which alone render the conclusion of a discourse all that it ought to be, the most telling and effective portion of it." The reader will also find examples of perorations employed by such well-known preachers as S. Alfonso Liguori, Massillon, Father Segneri, who to our mind is one of the most vigorous of Italian preachers, his Grace the Archbishop of Westminster, and Dr. Newman. Of the two last-mentioned Father Potter, quoting the author of "Lamps, Pitchers, and Trumpets," observes that "their writings contain fountains for many sermons for years of consolation and light."

We should have been glad to make a few remarks upon the two great methods of presenting the subject of a discourse by "plan" and by "view," and to express our hearty concurrence with the Abbé Bautain and the Abbé Mullois, quoted by Father Potter, when they say that the fault of sermons at the present day "lies in the absence or deficiency of all method." "The composition of the ordinary man," says Father Potter-for, we repeat, we do not lay down rules for a Lacordaire or a Felix-"who proposes to himself to take views,' is almost certain to lack that strict and logical sequence of ideas, of proofs, of arguments, without which, resting upon the authority of S. Augustine (1 Ep. xviii.), we have no hesitation in saying that a sermon is essentially faulty. Such a preacher is as likely as not to say at the commencement of his discourse that which he should have reserved for the conclusion." (ch. viii. p. 82.) But we must refer our readers for further information to the work itself.

We will only, in conclusion, repeat that we cannot doubt that this book will be warmly received by the clergy, most of whom in the midst of their missionary labour find it quite impossible to prepare the words of their sermons, and who, therefore, cannot fail to feel grateful for so many useful hints, how to make their extempore preaching really fruitful. We trust also that Father Potter's work will be in the hands of all ecclesiastical students, for whose information we may add that at pages 20, 21, 97, they will find how this accomplished and experienced professor of sacred eloquence himself trains the students of All-Hallows College to prepare for extempore preaching. The continual practice of writing sermons during their college course, and of making a careful and accurate synopsis of every sermon thus composed, forms the chief feature of this training. There can be nothing better. The work has been excellently brought out by Messrs. McGlashan & Gill, of Dublin, whose many beautiful publications clearly show that in excellence of typography and finish of binding the Irish capital can more than hold her place with any rival.

The Russian Clergy. Translated from the French of Father GAGARIN, S. J., by CH. DU GARD MAKEPEACE, M.A. London: Burns & Oates. 1872. THE state of the schismatical clergy of Russia seems, if we may judge of it by the number of books even recently published, to be exciting very considerable interest in the minds of men who have little in common with that fallen body. Father Gagarin, however, had a natural attraction to the VOL. XIX.-NO. XXXVII. [New Series.] Q

subject, besides the supernatural desire to see his countrymen recover their lost inheritance. It is also the more satisfactory to read what he writes because of his perfect knowledge of the subject, and because of the illumination of faith which enables him to see things in their true light as they really are.

The work before us is admirably done, and we have seldom or never read any book our interest in which was so unflagging. The translator, too, deserves all praise for the skill with which he has rendered the French original into clear and easy English, and our sole regret is that he is still a stranger to the household of the faith.

"Inasmuch as the author," says the translator, "whose work I have translated is a living Catholic Father, as well as an historical writer of repute, I, a Protestant, felt bound, especially after being favoured with the author's consent to the translation, to allow him, by a very faithful rendering of the original, to speak not only as an historian, but also as a Catholic."

It is but justice to the translator to make known this his explanation, and that done we proceed with our task.

In the first place, the reader of the book must be struck not simply with the ineffectiveness of the Russian clergy, but with the spiritual degradation and intellectual darkness into which it has sunk. Schism and servility to the civil power seem to go together, and to be according to circumstances sometimes causes, and sometimes effects each of the other, at least in principle; for in some countries, by the great mercy of God, abject servility before the temporal power has not always resulted in schism, though it has always threatened to do so. We know what came of it in England, we have heard of the dangers it created in France long before the First Revolution, and we see now what it is doing in Bavaria, though we hope the great evil may not be wrought out in full, and our hope is well grounded, for the bishops are faithful there.

In Russia the civil power met with scarcely any resistance, because there was no one to make it. The bishops had begun by revolting against their superiors, and were therefore without strength. It is true that the superiors, whose authority, such as it was, they cast aside, had no lawful claim on their obedience; but that did not mend their case, because they did not return to their true Superior and Father the Supreme Pontiff. Bishops and priests in schism can offer no resistance to the secular aggressions, and the strength of bishops not in schism is always lessened in proportion to their disloyalty to Rome.

Besides, the civil power hardly ever fights with the whole episcopate within its reach at once. It beats the prelates by dividing them among themselves, protesting all the time that it means no mischief, whereby some are generally won over either to befriend the State or to observe a benevolent neutrality. If, then, the State can do so much evil when it has to do with bishops not tainted with heresy, and in the communion of the Holy See, its powers are immeasurably greater when it has to do with bishops who have, built their palaces on the sand, as the bishops of Russia had certainly done long before they fell an easy prey to the Czar Peter the Great.

As heresy begets schism, so schism begets heresy; the Russian bishops

have not escaped, and it appears from Father Gagarin's book that they hardly wish to escape, the unavoidable lot of schismatics. They have either taught heresy themselves, or suffered it to be taught by others; they are at best but dumb dogs that cannot bark, and the wolf is never disturbed by their cries of danger.

In Russia the secular clergy has become a caste; and the cause of that is that they are all of them, before their ordination, married men. The old law of the Church is still in force, but with this difference, that the secular clergy is composed of men who were compelled to marry their wives. Thus, orders in Russia are given only on two conditions, monastic vows and marriage. Father Gagarin knows of but one ordination there the subject of which was an unmarried man living in the world :—

"In Russia alone has the custom prevailed of requiring the marriage of all who are to be ordained among the secular clergy. But even in Russia this custom, how general soever, has not the force of law. A recent fact proves this. Mgr. Filaret ordained as priest a M. Gorski, a celibate but not a monk. The legality of this act is not to be doubted: but so strongly rooted is the contrary, custom, that in the whole Russian Church not a single bishop would be found to follow Mgr. Filaret's example. We have not heard that this prelate has himself followed his own lead, and made a second ordination in the same circumstances." (p. 29.)

The discipline in force in the Eastern Church always allowed the ordination of married men, but in Russia marriage has become compulsory previous to the ordination. The result is that the secular clergy are immersed in worldly cares, struggling with the unavoidable poverty, except in towns, of a small benefice and a large family. They have no time to study, and the higher dignities of the church are withheld from them, because of the law that requires the bishop to be an unmarried man. Their children are driven by the State into the ecclesiastical seminaries, and in a certain sense compelled to become priests or monks, whether they have vocations or not. of a priest or deacon is destined by his birth to enter the clerical ranks : it is an obligation from which he is not permitted to withdraw himself.” (p. 16.) On the other hand, though the children of nobles, tradesmen, or peasants are not absolutely forbidden to enter the ecclesiastical state, yet if they wished to enter it they "would meet with insurmountable obstacles," unless they proposed to become religious also.

"The son

Education in Russia is a function of the State, and it educates not the layman only but also the priest. There is nothing in this beyond the necessary and lawful result of the principle: and we are not surprised to read in Father Gagarin's book the following astounding statement. The italics are his, not ours :-

"The ignorance of the clergy being complained of, a decree was issued for the founding of ecclesiastical schools. These remained deserted: the clergy were then ordered to send their children there; and as these did not go by any means willingly, they were taken there by force-sometimes even loaded with chains. Here we see an application of the principle of gratuitous and compulsory instruction."

"The ukases of Alexander I., published in 1808 and 1814, declare that all

the children of clerks from the age of six years to eight, are at the disposition of the ecclesiastical school department.'

"When once the Synod or the State had been at the expense of the children's education, it seemed just that they should wish to be indemnified for it. The seminarists had no other prospect than that of entering the ecclesiastical state. In order to pursue any other career, they needed a special permission, which was very difficult to obtain, and almost always refused." (pp. 17, 18.)

The priesthood of Russia has thus become a caste; and what should be a special vocation from God is supplied by a profession, hereditary in certain families. Russia has converted the priesthood into a function of State, and "in order to put the children of the clergy in safety from an unpleasant competition, obstacles were multiplied to other classes of society gaining access to the sanctuary.” (p. 18.)

This is not all not only are men doomed to become priests whether they have a vocation or not, but they are further bound to marry, and even in marriage they are not free. The seminarist is in the grip of the State and the Synod, the Synod is only the State in another form, and he must do what he is bid. He cannot choose even a wife out of the caste. deacons have daughters for whom settlements must be found hence arose a prohibition against marrying out of the caste. There are some bishops who even do not tolerate their clergy marrying out of their diocesan clergy." (p. 19.)

"Priests and

This utter degradation of men who at the same time possess the awful grace of holy orders is enough to make stones cry out; but it is not felt in the Russian Church: those who feel it take refuge either in Nihilism or in dissent.

"There is in Russia a sect called Nihilists, who deny everything and believe nothing. The existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the future state, the fundamental bases of society, marriage, property,-they reject everything. Nihilism is rapidly spreading in the universities; but if we may believe the 'Moscow Gazette,' it has committed still greater ravages in the seminaries." (p. 20.)

The Dissenters in Russia are numerous, and are governed by their own laws in ecclesiastical matters. They sturdily refuse all communion with the so-called orthodox Church, and they have very prudently established their chief bishop or patriarch in a place outside the Russian dominions, in order to secure their own independence of the State, and the freedom which they think they ought to possess.

In Russia the religious houses are not even honestly filled. It is true that the State does not force people to become monks; yet it is difficult to say that the State has no influence in determining that which out of Russia would be a divine vocation.

"A priest or deacon who has rendered himself guilty of grave offences, and can no longer exercise his functions, is condemned to the convent, as civilians are elsewhere to the galleys." (p. 88.)

It is true that the monks have one inducement before them, for it is out of their body that the bishops are taken. In the absence of vocations, the

prospect of preferment might lead a certain number of ambitious men to take vows; but as it is not considered decent to promote ignorant men to the episcopal sees, a certain necessity is acknowledged that young men of good abilities and becoming learning should be persuaded to enter the monastic houses; but if persuasion fails, other means are resorted to; and Father Gagarin tells the following story of the celebrated Pbato, Metropolitan of Moscow, at the beginning of this century. The story is told by him on the authority of a Russian parish priest, and he does not suggest a doubt of its truth:

"When all methods of persuasion had failed, the recalcitrant student was invited to pass the evening with one of the monks. There he was made to drink until he became intoxicated, when the ceremony constituting religious profession was performed,i.e., the taking the habit and receiving the tonsure. On awaking the next morning, the unfortunate youth saw beside his bed, instead of the lay garments worn the night before, a monastic habit.” (pp. 84, 85.)

It was to no purpose that the miserable youth complained of the trick; the act was done; his deceivers secured their prey, and he was constrained to yield, and ratify in his more sober senses what had been done while he was too drunk to offer any resistance to the tonsure, which was effected by force and fraud.

Another principle of destruction in the Russian Church is the use in the seminaries of pure Protestant books on theology, and the wasting of much time on physical science and merely secular learning. It is not to be wondered at that the young men in these seminaries should indulge in unbelief; their training necessarily leads thereunto. Nevertheless, for the purposes of the State, it matters not much whether the priest believes in God or not. Sermons are infrequent, and the clergy have generally persuaded themselves that all their duties are fulfilled when they have publicly chanted the Divine Office :

"As to making Jesus Christ known and loved, or pointing out to souls the way to tread in His steps, it [the clergy] does not even dream of such a thing. The salvation of souls redeemed by Jesus Christ at the price of His own blood concerns it not; its thought goes not beyond a few formalities understood after a Jewish fashion." (p. 48.)

This is the fruit of the Royal supremacy. The work has been done differently in England; but it has been done, and we also have come to the Nihilism of the Russians.

The bishops are not better than the priests. It would be a miracle if they were. Brought up in the same schools, and trained in the same system, they resemble each other. But the bishops have to bear the yoke first, for they are immediately under the Synod, which is simply an office of the secular government, and are absolutely at its disposal. They are, of course, appointed for life, but the Synod can translate them to other sees without asking their consent, and if they do not give satisfaction in their new place, they can be, and are allowed to rest themselves-that means that they are really deposed,