Extracts from those books may be published, with the usual imprimatur and approval of the Ordinary, provided Pustet's right in the editions be duly respected.

DECRETUM.

An, stante privilegio ab Apostolica Sede concesso el. Equiti Frederico Pustet typographo Ratisbonensi pro editione librorum choralium authenticorum praesertim Antiphonarii et Gradualis, nemini liceat ab iisdem libris aliquam partem excerpere, ac separatim evulgare?

Itaque S.R.C. id in casu declarandum censuit nimirum :

Rms. Episcopus poterit revidere opus, et fidem facere de concordantia cum Originali approbato, salvo tamen jure typographi Pustet privato quoad editionem.

Romae die 12 Februarii, 1883.

D. CARD. BARTOLINIUS, S.R.C.

VI.

Decisions of the Congregation of Indulgences regarding the Benedictio in Articulo Mortis.

1. This Indulgence can be given only in vero articulo mortis, and not before this stage of sickness has been certainly reached.

The Congregation seem to evade the adoption of the principle that this Indulgence can be given whenever the Last Sacraments can be given, that is, when the periculum mortis is prudently and reasonably presumed to have come.

2. The Congregation declares that Prinzivalli is incorrect when, in his collection of Decrees, he represents the Congregation as deciding that this Indulgence in Articulo Mortis may be received more than once in the same sickness, whether from the same or different priests; and that, on the other hand, the decision given in Pustet's Edition of the Decreta Authentica Indulgentiarum is right, which says that this Indulgence can be given only once in the same sickness, even though the dying person have many distinct claims to it; for instance, as an Associate of the Confraternity of the Rosary, of the Scapular of Carmel, of the Holy Trinity, &c.

DECRETA.
I.

An, non obstante S. C. Indulgentiarum declaratione 23 Aprilis, 1675, quae habet. "Indulgentiam Plenariam in articulo mortis in vero tantum articulo accipi," haec Indulgentia seu Benedictio Apostolica (quamvis in vero articulo mortis tantum lucranda ut supponitur) impertiri tamen jaun potest simul ac quis versatur in periculo mortis prudenter existimato seu rationabiliter praesumpto,

ita ut servari qucat hic existens consuetudo eamdem concedendi, quando exeuntium sacramenta conferuntur, sive magis urgens periculum expectari possit, sive non?

II.

Quod si ad 1um. respondeatur negative, an saltem in dubio, utrum Benedictio Apostolica debito tempore fuerit concessa, haec, urgente magis periculo, iterari potest in eadem infirmitate, ideo quod forte prior concessio fuerit invalida ob defectum veri mortis articuli ?

III.

"Cum

In una ditionis Belgicae 12 Martii, 1855, legitur. Sacra Congregatio Indulgentiarum in una Valentinen. sub die 5 Februarii, 1811. Sequenti dubio :—

"Utrum infirmus pluries lucrari possit Indulgentiam plenariam in mortis articulo a pluribus sacerdotibus facultatem habentibus impertiendam?

66

Resolutionem dedisset: Negative in eodem mortis articulo, exinde quaeritur:

"1°. Utrum vi praecedentis resolutionis prohibitum sit infirmo in eodem mortis periculo permanenti, impertiri pluries ab eodem vel a pluribus sacerdotibus hanc facultatem habentibus Indulgentiam Plenariam in articulo mortis, quae vulgo Benedictio Papalis dicitur?

2o. Utrum vi ejusdem resolutionis item prohibitum sit impertiri pluries infirmo in iisdem circumstantiis ac supra, constituto Indulgentiam plenariam in articulo mortis a pluribus sacerdotibus hanc facultatem a diverso capite habentibus, puta ratione aggregationis confraternitati SSmi. Rosarii, Sacri Scapularis De Monte Carmelo, SSmae. Trinitatis, etc?"

Ad duo haec dubia juxta collectionem Prinzivalli, quae authentica recognita fuit, Sacra Congregatio Indulgentiarum respondit :

Ad primum et secundum: Negative, firma remanente resolutione Valentinen. Sub die 5 Februarii, 1841.

Juxta authenticam vero collectionem, quae anno 1883 prodiit Ratisbonae, eadem Sacra Congregatio respondendum censuit :

Affirmative ad utrumque, firma remanente resolutione in una Valentinen. Sub die 5 Februarii, 1841.

An hoc responsum ultimum ut authenticum habendum est ita ut mutanda veniat praxis Sacerdotum, qui solent ex diverso capite Benedictionem Apostolicam in eodem mortis articulo pluries impertiri?

Sacra Congregatio Indulgentiarum et SS. Reliquiarum propositis dubiis respondit :

Ad 1um. Standum declarationi, d. d. 23 Aprilis, 1675.

Ad 2um. Provisum in primo.

Ad 3um. Servetur ad amussim responsio prouti prostat in postrema editione Ratisbonensi typis Fred. Pustet cusa.

Datum Romae, 12 Junii, 1884.

L. CARD. BONAPARTE.

CORRESPONDENCE.

ST. BONIFACE AND ST. VIRGILIUS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE IRISH ECCLESIASTICAL RECORD.

66

REV. SIR,-I am sure that most of your readers are rejoiced to see that Dr. Healy's episcopal duties do not prevent his continuing his very interesting series of Papers on ancient Irish Theologians." Some months ago you kindly admitted a letter of mine on "The Nationality of St. Boniface," and my study of the "Life" of that great Apostle of Germany has led me to examine closely his relations with Missionaries of undoubted Irish nationality, and especially with St. Virgilius. My reading has brought me to conclusions, which differ in some respects from those set forth by Dr. Healy in his biography of St. Virgilius (I. E. RECORD, November, 1881), but as they appear to me to be more honourable to both of these great Saints, I trust you will allow me to state them, with the grounds which support them.

The name "Virgilius" occurs twice in the correspondence of St. Boniface. Once in a short letter from Pope Zachary to him, where the Pontiff tells St. Boniface that "Virgilius and Sidonius (Religiosi viri) living in the province of the Bavarians, have sent us letters, by which they have intimated to us that your Paternal Reverence enjoined them to baptize Christians over again," on the ground of an ignorant priest having baptized, "In Nomine Patria et Filia et Spiritua Sancta" (Wurdtwein reads "Spiritus Sancti "). And again, in another letter of Pope Zachary, the Pope mentions one Virgilius, "nescimus si dicatur presbyter," who had been accused by the Saint of having sowed dissension between Boniface and Duke Ottilo, and was denounced by the former as holding perverse opinions about the Antipodes. There is nothing except the name to connect the two together, still less to connect either of them with St. Virgilius, Bishop of Salzburg and Apostle of Carinthia. Dr. Healy adopts the opinion of Baronius in supposing that there is only one Virgilius, who was in conflict with St. Boniface, and afterwards Bishop of Salzburg. I prefer the opinion of Le Cointe and Pagi, who held that, as there were at least two Sidoniuses in the time of St. Boniface, so there were two, if not more, monks of the name of Virgilius. Dr. Healy says: "This hypothesis is intrinsically improbable, and altogether unsupported by evidence." Let us see.

Is it "intrinsically improbable?" St. Boniface was invited to Bavaria by Duke Ottilo in 739; and, by the full legatine powers he had received from Pope Gregory III. he regulated the whole ecclesiastical affairs of the province; filled up the bishoprics which were all vacant, except that of Passau, to which Gregory

himself had consecrated Vivilo; deposed invalidly ordained bishops and priests; and encouraged the numerous pious foundations of the Duke and his nobles. He appointed John Bishop of Salzburg. Pope Zachary, in 743, confirmed all the powers that his predecessor had conferred upon St. Boniface, and especially commended him for his conduct in Bavaria. The following year, according to Baronius, the Pope writes to St. Boniface, telling him the charge made against him by Virgilius and Sidonius, and correcting the error which they attributed to the Saint. Dr. Healy says, "Boniface declared that the baptism was invalid," and after the decision of the Pope, "Boniface yielded prompt obedience to the Apostolic See, but, although a saint and martyr, he felt sore at the victory gained over him by the Irish stranger who intruded into his spiritual domain, and seemed to supplant him in favour with the Duke Ottilo." There is no evidence of these feelings of soreness, neither is there any evidence of Boniface yielding prompt obedience." No doubt he would have done so, had it been necessary. But what if it were only a calumny of the two monks? We are not in possession of St. Boniface's reply to the charge, but we have a subsequent letter of Pope Zachary, in which the Pontiff says:

"As to the aforesaid Sidonius and Virgilius, priests, we acknowledge what your Holiness has written. We have written to them, as was fitting, words of warning. More credence must be given to you, Brother, than to them. If it please Ged to grant us life, we will send Apostolic letters, as stated above, and summon them to the Apostolic See. For you have given them teaching, and they have not received it ; and it has happened to them, as it is written in Wisdom: 'He that teacheth a fool, is as one that glueth a potsherd together. Sand and salt, and a mass of iron is easier to bear than a man without sense, that is both foolish and wicked. For, He that wanteth understanding thinketh vain things, and the foolish and erring man thinketh foolish things.' (Eccles. c. xxii., 7, 18; c. xvi. 23.) Do not therefore let your heart be provoked to anger, Brother: but in your patience, when you meet with such persons, reprove, entreat, rebuke them, that they may be converted from error to the way of truth. And if they are converted, you have saved their souls: but if they abide in their hardness, you will not lose the reward of your ministry, but avoid them according to the Apostle's word." (Epist. lxxxii. Würdtwein.)

This letter shows that Sidonius and Virgilius had made certain eharges against Boniface, which he had refuted, and concerning which the Pope considers him more worthy of credit than his assailants, to whom Zachary had sent a sharp reproof. I cannot see any "intrinsic improbability" in supposing that these charges were the accusations which these two priests had made against Boniface for, as they alleged, rebaptizing. The preceding paragraph treated of the Virgilius whom Boniface had denounced, but it is curious that the word "aforesaid " is applied to Sidonius and not to Virgilius: "Pro Sidonio autem supradicto, et Virgilio presbyteris." This letter must, at latest, have been written in 747, since

that was the last year of Ottilo's life, and it is dated the 29th year of the Emperor Constantine.

I do not know on what authority Dr. Healy gives Sidonius the appellation of Saint. If he be the same who about this time became Bishop of Constance, the records of him scarcely justify his canonization. Hermann Contractus, under the year 746, after mentioning St. Boniface's appointment of St. Burchard to the Bishopric of Wurtzburg, and St. Willibald to that of Eichstat, says: Sidonius, a monk of Reichenau (Augiae), the fifth abbot of that place, and made Bishop of Constance, presided for 13 years. He also scheming to obtain the monastery (cellam) of St. Gall likewise, concurred with evil princes in the condemnation of the Abbot St. Othmar." Further on, under 759, he says: "St. Othmar Abbot, was by Warin and Ruthard, with the concurrence of Bishop Sidonius, unjustly condemned, and banished to the Island of Stein on the Rhine, departed to the Lord. When Sidonius. Bishop and Abbot, had with presumptuous daring invaded his Abbey, before the Altar of St. Gall, he was struck with a flux in the belly, and perished." In 769, "The body of St. Othmar Abbot, after ten years, was found incorrupt, in the island where he died, and was translated to the monastery of St. Gall." (Canisius, Tom. III., p. 248.) If Dr. Healy is correct in his supposition that the Sidonius who opposed St. Boniface was afterwards" Archbishop of Bavaria," or rather Bishop of Constance, his terrible end, strangely like that of Arius, tells greatly against his sanctity.

It is true that Pagi does not give any reasons for his belief in there having been two Virgiliuses, but Le Cointe had given the grounds for this mode of solving the great difficulties that otherwise beset the Lives of St. Boniface and St. Virgilius, in "Annales Eccles. Francorum, Tom. v. p. 196." Pagi is quite correct in stating that St. Virgilius was the fifth Bishop of Salzburg, for the short Catalogue published by Canisius, although it enumerates after St. Rudbert Vitalis, Ansologus, Savolus, Ezzius, Flobargisius, Joannes, Berticus, Virgilius, and Arno; yet takes care to inform us that Ansologus, Savolus, Ezzius, and Berticus governed the Bishopric without the Pontifical order and dignity," that is, as Abbots. Thus St. Virgilius was really the fifth Bishop, although the eighth ruler of the See.

There are, as Dr. Healy points out, many chronological difficulties in the "Life" of St. Virgilius. From the records, we should gather, with Dr. Healy, that he was probably consecrated Bishop of Salzburg in 766 or 767. The "Life" tells us that he delayed his consecration for nearly two years after his appointment. But the same authority informs us, that on his arrival from Ireland, Virgilius was honourably entertained by Pepin at Cressy for two years, and "in the time of Ottilo, Duke of the Bavarians, who was then with the whole province of Noricum subject to the said King of the Franks, the Church of Salzburg, was without a Bishop