Page images
PDF
EPUB

"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 gratia 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 history of his church in Ireland.

VOL. IX.-April, 1836.

3 F

work" (viz., Theologia Moralis et Dogmatica - Petri Dens,) "mentioned 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.

TITLE.

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.

1

DEDICATION.

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 proveheretur: 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 THEOLOGIE 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 "application 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 litera, 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 useful 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,

AMICUS LITERÆ.

MR. KING.

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

claim the note in my pamphlet (which he is pleased to call my verdict) 'as a testimony in favour of Milner, he is, as I said before, quite welcome to do so. I have had the opportunity of publicly explaining my meaning; and I feel pretty confident that no one but Mr. King, and those who hold him infallible, can possibly misunderstand me.

But there is one passage of Mr. King's letter which it would not become me to leave unnoticed. He says that "it can scarcely be denied that I have placed myself in the dilemma of having libelled the literary capacity of the age, or of having ascribed to Milner higher praise than his friends had ever claimed for him." In reply to this, I feel called upon to remark, that as I have already denied "having ascribed praise to Milner," so I do now most emphatically deny "having libelled the literary capacity of the age" [in which he lived.] I certainly did say "that, in the latter half of the last century, there was among our divines a general, and, I suppose I may say, a shameful ignorance of church history." But I can assure Mr. King, that I was not so ignorant as not to know, nor so silly as to deny, "the literary capacity" of the great men who adorned that period of our annals. I did not allude to what proficiency they could have attained in ecclesiastical history. I did but notice the fact that they made none. I believed this to be a point universally conceded. Nor can I now believe that Mr. King seriously means to call it into question.

But as Mr. King thinks proper to notice my letter, why does he still observe so profound a silence on the only point on which he was ever called upon to notice me at all? The terms in which he was pleased to speak of me in his last pamphlet will not allow me to suppose that he thinks the "Letter on the Paulicians" altogether beneath his notice. Why, then, does he not either candidly acknowledge that, having never seen the evidence respecting the Paulicians brought together, he hastily took up an untenable position; or, if he still differs from me, at least afford me an opportunity of inaintaining against him the opinions of antiquity with regard to that remarkable sect? I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant,

Gloucester, March 7, 1836.

JOHN GOULTER DOWLING.

CLERICAL MEETINGS, AND PRAYER MEETINGS.

SIR, The following account of the clerical meetings which are very generally held throughout one part of Wales may be interesting to some of your readers. The clergymen at the end of morning service give notice that on a certain day in the week a clerical meeting will be held in a particular church; and the country is so divided into districts that one of these meetings takes place every month, and, in the usual course, it comes round to each church once a year, so that they may be called "anniversary meetings." That there may be a full attendance of the clergy, invitations and earnest solicitations are sometimes

sent to those living fifty miles distant-especially if they are "popular preachers."

On the morning of the day appointed, the clergy and laity begin assembling in the church about ten o'clock; when the former congregate round the altar, or about the reading-desk. The minister of the parish then asks one of his brethren to pray, (extempore,) after which a hymn is sung. The subject to be discussed (e.g., one of the articles of the Creed, or the Influence of the Holy Spirit,) is then entered on, one clergyman after another delivering his opinion; and happily there is seldom any discordance. I believe there is a rule to prevent laymen discoursing, but it has been sometimes relaxed. The discussion being over, a subject is given out against the next meeting, the day and place of which are then mentioned. The service (sometimes the evening) is then read, and afterwards one of the most popular clergymen preaches, and he is frequently succeeded by another. On leaving church, the clergy, with their families and the most respectable of the laity, retire to the parsonage, or village public-house, where they dine; the rest of the congregation are entertained by their friends or neighbours. About four o'clock, people begin flocking towards the church, where the evening service is [again] read, and one or two more sermons delivered.

Another assemblage is frequent in the same district, under the denomination of "A Prayer Meeting."

On Sunday, after the Nicene Creed has been read, the clerk gives notice that prayer meetings will be held at particular places (sometimes at as many as eight or nine) on certain days. In the evening specified, the neighbours collect together at the school-house, farm, or cottage, as the case may be, (should any one be ill, the meeting is generally held at the sick person's dwelling,) when, if a clergyman happens to be present, he reads and expounds a chapter in the Bible; afterwards he calls on some one to pray; the assembly then sing, and another person is asked to pray; on his concluding, they sing again, and then the clergyman prays; and, with another hymn, all go home : each prayer lasts ten or fifteen minutes. If there be not a clergyman at the meeting, some one present takes his place; or perhaps, as he does not attend all of them, I should rather say that, when he does, he takes the place which otherwise would have been occupied by some one else. Ignorance of literature is not considered an impediment to a man's praying on these occasions. One of these meetings takes place almost weekly in each hamlet.

Allow me to ask, are not these discussions, or expositions, or commentaries, in a church, illegal? or, at least, are they not contrary to the 53rd canon, when one clergyman contradicts the assertion of another? Is it regular to have two sermons immediately in succession? Suppose the two should be on the same subject, and the clergymen should take different views, if it is not contrary to the discipline of the church, it is not in accordance with the spirit of the Prayer Book. Is it proper to allow a layman to take part in any discussion in a church? or is it seemly that these things should take place in the audience of sectarians and their preachers?

I am, Sir, your obliged humble servant, CERETICUS.

« PreviousContinue »