Images de page

ful and revolting extracts, nor shall we venture to pursue the Reformation into the lower deeps' of sin and wretchedness to which it led. Even in the few, and perhaps illassorted extracts which we have hastily heaped together, there is enough and more than enough to fix its character as a movement claiming to be divinely directed. We are ready to allow its claims to be tested by any reasoning man, no matter how deeply prejudiced in its favour, upon these admissions of its own most zealous founders. Let him but contrast in the light of this evidence, imperfect and fragmentary as our narrow limits have made it, its great promise with its small performance, its magnificent anticipations with its miserable results-let him follow it in its career through the various countries where it found an entrance, and mark the fruits which it produced in each -where it promised peace and happiness, let him see it produce disorder, insubordination, murder, rebellion, division of class against class, sanguinary war; where it promised piety, lukewarmness, impiety, blasphemy, irreligion; where it promised purer morality, debauchery, fornication, drunkenness, revolting indecency in young and old; where it promised all the social and domestic virtues, adulteries, divorces, bigamy, fraud, avarice, hard-heartedness to the poor; where it promised the revival of true faith, confusion, scepticism, contempt of all religion, and utter unbelief; where it promised enlightenment, ignorance, barbarism, contempt of learning, and fanatical hatred of science;-let him but remember how all this is attested by those to whose dearest and most cherished hopes the admission was as gall and wormwood, and we defy him to resist the direct and palpable conclusion, that the finger of God was not in that unhappy movement-that the prestige of its success was hollow and unsubstantial, that its boasted advantages were a juggle and a delusion, that its lofty pretensions were but a silly mockery, and its very title a living and flagitious lie.

A Catholic Journal, (the Tablet) on the appearance of the April number of the Dublin Review, took occasion to pronounce some strictures on two or three passages of an article in that number, entitled "Protestantism and Catholicism considered," &c. The writer of that paper considers it due to himself, as well as to the Review in which the article appeared, to reply to those strictures. The exceptions regard four points; 1st, the assertion, that the spiritual and temporal powers were separated in the Jewish Church; secondly, that the Episcopacy circumscribes the exercise of the Papal power; thirdly, that the Pope is bound by compacts with secular princes; fourthly, the rejection of the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty by the Catholic Church.

I. When we speak of the spiritual and temporal powers in the Jewish Church, we, of course, mean the sacerdotal and political jurisdictions; and it must be evident that in a Polity half spiritual, half temporal, like that of the Jews, the priesthood could not have the same spiritual character as in the higher and more perfect dispensation of Christianity. In the Patriarchal' times the constitution of religion was domestic; religious instruction and the solemnization of religious offices being entrusted to the heads of families and tribes. In Heathenism, which, though a corruption of the Patriarchal faith, preserved the substance of its doctrines, rites, and constitution, this union of sacerdotal and political power was ever retained. Anius, of whom Virgil says: "Rex Anius Phabique Sacerdos," is a true specimen of a Gentile king. In Egypt and India, when the Royal Dynasty happened to belong to the military rather than to the sacerdotal caste, the king, before he ascended the throne, was always consecrated priest.

In China the emperor even offered up the most solemn sacrifice. The early kings of Greece and Rome, as well as their later. magistrates, enjoyed this privilege. Even when Rome had expelled her kings, she still retained the name and title of royalty in her sacerdotal system-a touching reminiscence of the Patriarchal ages, when the kingly and priestly offices were ever united in the same hands.

Judaism was the second stage in the development of religion; priests were set apart and ordained of God for his service, and a public ministry was substituted for the domestic one of Patriarchal times. "Among the Jews," says the learned Bergier, "the priests constituted a special tribe; but their functions were confined to divine worship; they had no share in the civil government. The judges, whom Moses, by the counsel of Jethro, established to decide the disputes of the Israelites, were chosen from every tribe, Exod. xviii. 21, Deut. i. 15. In the number of the fifteen chiefs who successively governed the nation, the only priests were Heli and

Samuel, and it is even a matter of doubt whether the latter were of the tribe of Levi......The Jewish priests rendered the same services as the Egyptian, without having the same privileges."-Dictionnaire Theologique, art. Prêtres, vol. vi.

There are three remarkable circumstances which point out the separation of the spiritual and temporal powers in the Jewish church.

1. Moses, the Hebrew lawgiver, the divinely appointed founder of the civil and ecclesiastical polity of the Jews-the type of Him who was one day to bring about a more perfect dispensationMoses was no priest. The sacerdotal office was allotted to his brother Aaron and his successors. Surely, if the spiritual and temporal powers were not intended to be kept separate in Judaism, Moses, the guide and teacher of his people the most highly favoured servant of God-who was admitted to converse with Him face to face, would have been exalted to the priestly dignity.

2. The ceremony of coronation prescribed for the institution of Jewish royalty, proves clearly the distinction of the two powers. As the kings could not be raised to the priesthood, they were, by an affecting ceremony, reminded of the divine origin of authority, and of their obligations to God and to their subjects. They became, like the Christian kings after them, the Lord's anointed and his vicars in the temporal order of things.

3. The punishment which was inflicted on Uzziah for his rashness in laying hands on the censer, is another proof how distinct and separate were the temporal and spiritual powers in the Jewish dispensation.

It was precisely by its greater spiritual independence, by its hierarchic constitution, as well as by the greater variety and importance of its rites and ceremonies, that the Jewish priesthood, more than the Patriarchal, prefigured the Christian.

II. We now come to the second point. The words "Episcopacy which circumscribes the exercise of the Papal power," as cited by the writer, detached from the context, are ambiguous. They may signify that the Episcopacy can of its own will set limits to the Papal power-an opinion utterly uncatholic, and which never entered our mind; or, the words may mean (and the context clearly shows they can bear no other signification) that although the Holy See is the foundation of Episcopal jurisdiction, yet Episcopacy, by its divine institution and canonical rights, is a check on the exercise of the Papal authority.

In the passage cited by the writer, we compare Episcopacy to the temporal nobility, which is at once a limit and a support to royalty; and we merely developed the well-known proposition of Bellarmine, that the constitution of the Catholic Church is a monarchy tempered by aristocracy and democracy. In what country does the nobility, except in times of revolution, set arbitrary limits to the royal authority? Yet, in all countries, its

riches, influence, privileges, and (in temperate monarchies) its legislative power, circumscribe the exercise of the royal prerogative. Thus, to return to the matter in question, it is well known that, except in cases of extraordinary emergency, where the utility of the church requires the canons to be momentarily suspended, the Sovereign Pontiff, cannot, without a canonical trial, deprive a Bishop of his see; but that in missions where the Apostolic Vicariate prevails, the prelate can be deposed at the pleasure of the Holy See. We ask, therefore, whether it would not be perfectly correct to say, that the exercise of the Papal power in England would be circumscribed by the re-establishment of the ordinary Episcopate? How could there be any ambiguity in our words, when, in a preceding passage we stated, that "the Papal power mighty, and all-prevailing as it is, and as becomes the end for which its divine Author instituted it, was yet, in the exercise of its jurisdiction, bound by the canons of the Church, by the disciplinary decrees of general councils and preceding Pontiffs, by the subordinate, though divine institution of Episcopacy and its inherent rights, &c., &c?" Had we meant to attribute to the Prelacy the power of restraining ad libitum the exercise of the Papal power, should we have spoken of the subordinate institution of the Episcopacy? and, should we have called the Papal power mighty and all-prevailing, and a little afterwards professed our belief in its doctrinal infallibility ex cathedrâ? It will be well to hear on this matter the opinion of an eminent canonist of Catholic Germany-one who is anti Gallican in his opinions, and who, for his literary services to the church, received a decoration from his late Holiness, Pope Gregory XVI.


This power of the Roman See," says M. Walter, professor at the University of Bonn, "is, from its very nature, the supreme power in the church. Hence, for all the acts which it exercises in virtue of its supremacy, this See is responsible to God only and its own conscience. Prima Sedes a nemine judicatur, (c. 16, 17. cix. q. 3. (Gelas anno, 455) c. 14, eod. Symmach. anno 503.) Moreover its mode of acting is determined by the spirit and practice of the church, by respect for general councils (c. 14. e. xxv. q. ]. Concil. Chalc. anno 451. o. I. eodem Gelas. anno 455. (c. 17. cxxv. q. 2, Lev. 1. anno 452.) and by the welfare of Christendom, of which this See is to be in all things mindful. Thus is the Papal Supremacy, whatever name we may give it, by no means arbitrary and unlimited in its exercise, but more than any other power is it bound and attempered (gæbunden und gemildert) by the consciousness of duties correlative with rights, by respect for ancient ordinances and customs, (c. b. cxxv. 9. 1. Urban, inc. a. c. 7. eod. Zozim. anno 418. c. 15. cxxv. q. 2. Gelas. anno 454. c. 21. eod.) by the mild tone of the government, by the recognition of customary rights and liberties, by the regulated division of affairs, by a necessary regard to the secular powers, lastly, by the spirit of nations."-Kirchenrecht, § 23, p. 57. 1 ed.

The Journal does not seem to like the expression, "the Pope is bound by special compacts with secular princes." Those who know that the alliance between church and state is founded in nature, sanctioned by all ages, and approved by the Church, will acknowledge that concordats, or compacts between the spiritual and temporal powers, may at certain times, and under certain conditions, be wholesome and necessary. The Holy See in its wisdom weighs the general circumstances of the church, and in order to obtain certain advantages, makes certain concessions to the secular princes. Undoubtedly, as in these disciplinary regulations the Roman See is not under the immediate guidance of the divine Spirit, a weaker Pontiff will make concessions which a more energetic one would have refused; and an energetic Pontiff will, under unfavourable circumstances, surrender rights which at other more propitious times he would have retained. This is the circle for the operation of the mere human activity of the Sovereign Pontiff; but the Spirit that watches over the church will not permit any essential injury to accrue to her from the weakness or want of foresight of her rulers.

But the concessions made by the Holy See to temporal Sovereigns may prove very advantageous to the church. Thus, to cite an instance, the Popes at Avignon, from their financial embarrassments, not unfrequently exercised the extreme right of derogating from the lawful claims of lay and ecclesiastical Patrons, and of presenting individuals to livings. All are aware that this exercise of the Papal power was a fruitful source of discontent and complaint, more especially in our own country. Now any compact with secular governments that would have waived so extreme a right, would, in our humble opinion, have been very beneficial to the church and to the Holy See, whose interests are identified with those of the church.

If space permitted, many other instances might be cited.

We are at a loss to understand what insinuation is meant to be conveyed by the distinction taken between right and fact in the words above quoted. We appeal to our opponent's candour, whether a writer who professed the opinion of the infallibility of the Pope, ex cathedrâ-(an opinion never entertained by those Catholics who were inimical to the full liberty of the church)-who had reprobated so strongly the ecclesiastical policy of Joseph II. and his brother Leopold of Tuscany-who had shown that the Sovereigns of the eighteenth century, by violating the rights of the church, the aristocracy, and the commons, had undermined the foundations of their own thrones-whether such a writer, we say, were likely to sacrifice the spiritual prerogatives of the Holy See either to prelates or princes? We ask whether had we even used an incautious or ambiguous phraseology (which we had not), charity, nay, common justice, did not require a favourable construction to be put upon our words?

« PrécédentContinuer »