From an economist's point of view it might have been done for a small fraction of that sum; but I have not heard that any economist has been scandalized at the cost. I am not now complaining; I merely make a note of it, to point a contrast.

If the economist's ideal had always obtained we should have no St. Peter's at Rome, no Cathedrals of Milan, Cologne, Westminster, Salisbury, or York, or the old Abbey Churches of Ireland; and yet we glory in the faith of our fathers which expressed itself in those monuments of beauty. The ordinary Protestant mind cannot understand that; and consequently those memorials of spiritual enthusiasm were not inspired by Protestantism.

Yet, Protestants possess them in these countries. When Protestantism arose it rejected all the Catholic doctrines which it found inconvenient, and laid hold of all the Catholic churches which it cared about or could. Unlike positivism, and the brood of other modern isms which Protestantism has begotten in time, it did not cast all the clothes of Catholicism. It would have churches, but its founders would not bear the cost of building them. They found a more economic way-their plan of church provision in Ireland was as simple as plunder. They would worship God; so they broke the Seventh Commandment in order to fulfil the First. What is troubling them here in Ireland is, not that our churches are too expensively built, but that we have any churches at all. I do not include Sir Horace Plunkett in the number of those to whom I allude; I willingly exclude him, although his words have supplied me with a text. For, why should the excessive expense give them trouble since they have not been asked to share it? They appropriated the churches which our fathers built; they burnt some; others they let go to ruin. They now find that on the one hand their vandalism has been in vain, and that on the other hand the Catholic Church

has arisen from its ashes. They will never forgive us for having survived. "Primum humani ingenii est, odisse quem laeseris."* Time was, and only two or three generations ago, when, despoiled of their churches and not permitted to build others, the Catholics of Ireland who lived in the country had to worship God in the woods and amidst the mountains; and those who lived in cities gathered together in garrets, as when the parishioners of St. Michan's in Dublin used to hear Mass in a back room in Hangman's Lane. As soon as the dawn of liberty broke upon them they began to build; but they had to struggle against other difficulties than poverty; such, for instance, as when so late as forty years ago, the parish priest of Carrigaholt, Co. Clare, had a van constructed on wheels in which he said Mass on Sundays and Holidays, and which he had moved from place to place for the convenience of the people. The landlord would not let him have a perch of ground on which to build a church, nor even a school unless on the condition of proselytism. Dean White, who was then a young priest in Carrigaholt, has told the story of "The Little Ark,” as it was called, in an interesting booklet of the Catholic Truth Society, from which I learn that it is still preserved in the parish church as a memorial of the things that were. That was late in the morning of the Catholic revival; it was the time of thatched chapels which our grandfathers built both because they were poor, and because they dreaded publicity, or were afraid to show their strength. Then came the fulness of day. A new generation of Catholics had arisen. They cast off the winding bands from their limbs, and began to walk erect in the presence of their oppressors. With that generation began to appear one by one those churches which "shock the economic sense " of our neighbours, not because they paralyse Catholic industry or consume *Tacitus: Agricola, 42.

Catholic money, but because they vindicate the indestructibility of Irish Catholic faith and patriotism which the prototypes of the new-born patrons of our temporal prosperity had done their worst to destroy. Those new churches are the expression of Irish Catholic faith to-day; the ruins of our old churches stand in their de solation, the memorials of Protestant injustice, the neglected relics of their shame. Protestants, amongst whom I number certain nondescripts who go by the name of "Catholic," are sorely tried by the extravagance of our modern church-building, since it absorbs money which they say might be spent in other and better ways, and they express the keenest sympathy with us in our want of wealth. If we had not been robbed of our old churches we should not now have to "shock their economic sense" by spending money on new ones, which they say would be more usefully spent in industrial activity, or in giving employment to the poor. That is the cry; but they cannot claim a patent for it. They have been anticipated by a prototype who has become notorious. When Mary brought the alabaster-box of ointment to anoint the feet of the Divine Founder of the Catholic Church, there was one present whose economic sense was shocked. In his pretended love for the needy he cried out, "Why was not this ointment sold for 300 pence and given to the poor?" -why this waste? That philanthropist was Judas Iscariot. And curious to think, it was St. John, the Evangelist of love, who makes this commentary on his conduct "Now, he said this, not because he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and having the purse, carried the things that were put therein." Now, I propose a question, the solution of which will throw much light on the question I am discussing-Which was more faithful to Christ and had more sympathy for the poor, Iscariot, the philanthropic economist who was scandalised at Mary's extravagance, or St. John who said that her critic

If

had his heart, not in the poor, but in the purse? Judas lived in Ireland to-day he would probably shed crocodile tears over the poverty of the people, whilst money is squandered in raising Churches to God; and he would say "Why this waste? Many factories could be equipped for the money thus squandered; and the Department could be subsidised to carry on its mission of industrial revival in Ireland." It was the expensive ointment purchased to honour Christ that shocked the "economic sense of Iscariot of old; it would be the expensive churches raised to honour Christ which would shock his "economic sense" if he lived in Ireland to-day. Churches have been springing up over the country during the past fifty years and more. The clergy have naturally taken the initiative in that revival-and they have never been forgiven for it. That is the philosophy of churchbuilding criticisms in a nut-shell. If they had let the old thatched chapels go to ruin, or if they had replaced them only by chapels equally poor, the expedient piety of our critics would probably express itself, with clasped hands, eyes turned prayerfully to heaven, a tear of compassion for the poor in their eye, and the following cry of indignation on their lips. "Oh, those Romish mercenaries! See their neglect! houses of God become hovels! The people, out of the fulness of a living faith, have been ready for two generations since we emancipated them, with their subscriptions, waiting to be called upon by those whom they look to as their spiritual guides and leaders. But they have been waiting in vain; no call ever came."

They have let the

But, perhaps, I am beating the air; the protest is not against church-building, but against "excess and extravagance" in that praiseworthy work. That brings me to the economic aspect of the work, which I will now consider.

III.

I HAVE hitherto considered chiefly the differences between the Catholic and non-Catholic motives and ideals in church-building. But, what Sir Horace Plunkett finds fault with is not the building of churches to a reasonable number or cost, but the "excessive and extravagant church-building in the heart and at the expense of poor communities."

Now, let us consider this church-building, as to the number of churches.

In Ireland there are 2,417 Catholic Churches for 3,308,000 Catholics.

In Great Britain there are 1,954 Catholic Churches for 2,013,400 Catholics.

In the United States there are 11,000 Catholic Churches for 12,000,000.

That is to say:-In the United States every 1,090 Catholics are provided with a church; in Great Britain, every 1,030 Catholics are provided with one; in Ireland, there is a church for every 1,368 Catholics. I have no knowledge of the churches in the United States. But I can speak of those in Great Britain, and I am convinced that, taken one with another, they are more expensive than those in Ireland. More expensive and more numerous! but I have never heard that the "economic sense" of our critics has been shocked by their "excess and extravagance," although they have been for the most part built, and have been almost entirely kept up by the pennies of the Irish poor. But Catholic Ireland is looked upon as a fair target for everyone. The truth is, it is hated by those who have tried in vain to destroy it. The Irish Catholic across the Atlantic or across the Channel, may, with impunity and out of his poverty, build churches, as many and as costly as he likes; but the Irish Catholic at home should have garnered his savings exclusively to