterness towards the Catholic jChurch, should be advocating the expulsion of the “Italians” (as Catholics in this country are called by these persons), and should, as a matter of fact, be the bitter and virulent assailants of thé Catholic Chirrch in private, w hile all the time their public professions are of quite a different kind;    ‘ Bishop Mathew’s Letter. We have received- the following : “ Sir;—Since you have publishéd the letter signed ‘ Incredulous ' which appeared in the ‘ Guardian sind in the ‘Tablet’ in May, 190S, .you will, I feel sure, do me the justice to publish also the following letter, which appeared in the ^Guardian ’ of 3rd June, 1908 AN' OLD CATHOMC BISHOP FOR ENGLAND; Sir.—We, tlie Archbishop and Biehops oi the Old Catholic Church of. Holland and tii? Old : Catholic Biehftpa of Germany and Switzerland, having heard' with much concern of certain events connected with our Enjrlish branch of the Old- Catholic Church, , wish to say that we haye: been, in corr«5-pondence with n. suspended Roman Catholic priest in England since the year 1902. This priest visited the Bishops of Bonn, Berne, Haarlem, Deventer/ and the Archbishop of: "Utrecht, and we believed him to be in perfect accord with us. He accompanied Bishop Mathew on his visit to the Archbishop of Utrecht. On April 7th in :hfl present year be. with, other»,' Bigned :he petition to the Bishopa begging us to ionsecrate the Right Rev- A. H. Mathew, •ill the document« were sent by this priest »0 Bishop Herzog, accompanied by numerous lefctew urging’ upon us thé immediate need of a Bishop, not only for the requirements of hits own congregation but for those of other clergy and congregations specified by him. We had no reason fo suppose that we '-were mistaken in complying with his request.    •-. We wieh now to state that our confidence in Bishop Mathew leinaina unnhaken, after . . Mrefully peruting a large number of documenta bearing upon this matter, and we «Hirnestly hope that his ministrations will be abundantly blessed by Almighty God, and that he wiir receive the cordial support of Ihe British people and Church in the trying circumstances in which lie bas been placed.—In the nanie of thé Old Catholic Bishops of . Holland, Germany and Switzerland. THE SECRETARY, J. -T. VAS THIEL, Bishop of Haarlem. *M have no intention of troubling you with any further remarks upon a matter which was thoroughly discussed and disposed of two years ago. Ï never desired episcopal consecration, nor did I ever apply for it to the Dutch Bishops. “ The ceremony took place in the presence of a very crowded congregation at St. Gertrude’s Church, in Utrecht, on 28th April, 1908, during PontificaKHigh Mass, celebrated by ; Monseigneur Gerard Ci til, the old Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht. “ J am, Sir, ■’. “ Your obedient servant, “*i<ABNOLD 11. MATHEW, “ Bishop.” From One of His Fol-lowers.:;..:. The next letter is from the Rev. W. N. Lambert, one of Bishop Math-ew’s adherents. His descrdp-' tion of the suspended priest who. engineered thé consécration ; ôf .Bishop MatheW is certainly very remarkable. The letter is as follows:—' ; ' ' Sir,—The account of the ‘'genesis” of the old Catholic movement, to ■which you have drawn attention, as puppliecl to. you, is .incorrect in various details. II is sufficient for me to ask yorir kind per mission to state that the perfidious letter to the “ Tablet” and the “ Guardian,” signed “Incredulous.”. published in May, 1908, was written by the very suspended - priest who had engineered the whole matter to serve his own'ends, and who could probably produce many more than “seventeen priests” ■of sorts, were he in the-mood to do ■’.- so If we chose to accept the ministrations of a lithe of the derjr.v of this kind who apply to us, we should very sooiv have, not “seventeen,” but ten times that number of ecclesiastics united with us. The ¡person alluded to a® at the “head” of “The Revolt from Rome Movement,” .certa inly succeeded in gaining the confidence of the old Catholic Bishops on the Continent and of Dr.. Mathew here, none of whom suspected that he could be capable of the low and mean treachery of which he was guilty. Dr. Mathew had never any desire for the episcopate, and only accepted it reluctantly on the strength of the representations made to him. Yours, etc., W. NOEL LAMBERT, Priest of. St. Willibrord^s. A Question for Bishop Mathew. Then, we liave another latter from eotneoo* wlxo weim* to know a good deal about Bishop Mathew, and who seems to show . that when that, gentleman left the Catholic Church lie had; given up Christianity, altogether. Our -, correspondent refers to a circular which this ex-priêst <-ont to .-his congregation at Bath, and which, if it is authentic, proves (conclusively that at that date the Rev. A. Mathew had not only giveh: up the Church, but had given up Christianity. Sir,—I have been reading the correspondence in your columns on ¡his subject, and I womid like to date ! one or two facts, to be followed by j a question. ' In Debrett (the standard authority on the Peerage) for 1910 appears the name of a clainiant to the Irish Earldom of Laridafi, and the gentleman so described is referred to as having been, consecrated by the Archbishop of Utrecht Bishop of the Old Catholics in the Ignited Kingdom. The titular euri —Arnold Harris Mathew—is married and has a; family—daughters, and -a son, who has assumed the title of Viscount .. Mathew. This- latter assumption perhaps would be regarded aé irregular, as his father (vide Debrett) has. not yet -established his right to vote for the election of Irish representative Peers. That, however, by the way. Writing from a. detached point of view, 1 should ¡personally consider— unless .Debrett be unreliable—that on the question of “orders” the gentleman■ who recently, erected his Chapter in North London has : a much more assured position than the Arch bishop of Canter bury, so nothing is to. be gained by : calling lii in “Mr.” Mathew. The presiding Prelate in the Archdiocese of Westminster might quite as justly and fairly be described as “Mi\” Bourne, though nobody, I hope, would be so rude, and discourteous as to question Dr. Bourne's rightful position. Having stated my facts, 1 now come to the second part of my letter. In the eighties there was a Roman. Catholic priest in charge of the mission at Trowbridge (Wilts), and his name was Father Arnold Mathews. When Canon O’Loughnane vacated the rectory of St. rSlary’s, Julian Road, Bath, Father Mathews succeeded Jiim.. The new rector of St. rj-’s took a prominent part in controversy in a city Which is notorious for theological . disputation—it is a leisured community. »S'» vigorous was the new rector, that he set everybody by the ears much to the chagrin of some verj- loyal Roman Catholics who Were- desirous of living at peace iwitli their Protestant neighbours, and who had no cause of quarrel with them. But there was a dramatic 6cquel. The good ¡people of St. Mary’s one Sunday morning oh. going to the ea t jy Mass found copies of a circular letter addressed to them by 4heir priest informing them-—without . a word of previous, warning—that he. had left the Catholic Church. He found it impossible any longer to teach “that Jfeus was God,” and he told them in a final phrase “that confidences would be kept!” A stunning blow this ; to a f aithfu 1 and confiding flock.'. A great scandal to miæion founded by much self-sacrificing labour—a mission which làd enjoyed the. personal support and presence of 3Î. E. Caixlinal. Manning. Following upon this startling experience of the good folks of St. Mary’s came a, rumour that Mr. Gladstone was interesting himself to secure a Unitarian ¡pulpit: for the priest who no longer believed .Tesus was God. It was more than rumour, for I; myself 6poke to One Unitarian- minister (since deceased) on./the matter j and he was—or professed to be—quite cognisant ’ of •what- was going forward. I waited and watched the progress of events, but nothing came of Mr. Gladstone^ friendly interposition. ; : The priest concerned wa6 supposed at the time to have come under the influence of Father Suffield,. of Reading, expriest and Unitarian preacher , of that town,, whose life has been piib-lisfeed by the. Essex Hall , publishing linn. - Debrett -says that for a time “Arnold Harris Mathew” 'assumed the name of Povoleri; but .¿ ueritly dropped it. Are the titular Earl of Landaff, Signor Po voleri. Bishop Mathew in ooimn uni on with Utrec-lit. and" the f-Hiinier .praesifc •• <#. Trowbridge and Bath,, one and the same .person ? I am, sir, yours, etc.. “ lGNOTUS.” from a Catholic point of- view,; heretical, inasmuch repudiates the Council of the Vatican of 1870, and the Bull Unigenitus. : This suspended priest, who has “ long aspired to episcopal consecration,” though, contumacious and at loiggerheads with the iiuthoi-ities at Westminster, has never been charged with heresy, in fact he has repeatedly published sermons olí other matters^ in local newspapers, maintaining his perfect “orthodoxy,” and, on this ground, he spends . much of his valuable, time in the congenial occupation of sol-iciting support for his “schools,” and other interesting objects, among1 the Catholic population of London, particularly at the East End. Tn fact, .as an : orthodox, “ persecuted.” “ maligned.*’. and- so forth, priest , ! he maintains himself, without. ! flock, in a: commodious house,, and in respectable surroundings, in ease and comfort ! Now, as a man of business, may I . venture- to" imita te the example set by “ In credulous ” in his letter to the “ Guardian ” and “ Tablet,” ami propose a few; simple .questions, -which. J am sure, he will have no difficulty in answering and I beg your readers’ attention to his replies. Royal Commis sien The Roj-al Conimissioi Divorce Laws xesunied its London on Monday, Lord siding.    ; ■" . The first witness was j Grubbe, stiporidiary inajiistrato East Sam, who expressed himself in -favour of conferri‘n|rjurisdiction’ in certaii n . cases o n county cept within the district Met ro j ioli t ail Pol ice or sutnmary jurisdiction pre ex- ourti of. the court of sided over by: a' stipendiaTy magistr;ite, where heiwould give jurisdictio|i to those existing courts He thought the two yiars’ limit now necessary to enable, a wife to. obtain a divorce for des< rtion and misconduct would teid t a (promote morality/ amwig working- ( lasses Mischief of Ptsblicatiori. Judge O’Connor, of the Durham County Court,who is a Catholic, said: he was,opposed to tin principle of divorce, but admitted that he thought it would be unfair to ini- pose on already overwork which, when published, will not fail tional; dutiL relating to to prove extremely intea-esting to many besides the “ Old Catholic” community:—, 1.    Who is. “ Incredulous ” ? Is he afraid or ashamed to give ns his name? 2.    How does he come to know so •much of “'Bishop ” Mathew’s family.; history, his relationship to Sir Tdbie. MaiUhe-w, and the rest? ; . He inquires: " Is he (Dr. Mathew) a Bishop? And if iie. be a Bishop, of what denomination? ” Is. “ Incredulous” a priest? And if he be a priest, of what denomination? Ifew M* Saturday, May 28: iSiG. on the sittings in 3orell pre ir. W. J. of to introduce a Divorce. Act? I ¡should not; but that is no should not be n . But the Stat< r>ighlt to di voii to extend to ev No. I don’t anybody to get Parliament to to grant divom liament were me the rdg'ht itc should have to' way as an Act repeal the Ten Bill to ¡repeal the e hopeful of success, eason why the effort ade. .; has recognised the Ought not the right irybody? _ .-ifecognise the right of divorce .or bf any a enable any tribunal If an Act of Par-aseed conferring on dissolve nmTTiisige I : *egard it in the same which, ¡purported to Commandments. vlud^e id County Court judges the propejsed addi- separation would be judges and As to the reports of such pub-mischief ; remained, question of ¡could oi\iy. that it re- bctween man and wife. I even oppressive to many in;some cases impossible, pubication of newsipaper divorce cases, he thought lication did immeasurab. where: any purity of mine. As regarded the amendment of tihe law he make or,e suggestion, vizi , should be simply and absolutely pealed. ■ Lord Gorell: We are cases of married men Who- hdg . siiperioi^? does he derive his: faculties? Are his absolutions valid or invalid?- If valid, does the Archbishop of Westminster acknowledge their validity, or does his Grace regard them as sacrilegious and null and void? And does his Holiness Pope Pius X. take any different view from that of the Archbishop of Westminster : and the whole of the Bishops1 arid clergy of. England rega rding thi s parti cul arly-“Ihcrédulous” suspended priest and his ministrations? , Is “ Incredulous” a < bplieving priest.? .1 look in Webster’s Dictionary for the meaning of the word “incredulous.'’ .Re gives it as “ indisposed to believe,” “ skeptical.” Now “liiCredu 1 oils’’- inquires whether “ Bishop ” Mathew is “ a Jesuit, , or Old Catholic, or Agnostic!” We may well inquire whether á suspended priest who defies all his superiors, continues his ministrations notwithstanding, suspensión-a nd ecclesiastical censures, who allows defroque suspended priests from anywhere and everywhere to preach and celebrate in his ^church, setting his; lady-fmiids*- residing his house,., to watch the degraded clergy in his absence, lest they should rob him after celebrating. at. his ;al.tar, 1 say : we ma}r well inquire what kind of faith such a man -possesses. ■ Who was the Engineer? told that iag to another country and never b?ing heard go Whence of again: are' numerous. Would you leave the one. left behind tied for life?” When two people get. ma rried they marry each other for lecher, for poorer, for better., for wori e, and for life. : Judge Tindal. Atkinson ■;’ Do you think it would .be possib. e itt this time of day to get any Government The Rev. Mr. H. Dun'nic ing at the Baptist Cliaipe tori, Liverpool, on Su ml a. said that it ought not to the power of broadï-iù: n¿ m . remove -from the Corona said I all needlessly and obviot o. “It has Csualiy Xorthern Churches ' Incredulous ” states that:— is said that; *' Bishop ’’ Mat he w a •following of seventeen priests . . . but no humaii eye can see these- men.” How .does he know? Who stated that “Bishop” Mathew had any following whatever ? Was not “ Incredulous •■ himself the very man who. published these particulars?, Was not, “ Incredulous ” one of the “seventeen”? Were not the rest of them his own personal acquaintances, among the .other suspended renegades of Great Britain, Ireland, North America and the Colonies? , 6. “How did he ('Bishop5 Mathew) induce, the ‘ Old Catholic •’ Bishops to consecrate him ”? sen-tentiously inquires ‘'Incredulous”? How indeed? But did Bishop ” Mathew do so? That is a moot point. A friend of mine in Holland, having ■ made inquiries.- of the Old Catholics,” "ascerfai.ued. that “no communicatiqns’ whatever relating to his consecration,” had passed be- , twe6n “Bishop ” Mathew and the j , „■ , “ Old Catholic ” Bishops! ;The en- i- tes^arit tire correspondence, on the subject, was conducted by .a suspended priest and “Bishop” Herzog of Berne. He it was who, as your correspondent, Mr. O’Connell“ asserts, “engineered” the entire business, as it appears, to serve some ends of1 sive , words ; without weake ling it in the .slightest degree as a Protestant safeguard. Coarsely auc . brutally to ¡stigmatise-Roman Catholics as blasphemers and idolaters might give pleasure to a certa,i l type of ‘'Protestantism,’’ but it Was ‘ far removed froni the spirit of Jesus of iSazai'eth. ACTION OF BAPTIST MINISTERS. the conference)« , Association o are without Catholic readers, but the Jrieeting of thé . Association held Shields provided an inter cussion ori the Coronatioi tion. Thé question was ra ised by Sir William Angus, Jvewcastl though there was no di taken on the’ resolution posed, there is no doubt plea to have the objection; deleted from the Declar: ition met with the support of a lar^e number of the delegates-forming eiice.    ■. Sir William Angus ,mov4d the ■lowing resolution,:; '' That setribly recognises the ih maintaining the security succession to the T earnestly hopes that it ma possible to remove from, nation Oath and every’ p ceremony which inane u King’s reign any expressi Obji action. Witness based his objection \ to mai. and , wife pn /the primary institu' ion of . matrimony in Dden, but: m-ust leave the the Gairdieai of any discussion question to who might speajk present his (the Mr. H. M. LIcj said if any ju given to local ingly <’on«idere<' given to the pc cases the petiti<j> not exceed <=£2 inons should Btfpendk-rry mai magistrates, ant decision to the questions of fi would, give -the an opportun it j With regard to thou,glit; ths Ac great Ikkui to t|i classes.- He tho •n. great sa-fegu ality. He «a; wife should be < proof of the mi band, desertion wards, and if fl: confine<l to an a or sent ; to pena 1 five years. H( Useful purpose publication of r ?¡ports of. cases. O’Connor’s There was a. large attendance at the Church of St. John, Duncan Terrace, Islington, on Sunday evening, when the Very Rev. Mgr. Grosch continued his course of lectures on <e Some Religious Difficulties called Chriiiian -minister.-.' present time there is At ÍJ19 Only One Church' ¡tv England jt>r argument on theological witnesses after him and re-Catholio). Church. yd, solicitor, Cardiff, : 'isdiction. was to be ourts he unhesitat-that it should be .ice courts. In such ner’s income should per week; the sum->c heard before a istrate ifiT thi*ee lay there should be a right of ajppeal Irom tiie magistrates-’ Divorce Division on ct and law. . This very: poorest, person to obtain relief, reparation orders, he of 1895 had been a ' middle, arid lower lght it had acted as ird against iininor-of opinion . that a ntitled to divorce on conduct of her hus-tive yeaiv; a nd np-husbaml had l>een yluin for five years, servitude for over did not think any served, by the was o, preaeh-Ivehsing-evenirig, be- beyond men to Oath offen- 1011 siv la ted to wound the hurt the feelini ;,s of subjects.”; ; , : Sir William s; ,n:r-ei i th ey l>oldl State, in passii the doctrine of 1 its subjects^ w< conscience-When it favo ligious thought of the Baptist ihterest to tioss. co u sci e n ces ,, o r His : Majesty’s lid as Free Church-affirmed that the g an opinion upon ‘eliei's of any part of s going bevond its it North istiiig dis-Declára- was this " en-1 Queries foir “ Incredu-lours.” ■ There is a. further letter from F. Miller, which we also give somewhat toned down :— Sir,—Allow me to .make a few remarks and inquiries on the letter attacking the “ Old Catholic Bishop” wihich you reproduce from the " Guardian ” and the .' ■ Tablet ”! of Mai, 1908. o : As an outsider it struck me tlie moment I read /this letter that the writer of it was (a.) a person who evidently knew a. good deal about the “ Old Catholic ” movement, (b) ‘ incredulous and address^ ' to Is one who wished to wreak vengeance i course upon someone in an ■ anonymous ' underhand manner, by suggesting that the person attacked was; guilty of dishonourable conduct in relatiori to the foreign " Old Catholics ” in question, (c) It struck me, arid what you now publish confirms the impression, that <“ Incredulous ’’ might, in faot, be the “ suspended priest” mentioned by Mr. P. O’Connell, as the man responsible for' and "leader’'’ of this movement, who, in a fit of disappointment at his failure to attain the object of his ambition, had turned traitor to the gentleman he had been making use of as a cat’s paw ! The “ Old Catholics,” as is well-known, have_ a certain profession of faith, which is, his own ! Who gineer ”r , Therefore I ask give us his name lie, identical , with priest w-ho obtained this " episcopate ’’ for; “Bishop ’’ Mathew?. Let him publish his name and I shall have more to relate of his vagaries. 8. As for;the validity or invalidity of •' Old- Catholic ” Orders, the subject is not one upon which I feel competent to enter. .However, the sources of information on the subject are probably,well-known to the Catholic clergy. The ridiculous\dilemma propos«! by Incredulous ” is.its own refutation. . Ho is ‘supposed to be a “ (Jatholic,” as such he is coriimitted to the Catholic theology, and no such reason as thé one he alleges could a ffeet the validity of ordination, as he knows very well, he . having, as I believe, attended an excellent England were associated. '“ niovement.,” which moved as yet, niider this. ,w„ . ■    , I priest’s “leadership,” was the suspended ^ribed by Mr. Galton-| mat ion ” being supplie<l.b. “ Incd'edulous- ” himself, iieve! . In October of the same " Fortnightly ” published neat refutation of all ■statements put forth by IV Gallon at the instigatior credulous ” as I have -rea lieve. The writer was Fr Taunton, who asked for' of a ny of the 300 disaffect or for evidence of the ¡j xvo .reply to Fr. Taunton ’; published of theological studies at a foreign, ’/missionary college, which educated him for. the foreign’:missions, for which, however, when lie had completed his course, he found that he had no vocation”! .■'.. >CHas*jg;e against the : Clergy Refuted. ’ :). In conclusion may I ask “ Incredulous” to inform us whether he is the priest alluded to in an article, published by Mr. Arthur Gal ton, an ex-priest, in the " Fortnightly Review.” for September. 1902? M.i\ Gallon’ there stated that a certain Roman priest _ was at the head of a “movement ” .in. which 'some 300 discontented priests - in article has - ever appeared 10. ‘' 'Father Ignatius ” what was,; virtually, hi; grap'hy, a few years ago. stated- that; over "’¿Of priests ” wished tó'"-cóme the Church, and place under his leadership! ^ nati us Jj was-asked for e só:i extraordinary .a state alleged that he had belie the distinct asseveration oi suspended. priest—( ? “ Inc —will he deny it?)—who w obtained' the consecration nathis ” had “ Tgnatiuf guarantee^ that lie. in tu give “ Incredulous ” a va era tion ! And Air. O’Connell, whr seems to be "in the know,’;’ inforns us: that the head of the “ Eevdt from jElomé" nibvement, was a suspended priest ^ho “alone, was responsible fo.”    Afo thew’s confecration arid al-rect vote lie pro? that the i>lé. words' ie confer- fol-this As-cessit.y of of Pro-irone, but t l>e found tiie Coro-irt of the 'ates the ms calcu- other it wa-s co injustice.; It union, when its unity amongst knew that it- w and trouble to he had to take of the Corona could well be1 have willinglv from doing so new King1 wouk his dissenting he might expect tion to this m in sympathy was part of the The resolutioji the Rev. E Mr. E. W. De strongly opposec remarked that ing the oath ired one s:ide of re-or condeinned. an-mniitting an act of ".-as favouring dis-duty was to promote its subjects. They as a serious burden the late King that the offensive parts on Oath, and they eve that he would freed his successor They thought, the be glad to note that ubjects, from whom the greatest opposi-itter; -were heartily Lth him,; because i t r'great-principles, was seconded by; Hopkins, S outh Shi eld s. jEussett, Tj'nemouth. the resolution, and t)lie questiph of alter ,as considered about three months by the leading; i yMi\ Meagher, is a member of the statesmen of tlif Conservative Party j Upper Chamber in KeW South v did not see their I Wales _ Parliament, and .is an j iiange.    !I inftiientiai _ and highly-respecded i Iva.m Barton nioved . 'gentleman in the Commonwealth, i ^tioh: and observed He'lias l>een foremost in the work ’ right to require pf organisation amongst -his ; exiled ill 1901, and th way to make a The Rev. Gr the; previous qu that they, had any person, Ki niako ariv de: faith whatevei The Rev. Shields) secoiide question was ea ’Plie is never suspended very fully the i nfor-: the man ■as I be- year the a very he anaiii r. Arthur of “ ln-ion to beivi h el refi he names ed. clergy, existence, scathijig —and yet he it i who, under, a ps< and 'attacks his : ’I f>, Afontpelier TRAGIC ai . ' A ccord ing to. a Paris Mr, Alfre pu Mish er, wins this week wi(h 1 ! orse b< < Lt ed a n <1 the river near A carried away son escaped^ A . late.r mess: . Kiitt. was» drown autobio- j iito- .to Kcìvé his Fhjs work; j in Pairis- Íjut w<ii Roman j ir.g a villa’ i:t out ” of j f,01. a '<!riv.> with themselves ! teen years, who hen “ l g- j time, in delicate id enee of j took the. reins ment, bei waikeci a longs idi ved. it on j-t.iio Seine. . . à. certain. Suddeiil.v the 1 edulous ” I .into the'river, m mild h ave j a bant- ili ño ■ fee of. “ Tir- I j-ùmppd in tó ree given !:<•iiaried away by would The. son was re$ Mr. Xutt's body an hour later n. id conse- pmall .failing: ytu Çol. Gerald commanding ofiif Yeomanrv, is refe: than fortj* years' that effectually’ and ofiiciàllT. arn^t-t-he. Scriptures as ■ the of the Day,” taking for his special ! Chuteh °of GRom^1!d ïïitî Æ S subject, “The Place; of the . Bible j errors of nineteen centuria upon it in the Church.” Man in every age j the Church of Rome sfi;l    tr> W found in the BiWe. he «aid..a subh.mjty of thought, a grace of ex- dearly (continued..'Mgr.- (.irnsf-h) pression, an ideal of .conduct whichthe Church of. -Rome had. -nr,^t coo-had compelled admiration, and that ..'®itted all tne fauit-; <*h» rouM. fnr : ,i 'if - , V •    J • • she had at least, preserve J tn° RiKa entirely apart from any admission. and the reason was of its inspired character. By Chris- ;.always made use of it in'tlm enh tians it was regarded as being the way *bat G^, whose jf-vrlatiòn it t ,• c rr j ,    . was, intended it should »p- madf ii» revelation of God to man, expression 0£    "•'* of ,His fill "dth regard to belief ÿhe w])(ïle histórv. Vüe \]wù. and conduct, an^as a, safe^and sure ! strï.ct;m.0 of tho New Twtnm^t guide with î^ard to )x>th.    .. -showed that the attitude ,,f ^ The place Ayhich it now; held.; Catholic Church.towards it was the among a certain section of _ those only possible attitude apart from who called themselves Clmstians ¡.considerations.- of inspiration, ;mtl was not the-place it held-un Chris-.' that the Bible could not 1>& tli^sn]» tianity for fifteen centuries of ,the j. rule of faith. When th^v earn'’ to life of Christianity. Until the re-1 to tin? question of. ' insni-7,.tion then volt of Protestantism against the : the PTOtestaut position was mure Catholic Church it held the place ; untenable than bei’ore, WÌiat did assigned to it in the teaching-; inspiration ’ mean? Tliat Od Church. The principle of private directed the authors- • of the ¡H-rip-judgment liad wrought havoc with i lures by a spirit of impulse, to v.rite the Bible and its value as the Word i down certain things pre-ileterminv'd of God. It had placed the Bible in ; in "His mind and cnmniimicatpil br a false position and made it one of ¡ Him. to the min.ils «if ótlf-rs. Whrr? the religious difficultiesof--...-the day. | was the proof of such an irapiiWp as I t, had been, brought into contempt | this? Bow could it be jirovee] that and made , sport of by unbelievers, who exereisC'd their right; to criticism upon the principle of private .judgment. Outside the. Catholic Church I here -was 110 safe or reasonable ground -for accepting tlie Bible a.s the inspired word of God. Its teaching might be •sublime, its language Unsurpassed fo,r bpaufy. blit no. Jiuiiian •authority could- -affirm that, at.- was inspired, from God. -The divine authority of thé ■ Catholic’ Church alone could dp that. She -.gave 'it: its proper, place in the Christian dispensation ; she. assigned its value to the right cause, and its position became reasonable, unassailable and logical. Here at least it commanded The Respect of the Unbeliever,    ... ,    . , ., -, ,, ’    and.- those-wlio'.were outsice I'.rr ¡r’Ki here it was free from the indignity received the Bible as- tli" in'ipir<id aud_ abuse which ignorance and Word of God wijliout re.isoiiahio inalice had laid troni those warranty except that watch was. outside the CatlioJic <; hurch ; here it | supplied bv .their own ; ridi v id nal was. csafe from the ■'fa.t'e which had .j minds. What liad'- this •?nteTnreta-.' ovértaken it even at the haiuls . of | tion of the Scriptures aci.-nrding to eónie so-called-, .-Christian ministers ! t-he individual * niind- oi men who had brought it into contempt j brought about’?- •'•It had V>v,:g;hi in the eyes of inany.    ' ¡fusion, in the eyes of, mary lfariiwi Thefo Ho was the testimony of 1 men religion >vas looked- upon with ;i non-Cathol'-. on the subject : “ The ' coritempt, and mani' were prevent^ ; i near nation has gone, the -atonement, inquiring into the teaching of the has gone, the resurrectioii has gone, \ ( atholic .' Church on the Bible b?-(..hnistianit.v h^s become ..-r supéirati- i lieving it was similar to.' tlie teacjini? bi011, .Christ has. gone, Qo<l has gone. ‘ of other churches. They as-Citii* ' We may go and fling our bibles into olics should thank God that the? the glitter. They have been .stamped had the Word of God on the teach-wiitli. private judgment by some So- ing.of an .’infallible Church. an internal m;.>terious■'■comraiuuc«-. tion passe<l l>etv,-een the -Holy Ghoit cinu the,. minds -arid. imri(>4' -soiiis of the 'authors of'.the .Hible; Th» -enly.-ordinary, witiu-s.'f’s ihpy (•'oulfj oh-tain, of this would be t.n^ ’authois t!iemsel.ves, and flien if ihey did fo witness ’they would heed infdliWe iesfininny that -'they had noi, been fleceived. Plenty of men had. s'* sorted ' ihey were inspired; by <i'd, but was the claim ad.mitk-d by raen of'•.reason.?-,' "N’pwlierp. in th*1 sacred writings of.St....Mark or-St.- ]\t.*ffIi^w Was it said that they had any in-sipiration. of comniand froiii G'.-fi to « rite a single w/»r<i. .There' was. nothing for iHhen but the teaching, testiniony, and Authority of the Catholic Church, S ME. JOHX MEA GHEE : LONDON. ■ IN le Irisli Maratiion. HlfNES BEATS AbL N AT 10 X A L1X1 ES. A- prominent Irish Nationalist in Australia,.-"Mr,. Johu Meagher, of Bathurst, New. Soutii :Wales, arrived in London .during the week. His iriterifion was to visit ..the..old for land. ■ The no ig . or i ration subject, to of ■ ‘ ' of. brethren, share of Stanley L .and the rricd by -JO and has done a lar reiifHons! «ua-re 01 the Nationalist work • j the country of. hi.s. adoption. Düring the visit of the Irish dele- e in ('Norih previous votes lo gates to Australia, entertained them at as 1 am convinced, udonym, funis upon former friend.’ • ^EANlv 1MILLEE Road, N.W. HIS LIFE FOR HIS SON. END DF LONDON PUBLISHER, Mr.. Meagher his residence. ALARM ON THE SIDE. MERSEY- OCTBEEAK' ÓE SMALLPOX AT NEW I’EREY. ■ccond .Irish Maratiion -Tiio.f. was .run at Jones o«-, ¡jurida?» when there was a gathering tepre-^ sentative.- oi all nationalities. l',e laurels were sëcuiecl: by Iriditc1-'1’ alt those who finished b.enig 1 born competitors.. The reptes«1.^1* tiye of -.Wale^, Swan, Mie bpainaHl Hejimonder.- and Cipldíinilit,.-tue-l-pfr lish . long-distànce riniie--: . beaten. Timmins* of -Ojd■ '¡’sj le- -second. The finish was as i»ayv.>. il. It! - T. Hynes, Galway .1. '.rimriiins, (ikhasile J. Lynch, -Dublin ........ J. C. Hayes. Nenagb ., P. Pegan, /Dublin . -1 1. ie ^ !s -• A MAMfVSOTH TOOTH- INTEBESTING; PIS« "VK YORiCSil I Ei> ; ( < 'A' Much alarm has been, caused among people .living on the Merseyside in consequence of a serious outbreak of smallpox at New' Ferry. Twenty cases .have already been notified. 7 A -remarkable explanation of . the cc-ounte’ pnblidied in outbreak is jiut forward. ;• ¿Some Nutt, ilie Londo‘ii: weeks a<;o a bpanish sailor suneruig uf driving on-i <jy froini the disease ^'ai* under -tieat-Ivi> son' when the ¡»ent at the Port. Sanitary Autho-the vehicle fell int-v rity’s Hospital at. New Perry. One dun Mr Nutt was' night, wh^ii delirious, he got out of d drowned,: but his! bed., overpowered the - nurse and ' escaped through tho window. ... lie ,r& states -feint Mr ¡ roamed about-the district for some d Vvbile endeavour-' t.V“? before he was recaptured, and -on^s hie ’ lie lived: during that period came into contact on hblidav, occupv-i 'v’^h several people,    , eluri. Tie \voinf out! One. of the. .first persons to be h:- -=on "^ed ceven i stricken with the disease is stated to; has ’ beeir^for> &r>nie j ^ave .encoiuitered; the Spaniard on ! health. The ¡¡latter 1 th* mght^of.lus escape, while hi< 'fatheri Prospect Place, New Ferry, where near the b-inl-'' nf‘-inost the cases have occurred, has near the bank^ of ; ^ bari.icaaed off and the inhabitants.of the houses affected are now living under canvas, at Pensby. Mr. K. ;,T. . Srrphtnsyn thè Ft-ìey 'Ceuneil. Fìtey Cli'fTs. pi^.in-riiiir fa .-c a p:n!T of ¡v< >1}. \YÌ'.;-thè toetìv of .it mammoih ^1 of preaeri-at¡t i- M!’ nan;t-. and jvc.isn? npsriy r Eighr. indie« :in .héisrBn • ■-■ • • fonr., incKés' • .    ■ Marninoti) .r^nnir.*- ■li?VP .! feund cileni !!’'* }-,JI intervàl-, but ¡¡''iii'iii of such cris»ì>•!■ <:im*-.:s-ever. bffn (liifovn’iK ■ An pxhiuwi ; ve - - 11 ■te he ina:|p, in t!i". ’!'• o£ tlie ui:imnio;!i »-'y li-- i >N' r-r-r ■ .-¡a =ìii :>p £250 FOfî MA1ÎV3ED HÀ^P' A gàirl iiannsd .Kle-vn'i awarded t-'-j*1 damage-ixval Court ,;i Itoge ‘ ' '    'i-ed «fi! t !-P- :rA3 ¡1' I ■ lll]ur!0¿ TèCOilV'.'U ' ! Mtt.pletoii's N in P-> t lorse bolted; and fell i' i.icli at fliat point is • : deci?.- Mr, Nutt I ue.his son, but was; .the swollen cui’rent. ‘ cued by pajssers-by.( was recovered about the captain of. ’a it. -; -■ raven . Eiiardo. the er of tdie Berkshire igning, after more cervice. •- of Ganston, ■ . The girl was' . uv<uu niac.hiiic- with diirc.^ a v. h e 11 11 er r iig a i • i ’■ 1'1J .u .the lnach'inery. I'■< " ' ' - » ' ”"" ■■■"■' ■    j-.her hand aiid.ipu-r oi.- r-' torn away.-    , ,' A motor-coach on the Liverpool- ; It was contended 1 .u‘ -SouthDort - electric railway caught ; ^-as of t2ie. -ordanorv fire near Birkdale Station. The: type, but had been passengers'passed along the corridor ; machine-driven. powe.. into a rear coach and the fire was • creasod t he nu extinguished. The- woodwork of the ; p. was .1 very c coacV was-scorched. j work, U. "w-n.>. the train proceeded to Southiport, Lit was stated ti;’"r a.-nH the damaged coach - was trans- ; the girl w^s using ferred to a repair 6hed.    :| too short. » « -, CT 10» Tlui., p: ' :n- DP. en. ; ai!.>er ïV~ - ;