Near the beginning of the eleventh century, the popes commenced their endeavors in earnest to fasten Romanism upon Ireland. The Danes who had settled in the country were strongly in favor of the Catholic forms, and they persuaded Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury, to ordain in England, and send over for them, two or three bishops. One of these bishops, Gillebert of Limerick, received from the pontiff the appointment of apostolical legate for all Ireland. He was the first papal representative that had ever appeared in the country-six hundred and fifty years subsequent to the founding of the Irish church.

Another efficient agent in the work of Romanizing Ireland was Malachy O'Morgair, a native of the country. In furtherance of his object he went to Rome, where he was received with distinguished favor, and was made a saint. St. Malachy stands first in the calendar of Irish saints. He did all in his power to reconcile the Irish clergy and people to the religion of Rome, but without much success. The great body of the church were intent on retaining their original integrity and independence. Most of the clergy were married men. The badges of formal submission to Rome had never been presented or accepted. Tithes had not yet been introduced; Peter's pence had not been paid; nor had any provision been made for the support of the hierarchy which the Pope was trying to establish.

In the year 1152, Pope Eugene sent another legate to Ireland Cardinal Papyrio - with instructions to call at synod, and incorporate the Irish church into the Romish. He divided the whole kingdom into four archiepiscopal sees, viz. those of Armagh, Cashel, Dublin, and Inam; instituted a system of tithes; claimed Peter's pence; decreed the celibacy of the clergy; and set up the regime of Rome where it had never before existed.

Still, there was something wanting to the popes and their emissaries to carry their plans for Ireland into complete. effect. They needed help from the secular power; and that help was at last secured. Brakespear, an Englishman, was

At the

made pope of Rome, taking the title of Adrian IV. same time Henry Plantagenet (Henry II.) was king of England. Henry had long coveted the possession of Ireland, but had no shadow of a title to it, even according to the low ideas of right which prevailed at that day. He applied to Adrian to give him a title, and the pope granted his request. The commission given to Henry is in the following words: "Thou shalt enter that island, and execute whatever thou shalt think conducive to the honor of God, saving the rights of the church, and the payment of one penny from each house to St. Peter." Henry entered Ireland with an army, and, after a long and severe conflict with a brave and independent people, he succeeded in subjugating them to his power. Such was the beginning of English rule in Ireland, a rule unjust and oppressive, on the one hand, and uniformly detested on the other.

The Synod of Cashel was called by Henry, a.d. 1172, ostensibly to reform the Irish church, but really to subject it to the authority of Rome. The great body of the native clergy, however, did not attend the synod, and paid no regard to its decrees. The people continued to follow their own ecclesiastical rules and customs, as they had done before. In fact, it was not till several hundred years after the political subjection of Ireland that Popery became fully and firmly established.

As the Irish were the last of all the nations of Europe to submit to the Papal yoke, so they may be the last to reject it. It was fatal to the prospects of Protestantism among this people, that it was urged upon them by the English government. Their hatred of that government, growing out of its long oppressions, excited a prejudice against Protestantism which they will be slow to relinquish, and which nought but the Spirit of God can overcome.

ARTICLE III.

THE INCARNATION.

BY PROF. JOHN A. REUBELT, BLOOMINGTON, INDIANA.

PART II.

OUR former Article on the Incarnation closed with these words: "Many subjects legitimately connected with the Christological question, as that of the Trinity, the mutual relation of the three Persons of the Trinity, whether aseity must be ascribed to each of them, or to the Father alone; whether the incarnation of the Logos introduced no disharmony into the trinitarian relation and the government of the world, these and some other important subjects we can here not even touch upon; God willing, we may give our views on them at a future time." This promise we shall now try to fulfil.

.

1

Dr. Whedon noticed our Article respectfully, but urged the following objections against the views advanced there, viz." As the doctrine must necessarily be that the Logos became truly and intrinsically a human soul (otherwise Christ was not a perfect man), it seems to follow that during the period of the hypostatical union there is no divine Logos and there is no Trinity; only a dunity." (Why does he not coin the more analogous word binity?) "Whenever. we are told that the Infinite can become finite, can annihilate an infinity of power, and so even annihilate himself, we beg to be excused from surrendering all our previous views of the necessary existence of God, and approaching the awful confines of atheism. Surrender the doctrine 'of the necessary existence of God, and you surrender one stronghold of theism. God exists in the fulness of his nec1 Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. xxvii. p. 32. 2 Methodist Quarterly Review, April, 1870.

These

essary omnipotence, omnipresence, and eternity. attributes he may veil, may withhold their display in specific acts, but how can he abdicate or diminish their existence? The Professor's first proof-text is: The Word became flesh '; which he transforms into: the Word became man"! Thereupon, he insists, that the eternal Logos ceased to be God, and commenced to be man! But if éyévero is to receive so literal a rendering, we must literalize cáp also; and then we shall have it that the eternal Logos ceased to be God and became a portion of fleshly matter. The Professor's argument from Mark xiii. 32, we think he will find amply answered in our commentary on the passage."

To this wholesale criticism we must demur for a variety of reasons: we certainly did not say, nor is it in keeping with our views, that the Logos ceased to be God. We translated σápę by man, because it means in the passage under consideration man, and nothing else; we did not render it by "a portion of fleshly matter," because it never has this meaning; κpéas would have been the word to express this idea. "Whenever σáp has no ethical meaning, it means the outward sphere of human existence in distinction from the inner man, or the human in distinction from the

divine and its energy.' 991 That it has in the passage in question no ethical meaning, nor means the body as distinguished from the soul or spirit, as Apollinaris would have it, on this Dr. Whedon and myself, in all probability agree, and it must, therefore, have the other of the meanings given, viz. the human existence (with all its attributes of finiteness and weaknesses, as distinguished from the divine), and teaches, consequently, what Paul teaches more fully in Phil. ii. 6-8. As to Dr. Whedon's comments on Mark xiii. 32, we are really sorry that we can attach no importance whatever to them, because they proceed from a dualism, which we verily believe, is foreign to the whole Testament.

As appears from a recent work, the Christological ques

1 Müller's Lehre über die Sünde, part i. p. 391.

2 Die Dogmatik des 19en Jahrhunderts in ihrem innern Flusse, etc., von A. Mücke.

tion has been the question of the divines of continental Europe of the nineteenth century. The unsatisfactory wording of this doctrine as made in the sixteenth century is universally felt and admitted, and almost numberless efforts have been made to express the teachings of the Bible in adequate language. But wherever no change is admitted in the inward being or nature of the Logos, all these efforts have so far signally failed; and a Christ with only an apparent humanity has been reached, or the reality of the incarnation has been virtually denied. Many English and American divines, who cannot accept the popularly received view, assume an impersonal humanity, as Dr. Schaff seems to do. This either means that human personality was not potentialiter in the Saviour at all, or that it was, indeed, there, but was prevented from developing itself by the personal presence of the Logos. The latter view denies, as a matter of course, the real humanity of the Saviour, an impersonal man is no man, and contradicts, especially, all those passages which teach a regular development of the Saviour, as Luke ii. 52; Heb. v. 8, 9, etc. Under either aspect, the impersonal humanity, or, what is virtually the same, the pancephalistic humanity of the Saviour must be rejected. Dr. Dorner's views, incorrectly stated by Dr. Whedon to be identical with ours, are, according to Mücke, as follows: "The process of the divine life is from all eternity complete and unchangeable, above the line of all historical, cosmical, and human development, while the world is, at the same time, neither an object of indifference to God, nor independent of him. God's absoluteness would be at an end at once, if he had not always power over the world which he also actualizes. God's ethical nature would also suffer, if he did not continually go out of himself, in order to bestow from his own fulness life on all created beings, just as he created them originally in love. This continual flow of the divine love beyond itself is for the cosmical sphere simply the source of life; for man, however, who is created in the divine image, a communication of the divine