the Bull Excommunicamus, with a preamble, commencing with the words, Consueverunt Romani Pontifices; adding, at the same time, a clause for the protection of the dignitaries of the Roman Church, § 11 of the Bull Pastoralis; and another clause, containing some of the provisions embraced by §§ 13-19 of the Bull Pastoralis. It is in these clauses principally that the different editions of the Bull Cana, which were published, under the title Consueverunt, by Julius II., on February 19th, 1511; by Adrian VI., on Maundy Thursday, 1523; by Clement VII., on Maundy Thursday, 1532; by Paul III., on Maundy Thursday, 1536; and by Gregory XIII., on April 4th, 1583, differ from each other. That published by Paul III. contains the greater part of the provisions in question; and that published by Gregory XIII. carries the Roman claims to privilege and supremacy to the full extent of the Bull Pastoralis, as it now stands. The Bull of Gregory XIII. also contains the clause against appeals from the Pope to a future Council, and the clause against plunderers of wrecks; and is, in fact, substantially the same with the Bull Pastoralis, except that it retains the old preamble, Consueverunt, &c. This preamble is changed in the next edition of the Bull Cœnæ, extant in the library of the British Museum. That edition is not given in the Bullarium, but is a detached Bull, published by Clement VIII., on Maundy Thursday, 1593; and it agrees, with the exception of a few trifling verbal alterations, with all the subsequent editions of the Bull Pastoralis. It should be observed, however, that the provisions which were successively introduced into the Bull Cana, were not new provisions at the time of their introduction into it, the same matters having been previously made the subject of separate Bulls. Thus, the prohibition of appeals to a future Council, § 2 of the Bull Pastoralis, was issued as early as the year 1459, by Pius II., in the Bull Execrabilis, and repeated in 1509, by Julius II., in the Bull Suspecti Regiminis; the sentence against plunderers of wrecks was promulgated in 1509, by Julius II., in the Bull Pontifex Romanus Pacis, and renewed in 1566, by Pius V., in the Bull Cum Nobis ex parte; although both these provisions were not incorporated with the Bull Conc till 1583, by Gregory XIII. As regards the different points touching ecclesiastical immunities, the exempt jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts, and the supreme jurisdiction of the Roman court, which are embodied in §§ 13 -19 of the Bull Pastoralis, numerous enactments were issued by the Roman Pontiffs, by Bull and otherwise, during the progress of their usurpation. The principal Bulls bearing upon these points, the substance of which was ultimately incorporated with the Bull Coena, are the following-1383, Urban VI., Bull Quia Sicut. 1418, Martin V., Bull Quod Antidota. 1428, Martin V., Bull Ad Reprimendas. 1491, Innocent VIII., Bull Officii Nostri. 1515, Leo X., Bull Regimini Universalis. 1519, Leo X., Bull In Supremo. 1533, Clement VII., Bull Romanus Pontifex. 1574, Gregory XIII., Bull Ad Romani Pontificis. Thus it appears that the Bull Conce is, in fact, a collection of all that was deemed most important for the advancement and maintenance of the power of the Papacy; as its pretensions increased, so the Bull Cœnæ, or form of excommunication, annually republished, of all that ventured to ́oppose the extravagant claims of the Roman See, grew more and more bulky, till at last it assumed the form in which it has now continued for two centuries and a half; being, to use the expression of a Roman canonist, "the chiefest and firmest pillar" of Papal usurpation. The authentic collections of Cherubini and Cocquelines, on a careful review and collation of which the foregoing history of the Bull Cœnæ is founded, do not, however, contain the Bull as often as it has been re-issued by successive Popes. Cherubini (tom. iii., p. 281) expressly states that he intentionally omitted many editions of it, resting content with the insertion of those in which there were any changes introduced; and Cocquelines notes at the head of those inserted by him, from time to time, editions of the Bull which he also has omitted from his collection. Besides those in the Bullaria, the library of the British Museum contains, in a volume of tracts, catalogued under the head Bullæ Papales, three editions of the Bull Conce, namely, those of Adrian VI., Clement VII., and Clement VIII. In order to bring the matters stated above under one view, for the sake of greater clearness, and to enable the reader to test the accuracy of the statements here made, a table of the Bull in its different forms is subjoined, giving the names of the Popes, the years of publication, and references to the works in which the Bulls are to be found in the library of the British Museum: Year. Pope. Heading of Bull. Where to be found. 1299 Boniface VIII. Fuit Olim.........Bullar. Cocq.... Tom. iii., part ii., p. 92. 1303 Boniface VIII. Excommunicamus ib. ib. ib. ib. ib. ib. Tom. iii., part ii., p. 96. Tom. iii., part ii., p. 325. ... Tom. iii., part ii., p. 338. Tom. iii., part iii., p. 319. ... British Museum. 697, e. 6. No. 9. 697, e. 6. No. 12. Bullar. Cocq.... Tom. iv., part i., p. 140. ... .British Museum. 697, e. 6. No. 15. Bullar Cocq.... Tom. v., part iii., p. 393. ... Tom. vi., part i., p. 38. Tom. vi., part iv., p. 94. Tom. vi., part vi., p. 244. Tom. vii., p. 95. Tom. x., p. 12. ib. ib. ib. ib. ib. Tom xi., p. 236. 1731 Clement XII. 1741 Benedict XIV. 1759 Clement XIII.+ Tom. xiii., p. 174. In spite of the opposition which the Bull Pastoralis, or In Cœnâ Domini, met with, at the hands of even the Roman Catholic Governments of Europe, the custom of publishing it annually on Maundy Thursday, by affixing it to the gates of the churches of St. John of Lateran and of St. Peter at Rome, continued, without interruption, to the pontificate of Ganganelli, who, on his elevation, took the name of Clement XIV. His election having been carried, as has been recently shown from authentic documents by Mr. Crétineau Joly, the historiographer of the Jesuits, by the intrigues and the * This edition of the Bull was translated into English at the ominous period of 1689, and published in London, under the title, "The famous Bull In Caná Domini." + The Bull is once more introduced under the date of May 20th, 1764, the sixth year of the pontificate of Clement XIII., in the Continuatio Bullarii, tom. ii., p. 461, where the text is, however, not given at full length, but reference is made to its previous insertion in tom. i., p. 116; adding a memorandum of its annual publication by Clement XIII., as well as by his predecessors. bribery of the principal courts of Papal Europe, themselves at the time under the influence of the infidel principles which led to the French revolution, Pope Ganganelli shaped his policy in accordance with the wishes of those courts; and, among other measures of compliance, the most famous of which was the suppression of the Jesuit order, he surceased from the annual publication of the Bull Conc. Whether, among other measures adopted by the Papacy on the revival of its former policy, one of the most striking proofs of which is the restoration of the Jesuit order, the publication of the Bull Conc has been resumed, is a question of comparatively small importance; as it will hereafter appear that the Bull is in full force at this time, independently of such publication. In the "Moral Theology" of Peter Dens, a Roman Catholic standard work, reprinted at Dublin, in the year 1832, under the sanction of Dr. Murray, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, the Bull is, certainly, described as a Bull annually published in Rome on Maundy Thursday." (See Dens's Theol. Mor., vol. vi., p. 298.) And as late as the 6th of December, 1847, the question having been mooted in the House of Lords, Lord Beaumont, a Roman Catholic Peer, admitted the fact of the annual publication of the Bull Cœnæ Domini.-See" Hansard's Parliamentary Debates," vol. xcv., pp. 674, 675. We shall now consider its validity as a law, at this time, in force in the Roman Catholic Church generally, and especially among the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The argument of Roman Catholics against the inferences obviously deducible from this Bull is, that it has become obsolete; to which the Irish Roman Catholic Bishops add the further plea, that wherever else it may be in force, it is not so in Ireland, because there it is "not received." The following documentary evidence, taken from undeniable Roman Catholic authorities, will enable the reader to judge what reliance is to be placed on such assertions : I. THE VALIDITY OF THE BULL AS PART OF THE ROMAN LAW NOW IN FORCE, GENERALLY. The Digest of the Roman Canon Law, by one of the first authorities on that subject in the Roman Church, the canonist Reiffenstuel, treats at large of this point. After giving a brief historical notice of the Bull, and reciting it at full length, Reiffenstuel thus describes its peculiarities and effects :— "The excommunications of the Bull Conc are peculiar in the following respects: "1. That they are judgments pronounced. "2. That they are most specially reserved to the Supreme Pontiff; so that, except in articulo mortis, no Regular, however great his privileges may be, can absolve from them, nor any Bishop, unless he be furnished afresh with a special privilege. "3. That against them, or rather against the Bull by which they are inflicted, no title or pretext of prescription, of custom, even though immemorial, of non-reception, of privilege, or of dignity, is of any avail; as is evident partly from the Bull itself, partly from what has been said before under tit. vii., De hæreticis, where we have proved at length that against the Bull Cœnæ any title of non-reception, or of custom, or of prescription, &c., is of no avail."-Reiffenstuel, Jus Canonicum Universum, Romæ, 1831 -1834, vol. v., lib. v. Decretal. tit. xxxix., n. 130. "The inference is, that there are indeed at this time many persons who lie, as a matter of fact, under one of the excommunications aforesaid; since it is manifest that many transgress one or other of the points prohibited under pain of excommunication by the Bull Cone. Among whom, certainly, are such lay Judges and officers as in any way obstruct the ecclesiastical Judges in the due prosecution of ecclesiastical causes, and the free exercise of their jurisdiction. Furthermore, those also who have recourse to the lay power against the ecclesiastical power, and the officers who assist them. For such things, alas! we see constantly put in practice, notwithstanding that they are prohibited under peremptory pain of excommunication in the Bull Conc. "Nor do they stand excused, because, although they be notorious offenders, they are for the most part not proceeded against before the external ecclesiastical tribunal, nor denounced or avoided as excommunicate persons; seeing they are thereby not in the least relieved from being still truly excommunicate before God and in their own conscience, and from being liable to the before-recited effects of excommunication before the internal tribunal. "Much less do they stand excused, because by them and some others such excommunications are not cared for, but are made a mock of, and held in contempt; for a time will come when their laughter shall be turned to weeping and gnashing of teeth; besides which, sometimes even in this world already, they are, as experience shows, made in many and various ways to feel, apart from the ordinary effects of excommunication, the avenging hand of God, specially for such their contempt, although the ecclesiastical Judges may, either to avoid greater evils, or because no one accuses them, tolerate the excesses prohibited under pain of excommunication."-Reiffenstuel, ibid, nn. 131, 132, 133. In the place alluded to in the first extract, the same canonist argues the general question as to the possibility of the Bull becoming invalid through lapse of time, or for want of being duly published, as follows: "In conversation one sometimes hears men, and that (which is a pity!) even Ecclesiastics, secular and regular, who venture to say that the Bull Cœnce is not absolutely received, and is, therefore, in these parts [Germany] of no obligation. Which doctrine being not only altogether unsound, but also extremely prejudicial to the clerical estate and to the ecclesiastic immunity and jurisdiction, (whereof the Bull Cana is the chiefest and firmest, and almost only-remaining, pillar,) we have thought it useful and necessary expressly to refute it. "To the objection before stated,.........the answer is, absolutely to deny the whole supposition, that in any province or place whatsoever, it can rightfully happen for the Bull Conc not to be received; consequently, also, to deny that it is anywhere not received, in such manner as not to be in that place fully, and according to its entire and true meaning, obligatory upon all."-Reiffenstuel, Jus. Canon. Univ., vol. v., lib. v. Decretal, tit. vii., nn. 80, 81. Having disposed of the plea of non-reception, the learned canonist next applies himself to the question, whether the Bull might grow obsolete, and so lose its validity by lapse of time. He thus states the objector's plea :— "Granting that there can be no just cause for not receiving the most holy Bull Conc.........yet it might at least be abrogated by lapse of time, through the lawful prescription of a contrary practice and custom; seeing that every human law (such as the Bull Cane is) may be abrogated by the lawful prescription of custom." Having thus stated the objection, he proceeds to refute it : 66 'Again the answer is, to deny the supposition, namely, that any reasonable or lawful custom can be introduced, or operate in the way of lawful prescription against the Bull Cœnæ ; "In the first place, because a custom against the liberty and immunity of the Church, even though it be an immemorial custom, is at all times invalid and inadmissible, as we have proved at large from one and the other [canon and civil] law. (Lib. i., tit. iv. De Consuetud., n. 61.) But a custom against the Bull Cone would be exceedingly adverse to the liberty and immunity of the Church; forasmuch as it is for this object chiefly that the Bull has been set forth, and as in fact it is the firmest and almost the only pillar of it. "In the next place, and chiefly, because the oft-mentioned Bull Conc constantly revokes and annuls all and singular customs,-even though they be immemorial customs, and though their prescription extend over ever so long a period of time,-and all conceivable evasions of whatever kind, by means of a most wholesome clause, which deserves to be quoted at length, and which is to the following effect :— 666 Notwithstanding any privileges, indulgences, indults, and letters apostolic, general or special, granted by the aforesaid See, to the persons aforesaid, or any of them, or to any others, of whatever rank, estate, or condition, dignity, or pre-eminence they might be, even though they should, as aforesaid, be invested with pontifical, imperial, regal, or any other ecclesiastical or worldly dignity; or else to their kingdoms, provinces, cities, or places, for any cause whatever, even though in the way of contract or recompence, and under whatever other form and tenor, and with any clauses whatsoever, even such clauses as should derogate the derogating clauses of this Bull; albeit they should be to the effect, that no excommunication, anathema, or interdict, by apostolic letters shall avail against them, except such letters make mention fully, expressly, and word for word, of such privileges and indults, and of their orders, places, proper names, surnames, and dignities; and notwithstanding any customs, though immemorial, and prescriptions, of however long standing, and any other observance of whatever kind, written or unwritten, by which they might relieve and protect themselves against this our process and judgments, to prevent their being included under them.'"-Reiffenstuel, 1. c., nn. 89, 90. See also the Bull, § 24. Even this, however, does not content the canonist: he sees another possible objection, which is this: "Thou wilt urge, that by this clause only antecedent customs are renounced and annulled; that is, such as have gone before the Bull Cœnæ, and that it does not affect subsequent customs; that is, such as were newly introduced after the establishment of this Bull."-Reiffenstuel, n. 91. This objection he meets, by reference to the character of perpetuity inherent in the Bull. At the time when Reiffenstuel wrote his Digest, this character of perpetuity was practically exhibited in the fact of its annual republication. But independently of such annual republication, the perpetual validity of the Bull is protected by a clause in the Bull itself, by which it is expressly provided, that the Bull in the form in which it is at any time published, shall remain in force until its republication by the same Pontiff, or by any one of his successors, in the same or a similar form. The clause in question is the following: "It being our will, that this our present process, and all and everything contained in this letter, shall continue, and he in full force, until another |