« PoprzedniaDalej »
sententiam explicare. Nam quia Dominus Jesus Christus, Filius ac Verbum Dei, per Quem facta sunt omnia, Ipse sit Unus Operator divinitatis atque humanitatis, plenæ sunt sacræ literæ luculentius demonstrantes. Utrum autem, propter opera divinitatis et humanitatis, una an geminæ operationes debeant derivatæ dici vel intelligi, ad nos ista pertinere non debent; relinquentes ea grammaticis, qui solent parvulis exquisita derivando nomina venditare. Nos enim non unam operationem vel duas Dominum Jesum Christum Ejusque Sanctum Spiritum sacris literis percepimus, sed multiformiter cognovimus operatum. Scriptum est enim: "Si quis Spiritum Christi non habet, hic Ejus non est." Et alibi: "Nemo potest dicere, dominus Jesus, nisi in Spiritu Sancto. Divisiones vero gratiarum sunt, Idem autem Spiritus: et divisiones ministrationum sunt, Idem autem Dominus : et divisiones operationum sunt, Idem vero Deus, Qui operatur omnia in omnibus." Si enim divisiones operationum sunt multæ, et has omnes Deus in membris omnibus pleni corporis operatur, quanto magis Capiti nostro Christo domino hæc possunt plenissime coaptari? ut caput et corpus unum sit perfectum, "ut profecto occurrat," sicut scriptum est, "in virum perfectum, in mensuram ætatis plenitudinis Christi." Si enim in aliis, id est in membris Suis, Spiritus Christi multiformiter operatur, in Quo vivunt, moventur, et sunt: quanto magis per Semetipsum, Mediatorem Dei et hominum, plene ac perfecte multisque modis et ineffabilibus confiteri nos communione utriusque naturæ condecet operatum ? Et nos quidem secundum sanctiones divinorum eloquiorum oportet sapere vel spirare; illa videlicet refutantes, quæ quidem novæ voces noscuntur sanctis Dei ecclesiis scandala generare ne parvuli aut duarum operationum vocabulo offensi, sectantes Nestorianos nos vesana sapere arbitrentur aut certe, si rursus unam operationem Domini nostri Jesu Christi fatendam esse censuerimus, stultam Eutychianistarum attonitis auribus dementiam fateri putemur: præcaventes, ne quorum inania arma combusta sunt, eorum cineres redivivos ignes flammivomarum denuo renovent quæstionum; simpliciter atque veraciter confitentes Dominum Jesum Christum Unum Operatorem divinæ atque humanæ naturæ, electius arbitrantes, ut vani naturarum ponderatores : otiose negotiantes et turgidi adversus nos insonent vocibus ranarum philosophi, quam ut simplices et humiles spiritu populi Christiani possint remanere jejuni. Nullus enim decipiet per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam discipulos piscatorum, eorum doctrinam sequentes; omnia enim argumenta scopulosa disputationis callidæ atque fluctivaga in eorum retia sunt collisa. Hæc nobiscum fraternitas vestra prædicet, sicut et nos ea vobiscum unanimiter prædicamus; hortantes vos, ut unius vel geminæ novæ vocis inductum operationis vocabulum aufugientes, Unum nobiscum Dominum Jesum Christum Filium Dei vivi, Deum verissimum, in duabus naturis operatum divinitus atque humanitus, fide orthodoxâ et unitate catholica prædicetis.-Deus te inculumem custodiat dilectissime atque sanctissime
The two extant fragments of his second Letter run as follows, in the Latin translation of their Greek translation:Nec non et Cyro fratri nostro Alexandriæ civitatis præsuli, quatenus
novæ adinventionis unius vel duarum operationum vocabulo refutato, claro Dei ecclesiarum præconio nebulosarum concertationum caligines offundi non debeant vel aspergi; ut profecto unius vel geminæ operationis vocabulum noviter introductum ex prædicatione fidei eximatur. Nam qui hæc dicunt, quid aliud nisi juxta unius vel geminæ naturæ Christi Dei vocabulum, ita et operationem unam vel geminam suspicantur? Super quod clara sunt divina testimonia. Unius autem operationis vel duarum esse vel fuisse Mediatorem Dei et hominum Dominum Jesum Christum, sentire et promere satis ineptum est.
Et quidem, quantum ad instruendam notitiam ambigentium, sanctissimæ fraternitati vestræ per eam insinuandam prævidimus. Ceterum quantum ad dogma ecclesiasticum pertinet quod tenere vel prædicare debemus, propter simplicitatem hominum et amputandas inextricabiles quæstionum ambages, sicut superius diximus, non unam vel duas operationes in Mediatore Dei et hominum definire; sed utrasque naturas, in uno Christo unitate naturali copulatas, cum alterius communione operantes atque operatrices confiteri debemus et divinam quidem, quæ Dei sunt operantem ; et humanam, quæ carnis sunt exequentem: non divise, neque confuse, aut convertibiliter, Dei naturam in hominem et humanam in Deum conversam edocentes; sed naturarum differentias integras confitentes: Unus enim atque Idem est humilis et sublimis: æqualis Patri et minor Patre: Ipse ante tempora, natus in tempore est : per Quem facta sunt sæcula, factus in sæculo est: et Qui legem dedit, factus sub lege est, ut eos qui sub lege erant redimeret: Ipse crucifixus, Ipse chirographum quod erat contra nos evacuans in cruce, de potestatibus et principatibus triumphavit. Auferentes ergo, sicut diximus, scandalum novellæ adinventionis, non nos oportet unam vel duas operationes definientes prædicare; sed pro unâ, quam quidam dicunt, operatione, oportet nos unum Operatorem Christum Dominum in utrisque naturis veridice confiteri et pro duabus operationibus, ablato geminæ operationis vocabulo, ipsas potius duas naturas, id est, divinitatis et carnis assumptæ, in unâ Personâ Unigeniti Dei Patris, inconfuse, indivise, atque inconvertibiliter nobiscum prædicare propria operantes. Et hoc quidem beatissimæ fraternitati vestræ insinuandum prævidimus, quatenus unius confessionis propositum unanimatati vestræ sanctitatis monstremus, ut profecto in uno spiritu anhelantes, pari fidei documento conspiremus. Scribentes etiam communibus fratribus Cyro et Sophronio antistitibus, ne novæ vocis, id est, unius, vel geminæ operationis, vocabulo insistere vel immorari videantur: sed abrasâ hujusmodi novæ vocis appellatione, Unum Christum dominum nobiscum in utrisque naturis divina vel humana prædicent operantem. Quamquam hos, quos ad nos prædictus frater et coepiscopus noster Sophronius misit, instruximus, ne duarum operationum vocabulum deinceps prædicare innitatur; quod instantissime promiserunt prædictum virum esse facturum, si etiam Cyrus frater et coepiscopus noster ab unius operationis vocabulo discesserit.
ART. VIII.-IRELAND AND THE NEW MINISTRY.
Speeches of the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone, M.P., delivered at Warrington, Ormskirk, Liverpool, Southport, Newton, Leigh, and Wigan, in October, 1868. London: Simpkin, Marshall, & Co.
HE crisis which for four years we have desired and predicted has at last arrived. In 1865, when Lord Palmerston as Prime Minister had just assured the House of Commons that emigration to America was the real and only cure for the ills of Ireland, and when Sir Robert Peel, who was Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant, had lately declared that his noble chief and he were determined to stand or fall with the Irish Church Establishment, we ventured to say that there was "wanted a Policy for Ireland."* "Ireland," we said, "wants on the part of British statesmen a policy; and still more, on the part of the British Parliament, good will to assist and give efficacy to that policy." For we continued, "the animus of Parliament (of the majority of Parliament, taking both Houses together, we mean of course), in considering the affairs of Ireland, is even still, three generations after the Union, that of one nation dealing with another nation; dealing with it not perhaps exactly as an enemy, but as an obstacle, a nuisance, a reproach, a cause of continual incomprehensible annoyance, and occasional serious danger, an opposite moral essence' to itself, with different instincts and habits, which it is impossible to gratify and not even easy to apprehend." We ventured to hope that Parliament would not always act," where Irish interests are concerned, only under the influence of alarm;" but we also feared, though the Government of that time did not recognize the very existence of Fenianism, that we were "approaching a period of such ignominious arguments again." Having stated in general outline our views of what a policy for Ireland ought to be, we said, looking some little way beyond the régime of Lord Palmerston, that it ought to be "possible to persuade one of the coming statesmen of the next ten years, Mr. Gladstone if not Mr. Disraeli, that it is his interest, and in a sense his necessity to have a clear and comprehensive policy for Ireland." What we ventured to hope has happened exactly
* DUBLIN REVIEW, April, 1865, Art. VI.-" Wanted a Policy for Ireland."
as we wished it would. Mr. Gladstone has succeeded Mr. Disraeli as Prime Minister on the specific issue of the policy of the government of Ireland. Irish policy is the principal object which engages the minds of English statesmen. And owing especially to the ardour, energy, and devotion with which Mr. Gladstone has declared and sustained his policy, the inertness and prejudice of Parliament has been in a great measure overcome; and the country has elected a new House of Commons pledged, as its first task, to the sustainment of a just and a complete policy for Ireland.
In the course of the events which have led to this great result, the position of the Irish Catholics, and to a great extent that of all the Catholics of the United Kingdom, in regard to political parties, has considerably changed. Our ideal of their proper attitude in Parliament under such a Government as that of Lord Palmerston was, as we often stated, that commonly defined by the words Independent Opposition. We are bound now to take clear note of the fact that when Independent Opposition was first promulgated as a general principle of public action by the Irish Catholic Hierarchy, in conjunction with the principal political leaders of the Irish Catholics, and was very largely accepted by the Irish constituencies at the general election of 1852-that it was not a factious, indiscriminate, and endless opposition to all governments that was contemplated, but one directed to certain definite ends, in themselves a legitimate and not unreasonably remote object of party combination—and that it was specifically defined that the party then formed should act in independent opposition to all such governments as had not made religious equality in Ireland, and a just settlement of the law of landlord and tenant cabinet questions. It is a simple matter of fact that Mr. Gladstone has done this, and something more. He has not only made these questions cabinet questions-he has given them the first place in the plans of his Ministry; he has stated the order in which he intends to proceed with them; and he has gone to the country, and taken the verdict of a general election upon one principal and specific issue, the policy to be pursued in the government of Ireland. It was a great risk, considering the exasperated condition of English feeling, after the rescue at Manchester and the explosion at Clerkenwell-considering also the previously divided and insubordinate condition of the Liberal party. It was attended by personal mortifications, very keenly felt; for having first lost his seat for Oxford University, in consequence of his opinions touching the Irish Church, he, at the last election, lost his seat for
his native county through the same cause. But the cause, nevertheless, triumphed through its greatness, its justice, and the genius and zeal which were given to its advocacy; and Mr. Gladstone is, in consequence, Prime Minister, with a majority strictly pledged to support his policy, the like of which no English minister has had since Mr. Pitt.
This is a period of such rapid changes in our political system, that to speak of the Irish policy of Lord Palmerston seems nearly as much out of place as it would be to speak of the Irish policy of Lord North; and when we refer to the formation of the party of Independent Opposition, we seem to be dealing with some half-forgotten chapter in the archæology of Irish agitation. But it is important to revert to this remote period of sixteen or seventeen years ago, at the present moment, for several reasons. One of these is, that the party of Independent Opposition, having been strangely subverted, and ultimately reduced almost to nonentity, the popular forces which it had controlled and directed, fell a prey to Fenianism. In precise proportion as the one waned the other waxed strong. This was not the only result. Throughout Ireland there followed, on the part of powerful sections of the Catholic clergy and laity, an apathy in regard to politics, a distrust in the faith of public men, which still exists, and which it is very difficult to dispel. Towards Mr. Gladstone, and in some degree towards Mr. Bright, there is a growing feeling of grateful and enthusiastic devotion. The words are strong, but the Irish are an intense people. At the same time it may, without offence, be said, that enthusiastic devotion is not the kind of feeling which was likely to be excited in the country of Grattan and O'Connell, by those who were the local liberal leaders at the moment when Mr Gladstone introduced his famous resolutions. Those right honourable, honourable, and (ina large proportion) learned gentlemen showed no special anxiety indeed when the Irish Reform Bill was before the House, to increase the electoral power of the country, so as to enhance the force of its verdict; and gladly consented to pass whatever Lord Mayo proposed, in order to preserve Portarlington the smallest borough in the empire, but the only place in Ireland where the late Attorney General, Mr. Lawson, had the chance of getting a seat. Such things have their effect, even when it is not very loudly testified. Accordingly, the balance between the two parties was actually less disturbed at the Irish elections than at the English, the Welsh, or the Scotch. It is evident that the popular force of the Irish nation, long disorganised, has not, as yet, rallied. It will, we believe, soon steadily, if not very rapidly or vehemently, re-assert itself. To the many high