FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[5]See Gesenius, Fürst, or, indeed, any of the larger Hebrew Lexicons.[6]Hebrew and English Lexicon; London: Baxter and Sons.[7]Egypt's Place in Universal History; London: Longman and Co., vol. i., p. 172.[8]Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament; Leipzig: 1852.[9]Scholia in Pentateuchum.[10]Die Genesis Erklärt; Leipzig: 1852.[11]This is the literal translation of the Hebrew text, see Pagnini, Rosenmüller etc.[12]Our readers are no doubt aware that the proper names of the Bible are differently spelled in the different versions. The orthography uniformly followed by Catholics is derived from the Septuagint, which was in general use throughout the Church in the very earliest ages. Among Protestants, on the other hand, an attempt is made to approach more closely to the orthography of the Hebrew text. Dr. Colenso has naturally taken the proper names as he found them in the English authorized version, and to avoid confusion in answering his arguments, we shall follow the spelling which he has adopted.[13]In fact it is quite clear from several passages that Abraham had servants of both classes. See, for example,Gen., xvii. 12, 13, 23, 27.[14]The death of Isaac must have taken place just ten years before the Descent into Egypt. Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (Gen., xxv. 26); and Jacob was 130 when he went down to Egypt (Gen., xlvii. 9): therefore Isaac, if then living, would have been 190. But we know that he died at the age of 180 (Gen., xxxv. 28); that is to say, ten years before.

[5]See Gesenius, Fürst, or, indeed, any of the larger Hebrew Lexicons.

[6]Hebrew and English Lexicon; London: Baxter and Sons.

[7]Egypt's Place in Universal History; London: Longman and Co., vol. i., p. 172.

[8]Handwörterbuch über das Alte Testament; Leipzig: 1852.

[9]Scholia in Pentateuchum.

[10]Die Genesis Erklärt; Leipzig: 1852.

[11]This is the literal translation of the Hebrew text, see Pagnini, Rosenmüller etc.

[12]Our readers are no doubt aware that the proper names of the Bible are differently spelled in the different versions. The orthography uniformly followed by Catholics is derived from the Septuagint, which was in general use throughout the Church in the very earliest ages. Among Protestants, on the other hand, an attempt is made to approach more closely to the orthography of the Hebrew text. Dr. Colenso has naturally taken the proper names as he found them in the English authorized version, and to avoid confusion in answering his arguments, we shall follow the spelling which he has adopted.

[13]In fact it is quite clear from several passages that Abraham had servants of both classes. See, for example,Gen., xvii. 12, 13, 23, 27.

[14]The death of Isaac must have taken place just ten years before the Descent into Egypt. Isaac was 60 when Jacob was born (Gen., xxv. 26); and Jacob was 130 when he went down to Egypt (Gen., xlvii. 9): therefore Isaac, if then living, would have been 190. But we know that he died at the age of 180 (Gen., xxxv. 28); that is to say, ten years before.

The see of Armagh became vacant by the death of David O'Hiraghty, which took place, according to theAnnales Nenaghtenses, on the 16th May, 1346. Dr. O'Hiraghty had been Dean of Armagh, and was elected by the chapter of Armagh,quasi per inspirationem divinam, as John XXII. mentions in the bull by which, on July 4th, 1334, he ratified the election.[15]He was consecrated at Avignon, and having ruled his diocese for nearly twelve years, died in 1346. On the 31st July, 1346, Clement VI.,jure provisionis, appointed to the vacant see Richard Fitz-Ralph, then Dean of Lichfield. The bull of nomination contains that the chapter of Armagh had already unanimously elected the same Richard, and that he had given his consent to the election.[16]The Four Masters place in the year 1356 the death of Farrell (son of Jeffrey) MacRannall, Primate of Armagh and representative of St. Patrick. This, as Dr. O'Donovan remarks, is evidently a mistake of the Four Masters, as Richard Fitz-Ralph was certainly not one of the Mac Rannalls. We may say that, besides the mistake in the names, there is also a mistake in the dates. It was precisely in 1356 that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph set out upon that visit to London which was the occasion of his controversy with the Franciscans. The mistake made by the Four Masters is all the more incomprehensible for this reason, that of all the primates who sat at Armagh since the days of St. Francis of Assisi, no one was more likely to be remembered by the Franciscans than Archbishop Fitz-Ralph.

Dr. Fitz-Ralph was consecrated at Exeter on the 8th of July, 1347, by John Grandison, Bishop of Exeter, and three otherbishops.[17]If this date be correct, the Primate found himself engaged in the onerous duties of his new office even before his consecration. On the 10th of April, 1347, Clement VI. appointed him, together with the Archbishop of Cashel, to make inquiry on the part of the Holy See into some charges brought against the Archbishop of Dublin by the Bishop of Ossory.[18]On the 12th of July of the same year he received faculties from the Holy See to dispense in a case of invalid marriage, the parties belonging to the diocese of Armagh.[19]The bishops of Ardagh and Cloyne were appointed on the 29th August, 1347, to give him the pallium.[20]

One of the most striking characteristics of Archbishop Fitz-Ralph's pastoral life was his assiduity in preaching the word of God to his people. His sermons on the principal festivals, still extant in MS. in the university libraries of Dublin, Oxford, and Cambridge, and in the British Museum, would fill a large volume. Already as Dean of Lichfield he had been remarkable for his fervour in preaching, but as successor of St. Patrick in the see of Armagh, he seemed to have received a double spirit of zeal and diligence. A volume of his sermons, once in the possession of Ware, and lately purchased for the British Museum at the sale of the Tenison library, includes sermons preached at Avignon, London, Drogheda, Dundalk, Trim, and other places of the province of Armagh. The fame of his eloquence preceded him to the Holy See, and when at Avignon he was frequently admitted to the high honour of preaching before the Holy Father and the cardinals and prelates of his court. He loved to make our Blessed Lady's virtues the subject of his discourse.De Laudibus S. Deiparaeis the title of many of his sermons. There are also special sermons on her Conception, Visitation, and Assumption. His sermons are generally constructed on a uniform plan. After quoting his text, it was his custom to begin with some short prayer like the following, which occurs in a sermon preached at Avignon on the feast of All Saints, 1358:Pro edificandi gratia impetranda, devote, si placet, matrem gratiae salutemus, dicentes Ave Maria.And in a sermon preached before Innocent VI. on the feast of the Epiphany, after the textVidentes stellam Magi, he begins with the invocation,O Maria stella Maris, Mater stellae solaris. After the introductory prayer he repeats the text in the vernacular, and then proceeds with the division of the subject. In dividing his discourse he generally employs the rigour of the scholastic method; each member of the divisionbeing complete in itself, and forming as it stands a finished whole. Hence, the great feature of his style is its singular clearness; a clearness which, however, never becomes hard or cold, so tender is the unction that pervades the entire. He appears to have had a singular devotion to St. Catherine the Martyr and to St. Thomas of Canterbury, among the saints; three or four different sermons are to be found in the collection in honour of each. It is much to be regretted that those beautiful sermons have never been printed.

Anxious to secure efficient pastors for his flock, he took care that his clergy should have the benefit of the highest literary and ecclesiastical training it was within his power to procure. With this view he sent four of his priests to the University of Oxford, where he himself had spent so many happy years of profitable study. He also acquired for his diocese from the Benedictines of St. Mary of Lenley's in Normandy, the priory and houses of St. Andrew in the Ardes, belonging to that order. Besides this, he was diligent in visiting every portion of his province. Among the rolls of Edward III., there is a letter of 28th April, 1356,[21]addressed by that King to the Archbishop, at a moment that the latter has actually engaged in his visitation of the diocese of Meath. Edward calls upon the Primate to return with all speed to Dundalk to treat with Odo O'Neill, who was advancing upon that town with a considerable army of Irish. Nor was it the first time that the Archbishop's virtues enabled him to discharge the blessed office of peacemaker in the disturbed state of society in which his lot was cast. As far back as 1348 he had received from the King full powers to treat for peace between the English and Irish.[22]

While careful of the spiritual interests of his diocese, Archbishop Fitz-Ralph did not neglect to take care of its temporal concerns. He justified to the letter the description given of him in the bull which made him Archbishop:in spiritualibus providum, in temporalibus circumspectum.

On January 11th, 1351, he received from Clement VI. a favourable answer to his petition that he might be allowed to incorporate with the mensal funds of his see the income of four churches with care of souls, provided the ordinaries consented, and that the sum did not exceed the annual value of one hundred marks. The petition of the Archbishop set forth that the entire income of his see did not reach four hundred pounds sterling per annum. On the same day the Pontiff issued letters requiring the Abbot of St. Mary's in Dynelek (Duleek), the Prior of St. Leonard's in Dundalk, and the Archdeacon of Armagh, together with the chapter of the cathedral, to examine how far itwould be useful to exchange certain church lands, rents, and other immovable property, for others, which the Primate judged more likely to be advantageous to the see of Armagh.

Two documents preserved by Rymer show how careful Dr. Fitz-Ralph was not to sanction by any act of his the claims made to the primacy by the Archbishop of Dublin, to the detriment of Armagh. The first is dated 8th December, 1350, and is an order from Edward III., that the Archbishop of Armagh should not have his cross carried before him within the limits of the province of Dublin. Archbishop Fitz-Ralph was unwilling to cause disturbance by refusing to obey this order, but on the other hand he felt that to comply with it fully would be to prejudice the legitimate claims of his see.

He resolved in consequence simply to absent himself from Dublin. He procured a royal license which excused him from personal attendance at the parliaments held at Dublin, on the ground, that within the province of Dublin he was not permitted to have his cross borne before him. In 1349 he was charged by the same king to plead in the royal name before the Sovereign Pontiff Clement VI. for the grace of a jubilee on behalf of the people subject to the English crown. In Oxford there is a MS. entitledPropositio ejusden (Ric. Rad. sive Fitz-Ralph Archiepiscopi Armachani) ex parte Regis Angliae Edwardi III. in consistorio Domini Papae, Avinione pro gratia jubilaei ejus Domino Regis populo obtinenda, anno 1349. A similar heading is prefixed to anotherpropositioof the same prelate, which, as we shall see, he urged in person at Avignon in 1357. Pope Clement VI. was engaged in anxious efforts to restore the oriental churches to union with Rome. The Armenians were in an especial manner the objects of his paternal solicitude. The remarkable series of questions which the Pope proposed to the bishops of that church are well known in ecclesiastical history. It was, probably, during this visit to the Holy See that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph became acquainted with the two Armenian prelates, Nerses or Narses of Manasgarda and John, Bishop elect of Clata, in Greater Armenia. These oriental bishops had long and earnest conferences with their Irish brother on the sad state of their once flourishing church, and at their earnest and oft-repeated requests, the Primate resolved to contribute his aid to the great work of bringing back the Armenians to unity. One circumstance connected with the occasion, though it narrowed his field of argument for the time, has given, nevertheless, to his writings a character which makes them valuable in modern controversy. In hisQuestiones Armenorumhe was forced to defend the Catholic doctrine almost exclusively from the Holy Scriptures, seeing that his adversaries did not admit the authority of the Roman Church. Hence hisposition as a controversial writer does not differ from that which the Reformation has imposed upon modern theologians since the time of Bellarmine.

Before the publication of Theiner'sVetera Monumenta, there was but a single writer, Raphael of Volterra,[23]to assert that Archbishop Fitz-Ralph had been created Cardinal. This solitary testimony, though positive, was not considered by Ware and others strong enough to counterbalance the negative argument drawn from the silence of all other writers on the subject, and especially from the fact that upon the elaborate catalogue of cardinals, drawn up by Panvinio and Ciacconio, the name of Fitz-Ralph is not to be found. Among the documents published by Theiner there is a consistorial process drawn up in 1517 on occasion of a vacancy in the see of Ardagh,[24]in which mention is made, among other glories of Ireland, of the Cardinal of Armagh, who flourished in the year 1353. This is no other than our Archbishop Fitz-Ralph. It is curious that the statement in this process is made in words almost identical with those used by Raphael of Volterra. So close is the likeness between the two statements that one is clearly copied from the other. It is also to be observed that in the Papal documents he is never styled Cardinal, and that even as late as October, 1358, Archbishop Fitz-Ralph is styled by Innocent VI. simply Archbishop of Armagh, although in the same letter the Pontiff makes mention of the Cardinals appointed to examine into the questions at issue between our prelate and the Mendicant Orders. However this may be explained, we have the weighty authority of an official document drawn up at Rome and accepted by the Holy Father himself, for believing that the see of Armagh was honoured by the Roman purple in the person of Richard Fitz-Ralph.

We now approach the grave controversy which was carried on for years between our Archbishop and the Mendicant Religious Orders. Even if the space at our disposal permitted it, we would not be willing to enter here into a detailed account of the dispute.

Had it been given to Archbishop Fitz-Ralph to see as clearly as history has enabled us to see, the blessings which our Church owes to the heroism of the religious orders in the days of persecution, far from opposing, he would have been the first to enlarge their privileges in Ireland. But, as it was, it is quite clear that in his opposition to them he was influenced solely by motives of an elevated nature. The whole struggle was simply a domestic misunderstanding, and of such character as that onemay and must feel deep respect for both parties. We cannot do better than lay before our readers the explanation of his object and motives offered by the Archbishop himself to Pope Innocent VI. in person, at Avignon, 8th November, 1357.[25]

"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 'Nolite judicare secundum faciem sed justum judicium judicate' (Joan., cap. 7)."Most Holy Father, I protest, at the very beginning of my discourse, that I do not intend to assert or rashly to affirm anything which may clash with Christian faith or Catholic doctrine, and that it is not my intention to solicit, or even to advise, the abolition or retrenchment of the mendicant orders approved by the Church or confirmed by the Sovereign Pontiffs. But rather, it is my desire that these same orders be brought back to the purity of their original institution, and in this, also, I am ever ready to submit to the correction of your Holiness. And to approach my subject without delay, coming to London, Most Holy Father, about certain matters connected with my Church of Armagh, I found a dispute going on between certain learned doctors concerning the mendicant state and the mendicity of Christ our Lord and Saviour. After repeated invitations to preach to the people, I there delivered, in the vernacular, seven or eight discourses, and, always under the above-made protest, I defended in public nine conclusions, on account of which, and for what else I then said, the friars have appealed, though without reason, to this Holy See".

"In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 'Nolite judicare secundum faciem sed justum judicium judicate' (Joan., cap. 7).

"Most Holy Father, I protest, at the very beginning of my discourse, that I do not intend to assert or rashly to affirm anything which may clash with Christian faith or Catholic doctrine, and that it is not my intention to solicit, or even to advise, the abolition or retrenchment of the mendicant orders approved by the Church or confirmed by the Sovereign Pontiffs. But rather, it is my desire that these same orders be brought back to the purity of their original institution, and in this, also, I am ever ready to submit to the correction of your Holiness. And to approach my subject without delay, coming to London, Most Holy Father, about certain matters connected with my Church of Armagh, I found a dispute going on between certain learned doctors concerning the mendicant state and the mendicity of Christ our Lord and Saviour. After repeated invitations to preach to the people, I there delivered, in the vernacular, seven or eight discourses, and, always under the above-made protest, I defended in public nine conclusions, on account of which, and for what else I then said, the friars have appealed, though without reason, to this Holy See".

The visit to London here alluded to took place in 1356, and, as we have seen, in 1357, the case was already under judgment at Avignon. For three whole years the archbishop remained at the Holy See, while a congregation of Cardinals, specially appointed for the purpose, took cognizance of the dispute. No official decision was given, but as the privileges of the mendicant orders were confirmed, and a letter sent to the English bishops commanding them to not interfere with the friars, it may be said that the Archbishop failed to make good his cause.

On the 16th November, 1360, according to Henry of Malmesbury, Richard Fitz-Ralph slept in the Lord at Avignon. "Of whom", says Fox,[26]"a certain cardinal hearing of his death, openly protested that the same day a mighty pillar of the Church was fallen".

In Wadding'sAnnals, it is told that towards the end of his life, seeing it was not likely he could succeed in his struggle, he withdrew to Belgium, and there died in the mountains of Hannonia. The same account appears in the Camden Annals ofIreland. But Ware[27]tells us that the Armagh copy of these annals agrees with other histories in placing the death at Avignon. In 1370, his remains were removed by Stephanus de Valle (who from the see of Limerick was translated to that of Meath by Urban V. in 1369), and brought back to his native town of Dundalk, where they were desposited in the church of St. Nicholas. The memory of his extraordinary merits soon attracted to his tomb crowds of the faithful. The usage of styling him St. Richard of Dundalk became quite general, and many miracles were ascribed to his intercession. Moved by the report of these prodigies, Pope Boniface IX. appointed John Cotton, Archbishop of Armagh, Richard Young, Bishop-elect of Bangor, and the Abbot of Osney, near Oxford, as commissioners to institute a judicial examination of the miracles. The result of their labours is not known. Stewart, in hisHistory of Armagh, mentions[28]that in a synod held at Drogheda in 1545, it was ordered that the feast of St. Richard of Dundalk should be celebrated in the diocese of Armagh with nine lessons, incrastino Joannis et Pauli.

(A.) Printed works:—

1. (a)Richardi Archiepiscopi Armachani, Hyberniae Primalis, Defensorium Curatorum, adversus eos qui Privilegiatos se esse dicunt, habitum Avinione in consistorio coram D. Papa Innocentio VJ. et D.D. Cardinalibus et Prelatis, anno Christi 1357, nunc recens excusum juxta vetus exemplar et ex fide codicis MS. diligentissime castigatum. Parisiis apud Joan. Libert, via D. Joan. Lateranens. e regione Auditorii Regii, MDCXXI. pagg. 1-136.

(b) The same is printed in theAppendix ad Fasciculum Rerum expetendarum et fugiendarumopera et studio Ed. Brown Parochi Sandrigiae in agro Cantiano. London: Chiswell, MDCXC. vol. ii. pag. 466 to 486.

2.Summa Domini Armachani in quaestionibus Armenorum, noviter impressa et correcta a magistro nostro Joanne Sudoris, cum aliquibus sermonibus ejusdem de Christi Dominio. "Jehan Petit, venales habentur in vico Divi Jacobi sub lilio aureo ... quinsiène jour de Juillet mil cinq cens et douse., fol. clxxvii."

As this is the most important of all the writings of Dr. Fitz-Ralph, and as the printed book is very rare, it will please our readers to have a more detailed account of its object and contents. The work forms a real encyclopaedia of theological learning, and reveals the vast extent of the author's studies and acquirements. The introduction runs as follows:—

Reverendis in Christo patribus, Versi Manasgardensi, ac fratri Joanni electo Clatensi Majoris Armeniae, Richardus Radulphus Archiepiscopus Armachanus, Hiberniae Primas, per gratiam sitire justitiam donec hauriatis aquas in gaudio de fontibus Salvatoris. Ex revelatione Vestrae sanctae devotionis accepi, ob defectum exercitii in Sacris Scripturis antiquas quasdam hereses a Sanctis Patribus reprobatas, et nonnullas contra S. Scripturas novellas assertiones erroneas in vestris partibus pullulasse, propter quas per doctores Latinos ex sacris Literis resecandas, eo quia earum patroni auctoritatem Ecclesiae Romanae non admittunt estimantes ejus auctoritatem ex Sacris Literis probari non posse, ad Romanam curiam zelus domus Dei et Christi charitas vos adduxit. Cum vero super ipsis erroribus vobis cum ibidem aliquoties contulissem, meam exilitatem devotius stimulastis ut super quaestionibus vestris illud vobis scriberem quod mihi dignaretur Dominus aperire. Cui Vestro tam accepto Deo desiderio resistere non audebam, exactiones spiritualis usurae formidans, si de bonis a Domino acceptis officium negligerem institoris, et juxta ipsius promissaqui evangelizantibus dat verba virtute multaardenter desideratis ampliora ob hoc recipite ut abundem magis. Nec debent indignari mihi majores, ex quo ipsi per quos melius perfici potuit illud penitus neglexerunt, et ego cum vidua evangelica cupiam minuta, quae habeo in Domini domum offerre, ipso teste confidens humilis orationis suffragio amplius quam subtilitate ingenii difficilia penetrare. Nec majorum correctionem renuo sed affecto, et ipsum opus, (cujus titulem volui esseDe quaestionibus Armenorum quodin xix. particulas sive libros distinxi, singulis libris materiam fidei et ipsius causam premittendo), approbationi et reprobationi nostri Papae Patris Clementis VI. universalis Ecclesiae Summi Pontificis in toto et in parte committo. In primis quinque libris illa principalis quaestio Armenorum pertractabitur: numquid Christus habuit in se duas plenas naturas, scilicet, divinam et humanam ita quod propter unionen illarum duarum naturarum in ipso fuit Dominus IESVS Christus veraciter suppositum, persona, sive hypostasis in utraque natura verus Deus et verus homo.Primus itaque liber contra heresim Nestorianam, a quodam Nestorio introductam, affirmantem in Christo naturam humanam duntaxat, ita ut Christus homo fuerit et non Deus; quam heresim secuti sunt Cherintus, Armerintus, Theodocio, et etiam excaecati Judaei, et multae Orientalium nationum usque in prasens, patefacto primitus quis sensus sit literalis Sacrae Scripturae censendus, ex Scriptura N. T. juxta sensum literalem ipsius ostendit Christum quem colimus esse Deum. Secundus liber contra Judaeos specialiter ex V. T. juxta literalem sensum ipsius, probat Christum sive Messiam in sua Scriptura promissum Deum esse debere.Tertius liber ex eadem V. Scriptura ostendit Christum nostrum quem colimus esse sive fuisse illum qui erat Judaico populo in ipsa Scriptura promissus.In quarto libro tractantur objectus Judaici populi contra ostensa in lib 2oet 3oet dantur et probantur in ipso regulae certae istos objectus, et omnes alios objectus Judaicos dissolvendi.In quarto libro contra heresim Arii et Apollinarii affirmantem quodin Christo anima humana non fuit, divinitas loco animae in Christo erat: ad hoc, contra heresim Manichaei dicentis Christum non verum corpus humanum sed corpus fantasticum habuisse Scripturae testimonia adducuntur, et consequenter contra heresim ponentem corpus humanum in Christo fuisse et divinitas veluti indumentum ac vestem sicut in angelis cum corpora humana assumuni; et contra heresim Dioscori affirmantis naturam humanam in Christo in divinam fuisse mutatam ex utroque Testamento testimonia proferuntur.Sextus liber ex Scripturis utriusque Testamenti ostendit Spiritum Sanctum a Filio sicut a Patre procedere, quod a Grecis et ab Armenis plerisque negatur.Septimus liber probat ex Scriptura quod Romana Ecclesia sit caput totius Ecclesiae Christianae.Octavus liber de Sacramento baptismi et ejus forma plures Armenorum quaestiones absolvit.Nonus liber de Sacramentis Corporis Christi et Sanguinis, Confirmationis et Unctionis plures quaestiones eorum tractat.Decimus liber de modis illicitis, conferendi et acquirendi et detinendi dona Dei gratuita ac praeposituras Ecclesiae quaestiones eorum pertractat, et an requiratur gratia Dei ad habendum dominium.Undecimus[29]liber de potestate absolvendi simplicis sacerdotis, et de punitione animarum hominum impiorum ante finale judicium quaestiones ipsorum dissolvit.Duodecimus liber quaestiones Armenorum pertractat de beatitudine animarum quorumdam justorum et de purgatione aliquarum animarum ante finale judicium.Liber decimus-tertius, quem propter Athanasium Graecum qui negat Purgatorium adjeci, quatuor pertractat articulos, de satisfactione, debita pro peccatis in vita et etiam post hanc vitam.Liber decimus-quartus tractat quaestiones Graecorum et Armenorum de visione nuda atque clara divinae essentiae a vere beatis quam negant plerique eorum.Liber decimus-quintus objicit contra auctoritatem nostrae Scripturae per contingentiam futurorum praenuntiatorum in ipsa quae possint non fore, et occasione cujusdam novelli erroris asserentis omnia futura ex necessitate sive inevitabiliter evenire, quare offendit libertatem contradictionis in voluntate humana tam ex physicis scripturis quam ex divinis in multiplici ratione, et contingentiam futurorum.Liber decimus-sextus ponit tres de pretactis objectionibus acceptis de infallibilitate scripturae divinae, a divina praescientia immutabili, a voluntate divina omnipotente invincibili et etiam efficaci; et solvit eosdem ex propriis principiis evidenter ostendens contingentiam futurorum et libertatem contradictionis voluntatis divinae et humanae.Liber decimus-septimus residuos sex ponit objectus de Dei coöperatione speciali cum voluntate hominum operante; de sustentationererum intrinseca ab omnipotenti divina potentia; de divina coöperatione generali eum omni agente creato; de necessitate eventus actuum intrinsecorum nostrorum, etc.Liber decimus-octavus ostendit auctoritatem Legis Antiquae et Novae, et probat utrumque Testamentum ex lege Saracenorum firmari; et cum in multiplici ratione affirmat Legem nostram traditam in suis majoribus articulis non fuisse aut esse corruptam.Liber decimus-nonus comparat Legem nostram quoad sacramenta et ceremonias cum lege Judaeorum. Pertractat etiam de miraculis Apostolorum, et ostendit Legem nostram robur amplius habere quam ratio naturalis, aut aliqua secta gentilium et hoc totum opus consummat.Quia vero per interrogationem et responsionem modus tradendi videtur multis facilior, licet sit aliquantulum prolixior, unum de nostris, mihi discipulum predilectum, quasi mecum disputantem accepi. Ita ut Joannes vicem gerere quaerentis, et Richardus intelligatur vicem gerere docentis licet potius respondentis. Vos igitur, Reverendi Patres, opus accipite quod petistis, orationis si placet mercedem mihi pensantes pro labore hoc.

Primus itaque liber contra heresim Nestorianam, a quodam Nestorio introductam, affirmantem in Christo naturam humanam duntaxat, ita ut Christus homo fuerit et non Deus; quam heresim secuti sunt Cherintus, Armerintus, Theodocio, et etiam excaecati Judaei, et multae Orientalium nationum usque in prasens, patefacto primitus quis sensus sit literalis Sacrae Scripturae censendus, ex Scriptura N. T. juxta sensum literalem ipsius ostendit Christum quem colimus esse Deum. Secundus liber contra Judaeos specialiter ex V. T. juxta literalem sensum ipsius, probat Christum sive Messiam in sua Scriptura promissum Deum esse debere.

Tertius liber ex eadem V. Scriptura ostendit Christum nostrum quem colimus esse sive fuisse illum qui erat Judaico populo in ipsa Scriptura promissus.

In quarto libro tractantur objectus Judaici populi contra ostensa in lib 2oet 3oet dantur et probantur in ipso regulae certae istos objectus, et omnes alios objectus Judaicos dissolvendi.

In quarto libro contra heresim Arii et Apollinarii affirmantem quodin Christo anima humana non fuit, divinitas loco animae in Christo erat: ad hoc, contra heresim Manichaei dicentis Christum non verum corpus humanum sed corpus fantasticum habuisse Scripturae testimonia adducuntur, et consequenter contra heresim ponentem corpus humanum in Christo fuisse et divinitas veluti indumentum ac vestem sicut in angelis cum corpora humana assumuni; et contra heresim Dioscori affirmantis naturam humanam in Christo in divinam fuisse mutatam ex utroque Testamento testimonia proferuntur.

Sextus liber ex Scripturis utriusque Testamenti ostendit Spiritum Sanctum a Filio sicut a Patre procedere, quod a Grecis et ab Armenis plerisque negatur.

Septimus liber probat ex Scriptura quod Romana Ecclesia sit caput totius Ecclesiae Christianae.

Octavus liber de Sacramento baptismi et ejus forma plures Armenorum quaestiones absolvit.

Nonus liber de Sacramentis Corporis Christi et Sanguinis, Confirmationis et Unctionis plures quaestiones eorum tractat.

Decimus liber de modis illicitis, conferendi et acquirendi et detinendi dona Dei gratuita ac praeposituras Ecclesiae quaestiones eorum pertractat, et an requiratur gratia Dei ad habendum dominium.

Undecimus[29]liber de potestate absolvendi simplicis sacerdotis, et de punitione animarum hominum impiorum ante finale judicium quaestiones ipsorum dissolvit.

Duodecimus liber quaestiones Armenorum pertractat de beatitudine animarum quorumdam justorum et de purgatione aliquarum animarum ante finale judicium.

Liber decimus-tertius, quem propter Athanasium Graecum qui negat Purgatorium adjeci, quatuor pertractat articulos, de satisfactione, debita pro peccatis in vita et etiam post hanc vitam.

Liber decimus-quartus tractat quaestiones Graecorum et Armenorum de visione nuda atque clara divinae essentiae a vere beatis quam negant plerique eorum.

Liber decimus-quintus objicit contra auctoritatem nostrae Scripturae per contingentiam futurorum praenuntiatorum in ipsa quae possint non fore, et occasione cujusdam novelli erroris asserentis omnia futura ex necessitate sive inevitabiliter evenire, quare offendit libertatem contradictionis in voluntate humana tam ex physicis scripturis quam ex divinis in multiplici ratione, et contingentiam futurorum.

Liber decimus-sextus ponit tres de pretactis objectionibus acceptis de infallibilitate scripturae divinae, a divina praescientia immutabili, a voluntate divina omnipotente invincibili et etiam efficaci; et solvit eosdem ex propriis principiis evidenter ostendens contingentiam futurorum et libertatem contradictionis voluntatis divinae et humanae.

Liber decimus-septimus residuos sex ponit objectus de Dei coöperatione speciali cum voluntate hominum operante; de sustentationererum intrinseca ab omnipotenti divina potentia; de divina coöperatione generali eum omni agente creato; de necessitate eventus actuum intrinsecorum nostrorum, etc.

Liber decimus-octavus ostendit auctoritatem Legis Antiquae et Novae, et probat utrumque Testamentum ex lege Saracenorum firmari; et cum in multiplici ratione affirmat Legem nostram traditam in suis majoribus articulis non fuisse aut esse corruptam.

Liber decimus-nonus comparat Legem nostram quoad sacramenta et ceremonias cum lege Judaeorum. Pertractat etiam de miraculis Apostolorum, et ostendit Legem nostram robur amplius habere quam ratio naturalis, aut aliqua secta gentilium et hoc totum opus consummat.

Quia vero per interrogationem et responsionem modus tradendi videtur multis facilior, licet sit aliquantulum prolixior, unum de nostris, mihi discipulum predilectum, quasi mecum disputantem accepi. Ita ut Joannes vicem gerere quaerentis, et Richardus intelligatur vicem gerere docentis licet potius respondentis. Vos igitur, Reverendi Patres, opus accipite quod petistis, orationis si placet mercedem mihi pensantes pro labore hoc.

(B.) Works in Manuscript:—

1. (a)Summa contra Armenos, lib. xx., fol. 126, xc. New College. Oxford.

(b)Responsio de Armenorum Heresi, fol. 218, xviii. Lincoln Coll., Oxford.

(c)Armachanus de Questionibus Armenorum, Cod. 250, n. 4. St. Benedict, Cambridge.

(d)Scriptum Armachani de Questionibus Armenorum, Cod. 224. Pembroke, Cambridge.

(e)Richardi Armachani lib.xix.,Questionum adversus Armenos. Trin. College, Dublin.

2.Ricardi Radulphi Armachani Opus in P. Lombardi sententiasin questiones xxix. distributum, praevio sermone super idem. xv. Oriel College, Oxford.

3. (a)Ricardi Rad. Armachani, Propositio facta in consistorio coram Domino Papa et Cardinalibus ac Prelatis super materia mendicitatis ac privilegiorum mendicantium contra Fratres de ordinibus quibuscunque, apud Avinion. die 8 mensis Novemb. Anno Domini MCCCLVIII.,fol.54, xxxviii. Magdal. Coll. Oxford.

(b)Propositio ejusdem facta in consistorio coram Papa, Cardinalibus et Prelatis, ad utilitatem cleri ac populi Christiani super materia mendicitatis ac privilegiorum contra fratres de ordinibus mendicantium quibuscunque apud Avinion. 8 Nov. 1357, fol. 184. St. John Bapt., Oxford.

(c)Ric. Filii Radulphi, Archiep. Cantuar.(sic)sermo habitus Avinionae viii. die mensis Novembris A.D. 1357, in istud Nolite judicare secundum faciem, etc., fol. 53. Corpus Christi Coll., clxxxii., Oxford.

4.Propositio Ric. Armachani ex parte Regis Angliae Edwardi III., in consistorio D. Papa Avinione pro gratia jubilaei ejus D. Regis populo obtinenda, anno 1349, fol. 177. S. J. Bap., Oxford.

5.Rich. Fil. Rad. Armachani de paupertate Christilibri septem, cum prologo ad Innocentium Papam VI. et titulo capitulorum cuique libro praevio, fol. 143. King's Coll. Oxford, cxviii.

6.Objectiones ejusdem contra seipsum in Materia de Mendicitate et aliis cum suis solutionibus, fol. 196, S. Q. B., lxv. Oxford.

7.Responsio ad objectiones Mendicantium.British Museum.

8.Excerpta varia ex Ricardo Fitz-Rauf; a) excerpta ex testamento S. Francisci contra fratres Minores; b) excerpta notabilia ex quodam libro qui vocatur Summa Summarum; c) excerpta ex libro Copiosae charitatis.Bodl.

9.Rich. Radulphi Armachani Primatis Dialogus vel Disputatio de Rebus ad S. Scripturam pertinentibus.Lincoln, 75.

10. (a)Sermones Domini Richardi Dei gratia Archiep. Armach. Hiberniae, habiti Avinione et aliis locis quampluribus de diversis Sanctis et temporibus.S. John B. lxv. Oxford.

(b)Ric. Rad. sive Fitz-Ralph, Archiep. Armach. sermones de tempore et de sanctis, per totum annum.New Coll., xc.

(c)Sermones tam de tempore quam de sanctis.Trin. Coll., Dub.

(d)Sermones V. ad crucem Londinensem, an 1356, etalii de laudibus S. Deipariae. Ibid.

(e)Sermones Richardi filii Radulphi de Dundalk, Archiepiscop. Armachani.Ibid.

FOOTNOTES:[15]Theiner'sVetera Monumenta, n. 517, p. 263.[16]Vet. Monum., n. 270, p. 286.[17]Annal. MSS., in Bibl. Cotton.[18]Vet. Mon., n. 271, p. 286-7.[19]Ibid., n. 272.[20]Ibid., n. 273.[21]Claus. 29-30, Ed. III.[22]Pat. 29, Ed. III.[23]Commentar. Urbanor, lib. 3.[24]Vet. Mon., p. 521.[25]Defensorium Curatorum.[26]Acts and Monuments, i. p. 465, seq.[27]De Scriptoribus, lib. i. p. 10.[28]Dowdall Register.[29]Cardinal Bellarmine warns his readers that our author iscaute legendusin the 4th cap. of the 10th, and the 4th cap. of the 11th books. The Cardinal does not approve of his doctrine,de potestate presbyterorum, nor of his teaching on the mendicant state.

[15]Theiner'sVetera Monumenta, n. 517, p. 263.

[16]Vet. Monum., n. 270, p. 286.

[17]Annal. MSS., in Bibl. Cotton.

[18]Vet. Mon., n. 271, p. 286-7.

[19]Ibid., n. 272.

[20]Ibid., n. 273.

[21]Claus. 29-30, Ed. III.

[22]Pat. 29, Ed. III.

[23]Commentar. Urbanor, lib. 3.

[24]Vet. Mon., p. 521.

[25]Defensorium Curatorum.

[26]Acts and Monuments, i. p. 465, seq.

[27]De Scriptoribus, lib. i. p. 10.

[28]Dowdall Register.

[29]Cardinal Bellarmine warns his readers that our author iscaute legendusin the 4th cap. of the 10th, and the 4th cap. of the 11th books. The Cardinal does not approve of his doctrine,de potestate presbyterorum, nor of his teaching on the mendicant state.

No Irish Catholic can examine the system of National Education without being filled with alarm for the safety of our faith in Ireland.

The tendency of the national system is to give a full control over the education of the rising generations in Ireland to the English Government, thus affording them an opportunity of undermining true faith, and of effecting by favours, promises, gifts, and influence, what they sought in vain to obtain by penal laws, by confiscation of property, and by fire and sword. The system also tends to weaken pastoral authority, to deprive the successors of the apostles, who were sent by Christ to teach all nations, of their lawful influence, and to separate priest and people. Such consequences necessarily follow from the operation of model and training schools, and from the vast powers given in all educational matters to a body of commissioners appointed by the government, and dependent on it—commissioners, many of whom are openly hostile to the religion of the people of Ireland, whilst others have given proof that they are either unable or unwillingto defend it or support its rights and interests. But even if the commissioners were most anxious to do justice to Catholics, the nature of the system which they have bound themselves to carry out would frustrate their good intentions. The mixed system proposes to collect into the same school teachers and pupils of every religious denomination, Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Jews, and to do nothing and to teach nothing in the school, and to publish nothing in the schoolbooks, offensive to any of them. Hence all prayers, the catechism, all teaching of the special doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church, must be banished from the school during the hours of teaching, and the books placed in the hands of children which are calculated to exercise great influence on their after life, must be compiled in a style of indifference to every religion. Indeed we could not expect to find anything good or religious in books composed by a Protestant archbishop of rationalistic and latitudinarian views, who does not appear to have believed in the Trinity or the Divinity of Christ, who raised himself to the episcopal dignity by publishing theErrors of Romanism, and who terminated his career by admitting that his object in compiling some of the books introduced into the national schools was to dissipate the darkness in which the Irish people are sitting, or, in other words, to spread among them his own dangerous principles, and to undermine their faith.

Whilst the national system is beset by so many dangers, we cannot but be anxious that its character and tendencies should be accurately examined, and the objections to which it is liable fairly stated to the public. We are now happy to be able to say that all this has been done by a Protestant barrister, Mr. Isaac Butt, late M.P. for Youghal. This learned and eloquent gentleman has just published a treatise entitledThe Liberty of Teaching Vindicated, in which he gives the history of the system of National Education, and discusses its merit. The writer appears to have studied the subject with the greatest care, and to have made himself acquainted with all its bearings. His treatise is written with great clearness and moderation; his views upon education are liberal and accurate; and his arguments against allowing the education of Ireland to pass into the hands of a hostile government, are most powerful and unanswerable. Mr. Butt has rendered us an immense service by publishing so valuable a treatise. We recommend all our friends to provide themselves with it, and to peruse it most carefully.

We shall now give some few extracts from it to show the spirit in which it is written. The treatise is dedicated to Mr. Gladstone, and in the dedication Mr. Butt calls on that great statesman to apply to Ireland the principles of justice andliberality, which he had so often advocated in the case of other nations, principles unhappily ignored in the management of Irish affairs by those who have the reins of power in their hands.

"Most of our departments are managed as if the chief art of Irish government consisted in a dexterous thwarting, or, at least, ignoring of all local and national wishes, as they are represented by the class with whom the department has to deal. In no country in the world, not even in the Austrian provinces of Venetia, are national feeling and sentiment so completely excluded from any control over the management of national affairs"—(p. viii.)

Applying what he had stated to the question of national education, he adds:—

"The House of Commons, with an almost prodigal, but a wise liberality, has placed at the disposal of the Irish Government large and ample funds for the purposes of national education. These funds are administered on a plan opposed to the feelings of all creeds and all classes of the Irish nation. Ninety-nine out of every hundred Irishmen condemn it. There is not an Irish constituency from Bandon to Derry in which any man could be returned as an advocate of the national system, if the question were purely one of its approval or disapproval. There is not a parish in Ireland in which the inhabitants, if they had their choice, would adopt it as the system of their parish school. Right or wrong, the present system is one forced, by official coercion, on the Irish people. It is a national system, maintained and supported in defiance of the sentiment of the nation"—(p. viii.)

Looking at the national system in a religious point of view, Mr. Butt adds, that it is in antagonism with the wishes and feelings of all classes of the Irish people.

"There is no nation on earth who cherish religious feelings with a more deep and enthusiastic devotion than do the Irish. They are the very last people among whom the experiment of an education, which excludes the fulness of religious teaching, should be tried. The result of the experiment has been, that by all creeds and classes of Irishmen, the 'national' system is condemned. All who avail themselves of it do so grudgingly and of necessity. It is a system forced upon the people by their rulers.... It is for the Irish nation themselves to judge of the education which is suited to the wants of the Irish poor. The system which is condemned by the universal suffrage of the Irish nation, is unfit for Ireland, because it is so condemned—(p. ix.)"If we are driven to justify our opinions, we have only to refer to the example of England. In England, every school that receives aid from the funds of the State, is a school avowedly teaching the doctrines of some religious body. Full and unrestricted religious instruction is made an essential part of national education in England.In Ireland, a school which adopts that instruction as its rule, is consequently placed under a ban, and denied all assistance from the national funds. It matters not whether the instruction be Protestant or Catholic, it equally condemns the school in the eyes of our rulers"—p. x.

"If we are driven to justify our opinions, we have only to refer to the example of England. In England, every school that receives aid from the funds of the State, is a school avowedly teaching the doctrines of some religious body. Full and unrestricted religious instruction is made an essential part of national education in England.In Ireland, a school which adopts that instruction as its rule, is consequently placed under a ban, and denied all assistance from the national funds. It matters not whether the instruction be Protestant or Catholic, it equally condemns the school in the eyes of our rulers"—p. x.

Treating of the difference between the systems prevailing in England and Ireland, Mr. Butt adds:—

"In point of principle, no reason can be assigned for the difference between England and Ireland. If it be wrong in Ireland to endow and aid a purely Roman Catholic school, it is equally so in England. The difference established between the two countries can neither be justified nor accounted for upon any rational principle. It fosters the belief in the mind of every Irishman that his country is treated as an inferior. In many Irishmen it promotes the belief that religious instruction, which is free in English schools, is placed under restriction in Ireland, because the faith of the majority of the Irish people is proscribed"—(p. xi.)

And may we not ask has not the Irish Catholic sufficient grounds for adopting this opinion? Has not all the legislation of the country for centuries been directed to the destruction of Catholicity?

The question is next referred to of the tendency of the national system to throw the whole education of the country into the hands of the government.

Back to Index Next