Part 2 — THE FIRST ŒCUMENICAL COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN. NUMBER SEVEN.

The preamble and first four chapters of the dogmatic constitution de Fide Catholica having been irrevocably disposed of in the public session held on Low-Sunday, are now before your readers and the world.

The withdrawal of the veil of secrecy from this portion of the schema has removed from the eyes of many, the scales of doubt and misgiving, blinded as they were by the repeated statements of certain newspaper correspondents; and as future decrees come to light, they will equally confound the pretensions of the false prophets, and amply reward the patient hope of the faithful.

The Vatican Council took a fresh start on the following Friday, April 29th. In the general congregation of that day, the fathers passed from faith to discipline, and began to discuss the reformed schema on the Little Catechism.

After the mass, which was said by the Archbishop of Corfu, the council was addressed by Mgr. Wierzchleyski, Archbishop of Leopoli, in Galician Poland, who spoke in the name of the deputation on discipline, of which he is a distinguished member.

Speeches were afterward made by the Cardinal Archbishop of Bordeaux, Cardinal Rauscher of Vienna, and by the Bishops of Guastalla, Saluzzo, and St. Augustine, Florida.

The next morning, Saturday, the 30th, the discussion was resumed. The Archbishop of Avignon, and the Bishops of Luçon and Parma made some remarks on the general features of the schema. These prelates were followed by the distinguished Bishop Von Ketteler of Mayence, the Bishops of Plymouth and of Clifton in England, and the Bishop of Trèves in Germany; all of whom confined themselves to some particular points of the document. Bishop Von Ketteler, who belongs to a baronial family in Germany, before becoming a chief in the church militant, served his country with distinction as colonel in the German army. He must be at least six feet high, has quite a soldierly bearing, and is concise and to the point in his remarks. The last speaker was the Bishop of Seckau in Germany, a member of the deputation.

As the rules of the council authorize the members of the deputation to reply to the observations of the fathers at any stage of the discussion, the committee avail themselves of that privilege by making the final speech, which in ecclesiastical convocations, as well as in civil meetings, is generally the most telling one.

At the conclusion of the remarks by the Bishop of Seckau, the president declared that the debate on the Little Catechism was closed, and that the vote would be taken on the following Wednesday, on all the amendments proposed.

In the congregation of Wednesday, May 4th, the Bishop of Tyre and Sidon celebrated mass in the peculiar and impressive form of the Maronite rite. The president asked the prayers of the fathers for the venerable Bishop of Evreux in France, who died in his seventieth year, and survived only two days after returning home from the council.

Permission was granted to nine foreign bishops to return to their sees. Among them were the Bishops of Arichat and Charlottetown, in British America. The regular business commenced with a second speech by the Bishop of Seckau, who reviewed all the amendments proposed in the preceding congregation. The final vote was then taken on the Little Catechism as a whole. Each bishop voted viva voce. The term placet was used by the prelates who gave unqualified approbation to it; placet juxta modum by those who had some modification to propose, while assenting to its general features; and non placet by those who dissented from the measure. The total number of votes given was 591.

The Little Catechism, which has received no small share of public attention, now "lies over" till the final seal of approbation is stamped upon it at the next public session.

The general congregations were resumed on the 13th. After the usual religious exercises, leave of absence without the obligation of returning was granted to the following prelates:

The Bishop of Gezira, Mesopotamia, Syriac rite; the Bishop of Merida, Venezuela, South America; the Bishop of Ferns, Ireland; the Bishop of Goulbourne, Australia; the Bishop of Puno, Peru; the Bishop of Santiago, Chili; the Archbishop of Marasce, Cilicia, Armenian rite; and the Bishop of Mardin, Chaldea, Armenian rite.

The oral discussion then commenced on the great and fundamental question de Romani Pontificis Primatu et Infallibilitate, which is comprised in a preamble and four chapters, and which forms the first part of the dogmatic constitution de Ecclesia Christi.

These four chapters had already passed through several manipulations before being submitted to oral discussion. First, the text had been distributed to the fathers, who in due course of time transmitted their observations upon it to the deputation de fide. These observations were then maturely examined by the members of the deputation, and a printed report of their views on them was sent to the residence of each bishop.

The Bishop of Poitiers, in the name of the deputation, opened the discussion with a lucid exposition and vindication of the substance and form of the text. With this lengthy and learned speech closed the congregation of the 13th.

Next day, the debate was resumed. The Venerable Constantine Patrizzi, Cardinal Vicar of Rome, and, with the exception of Cardinal Mattei, the oldest member of the Sacred College, commenced the discussion. He was followed by the Archbishop of San Francisco, United States; the Archbishop of Messina, Sicily; the Archbishop of Catania, Italy; the Bishop of Dijon, France; the Bishop of Vesprim, Hungary; the Bishop of Zamora, Spain, and the Bishop of Patti, kingdom of Naples.

On Tuesday, the 17th, Archbishop Dechamps, Primate of Belgium, addressed the fathers in the name of the deputation. Speeches were also delivered by the Bishops of St. Brieux, France; Santo Gallo, Switzerland, and of Rottenburg, Würtemberg. The president announced the death of the Bishop of Olinda, in Brazil, and recommended him to the prayers of the council.

Wednesday, the 18th. The Archbishop of Saragossa opened the discussion, representing the deputation. The other speakers in the congregation were all cardinals, namely, Cardinal Schwarzenberg, Archbishop of Prague, Bohemia; Cardinal Donnet, of Bordeaux, and Cardinal Rauscher, of Vienna.

Thursday, the 19th. Cardinal Cullen of Dublin was the first speaker, and was succeeded by the Cardinal Archbishop of Valladolid, Spain, and by the Greek-Melchite Patriarch of Antioch.

Friday, the 20th. The Primate of Hungary had the advantage of the opening speech. The venerable Dr. McHale came next. "The Lion of the fold of Juda," as he is called, looks as hale as a man of forty-five, though he is a bishop since 1825. The Archbishops of Corfu and Paris occupied the pulpit during the remainder of the session.

Saturday, the 21st. Bishop Leahy, of Cashel, reviewed some of the preceding speeches as a delegate of the deputation, and was followed by the Bishops of Strasburg, Forli, and Castellamare, Italy.

Intense and unwavering interest was manifested in each of the foregoing congregations, both on account of the grave character of the subjects under deliberation, and the eminent prelates that took part in the discussion. I wish that, together with the names, I were permitted to give also the living words which fell from the lips of these learned and eloquent prelates. They would prove to you that the Christian oratory of the fourth and fifth centuries is reëchoed in the nineteenth, and that it is confined to no nation, but extends over the length and breadth of the Catholic world.

The longest speech yet pronounced in the council was delivered by the Cardinal Archbishop of Dublin, who spoke for an hour and forty-two minutes. Its length was the more remarkable, as Cardinal Cullen trusted to his memory, and illustrated his discourse by an abundance of facts and figures.

It is well known that all the bishops not only have the same faith, but speak the same language in council; and, with the exception of the orientals, and members of religious orders, they wear the same episcopal garb. Yet it is worthy of remark that, in spite of this uniformity in dress and language and outward mien, scarcely has a prelate opened his mouth from the pulpit when his nationality is at once discovered. He utters his shibboleth, which reveals him to his brethren as soon as Ephraim was betrayed to Galaad.

You will hear a bishop whisper to his neighbor, That speaker belongs to the Spanish family of nations. He hails either from the mother country or from one of her ancient colonies of South America, or Mexico, or Cuba. How does he know? He forms his judgment not merely from the little green tuft you see on the crown of the speaker's birettum or cap, but chiefly from his pronunciation. He will detect the Spaniard at once by his guttural sound of qui, and his lisping placet, besides many other peculiarities of utterance.

The Spaniards and their South American and Mexican cousins, though models of episcopal gravity, have not acquired the reputation in the council of being generally the best models of elocution. Their delivery is said to be sometimes indistinct, and their pronunciation so peculiar that, like the rose in the wilderness, they waste the odor of their wisdom on the desert air. Gems of thought fall, indeed, in profusion from their lips, but they escape occasionally in the too rapid current of words.

There are several bishops of Spanish origin, however, who have distinguished themselves alike by distinctness of utterance and by a remarkable fluency. Among others, I might mention the Bishop of Guamango, in Peru, and the Bishops of Havana, and S. Concezione, in Chili.

The next speaker is evidently an Italian. You know it from the musical sentences, which flow from his lips in such a smooth and measured strain that he almost appears to be reciting a select piece of Virgilian poetry. He might seem, were not his classical style so natural to him, to be aiming at making a good impression not only on your mind and heart, but also on your ear. Whenever the letter c is followed by e or i, he gives it the soft sound of ch, as in our English word cheerful; and he is careful to soften down every word which would sound harsh or grating. Sometimes, indeed, a prelate of another country will adopt for the nonce the Roman style of pronunciation; but nobody is deceived. Jacob's voice is recognized, though he tries to clothe his words in the form of his brother's.

It is almost impossible for an Italian bishop to make a speech without a formal introduction and peroration, either because of his respect for his hearers or for the great classical masters. He may protest he will be brief, but that word has a relative meaning. But it must be admitted that, for delicacy and refinement of thought, for fecundity of ideas, and clearness of exposition, some of the Italians have seldom been surpassed.

The prelate now before you, as you can tell at once, belongs to the Teutonic family. He is an Austrian, or Prussian, or Bavarian, or perhaps a Hungarian. The German pronounces g hard before e or i, contrary to the usual practice of Latin speakers. He makes sch soft before the same vowels, pronouncing, for instance, the word schema as if it were spelled without a c. Hence the gravity of the English-speaking bishops is occasionally relaxed, on hearing schematis sound as if it were written shame it is.

The German is more tame in delivery than either the Italian or the Spaniard. His colder climate tends to subdue his gestures, as well as to moderate his sensibility. He is not so fond of dealing in compliments as the Italian speakers, but goes at once in medias res. He is generally short and precise, and more inclined to appeal to your head than to your heart. At the same time, religious and logical, the sublime superstructure of his faith is built upon the solid foundation of common sense.

If a French prelate were not known by his rabat, he would be easily distinguished by his utterance of Latin. He has a strong tendency to shorten the infinitive in the second conjugation, and to lay a particular stress on the last syllable. There is indeed no bishop in the council who is so readily recognized by his voice as the Frenchman. Every one can say to him what the Jews said to St. Peter: "Surely thou art one of them, for thy speech doth discover thee." But, like Peter, he has no reason to be ashamed of the discovery; for his speech is not less pleasant than peculiar. He is no exception to the cultivated taste of his countrymen. He is generally well understood, because he speaks distinctly, and listened to with pleasure, because to solid learning he unites an animated and a nervous style.

For obvious reasons, a continental writer would be the fittest person to pronounce a correct judgment on the style and Latinity of the English-speaking prelates of the council.

I will venture, however, an observation. Though the style of the American, English, and Irish prelates may have less claim to merit for polish and studied classical Latinity, their discourses will certainly compare favorably with those of their episcopal brethren from other parts in strength of argument, in clearness of expression, as well as in their telling effect upon their discriminating audience.

The bishops of these countries adopt what is called the parliamentary style. They are usually concise, and always practical. They are in earnest. They look and talk like men fresh from the battle-field of the world, who have formidable enemies to contend with, and come before the council well stocked with experimental knowledge. They content themselves with a brief statement of the measure they propose, and a summary of the reasons best calculated to support it, without occupying the council with elaborate disquisitions.

The number of English, Irish, and American bishops up to the present, who have delivered oral discourses before the Vatican Council is comparatively small. It must not, however, be inferred from this that the other prelates of these nations have all remained inactive spectators, for many of them have handed in written observations on the subjects under deliberation.

The following are the English-speaking fathers who, up to the present date, (June 2d,) have addressed the council:

Archbishops Spalding, Kenrick, and Purcell, and Bishops Whelan and Verot, United States; Archbishop Connolly, Nova Scotia; Archbishop Manning, and Bishops Ullathorne, Vaughan, Clifford, and Errington, England; Cardinal Cullen, and Bishops Leahy, McEvilly, and Keane, Ireland.

None of the Scotch or Australian bishops have as yet spoken.

Three hundred years have elapsed since the close of the Council of Trent. Of the two hundred and seventy bishops who assisted at that council, only four were from the British Isles, of whom three were Irish and one English; and we think it doubtful if these three Irish bishops spoke the English language.

The Council of the Vatican has upward of one hundred and twenty English-speaking prelates, representing not only Great Britain and Ireland, but also the United States, British America, Oceanica, and the East Indies; and should the twentieth œcumenical council be called within the course of another century, judging from the past, it is not unlikely that the English tongue will then be what the Italian is to-day—the language of the majority.

Comparisons have been drawn between the Council of the Vatican and the United States Congress. Perhaps it would be easier to point out the lines of divergence than those of resemblance between these two deliberative bodies.

As to the relative ages of the members of the Council and the members of Congress, the former are decidedly in advance of the latter. I have taken the pains to refer to the Annuario Pontificio for 1870, which gives the age of nearly all the bishops of the Catholic world. From this book I learn that the oldest bishop in the council is in his eighty-fifth year, while the youngest bishop, the Vicar Apostolic of North Carolina, is thirty-five. The Archbishop of Lima, who was prevented by infirmities from coming to Rome, is the dean of the entire episcopacy, being now in his ninety-sixth year. Thus we see that both extremes of age meet on the American continent; North America having the youngest, and South America the oldest representative of the episcopal hierarchy.

Of the thousand bishops now in the church, fully three fourths are between the ages of fifty-five and ninety-six. The ages of the other fourth range between thirty-five and fifty-five. Scarcely half a dozen of these prelates are more advanced in years than the Holy Father, who yet exhibits more physical endurance and mental activity than any bishop ten years his junior.

So much for a comparison as to age. Next as to the speeches in both assemblies. The bishops embrace a wider field in their discourses than our senators. They are circumscribed by no limits of country. They make laws which bind the consciences of two hundred millions of souls—Europeans, Americans, Australians, Asiatics, and Africans; while Congress legislates for scarcely one fifth that number, and these confined within a portion of a single continent. Hence, in this single aspect of the case, the great ecclesiastical synod as far excels the Federal Congress of the United States as Congress itself surpasses the New York Legislature, or this latter the city council.

The speeches of the Vatican Council are usually much shorter than those delivered in Congress. The addresses of the fathers seldom exceed half an hour,[284] except those of the members of the deputations, whose remarks generally embrace a critical analysis of the questions before the council and a review of the amendments proposed by the bishops, usually occupying about the space of an hour. The reason for this brevity is obvious. No prelate would wish to be guilty of the bad taste of occupying unnecessarily the precious time of his brother bishops. He is fully convinced, on ascending the pulpit, that every word he says will be carefully weighed in the balance by a discriminating body of judges, who are influenced only by sound logic, and not by plausible rhetoric.

Besides their brevity, perhaps I might also add that the speeches of the fathers are characterized by more personal independence, sincerity, and earnestness of tone, than those of our legislators in Washington, while it must be admitted that public opinion commonly attributes to the episcopal character a higher order of virtue. Yet, apart from this consideration, we may find a reason for this difference in the fact that our national representatives have more temptations to sin against singleness of purpose than the prelates of the council. Besides the members on the floor of the House and Senate, there are often well-filled galleries ready to hiss or to applaud, according to the prejudices of the day, and we know how human nature dreads the finger of scorn and loves the popular plaudits. There is a political party which must be sustained per fas et nefas, and though last, not least, there are dear constituents to be pleased.

The fathers of the council have no such temptations to withdraw them from the strict line of duty which conscience dictates. All their general congregations are so many secret sessions. There are no frowning or fawning galleries to allure or to intimidate. There is no party lash hanging over the bishops' heads; for they have no private measures to propose in behalf of their "constituents." Indeed, one of the rules of the council requires that every bill brought before it must necessarily affect the general interests of the church, and not the special wants of any particular diocese or country.

The consoling unanimity which marked the public session held on Low-Sunday, seems to have put an effectual quietus on the erratic correspondent of the London Times; for he no longer, like another Cassandra, utters his prophetic warnings to the council, since the fathers, on the occasion alluded to, by a single breath demolished all his previous predictions about the threatened rupture of the assemblage.

Directed, no doubt, to view every thing in Rome with distorted vision, this writer literally fulfilled his instructions. If he met bishops walking to St. Peter's, he would despise them as a contemptible set. Should they prefer to ride, they were, in his estimation, pampered prelates crushing poor pedestrians under their Juggernaut. Should a schema be approved by the bishops after a brief discussion, they were pronounced by our seer a packed jury, the obsequious slaves of the pope. If the discussion happened to be prolonged, he would solemnly announce to his readers the existence of an incipient schism among the fathers. The truth is, the gentleman could never ascend high enough to comprehend the true character of the bishops. He could not associate in his mind independence of thought and the fullest freedom of debate with a profound reverence for the Holy Father.

Upon every question, from the beginning of the council, there has been prolonged and animated discussion. A council necessarily supposes discussion ever since that of Jerusalem. Deprive an œcumenical synod of the privilege of debate, and you strip it at once of its true character and the bishops of their manhood. No stone was left unturned that the whole truth might be brought to light.

But if there has been "in dubiis libertas," there has been also "in necessariis unitas." There is no Colenso in the Council of the Vatican. With regard to doctrines of the Catholic faith already promulgated, there has not been a whisper of dissent. A bishop might as well attempt to pull down the immortal dome of Michael Angelo suspended over his head, as touch with profane hands a single stone of the glorious edifice of Catholic faith.

There has been also "in omnibus caritas." Never was more dignity manifest in any deliberative assembly. A single glance at the council in session, from one of the side galleries, would at once impress the beholder not only with the majesty of the spectacle, but also with the mutual respect which the members exhibit toward each other, and the patient attention with which the speakers are listened to, often under a trying ordeal of several hours' continuous session. As for violent scenes, there have been none, except in the imagination of some correspondents; nor bantering, nor personalities; nor collisions between the presidents and speakers. Since the commencement of the discussion on the present schema, upward of sixty fathers have already spoken, only one of whom was called to order—and he at the end of his discourse, because, in the judgment of the president, he had broached a subject foreign to the debate. In a word, there is learning without ostentation; difference of sentiment without animosity; respect without severity; liberty of discussion without the license of vituperation.

May 23d, the congregations were resumed. The opening speech was delivered by the Armenian Patriarch. The Bishops of Mayence, Angoulême, and Grenoble occupied the attention of the fathers during the remainder of the session.

On the following day, permanent leave of absence was granted to eight prelates, among whom were two Canadians, namely, the Bishop of St. Hyacinthe, and the coadjutor of Dr. Cooke, Bishop of Three Rivers, lately deceased. The council was then addressed by the Bishop of Sion, Switzerland, one of the deputation, and by the Bishops of Urgel, Spain, S. Concezione, Chili, and Guastalla, Italy.

In the congregation of the 25th, England and Ireland had the whole field to themselves, the only speakers being Archbishop Manning, and Bishops Clifford and McEvilly. Dr. Manning's reputation as an English speaker is established wherever the English language prevails. His Latin oration in the council, which was but three minutes shorter than that of his eminence of Dublin, exhibited the same energy of thought and the same discriminating choice of words which are so striking a feature of his public discourses. Dr. Manning has a commanding figure. His fleshless face is the personification of asceticism. His sunken eyes pierce you as well as his words. He has a high, well-developed forehead, which appears still more prominent on account of partial baldness. His favorite, almost his only gesture, is the darting of his forefinger in a sloping direction from his body, and which might seem awkward in others, but in him is quite natural, and gives a peculiar force to his expressions. His countenance, even in the heat of an argument, remains almost as unimpassioned as a statue. He knows admirably well how to employ to the best advantage his voice, as well as his words. When he wishes to gain a strong point, he rallies his choicest battalion of words, to each of which he assigns the most effective position; then his voice, swelling with the occasion, imparts to them an energy and a power difficult to resist.

The next congregation, the sixtieth from the opening of the council, was held on the 28th, the speakers being the Bishops of Ratisbonne, St. Augustine, Csanad and Gran Varadin in Hungary, and Coutance in France. At the close, the president announced that the fathers henceforth would meet at half-past eight A.M. instead of nine.

The fathers assembled again on the 30th. The Archbishop of Baltimore delivered the opening speech, which lasted about fifty minutes. He spoke without the aid of manuscript, confiding in his faithful and tenacious memory. He was succeeded by the Bishops of Le Puy in France, Bâle in Switzerland, Sutri and Saluzzo, Italy, Constantina, Algiers, and the Vicar Apostolic of Quilon, on the coast of Malabar.

The following day, indefinite leave of absence was granted to Bishops Demers of Vancouver, and Hennessy of Dubuque, and the newly consecrated Bishop of Alton was permitted to remain at home. The Archbishop of Utrecht commenced the debate, being the first of the bishops of Holland that has addressed the council; the other speakers were the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem, the Bishop of Trajanopolis, the Archbishop of Cincinnati, who spoke without notes, and the Archbishop of Halifax. The death of the saintly and apostolic Archbishop Odin, of New Orleans, was announced. The venerable prelate finished his course among his kindred near Lyons, on the auspicious festival of the Ascension.

The sixty-third general congregation was held on the 2d of June. The speakers were the Archbishop of Fogaras, Transylvania, Roumenian rite, and the Bishops of Moulins, Bosnia, Chartres and Tanes.

At the close of the session, the death of the Rt. Rev. Thomas Grant, Bishop of Southwark, England, was announced. Dr. Grant was born of English parents in Ligny, in the diocese of Arras, France, November 25th, 1816, and was promoted to the episcopal dignity June 22d, 1851. He was much esteemed by his English brethren in the episcopacy for his profound learning and solid judgment, as well as for his amiable disposition. He was one of the deputation on oriental rites.

Thus far, fourteen general congregations have been held on the four first chapters of the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church of Christ. Sixty-one fathers have already spoken on the general aspects of the question, leaving forty-nine prelates who have declared their intention to speak on the same subject. As soon as the draught of the schema in general has been sufficiently discussed, the debate will commence on each particular chapter.

As our readers would like, no doubt, to form a more intimate acquaintance with the venerable bishops now assembled in council, especially with those who play a more conspicuous part in its deliberations, we propose in the present number to give a brief sketch of a few of the twenty-four fathers who constitute the committee on faith.

It is quite unnecessary to our present purpose to speak of the two American prelates belonging to this deputation, namely, the Archbishops of Baltimore and San Francisco, who are well known in the United States, and whose learning, zeal, and piety are not only gratefully acknowledged at home, but fully appreciated here, as the merited honors conferred upon them testify.

We will commence with Aloysius, Cardinal Bilio, president of the deputation on faith, and one of the five presiding officers of the council. He was born May 25th, 1826, at Alexandria, the celebrated fortified town of Piedmont, which of late years has played so important a part in the history of northern Italy. His father was of a noble family. At the early age of fourteen the youth, already remarkable for great piety and a maturity of character beyond his years, asked to be admitted into the congregation of St. Paul, founded by the venerable Antonio Zaccaria. He was received as a student and postulant, and devoted himself to study with an earnestness which soon broke down his health, apparently never very strong. He was obliged to suspend his studies for several years. In fact, for a time it was thought his health never would rally. At last, however, he did recover, and at once returned to the purpose from which his mind and heart had never wandered. Having finished his course and received ordination, he was made in turn professor of Greek, of rhetoric, and of mental philosophy in the college of Parma, and afterward in the university of the same city.

It is the custom of the religious orders and congregations which devote themselves either entirely or in great part to teaching, first by a long and thorough course of study to prepare carefully their younger members for future labors in the professorial chair, and then in their early years of teaching to appoint them from one chair to another, through the whole cycle, perhaps. So Father Bilio was sent from Parma to Caravaggio, and then to Naples, occupying various chairs, and finally was made professor of theology and canon law in the Barnabite College at Rome. His professorships were for the world outside his congregation. Within it, his brethren recognized his high personal qualifications, and elected him to various offices in their congregation, until at length he was made assistant-general.

Rome could not fail to appreciate qualities and talents like those of this learned and exemplary, religious and able man. He was pressed into service in many of the departments for transacting religious affairs, and finally, June 23d, 1866, he was named cardinal. He presided over one of the sub-commissions of theologians, who studied out and prepared the draughts for the council, and he is, as was said in a former number, chairman of the special committee or deputation of twenty-four prelates to treat of all matters relating to faith.

With the single exception of Cardinal Bonaparte, Cardinal Bilio is the youngest member of the Sacred College.

France, the eldest daughter of the church, is represented in the deputation by Bishop Pie of Poitiers, and Archbishop Regnier of Cambrai.

Louis Francis Desiré Edward Pie was born at Pontgouin, in the diocese of Chartres, the 26th of September, 1815. Ordained priest in 1839, he exercised at first the functions of curate of the cathedral church of Chartres; and in 1845, the bishop of that diocese appointed him vicar-general, notwithstanding his comparative youth.

From that period, the young priest was ranked among the most distinguished preachers of France, and was heard with great success in different cities of that country. His panegyric of Joan of Arc, which he preached at Orleans, is one of his best discourses.

Named Bishop of Poitiers under the presidency, he took possession of his see in December, 1849. He was then only in his thirty-fourth year, an unusually early age for conferring the mitre in Europe.

Bishop Pie directed his eloquence and zeal on various occasions against two sorts of adversaries: those who sap the foundations of faith itself by reducing every thing to naturalism, both in religion and society; and those who attempt to weaken Catholicity by the ruin of the temporal power. Against the former the bishop issued three Synodal Instructions on the Principal Errors of the Present Time. Against the latter he wrote, three years before the last Italian revolution, his Synodal Instruction on Rome considered as the See of the Papacy, in which he ably refuted the sophistries of those who sought the demolition of the temporal power.

Those best acquainted with the Bishop of Poitiers say that his pulpit oratory is characterized by an authority, brilliancy, and force of argument worthy of St. Hilary, whose successor he is.

In personal appearance Bishop Pie is prepossessing. His round, full face without a wrinkle, and his auburn hair, make him seem much younger than he really is. Though stout, and even inclined to corpulency, he is quick and active in his movements.

He speaks with admiration of the late Bishop of Boston, with whom he studied at St. Sulpice, Paris. The Sulpician fathers have been accustomed to select as catechists in the parochial church some of their ablest and most promising students. To both seminarians a class was assigned, and the Bishop of Poitiers says that his American friend, afterward Bishop Fitzpatrick, always excelled in his position.

Emmanuel Garcia Gil, Archbishop of Saragossa, in Spain, was born in St. Salvador, March 14th, 1802.

Having completed his literary studies in his native city, he passed through his philosophical and theological course in the diocesan seminary of De Lugo. In 1825, he entered the order of St. Dominic, in which he made his religious profession November 1st, 1826.

He was ordained the following year, and immediately after the responsible position of professor of philosophy and theology in the convents of the order at De Lugo and Compostello was assigned to him.

Expelled in 1835 from Spain, with all the members of his order, he soon returned to his post at De Lugo, where for thirteen years he filled the chair of philosophy and divinity in the seminary of which he was successively director and vice-rector.

Having subsequently devoted himself to the more active pursuits of the ministry, he labored with great success in preaching the word of God, and in the administration of the sacraments.

Appointed to the see of Badajoz in December, 1853, he was consecrated in the city of De Lugo by the Archbishop of Compostello; and five years later, at the request of the Spanish government, he was transferred to the archiepiscopal see of Saragossa.

Among his fellow-members of the Committee on Faith, Mgr. Garcia Gil has the merited reputation of being profoundly conversant with the writings of his great master, the "Angel of the Schools," and hence is called among them the St. Thomas of the deputation.

Another prominent member of the committee is Mgr. Hassoun, Patriarch of Cilicia for the Armenians. He was born in Constantinople, June 13th, 1809, of Armenian parents. He passed through his elementary course in his native city, and completed his studies in Rome, where, in 1832, he obtained the degree of doctor of divinity. A few months later, having been ordained priest, and named apostolic missionary, he was sent to Smyrna, where he devoted himself to the Armenian Christians of that city. Removed thence to Constantinople, Father Hassoun exercised the ministry in several churches, and filled the office of chancellor in the archiepiscopal palace. Chosen by the primate as vicar-general and visitor of the diocese and province, the young Armenian priest was unanimously elected by the assembly of his nation civil prefect of the Armenian church, in which office he was confirmed by the Ottoman Porte.

In 1842, he was appointed coadjutor to the Primate of Constantinople, with the right of succession; and on the death of the latter, in 1846, he was chosen to fill the vacant see.

On the 16th of September, 1866, the Armenian archbishops and bishops assembled in council proclaimed Mgr. Hassoun Patriarch of Cilicia, with the title of Anthony Peter IX. The holy see confirmed the nomination, and decided that in future the patriarchal see of Cilicia and the archi-primatial see of Constantinople, which hitherto were separate and independent, should form one patriarchate, under the title of Patriarchate of Cilicia, with residence at Constantinople.

By his exertions the episcopal hierarchy was reëstablished in 1850 in the ecclesiastical province of Constantinople, and a special see for the Armenians erected in Persia. He has succeeded in building in the Turkish capital, and endowing a seminary to serve for the whole ecclesiastical province. In 1843, Mgr. Hassoun founded the first female convent in the same capital; and we may well imagine the degree of pious audacity that was required to plant this colony of virgins in the midst of the sultan's seraglios. This institution is devoted to the education of young girls, and to the instruction of women abandoning schism. The convent has sixty nuns, who educate three hundred poor girls, besides some resident scholars.

The patriarch, by an imperial firman, is charged with all the civil and ecclesiastical affairs of the Armenians who are subjects of the Ottoman empire. He gratefully acknowledges the kind disposition always manifested toward him by the government of the Sublime Porte, which has extended to him every facility for carrying out the works of his ministry.

Victor Augustus Isidore Dechamps, one of the most prominent members of the deputation de fide, was born at Melle, Eastern Flanders, in the château of Scailmont, December 16th, 1810. His early education was intrusted to private tutors, under the eyes of his father, who was a laureate of the ancient University of Louvain. He afterward completed his studies of humanity and philosophy with his brother Adolph, who was successively Belgian minister of foreign affairs and minister of state.

In the national movement, from which sprung the independence of Belgium, the two brothers, though yet young, distinguished themselves as publicists during this glorious epoch of patriotism.

In 1832, M. Dechamps entered the seminary of Tournai, studied afterward in the Catholic university of Mechlin, and concluded his theological course at Louvain, where he was ordained priest, December, 1834, by Cardinal Sterckx.

Having soon after joined the Redemptorist congregation, Father Dechamps made his novitiate in 1835. Five years later, his career as a preacher began, and in this capacity he greatly distinguished himself.

After the death of Queen Louise of Belgium, in obedience to the express desire of that pious princess, he was charged with the religious instruction of the royal princes, and of the Princess Charlotte. Rev. Father Dechamps was named Bishop of Namur, September, 1865. Two years later, he was transferred to the archdiocese of Mechlin, in which Brussels is included; and since the opening of the council he has been elevated by the holy see to the primacy of Belgium.

Monsgr. Dechamps has written several valuable works, the most important of which are: 1st. The Free Examination of the Truth of Faith; 2d. The Divinity of Jesus Christ; 3d. The Religious Question resolved by Facts; or, Certainty in Matters of Religion; 4th. Pius IX. and Contemporary Errors; 5th. The New Eve, or, Mother of Life, all of which have been translated into most of the languages of Europe.

The style of Archbishop Dechamps is calm, concise, and profound, blended with an attractive unction. His round and pleasing countenance bears upon it the stamp of intellect and energy. Like so many of his gifted countrymen, the prelate of Mechlin unites in his person the mental activity of the Frenchman with the solidity of the German.

John Baptist Simor, Archbishop of Strigonium and Primate of Hungary, was born August 24th, 1813, in the ancient Hungarian city of Fehervar, which is memorable in history as being the place where the kings of Hungary were formerly crowned and buried.

He pursued his philosophical course in the archiepiscopal lyceum of Magy-Szombat, and his course of theology in the University of Vienna, which honored him with the title of doctor of sacred theology. After the successful completion of his studies, he was ordained priest of the archdiocese of Strigonium in 1836.

Appointed, first, assistant pastor of a church in Pesth, Father Simor soon after received a professor's chair in the university of that city, and subsequently filled several responsible positions, both in the government of souls and in instructing the more advanced candidates for the ministry in a higher course of theology.

On the 29th of June, 1857, he was consecrated Bishop of Györ, and ten years later, on the demise of Cardinal Scilovszky, Bishop Simor was chosen to succeed that eminent prelate as Prince-Primate of Hungary and Archbishop of Strigonium.

Besides his ecclesiastical eminence, the Primate of Hungary has had distinguished state honors conferred on him. He is the first member of the king's privy council. By established law, the ceremony of crowning the king devolves exclusively on the primate. Otherwise the coronation is not considered legitimate. The Bishop of Veszprim crowns the queen. The present Emperor, Francis Joseph of Austria, received the crown of the kingdom of Hungary from the hands of Archbishop Simor, on the vigil of Pentecost, 1867, in the presence of an immense assembly of people from all parts of the kingdom. The primate is moreover ex-officio chief secretary and chancellor of the sovereign of Hungary. He is also first magistrate of the county or department of Strigonium. Hungary contains fifty-two of these departments, each presided over by a chief magistrate.

He has also a seat in the general assembly or parliament of Hungary, a privilege which is enjoyed in common with him by every Catholic bishop of the kingdom. Many other prerogatives were inherent in the primatial dignity till they were swept away by the revolution of 1848.

Monsgr. Simor informed us that the faithful of his diocese number a million of souls, comprising three distinct nationalities, Hungarians, Sclaves, and Germans, who speak as many distinct languages.

The primate is consequently obliged, in the visitation of his diocese, to employ these three tongues. In corresponding with his clergy, whether Hungarian, Sclavonic, or German, he invariably uses Latin, of which he is a perfect master, and which, till a recent date, was the common language of the greater part of Hungary.

Rome, June 2, 1870.

We add to the remarks of our correspondent the following items of information concerning the doings of the council since the date of his letter. Between June 2d and June 18th ten general congregations were held. The preface, and the first two chapters of the schema on the Roman Pontiff, were voted on and adopted; the discussion of the third chapter, was closed, and on the 15th of June the discussion of the fourth chapter, concerning the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff, was opened. At that date, seventy-four fathers had inscribed their names as intending to speak, and this number had been increased to one hundred at the general congregation of June 18th.