« PreviousContinue »
the truth or heresy of a single clause of the creed itself, but simply in the decision of the question as to the accordance or dissonance of the doctrines here professed by St. Patrick with the opinions which the church of Rome then reputed to be orthodox. Preliminary to this it will be necessary to observe, that Pelagius and his followers had no disagreement with the orthodox respecting the doctrines of the Trinity. We find, for instance, that Julian (an Italian bishop, who was ultimately the leader of the Pelagian sectarians, and under whose auspices their heresy received considerable modifications,) enumerates the names of the principal anti-Trinitarian leaders, as those of persons whose doctrines were to be held in detestation, (Libell. Fidei a J::lian. Missus, &c. Mercator. Opera, edid. Garner, p. 322, Paris, 1673.) It will be no matter of surprise, therefore, if such portions of Pelagian confessions of faith as refer to the Trinity should, like the creed of St. Patrick, seem to be drawn up in manifest opposition to the blasphemies which were then current respecting the Divine nature. It may be stated, also, that the different confessions of faith which were put forth by Pelagius and his disciples, having been collected by Garnier in his edition of the “ Works of Marius Mercator,” the contemporary of Augustine, the references hereafter given will be to Garnier's “Dissertations," as reprinted in the twelfth volume of St. Augustine's “Works,” Antwerp, 1703.
Let us now proceed to place the several clauses of what is received as the creed of the Romish apostle of Ireland in juxta-position with the tenets of those whom the church of Rome held to be impugners of “the gospel of the grace of God.” St. Patrick.
Pelagian Creeds. “ Non est alius Deus, nec unquam “ Unus est Deus ... sine principio fuit, nec erit post hunc præter Deum sine fine . . . . hoc quod est, semper et Patrem, ingenitum sine principio, a quo idem erit, conditor omnium, potestatem est omne principium, omnia tenentem :- habens.”- Aug. Oper. tom. xii. p. 191. et hujus Filium Jesum Christum, quem “Non autem quia dicimus genitum a cum Patre scilicet fuisse semper testa- Patre Filium Divina et ineffabili generamur, ante originem seculi spiritualiter tione, aliquod tempus adscribimus, sed apud Patrem inerrabiliter genitum ante nec Patrem dicimus aliquando cæpisse, omne principium ; et per ipsum facta nec Filium."-p. 210. sunt visibilia et invisibilia ;"
« Est autem Filius in Patre .... ut sine principio in eo qui sine principio
... si enim omnia per ipsum facta sunt cum omnibus autem etiam principium habetur et ipsius principii. Verbum ipsum est caput et causa.
pp. 192, 193. It may here be remarked that both the creed of St. Patrick and those of Pelagius or his disciples have, in the clauses quoted, manifest reference to those Arian dogmas in which it was concluded “ that God did not always exist as the Father, and consequently that the Son did not always exist with him ;” and “ that as all things were created out of nothing, the Son of God also proceeded out of nothing, and that there was therefore a time when the Son did not exist."
Pelagian Creeds. “.... dedit ille omnem potestatem “ Accepta ergo a Patre omnium posuper omne nomen, coelestium et terres- testate, quæ in cælo sunt et in terra, trium . quem credimus et expecta- venturus est ad judicium vivorum et mus adventum ipsius, mox futurus Judex mortuorum, ut et justos remuneret, et vivorum et mortuorum qui reddet uni- puniat peccatores.”—p. 210. cuique secundum facta sua
“ Quod autem Christus judicaturus vivos ac mortuos docet aperte beatus Paulus sic dicens: omnes enim nos manifestari oportet ante tribunal Christi, ut recaptet quisque propria corporis prout
gessit sive bonum sive malum.”—p. 206. What a Pelagian understood by “every man receiving according to the deeds done in the body,” will be best illustrated by the following declaration from the “ Libellus Fidei,” put forth by Julian :“ Peccatores sumus non quia non valemus sed quia negligimus vitare peccatum. Ideoque statuta judicii dies est, ut et bonus de labore præmium capiat, et de contemptu malus supplicium non evadat.” Farther on he proceeds to say that they altogether deny original sin, by what term soever it may be designated; and then attempts to prove from Scripture the falseness of such a doctrine, by producing certain quotations from the Old Testament, after which he adds, – “ Et apostolus Omnes nos manifestari oportet
sire malum, (p. 221,) as another Scripture authority against the doctrine of original sin. St. Patrick.
Pelagian Creeds. infundit in nobis abunde Spi- « Qui nobis dedit pignus Spiritus ut ritus Sancti donum, et pignus immor- sciamus quia templum sui Spiritus perire talitatis”
non patitur."— Pelag. in 2 Cor. v. 5.
Aug. Oper. tom. xii. p. 387. Hitherto it will have been observed, that scarcely any sentiment has been produced which, when taken in its literal acceptation, might not be subscribed to by any orthodox Christian; but as interpreted by the next clause of St. Patrick's creed, all that precedes will bear no meaning but such as is attached to parallel expressions in those heretical confessions of faith which have been quoted. It is in what follows that the author of the Creed ascribed to the apostle of Ireland betrays the school to which he belonged. St. Patrick
Pelagian Creeds. qui facit credentes et obedientes “ Venit (Christus] ut sibi credentes ut sint filii Dei Patris et cohæredes adoptionem largiretur, regnique cælorum Christi.”
hæreditatem.”_ Rufin. Syrus August. Oper. xii. p. 301.
“ Filii suo non pepercit sed pro nobis illum tradidit; pollicens quia si voluissemus deinceps voluntati ejus obedire, uni. geniti sui præstaret nos esse cohæredes.”
-Julian, p. 302. Now, as was observed in a former communication, it is on the sentiment here embodied that “the semi-Pelagian controversy hinged." -“We receive grace,” say these, “ because we believe and obey;"“We receive grace," say Augustine and the then church of Rome, “ in order that we may believe and obey.” It is not my province to decide between the disputants, I am only concerned to establish the facts. Of this, I conceive, no farther proof need be here adduced than the words of one of the canons of the second council of Orange, (A.D. 529,) the chief object of which was the condemnation of the semi-Pelagian tenet propounded by Mr. M.'s St. Patrick.
“Si quis sine gratia Dei credentibus, volentibus, desiderantibus, conantibus, vigilantibus, studentibus, petentibus, quærentibus, pulsantibus nobis misericordiam dicit conferri divinitus, non autem ut credamus, velimus, vel hæc omnia, sicut oportet, agere valeamus, per infusionem et inspirationem Sancti Spiritus in nobis fieri confitetur; et aut humilitati aut obedientiæ humanæ subjungit gratiæ adjutorium, nec ut obedientes et humiles simus ipsius gratiæ donum esse consentit,-resistat apostolo dicenti: quid habes quod non accepisti? Et gratiâ Dei sum id quod sum.' (Sacros. Concil. Labb. et Cossart. vol. iv. p. 1668, Paris 1671.)
Many other quotations illustrative of the subject under discussion might have been adduced, had a communication like this admitted of or required it. Those who choose to examine the question at issue for themselves, will find all the information they can desire in the tenth volume of St. Augustine's “ Works,” Antwerp, 1703; Cardinal Noris', Vossius', and Jansenius' “Histories of Pelagianism;" Tillemont's “ Ecclesiastical History,” vols. xiii., xiv., and xvi.; and in the second and third volumes of the “Histoire Liter, de la France ;” not to mention other authorities.
And now, Sir, having (as I believe) shewn the founder of Mr. M's church in Ireland to symbolize in his phraseology with the eastern, and not the western church, and having moreover convicted him of heretical pravity, it becomes a question with me whether or not the patience of yourself and readers need be wearied by any farther remarks on a book, the principal object of which seems to be, to magnify the religious tenets of that body of Christians who have placed themselves under the auspices of this heterodox St. Patrick.* Except as it might tend to clear the early history of the true church of Ireland from those mists of fable in which Romanists find themselves under the necessity of enveloping it, my own impression is, that enough has been produced in the letters already printed to shew that it was an oversight in Dr. Lardner to let Mr. M.'s lucubrations go forth under the name of “ History.” In this matter, however, I am willing to be directed by your better judgment. C. E. G.
DENS'S THEOLOGY. Sir,- The Rev. Edward Stanley, in his pamphlet “On Religion and Education in Ireland," has asserted “that the approbation of the
• It is not unimportant to observe, that the college of Maynooth has just proclaimed itself to be the follower of this St. Patrick, by employing one of its Professors (Dr. Carew) to set forth with unblushing anility the life of the saint, in a bistory of his church in Ireland. Vol. IX.-April, 1836.
work” (viz., Theologia Moralis et Dogmatica - Petri Dens,) tioned in Coyne's dedication to him,” (Dr. Murray,) "is limited, by Coyne's own confession, to the eighth volume only, compiled from writings of Benedict XIV.; and that the charge of having wilfully suppressed those dedications is entirely false," (p. 12, note.)
To enable your readers to decide on the validity of this assertion, I have the pleasure of forwarding to you an accurate transcript of both the title and the dedication. The latter is in itself rather a literary curiosity, as, with the exception of that in the library of the Athenæum Club, and of Sion College, I know not where another copy is to be found. As no special pleading can do away with a fact, “ conveyancers, the wise them call,” were employed to remove the “untoward event' of the dedication.
Yours, &c., T. E.
Theologia Moralis et Dogmatica Reverendi et Eruditissimi Domini Petri Dens, in Universitate Lovan. S. Theologiæ Licentiati, Ecclesiæ Metropol. S. Rumoldi Mechlin. Can. Grad. et Archipresb. necnon Seminarii Archiep. Præsidis, etc. Editio nova, et absolutissima, quippe cui nunc primum accedunt Epitome ex Operibus Benedicti XIV., necnon et variæ summorum Pontificum, præsertim vero ejusdem Pontificis Constitutiones, Literæ Encyclicæ, etc.— Tomus I. complectens Tractatus de Deo Uno et Trino, de Angelis, Creatione Mundi, Actibus Humanis, Vitiis, Peccatis et Conscientia. Dublinii : ex Typ. Richardi Coyne, in via vulgo dicta Capel-street; Typog, et Bibliopol. R. C. Coll. Maynooth. MDCCC XXXII.
Reverendissimo, in Deo, Patri, ac Domino, D. Danieli Murray, Archiepiscopo Dubliniensi, Hiberniæque Primati, Præsuli, Doctrina et Pietati, non minus quam Integritate Vitæ, Morumque Benignitate Insigni; qui ad Honorem Dignitatis Episcopalis summo omnium Favore atque Studio Evectus, tot Eximiis Virtutibus eam vicissim cohonestat: qui summo Ardore Parique Sapientia id semper egit, ut inter Oves Pastoratui suo Commissas Christiana Charitas indies in melius pro. veheretur : in quo denique, Secundum Monitum Sancti Gregorii, regit Disciplinæ Vigor Mansuetudinem, et Mansuetudo ornat Vigorem, sic ut nec Vigor sit rigidus, nec Disciplina dissoluta, hanc Secundam Editionem TheologIÆ P. Dens ejus cum Approbatione susceptam, grati in pignus Animi ob tot tantaque et Officia et Beneficia toties collata, ea, qua par est, Reverentia, et Observantia, dat, dicat atque dedicat humillimus et obedientissimus Servus, RICHARDUS Coyne.
Calendes Maii, 1832.
ORIGEN. SIR, – I am sorry that what I said respecting Origen, in the eleventh number of the “Dark Ages,” should have given offence to any of your readers; especially to one with whom, so far as I can judge from his letter, I should agree in some of the most important points connected with the subject. But will he do me the favour to consider a distinction which he appears to me to have overlooked, I mean the difference between an application and an interpretation. I need not tell your correspondent that Origen was not content with the “ appli. cation of scripture history to enforce a truth ;" I need not say that his avowed contempt for literal interpretation, and his general invectives and scoffs directed against the amici literæ, raised such an opinion of his creed, that he felt himself called upon distinctly to state that he did not mean to dispute the real occurrence of some things related in scripture history, or to maintain that they were all of them mere allegory; but that, on the contrary, he considered by far the greater part of them as capable of a literal interpretation. Yet even where the literal interpretation was admitted, it was treated with scorn ; and the allegorical interpretation was given, not as an application, but as a real meaning. This is the case in the passage before us: if a writer tells us that, like as the Israelites spoiled the Egyptians, and brought out the treasures of their country, and applied them to the service of God, so we may go to heathen writers, and get what we can from them for the benefit of true religion, it may be more or less true, and our approval or disapproval seems to be, in a great measure, a matter of taste. If, however, he says that was the real meaning—or, even more guardedly, that “perhaps something of the kind” was actually signified by the command, - surely the case is altered, and we ought to view his proceedings with jealous vigilance; and however beautiful or instructive his interpretation may be, and whatever secondary excellence it may have, yet if it has not the foundation of truth, the church is better without it.
Considering that I commonly occupy so much more space in your pages than I have any right to claim, I am unwilling to extend this letter beyond what may be considered as a mere explanation of the feelings which led me to speak of Origen as I did. But I must add, that while I do not take the same view, and would not use the same language, of fanciful application as of false interpretation, yet I do exceedingly regret its prevalence, because I believe that it presents a great hinderance to the general attainment and reception of the plain meaning of the Scriptures. I am not insensible to the beauty of poetry, and I hope I shall not be thought disrespectful to it, or to those whom God has blessed with so excellent a gift, if I express my regret that fiction, even in its loveliest, most instructive, most usefől form, should be mixed,-or even run the risk of being mixed—with the Word of Truth: but however this may be, I feel compelled to own myself, in all matters of interpretation,
SIR,-Instead of replying to the only part of my letter to which an answer was in any way required, Mr. King has, in conformity with his usual tactics, preferred making the matter in dispute the ground of a mere personal attack. As I am not at all versed in the principles or practice of the strange kind of literary cavilling in which this gentleman is so great a proficient, I shall certainly attempt no detailed reply. Indeed I have nothing to answer. Of course I could not be expected to notice the charges or insinuations about being a reluctant witness, and explaining away, or the affectation of misunderstanding my illustrations, which partake more of the nature of incivility than of argument. And if he is determined to