Bits of Blarney

  FATHER PROUT'S SERMON.

  Somewhere in the Scriptures it is written, that whoever gives to thepoor lends to the Lord. There are three reasons why I don't tell youexactly where this may be found. In the first place, poor creatures thatyou are, few of you happen to have the authorized Douay edition, printedand published by Richard Coyne of Dublin, and certified as correct byArchbishop Troy, and the other heads of the Church in Ireland--fewamong you, I say, have _that_, though I know that there is not a housein the parish without a loose song-book, or the History of the IrishRogues. In the second place, if ye had it, 'tis few of ye could read it,ignorant haythens that ye are. And in the third place, if every man-jackof ye did possess it, and could read it, (for the Church still admitsthe possibility of miracles,) it would not much matter at this presentmoment, because it happens that I don't quite remember in what part ofit the text is to be found;--for the wickedness of my flock has affectedmy memory, and driven many things clean out of my head, which it took mea deal of trouble to put into it when I was studying in foreign parts,years ago. But it don't matter. The fault is not mine, but yours, yeunnatural crew, and may-be ye won't find it out, to your cost, before yehave been five minutes quit of this life. Amen.

  "He who gives to the poor."--Ye are not skilled in logic, nor indeed inanything that I know except playing hurley in the fields, scheming atcards in public-houses for half gallons of porter, and defrauding yourclergy of their lawful dues. What is worse, there's no use in trying todrive logic into your heads, for indeed that would be the fulfilment ofanother text that speaks of throwing pearls before pigs. But if ye _did_know logic--which ye don't--ye would perceive at once that the passage Ihave just quoted naturally divides itself into two branches. The firstinvolves the _giving_; that is, rationally and syllogisticallyconsidered, what ye ought to do. And the second involves the _poor_;that is, the receivers of the gifts, or the persons for whom ye ought todo it.

  First, then, as to the giving. Now it stands to reason that, as theScripture says in some other place, the blind can't lead the blind,because maybe they'd fall into the bog-holes, poor things, and getdrowned. And so, though there really is wonderful kindness to each otheramong them, it is not to be expected that the poor can give to the poor.No, the givers must be people who have something to give, which the poorhave not. Some of ye will try and get off on this head, and say that'tis gladly enough ye'd give, but that really ye can't afford it. Can'tye? If you make up your minds, any one of you, to give up only a singleglass of spirits, every day of your lives, see what it will come to inthe course of a year, and devote _that_ to the Church--that is to theClergy--and it will be more than some of the well-to-do farmers, whom Ihave in my eye at this blessed moment, have had the heart to give meduring the last twelve months. Why, as little as a penny a day comes tomore than thirty shillings in the year, and even that insignificanttrifle I have not had from some of you that have the means and ought toknow better. I don't want to mention names, but, Tom Murphy of the Glen,I am afraid I shall be compelled to name you before the wholecongregation, some day before long, if you don't pay up your lawfuldues. I won't say more now on that subject, for, as St. Augustine says,"A nod's as good as a wink to a blind horse."

  Now, the moral of the first part being clearly shown, that all who _can_give _ought_ to give, the next branch is _to whom_ should it be given?The blessed text essentially states and declares "to the poor." Thenfollows the inquiry, who's "the _poor_." The whole matter depends on_that_.

  I dare say, ignorant as ye are, some of you will think that it's thebeggars, and the cripples, and the blind travellers who contrive to getthrough the length and breadth of the country, guided by Providence anda little dog tied to their fingers by a bit of string. No, I don't wantto say one mortal word against that sort of cattle, or injure them intheir honest calling. God help them. It's their trade, their estate,their occupation, their business to beg--just as much as 'tis PatMulcahy's business to tailor, or Jerry Smith's to make carts, or TomShine's to shoe horses, or Din Cotter's to make potheen, and my businessto preach sermons, and save your souls, ye heathens. But these ain't"the poor" meant in the text. They're used to begging, and they like tobeg, and they thrive on begging, and I, for one, wouldn't be the man todisturb them in the practice of their profession, and long may it be aprovision to them and to their heirs for ever. Amen.

  May-be, ye mean-spirited creatures, some among you will say that it'syourselves is "the poor." Indeed, then, it isn't. Poor enough andniggardly ye are, but you ain't the poor contemplated by holy Moses inthe text. Sure 'tis your nature to toil and to slave--sure 'tis whatye're used to. Therefore, if any one were to give anything to _you_, hewould not be lending to the Lord in the slightest degree, but throwingaway his money as completely as if he lent it upon the security of theland that's covered by the lakes of Killarney. Don't flatter yourselves,any of you, for a moment, that you are "the poor." I can tell you thatyou're nothing of the sort.

  Now, then, we have found out who should be the givers. There's nomistake about _that_--reason and logic unite in declaring that every oneof you, man, woman and child--should give, and strain a point to do itliberally. Next, we have ascertained that it's "the poor" who shouldreceive what you give. Thirdly, we have determined who are _not_ "thepoor." Lastly, we must discover who _are_.

  Let each of you put on his considering cap and think.--Well, I havepaused that you might do so. Din Cotter is a knowledgeable man comparedwith the bulk of you. I wonder whether he has discovered who _are_ "thepoor." He shakes his head--but there is not much in _that_. Well, then,you give it up. You leave it to me to enlighten you all. Learn, then,to your shame, that it's the Clergy who are "the poor."

  Ah! you perceive it now, do you? The light comes in through your thickheads, does it? Yes, it's I and my brethren is "the poor." We get ourbread--coarse enough and dry enough it usually is--by filling you withspiritual food, and, judging by the congregation now before me, its uglymouths you have to receive it. We toil not, neither do we spin, but ifSolomon, in all his glory, was not arrayed better than we are, insteadof being clothed in vermin and fine linen, 'tis many a time he'd bewearing a thread-bare black coat, white on the seams, and out at theelbows. It's the opinion of the most learned scholars and Doctors inDivinity, as laid down before the Council of Trent, that the translationis not sufficiently exact in regard of this text. And they recommendthat for the words "the poor," we should substitute "the clergy." Thuscorrected, then, the text would read "he who gives to the Clergy, lendsto the Lord," which, no doubt, is the proper and undiluted Scripture.

  The words of the text are thus settled, and you have heard myexplanation of it all. Now for the application. Last Thursday was a weeksince the fair of Bartlemy, and I went down there to buy a horse, forthis is a large parish, and mortification and fretting has puffed me upso, that, God help me, 'tis little able I am to walk about to answerall the sick calls, to say nothing of stations, weddings, andchristenings. Well, I bought the horse, and it cost me more than Iexpected, so that there I stood without a copper in my pocket after Ihad paid the dealer. It rained cats and dogs, and as I am so poor that Ican't afford to buy a great coat, I got wet to the skin, in less than notime. There you were, scores of you, in the public houses, with thewindows up, that all the world might see you eating and drinking as ifit was for a wager. And there was not one of you who had the grace toask, "Father Prout, have you got a mouth in your face?" And there Imight have stood in the rain until this blessed hour (that is, supposingit had continued raining until now), if I had not been picked up by Mr.'Mun Roche, of Kildinan, an honest gentleman, and a hospitable man Imust say, though he is a Protestant.[12] He took me home with him, andthere, to your eternal disgrace, you villains, I got as full as a tick,and 'Mun had to send me home in his own carriage--which is aneverlasting shame to all of you, who belong to the true Church.

  [12] Created Lord Fermoy in 1855.

  Now, I ask which has carried out the text? You who did not give me evena poor tumble
r of punch, when I was like a drowned rat at Bartlemy, or'Mun Roche, who took me home, and filled me with the best of eating anddrinking, and sent me to my own house, after that, in his own elegantcarriage? Who best fulfilled the Scripture? Who lent to the Lord, bygiving to his poor Clergy? Remember, a time will come when I must give atrue account of you:--what can I say then? Won't I have to hang down myhead in shame, on your account? 'Pon my conscience, it would not muchsurprise me, unless you greatly mend your ways, if 'Mun Roche and youwon't have to change places on that occasion: _he_ to sit alongside ofme, as a friend who had treated the poor Clergy well in this world, and_you_ in a certain place, which I won't particularly mention now, exceptto hint that 'tis little frost or cold you'll have in it, but quite thecontrary. However, 'tis never too late to mend, and I hope that by thisday week, it's quite another story I'll have to tell of you all.--Amen.