« IndietroContinua »
Damasus, with orders to take his directions on what should be done, and to follow them. In their condemnation of Macedonius, they used the pope's expressions. A notion prevailing that the council exceeded the limits of its authority, the pope examined their proceedings, and in some instances confirmed, in others annulled, them. That the council might be attended by the prelates of the eastern church, the pope summoned the fathers assembled at Constantinople to Rome. In their answer, "they call themselves his members; they wish "for the wings of a dove to fly to him, and repose on "his bosom;"-but they represented to him, " that so 66 long an absence might be dangerous to their churches." In his reply he compliments them, " on the respect "which they show to the holy see, and informs them "that Timotheus, a disciple of Apollinaris, whom "they had petitioned his holiness to depose from his see, had been deposed." Now, except on account of his superior jurisdiction, they never could have made this application to his holiness.
At the first of the four general councils,-held at Nice in 325,-St. Silvester presided by his legates.
This brings us to the third century: public events in some measure forsaking us, in this place, we must refer to the writings of individuals, and of these a very small number has reached us.
1. In the third century, St. Cyprian, Ep. 3. ed. Bas. p. 14, complains of certain schismatic bishops in Africa, "who sailed towards the chair of St. Peter, the prin"cipal church from whom the unity of the church "arises." He calls the church of Rome "the mother "and root of the catholic churches." P. 135. He says, "there is but one God, one Christ, one church, and one "chair, founded on St. Peter by the word of God. No
"one can raise any altar or priesthood besides that "which is established; he that soweth elsewhere, does "he not scatter and throw away?"
2. In the second century, we have the celebrated declaration of St. Irenæus, "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam "Romanam, propter potiorem principalitatem, necesse "est omnem convenire ecclesiam."
3. In the first century, a division arose in the church of Corinth. Some of the apostles were then living: To those, notwithstanding the exalted rank and high influence, which their apostolic character gave them, the deposed priests did not appeal; their appeal was made to St. Clement, the second successor of St. Peter in the sacred chair; and he confirmed their deposition. The letter addressed by him, on this occasion, to the Corinthians, is still extant. The modesty and humility, with which he expressed himself in it, are edifying, but he insists on the supremacy of the Roman see: "The "chief priest," says he, " has his privileges: the priests "have their place, and deacons theirs; the laity have "their duties." In the language of the two first ages of christianity, the word "priest" was applied generally to bishops and priests; St. Clement, therefore, points at the chief priest as above them all.
Thus, from a regular chain of historical facts, beginning with the earliest moment of the reformation, and ascending upwards, through the council of Florence, the Greek schism, the translation of the western empire to the Latins, the conversion of the barbarians, the four first general councils, and the primitive ages, (the six great epochas of the history of christianity), to the time of Christ himself, we find the supremacy of the bishop of Rome, both in rank and jurisdiction, an admitted article of christian faith.
We now hear the Son of God himself say, "Thou art "Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I "will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: "and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be "bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on "earth, shall be loosed in heaven."
NOTE II; referred to in p. 9.
Answers of the Six Catholic Universities, to the Questions proposed by Mr. Pitt.
1st. HAS the pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, any civil authority, power, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence whatsoever, within the realm of England?
2d. Can the pope, or cardinals, or any body of men, or any individual of the church of Rome, absolve or dispense with his majesty's subjects from their oath of allegiance, upon any pretext whatsoever ?
3d. Is there any principle in the tenets of the catholic faith, by which catholics are justified in not keeping faith with heretics or other persons differing from them in religious opinions, in any transactions, either of a public or a private nature?
The faculty of divinity at Louvain having been requested to give her opinion upon the questions above stated, does it with readiness; but is struck with astonishment that such questions should, at the end of this
eighteenth century, be proposed to any learned body by inhabitants of a kingdom, that glories in the talents and discernment of its natives.
The faculty being assembled for the above purpose, it is agreed, with the unanimous assent of all voices, to answer the first and second queries absolutely in the negative.
The faculty does not think it incumbent upon her, in this place, to enter upon the proofs of her opinion, or to show how it is supported by passages in the holy scriptures, or the writings of antiquity; that has already been done by Bossuet, De Marca, the two Barclays, Goldastus, the Pithæuses, Argentre, Widrington, and his majesty king James the first, in his Dissertations against Bellarmin and Du Perron, and by many others. The writers of the present times, who have treated of the independence of the civil power, have proved the above positions with abundance of learning. The faculty esteems the following propositions to be beyond controversy:
I. That God is the author of the sovereign power of the state in civil matters*,
II. That the sovereign power of the state is, in civil matters, subordinate to God alone†.
*Hear, therefore, O ye kings, and understand; for power is given you of the Lord. Wisdom of Solomon, vi. 1, 3. The same Omnipotence that constituted an emperor, called into existence the man, ere he ascended the throne; his power and his life he derives from the same divine source. Tertull. Apologet. 130.
+ Against thee, thee only, have I sinned. Ps. li. 4. Cassiodorus, commenting on this text, says, "Whenever any individual of the "community commits an error, he is amenable both to God and the "king; but when the king is wanting in his duties, he is responsible to "God only, inasmuch as there is no man competent to sit in judgment
upon his actions." It is finely observed by Tertullian, on the same place. "Emperors are aware to whom they are indebted for their "authority; they know it is God alone who has power over them, "and to whom they are second, taking the lead under him."
III. It follows, that the sovereign power of the state is in no wise (not even indirectly, as it is termed) subject to or dependent upon any other power, though it be a spiritual power, or even though it be instituted for eternal salvation.
IV. It also follows, that no power whatsoever, even a spiritual power, or a power instituted for eternal salvation, not even a cardinal or a pope, or the whole body of the church, though assembled in general council, can deprive the sovereign power of the state of its temporal rights, possessions, government, jurisdiction, or pre-eminence, or subject it to any restraints or modifications.
V. It also follows, that no man, nor any assembly of men, however eminent in dignity and power, not even the whole body of the catholic church, though assembled in general council, can, upon any ground or pretence whatsoever, weaken the bond of union between the sovereign and the people, still less can they absolve or free the subjects from their oath of allegiance.
VI. Therefore, as in the kingdom of England, the sovereign power of the state stands upon the same foundation, and its nature is well known, the faculty of divinity at Louvain has, no doubt, to apply what has been said before, in its utmost extent, to the kingdom, and the sovereign power of the kingdom of England.
Such is the doctrine which the faculty of divinity has imbibed from the holy scriptures, the writings of the ancients, and the records of the primitive church, a doctrine she will maintain with her last breath, and by the help of God, will imprint it on the minds of all her scholars.
She is not ignorant that, in the middle ages, some things were done not reconcileable with the doctrine here laid down; and that the contrary doctrine was favourably heard by the court of Rome, and even found