Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

inculcated. There are many distinctions without a difference; and they ought to be banished from all rational discussion. There are other distinctions with a substantial and important difference; and the one just stated has the highest claim to that character. It is the more entitled to notice, because there is not a form of logic under which papal controvertists more effectually and generally conduct the sophistications which their religion requires. And it is done, as I hope to make appear, by merging and concealing the difference between what is material and what is formal, and transferring at pleasure the argument from one to the other.

As the terms, however, are rather remote from ordinary usage and understanding, and it is important that the present observations should be made as intelligible and extensively serviceable as possible, it will be desirable to give them a popular explanation.

It may be observed in the outset, that with authors who wrote in the dialectic style common in the seventeenth century, the terms in question are sometimes varied and amplified by calling the one the subject matter, and the other the formal manner. The same distinction precisely is intended as by the single words.

The subject to which the epithet material is applied signifies the substance or being of that subject, whatever it may be, and particularly if a virtue or a vice, a truth or a falsehood. And the term formal expresses the consciousness or intention of the individual who may be the agent in respect of the thing specified. In short, the first term expresses the thing, the other the person, here of necessity considered as an intelligent and moral person.

To illustrate by instance, which is the most satisfactory explanation, assume the fact of drunkenness. The material portion is, the act of being overcome by intoxicating liquor so as to be deprived of the use of reason. This is sufficient for a general definition. The formal portion belongs to the consciousness, intention, or motive, or any other mental accompaniment, of the individual who may be so overcome. Now here it is plain enough that, although drunkenness is materially, in its own essence, a vice; yet formally the person who falls into the act may have so done without any consciousness or knowledge-with, indeed, a persuasion to the contrary-that the liquor of which he partook had in it any intoxicating quality whatever, or to the extent which was the fact. In such a case, evidently, the man has not been guilty of drunkenness he has been free from guilt in the action. But this by no means alters the substantial quality, or materiality of act: and that is vicious, and entailing guilt, wherever it is committed with knowledge or intention.-We might give several other illustrations, as murder, or theft.

We are now to shew how Romanists work with the instruments thus provided for them; and it is generally in the way of self-exculpation.

Their church is accused of idolatry. I carefully say their church, for they usually commence their subterfuge from this very point. They assert their own freedom from idolatry, and think this is the same thing as exonerating their church. The fact may be so as to them

selves; but we assert, and offer to prove, that it can only be so by their disagreement with their church-their ignorance of her doctrines, or their personal rejection of them. In the latter case, however, they take refuge from idolatry in hypocrisy. To confine myself to one specimen of alleged idolatry, the adoration of the consecrated host, or bread and wine, in the Eucharist, Romanists justify themselves from the charge, and treat it as a calumny, because, according to the creed of their church, and here assumed to be their own, they believe that the elements, when consecrated, are converted into the person, divine as well as human, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to adore him is no idolatry. We may allow this to be the fact, and that they are formally innocent. But even themselves allow, that if their doctrine on the subject be not true, idolatry is, by the fore-mentioned adoration, materially committed. So that their own authorized Manuals do not hesitate to declare, that when ignorant priests exhibit the host before consecration in such a way as to lead the people to believe that consecration has taken place, they force the people, in their act of adoration, to commit idolatry-i. e. materially, in fact really. What is this but to give up the point, and allow their church at least to be guilty? And what are we to think of those Romanists who force Protestants to receive the Eucharist after their form? We do not ransack the consciences of our papal brethren we confine ourselves to their church; only reminding them, that there is a Judge of their very consciences. Every one at all versed in the polemics of Rome, will recollect the unfair representation which is currently made of the sentiments of Bishop Taylor on this subject; and he will hope, in charity to such misrepresenters, that they were ignorant, or not aware at the time, of the distinction, which sets all right.

In the most authentic documents of Rome, principles are inculcated which will justify breach of faith to the extreme point; and therefore it is no wonder that perjury has been imputed to that church. There certainly have not been wanting instances, and they are not far. to seek, of those who have appeared to avail themselves of the encouragement, or comply with the injunctions, of so authoritative a church. And what is the course taken, in the case of plain, grammatical violation of the most sacred obligation-an oath? Why, the conscience of the juror; who may think fit to understand it in any sense which may suit him. The consciences of some persons are doubtless very inscrutable things. Yet, in secular affairs, it would hardly be tolerated that a person under bond to pay a certain sum to another should say, that he understands the bond of money to be paid to him. At least the strong arm of law, and of justice too, would teach him a better lesson. In worldly matters, it is possible for words to have a definite meaning; but in the sacred business of a religious appeal to the Almighty, it seems this is impossible; and, according to what are now esteemed liberal views of the subject, perjury has become an impossible crime. Without, however, dwelling longer upon an argument which is a mockery both of common sense and of common morality, let us admit cases of ignorance, doubt, or misconception, which may really exempt the false juror from guilt; this is only formal exemption, not material; VOL. VIII.-Dec. 1835.

40

and if the plain grammatical meaning of an oath be to a certain purpose, the violation of that oath is in itself material, substantial perjury, and he who is guilty of it is guilty in the sight of God, and ought to be, perhaps is, in the sight of his own conscience, whatever he may say or pretend. It is sickening to observe how a loose and perverse morality, from whatever motive, will often concur with the most profligate speculations of men who are universally believed to make conscience of nothing.

There is another point on which the sophistry of Romanists, aided by a perverse use of the distinction which we are considering, is employed. Individuals of the Italian communion are rather sore under the imputation of exclusiveness and intolerance, particularly at a time when they wish for every credit for liberality and charity. They not only profess to decline passing a judgment upon individuals, but they allege various circumstances occasionally attending heresy which may deprive it of its condemning quality,-necessary ignorance, absence of wilfulness, idiotcy, &c. This refers entirely to the formal character of the act or state of heresy, and is just nothing at all: no individual or body of men presuming to pass actual sentence as to the final guilt and future state of particular persons.* * But will any priest of the church of Rome who has sworn the creed of Pius IV., which banishes from salvation all who do not hold the articles of that creed, turn round and eat his own oath, and admit, in flat contradiction to that oath, that those who bona fide and simply, and with no extenuation, reject the creed of his church, and are therefore proper heretics, can obtain salvation or escape damnation? He cannot he dares not. No: the wilful and obstinate heretic, whether the indulgent censor can or will point him out, is both a material and a formal heretic, and condemned to eternal damnation. It would be worth while for the reader after this to run over in his recollection the articles, truly the pope's, which compose the final and main body of the creed of Pius IV. It must, however, be acknowledged, that the garment of liberality, politic as it may be at times to use in this country, hangs but awkwardly on the shoulders of a genuine Romanist. He is far better at ease when, as he sometimes ventures to do even in this country, he endeavours to intimidate into conversion by this argument: "You admit that we may be saved in our religion; we do not admit that you may be saved in yours. It is therefore your most prudent, because safest, course, to adopt ours." But this at once lets in all the intolerant exclusiveness alleged against the Roman church. No matter for that if it succeed.

Upon the whole, let me impress it upon all who would be Protestants more than in name, to keep a constant eye to the distinction which is the subject of this communication. It will serve as a clue in most of the mazes of papal controversy. It will detect error and sophistry: it will guard against them; and, in so doing, it will give fair play to truth, if it does not positively promote it. This of itself and alone is an important point. J. M.

The sermons, however, at an Auto da fé, generally, if not universally, make sure of the damnation of the victims.

MR. MOORE'S HISTORY OF IRELAND.

SIR,-The following observations on those parts of Mr. T. Moore's "History of Ireland," which relate to the introduction of Christianity into that country, are offered for insertion in the British Magazine, with the hope that they may in some degree serve the cause of truth. It would be needless to inform such of your readers as are aware that Mr. M. is a Roman Catholic, that he considers the "mission of St. Patrick to form the principal feature" in the early history of the Irish church. Nor will it be necessary to canvass the truth or falsehood of the glowing description which Mr. M. gives (p. 203) of his, St. Patrick's, ministry among the Irish, because all who have read the observations to be found on this subject in the two last numbers of your Magazine, must be satisfied that the saint of Mr. M. and the true apostle of Ireland are totally distinct personages. Preliminary, therefore, to an examination of some of Mr. M.'s statements and quotations, it shall suffice to protest against the unchristian principle involved in the following passage and note:

"The same policy by which Christianity did not disdain to win her way in more polished countries, was adopted by the first missionaries in Ireland; and the outward forms of past error became the vehicle through which new and vital truths were conveyed. The days devoted from old times to pagan festivals, were now transferred to the service of the Christian cause. The feast of Samhin, which had been held annually at the time of the vernal equinox, was found opportunely to coincide with the celebration of Easter; and the fires lighted up by the pagan Irish to welcome the summer solstice, were continued afterwards, and even down to the present day, in honour of the eve of St. John." (pp. 204, 205.)

If in this passage for the words "Christianity" and "Christians," we substitute "popery" and "papists," Mr. M. may be considered as giving a very fair representation of the practices of the church to which he belongs; but of such a palpable compromise between Christ and Belial the "early Christians" knew nothing. In justice to Gregory, however, it ought to be stated, that in a letter to Ethelbert, which Bede gives two chapters further on, the pope exhorts that king to root out the worship of idols, and to destroy their temples-"idolorum cultus insequere ; fanorum ædificia everte" (Bede, lib. i., c. 32): whence we may conclude, either that Gregory did not always recommend the policy attributed to him by Mr. M., or that (like a true papist) he gave secret instructions to his agents which were in direct opposition to the advice tendered by him to the king. But be this as it may, it has ever been a fixed principle with the Romish church to

"The History of Ireland," by Thomas Moore, Esq., Vol. I.

"The very same policy was recommended by Pope Gregory to Augustine and his fellow-labourers in England. See his letter to the Abbot Mellitus in Bede, (lib. i. c. 30,) where he suggests that the temples of the idols in that nation ought not to be destroyed." [Then follows a translation of part of the letter in question, and a reference to Hume's "Remarks on the Policy of the first Missionaries," vol. i., chap. 1; and Mr. M. proceeds:] "With similar views, the early Christians selected, in general, for the festivals of their church, such days as had become hallowed to the pagans by the celebrations of some of their religious solemnities."

make every other consideration yield to the establishment of the pope's supremacy over those nations which, in evil hour, may have been visited by popish missionaries. Hence, whether we regard the labours of those missionaries in former or modern times, we shall be at no loss for examples of their toleration of all kinds of idolatrous rites among their heathen converts, provided the latter were willing to yield implicit obedience to "Christ's vicar upon earth." Nay, the use of incense and holy water, and shrines and images, and wax lights and votive offerings, and the many other superstitious practices which the Romish church revived from the ceremonial of the defunct heathenism of the empire, would seem to indicate that allegiance to the holy see is only to be expected in proportion as the religion of a nation is assimilated to paganism.*

That the effect of a mode of conversion which leaves "ancient ceremonies and symbols of faith" unmolested, should prove somewhat extensive, is not to be wondered at; for when heathens are permitted to retain the substance of their idolatrous rites, the new name under which idolatry is perpetrated is not very likely to create opposition. When Mr. M., therefore, tells us, that his "great apostle" of Ireland employed such gentle methods and skilful, to procure converts, as left the ancient Irish in possession of their pagan festivals and ceremonies, we are prepared to credit such glowing language as, "Christianity burst forth at the first ray of apostolic light, and, with the sudden ripeness of a northern summer, at once covered the whole land," (p. 203); or the assertion of old Giraldus Cambrensis," Baptizatis itaque catervatim populis" (Topog. Hib., Dist. iii. 16.) Nor need we be surprised that there was "not one drop of blood shed on account of religion throughout the course of this mild Christian revolution," (p. 203); for why should there be any resistance to the labours of an apostle who, according to Mr. M., carefully abstained from touching "that prejudice in favour of old institutions which is so inherent in the Irish," (p. 204.) Mr. M., however, is in a great wrath with the old writer above mentioned, for adducing this "bloodless triumph of Christianity" as a serious fault in the Irish nation. In a note, page 204, he observes

"Giraldus Cambrensis has been guilty of either the bigotry or stupidity of adducing this bloodless triumph of Christianity among the Irish as a charge against that people:-Pro Christi ccclesia corona martyri nulla. Non igitur inventus est in partibus istis, qui ecclesiæ surgentis fundamenta sanguinis effusione cementarat : non fuit qui facerit [i. e. faceret] hoc bonum; non fuit usque ad unum.-Topog. Hib., dist. iii., cap. 29."

Now, independently of this reference to Giraldus being given wrong, there is a want of good faith in the use made of the quotation itself. In the Topog. Hib., Dist. iii., c. 28, Giraldus Cambrensis is not discussing the "bloodless triumph of Christianity," but the great negligence of

*It is scarcely necessary to remind your readers of the fifth of Pascal's Provincial Letters; of the accounts contained in the celebrated Lettres Edifiantes et Curieuses ; and of the Abbe Dubois's Lettres, &c., on the conversions to Christianity in the East Indies.

« AnteriorContinuar »