thing that was never to be admitted without strict proof. The present section recognizes fully this principle. In cases of doubt,' it states, whether any prescription of the canons differs from the old law, no departure from the old law must be made.'

5°. The present section is reminiscent of the introductory portion of the Bull Apostolicae Sedis. Whilst the latter document, however, dealt only with censures, latac sententiae, the present regulation states that all punishments, temporal and spiritual, medicinal and vindictive, latae and ferendae sententiae, of which there is no mention in the Code, are abrogated.

The question as to the position of penalties arising from particular legislation immediately suggests itself. At first sight it would seem as if they were included. The canon contains the word poenas without any restrictive qualification, and it is an old rule of Canon Law that 'Ubi lex non distinguit, nec nos distinguere debemus.'

Nevertheless, it seems clear to us that punishments imposed by particular laws are not included; that, even though no distinction is explicitly made by the law, yet it is implicitly contained in the nature of the matter dealt with. In the first place the general purpose of this canon is to determine the relations between the Code and the general laws hitherto in existence. This is evident from the introductory words with which it prefaces the various sections into which it is divided: Codex vigentem huc usque disciplinam plerumque retinet, licet opportunas immutationes afferat. Itaque, etc.' The discipline here mentioned is evidently the general discipline. Consequently any changes contained in the sections modify only general laws, unless the contrary is expressly stated.

Again, the three sections immediately preceding deal only with the pre-existing general discipline; and in this we have another proof that the punishments here mentioned are those which arise from the general law merely.

The fact that the first section of this canon expressly mentions particular laws is a still further proof of our thesis. The explicit reference to them in the first section cannot be reconciled with the silence of the fifth and sixth, except on the supposition that it is necessary for their inclusion.

From what has been said it follows, of course, that

punishments imposed by National, Provincial, or Diocesan Synods still hold good; and hence, for example, the suspensions attached to canons 170 and 180 of the Maynooth Statutes still remain. Penalties inflicted by particular legislation of the Holy See also continue; and so violations of secrecy in the appointment of Bishops, in Ireland, and in countries where a similar form of election prevails, will be still visited with the penalties prescribed in the decrees on this subject.

In connexion with the regulation which we have just been discussing we should like to call attention to the first section of canon 2222, which involves a slight modification of it. This section is a confirmation of the old power of ecclesiastical superiors to inflict what are called arbitrary punishments. In other words, it permits the infliction of punishment whenever the removal of scandal or the special gravity of the transgression requires it, even though no penalty, latae or ferendae sententiae, has been attached by law to the offence committed.

6°. The sixth and final section of this canon states that any other disciplinary law hitherto in use, which is not explicitly or implicitly contained in the Code, loses all its force unless it is to be found in the approved liturgical books, or is merely a confirmation of the natural or positive divine law. Disciplinary laws are those which regulate conduct they are distinguished from dogmatic laws which regulate intellectual assent in matters of religious truth. In order that a law may be regarded as dogmatic it is not sufficient that it be concerned with matters of faith or religion, it is necessary also that it prescribe some kind of assent to a religious truth, whether it be the highest form, viz., that of faith, or some lower and revocable form.

It is clear from this section that dogmatic laws which are not opposed to the Code remain unaffected by it. Not only, then, do definitions of faith-which are, of course, irrevocable-remain untouched, but also the dogmatic decrees of the Holy Office, Biblical Commission, and similar bodies, upon which the prerogative of infallibility has not been exercised, still continue to bind.

What is said here in regard to liturgical legislation is merely a confirmation of the second canon which deals exclusively with this subject. The exception in favour of divine laws also needs no comment.

The question as to the position of particular laws not opposed to the Code comes up here again for decision. It is on an exact parallel with the question of punishments; and hence, of course, our view is that these laws are unaffected by the new legislation.

In the light of this section the question of the Advent fast in Ireland is a very interesting one. The difficulty regarding it is that it arises from a particular law which is apparently not opposed to the new legislation. For a full discussion of the matter we refer our readers to Dr. O'Donnell's article.

J. KINANE.

THE GREAT THESES OF ALL SAINTS' EVE

BY REV. E. J. QUIGLEY

WHEN priest-readers read the title of this essay they may, perhaps, recall the brilliant disputations of their student days when they heard their con-discipuli announce and defend brilliantly some proposition in philosophy or theology. They may recall the names of the valiant knights who defended or attacked, the Parsifals, the Belvideres, the Bayards, and the La Manchas-heroes of the class hall. But time brings many changes in the judgment of men and things; and many may, with Goldsmith, say of that school-taught pride, these little things are great to little men.' People continue to refute Puffendorf and Carl Marx, and Ockham and Ubaghs and Döllinger, but few outside the class halls care, few hear of these very useful and praiseworthy intellectual efforts. But in the world's history there was a raw theologian who, on a Feast of All Saints, published theses of which millions have heard, and from the effects of which, after four centuries, Christendom reels.

6

On the Feast of All Saints, 1517, Father Luther, a priest of the Order of St. Augustine, left his convent and affixed to the doors of the Castle Church in Wittenberg his ninety-five theses. There was nothing heroic in the act. It was the place set apart for documents of a religious character. The document was not something uncommon in appearance, and the worshippers going to and from the church passed it by as some pious jargon of the priests. But the theses in a short time were destined to startle the world, to attract world-wide and lasting notice, to shake Christendom and to flood the world with irreligion, heresy, infidelity. And their author, Father Luther, was to herald a world-wide revolt, was to appeal to millions a-down the ages as a hero, a world-benefactor.

He was the son of a miner, and in the miner's home the birth of the young Martin in 1483 was a source of joy

to Hans Luther and his wife. If they could but have foreseen that the child was to be for the ruin of many in Israel, even the partial ruin of Israel itself! The home was gloomy and stern the mother overstrict and unmerciful in her punishments; the father, irascible even to frenzy, had murdered a man in a fit of rage. Such were the home surroundings of young Martin's infancy and boyhood. Gladly did he go to sing and beg for bread at Magdeburg, where he attended school; gladly did he enter the University of Erfurt to study law, his poverty cankering his life. He determined to endure anything sooner than return to the rigours and torments of his parents' house. The wild and ungoverned schooldays, singing through the streets, his university career among the law students, led the lad into bad company where he acquired bad habits which clung to him till the end. At the University he attracted no notice for exceptional talent. 'Melanchthon's statement that Luther's talents were the marvel of the University is hardly borne out by the record, for when he took his bacculaureate degree in 1502, he ranked only thirteenth in a class of fifty-seven candidates. That is respectable, to be sure, but one requires the vivid imagination of a eulogist to see anything in it.' Priests who, as students in Universities or large colleges, were members of a class of fifty-seven students do not hold the student who holds the thirteenth place in the order of merit as a marvel. His law course finished, the thought of going to live in the cheerless gloomy homestead repelled the lad of twenty. His one alternative was to enter religion. Perhaps he knew what the step meant. Perhaps his soul cried, Lord, I am not worthy.' Suddenly, he gave up the jolly tavern life, with its coarseness, vice, idleness and buffoonery, and entered the Augustinian Order. The old Luther story that he took the momentous step owing to the death of a friend is not now believed; and Hansrath and Beard, noted Luther scholars, write that it was nothing save the dread of the brutality of his parents that drove Martin Luther to don the monk's habit.

Little is known of his monastic life. In his latter days Luther, who was always inaccurate and untruthful, tells us about his Augustinian days. But critical history of the Protestant and of the Catholic brands throws grave doubts

1 Vedder, p. 5.