and other supplies. The name of this base functionary is well known, and will be duly handed down to later generations. This same Title in its third chapter discusses societies of various kinds, lawful, unlawful and Temperance societies. Lawful societies are to be encouraged and membership recommended. Societies that are evidently bad, as Free-Masons, Odd-Fellows, Socialistic and Revolutionist Clubs, are under the ban of the Church; and he who joins, imperils his soul, or, not in a few cases, actually hands it over to the keeping of the Prince of Darkness. Societies of doubtful character must not be condemned by name by any individual in authority, but inquired into and examined by a committee, consisting of all the archbishops of the country. Temperance societies are a great blessing, when they are truly Catholic, having for their ground-work the form and substance of pious sodalities or confraternities, in which good resolutions are prompted by Catholic faith, helped by assiduous prayer, and maintained by the fervent use of the sacraments. Otherwise they fall into the power of artful demagogues, headstrong men, rebellious to the Church, not caring for the observance of the Decalogue, nor afraid of the six deadly sins, but priding themselves on their outward works, and especially their abstinence from drink, which can no more save their souls than could pompous fasting save the Pharisees who hated Christ our Lord and Saviour. other The church next Title treats of the temporalities of the Church and how they are to be managed by bishops, priests and lay-trustees or vestrymen in their respective spheres. None of them can alienate property which they administer; the bishop only to a limited extent and with permission of the Holy See. Lay-trustees must be proposed by the pastor, when elected by the congregation, and must be approved by the bishop in writing. They are to be presided over by the pastor, whose consent is necessary to make valid their deliberations. An important chapter is the Fifth, which handles a very timely subject, the raising of church money by improper means." The collecting of money at church doors for entering to hear mass is condemned as a shameful abuse, which ought to have been done away with years ago, when Pius IX. condemned it and ordered its discontinuance. The Fathers of the Council were so reluctant to admit the existence of such shameful disobedience to the earnestly expressed will of the great Pontiff, that they only spoke of the practice as a possible contingency, "Praxis, sicubi forte existat," "The practice, if perchance it yet survive anywhere," etc. We were delighted to learn, and we hope the news may be true, that the last vestige of this detestable usage has disappeared, and VOL. XI.-23 that entrance to the Church and her Sacred Mysteries is now perfectly free, without let or hindrance, in all our large cities. Further, a free space is to be left in the Church for those who are too poor to contribute. But it must be so arranged that the stigma of "pauperism" (an anti-Catholic term of reproach, wholly unknown to the true Church of Christ) shall not attach to any one enjoying the benefit of this free area for worship. There are no "paupers" in the Catholic Church. This ugly word came into our language with the "Reformation," which destroyed Christian charity and mercy to the poor, as all the "Reformers" confessed, Lutherans and Anglicans alike, with wonderful unanimity. But true Christianity forbids us to do aught that has even the semblance of dishonoring the poor (James ii., 6) or making them blush for the condition in which our Heavenly Father has placed them. St. John Baptist de Rossi, lately canonized, had the true spirit of the Founder of Christianity, for he could not bear to speak of the poor himself, nor allow others to do it in his presence, without softening their name with the tender Italian diminutive of "I poverelli di Cristo,” "the poor little ones of Christ." Picnics, excursions, and like amusements for raising church or benevolent funds are too often occasions of sin and danger, especially in our large Northern cities. In the South, and in some country places of the West, where the congregation goes out in a body, under the guidance of the pastor, and without any disturbing element from outside, they are genuine sources of happy, innocent recreation, and the money derived from such parties or excursions has upon it no taint of sin. But in large cities, or their neighborhood, too much caution cannot be observed in removing all occasions of sin. Hence they can only be held by special leave of the bishop, never at night, nor on Sundays or festivals, and forbidding the use of wine, beer or intoxicating liquors. Fairs, too, are subject to the same restrictions. Balls, with dancing and banquets, for pious purposes, in which the Devil puts on the garb of religion or, as the poet says, dresses himself up "in his Sunday's best," we never heard of before, but they must exist in some of our large Northern cities, for the Council has heard of them and stamped them with its seal of reprobation. There are two other abuses, which were condemned by the Council of 1866, but which nevertheless continue to be as faithfully kept up as if they were binding laws of Holy Church which it were a sin to neglect. The first is, that priests come down from the altar to beg during the celebration of Mass. This is "a most shameful abuse," to use the language of both Councils, "that makes Catholics blush and awakens a feeling of mockery and contempt amongst outsiders." The other is the advertising in circulars, by religious bodies, of Masses to be said for contributors to certain alleged pious purposes. Bishops are bound in conscience to see that such scandals are removed from before the eyes of the faithful. The next Title (on Ecclesiastical Trials) has no general interest, since it only lays down the order and mode of procedure in the case of clerics summoned before the bishop's court, or Ecclesiastical Tribunal. Whenever a bishop's court cannot be immediately organized, Rome will dispense as long as the difficulty lasts. Meanwhile the bishop must follow the tenor of the instruction of July 20th, 1878, with its subsequent explanation, without losing. sight of the spirit of the latest instruction, which is printed on p. 287. The Holy See not only desires that justice be done; but in cases of appeal wishes further to know on what grounds, on what acta et probata, a decision has been rendered, and such knowledge would be sufficient to knock on the head most of those appeals that for several years back have been floating backward and forward, shadow-like, without shape, color or substance, between Rome and this country, puzzling alternately both sides and even finding their way to our secular tribunals. In the Title XI. on "Ecclesiastical Burial" the law of 1865 has been mitigated to this extent, that Catholics who not only possessed lots in non-Catholic cemeteries before 1853, but also those who have acquired one bona fide after that year, may be buried in it, and have their burial service performed with Catholic rites, either at home or in the church, unless the bishop forbid it for special reasons. The provisions of the Third Plenary Council, though we have not been able to dwell on them as fully as we should wish, are replete with wisdom and prudent foresight; and if carried out in the same wise and zealous spirit in which they were conceived, will be of immense benefit to the Catholic Church of this country. They have been deservedly praised and commended by the Amerisecular press, and even by a few of the so-called religious But these few are the exception. The rest with one voice condemn or cavil at every thing, even the most undeniably charitable and wholesome provisions. The chapters on fallen priests, on temperance, on divorce, furnish matter for sneering and calumny, instead of commendation. can papers. France, These are the men who kindly pat on the back French atheists, and see little or no harm in their attempts to root the idea of God out of the mind and heart of as long as they persecute the Church and her ministers. Some Protestant ministers have had the good sense and courage to protest against this disgraceful mode of warfare, but their protests have been unheeded. Prophecy must be fulfilled; and the daily life of the Church has been foreshadowed centuries ago in that of her Divine Founder. Our Saviour was compelled day after day to expostulate with His enemies, to appeal to their honesty and reason, to ask them calmly if they had any good argument wherewith to convict Him of sinful life or false teaching. "Quis ex vobis arguet me de peccato?" And how did they answer this dispassionate appeal? With reviling and blasphemy. Samaritanus es tu et dæmonium habes. "Thou art a Samaritan and hast a devil.” Our religious editors would do well to consider what an unholy pattern they have set up (unconsciously, we trust) for imitation. THE CHURCH AND CREMATION. Philadel Cremation and Other Modes of Sepulture. By R. E. Williams, A.M. "Omnes homines terra et cinis," Ecclesiasticus, xvii., 31. phia: J. B. Lippincott & Co. 1884. 12mo. WE were just on the point of making the above mentioned book, sent us by a friend for perusal, a peg on which to hang some observations on the attitude of the Church to the modern theory of cremation, when we received the following letter from one of our readers in Buffalo, N. Y., which will answer our purpose as well. Whether the writer be Catholic or Protestant, does not appear from the letter itself. But it makes no difference; and in either case we accord him the same impartial hearing. TO THE EDITOR OF THE AMERICAN CATHOLIC QUARTERLY REVIEW. DEAR SIR: I take it that your REVIEW sets forth the tendency of the best thought of the Catholic Church in this country. Even by its enemies it must be conceded that the belief of the Catholic Church is eminently logical and consistent and that its deductions are, for the most part, drawn with common sense. As a believer in the expediency of cremation, I am sorry to see any tendency on the part of the Church to commit itself to opposing this sensible reform. With the first part of Dr. Brann's article on cremation in your October issue, I have nothing to do. It simply sets forth the belief, not only of Catholics but of all Christian people, that the human body, even in death, is a sacred thing and should be the object of tender and solemn respect. That in the process of cremation the body itself 1 John viii., 46. is subjected to any indignity, is no more true than that it is degraded by the process of inhumation. The objection that cremation would interfere with the resurrection of the body has been so often and so thoroughly refuted, that it scarcely needs the repetition of the old and often stated argument which almost casts ridicule on the man who takes this posi tion. The simple question, "Is it any more of a miracle for the Divine Power to resurrect the body from the ashes which are the result of cremation, than to resurrect the body from the dust which is the result of inhumation ?" seems to me most thoroughly to dispose of this question. It would seem that the anxiety with early Christians to be inhumated, to which Dr. Brann refers, showed less faith in the power of God than does the belief of the modern Christian, that so far as the day of judgment is concerned, it matters little what is the present disposition of his material body. When the learned Doctor argues against the sanitary conditions of cremation, he shows that he has not thoroughly investigated his subject. He prefaces his plea for inhumation by the condition, "if proper precautions are taken." The unfortunate fact is, that proper precautions are hardly ever taken. In most large cities in America very little fault is to be found with the location of cemeteries in their effect on water supply and other channels of infection, but in small towns little if any care is shown in this particular, and even where the utmost care is taken as to location, both in cities and towns, the other conditions which make inhumation harmless, are seldom given the scrutiny their importance deserves. But I had not meant to combat or attempt to combat the Doctor's reasoning. Long ago abler pens than mine have furnished thorough refutation for every argument he advances. I had only meant to ask that those who represent the most advanced thought in the Catholic Church should hold their hands until the public at large has gained a little more thorough understanding of the subject, and until its more general adoption shall render patent to the many what is well known to the few, that there is nothing objectionable to the most religious mind in the modern practice of cremation. Ere long the Catholic Church will speak officially on the subject, and its utterance will be the result of that mature thought which characterizes all its decrees. That the actual practice of cremation, modified to suit the liturgy and ritual of the Catholic Church, with crematories consecrated to its service, with the final deposit of ashes taking the place of the final deposit of the body, whether in tomb or in grave, I have doubt the decision of the Church will be that a good Catholic may let his views as a good citizen, wishing the good of his fellow-men, permit him to direct that his mortal remains shall be disposed of by the cleanly and innocuous process of cremation, and do this excellent thing with the full sanction of his Church. no to find. I am, with all respect, Yours, JAMES S. METCALFE. "The With the general tenor of Mr. M.'s letter we can have no fault There is, however, at the close of its third paragraph, a statement which cannot be allowed to pass unnoticed. anxiety of the early Christians to be inhumated to which Dr. Brann refers" would seem, in the opinion of Mr. Metcalfe, to argue "less faith in the power of God than does the belief of the modern Christian that, so far as the day of judgment is concerned, it matters little what is the present disposition of his material body." Now this misconception, on the part of Mr. Metcalfe, would seem due to the fact that the writer of the article in the October number of the QUARTERLY, though quoting correctly enough the substance of what is found in Eusebius, has introduced it by words some |