« ForrigeFortsæt »
old man, the most important concerns of a nation (and this too, a nation which, as such, does not acknowledge the authority of this old man) must stand still, and even go to ruin. Nothing 'must be done, however urgent the occasion, which he may possibly disapprove! Now, observe, our ears are perpetually dinned with exaggerated accounts of the absolute necessity of conciliating the Irish Romanists; 'we are told ihat the country cannot exist unless we gain them over at whatever price: and here we see how absolutely devoted they, confessedly, and avowedly, are to the authority of the Pope: yet we are told by the very same persons that the Pope is a mere bugbear, that it is out of his power to do us any harm! Surely there is great inconsistency in all this : such inconsistency, we will be bold to say, as does not commonly dwell with truth. One or other of the propositions must be abandoned. Either the Irish Romanists are not formidable, or the Pope who rules them must be allowed to be so.
Lastly, we have to remark that in their lud. Resolution these right reverend Doctors declare that they “ adopt as their own ” 'the opinions of the Six Roman Catholic Universities taken in 1788 and 1789.* For what purpose this is introduced we know not. It was not at all, as far as we can perceive, called for. Some effect however it is certainly intended to have ; and it therefore becomes our duty to make our readers acquainted with certain parts of those opinions, which the Romanists and their abettors are wise enough to keep out of sight. Since their first publication in 1805,f they never have been brought forward entire : but only such extracts from them have been adduced as have been deemed unexceptionable, or least liable to be attacked. Of the parts omitted we shall notice odly' two. First then, it is studiously concealed that the University of Alcala elaborately and at lengtb justified the burning of John Huss and Jerome of Prague, and the violation of the safe conduct granted to the former. They do this, by ad. vancing more than one gross falsehood, as we could easily shew; but that is not necessary, we trust. The reader will only bear in mind that Dr. Troy and his colleagues, " adopting as their own," the opinion of the University of Alcala, of course mean to justify the Council of Constance in its intoleTance and perfidy. That indeed this is their desiberate judgment we might gather from a defence of that council, in this point as in all others, having been formally attempted by the Professor of Theology at Maynooth College in his treatise de Ecclesia. I
• Declaration and Protestation. Stockdale, 1812.
+ Appendix to the impartial deta:) of the debates in 1805. Published by Cuthell and Martin,
1 The Claims of the Roman Catholics considered. Cadell, 1812,-at s. 124, &c, where this point is most ably discussed.
Again, the University of Salamanca, pressed by what they knew to take place in Spain, in giving their opinion, draw a curious distinction between civil and religious toleration, for the purpose of authorizing a departure from both. With respect to the latter they say that certainly they, and persons holding their creed, can have no ecclesiastical communion, nor religious concord with men of any other sect or persuasion. But then they say it is otherwise in civil transactions ; for there they are at liberty to unite with or separate from “ Heretics," as shall appear most conducive to their own interests. And they shew how this liberty may be exercised by what happened in Spain. There, they say “ for these three hundred “years past, no one is permitted to hold mililary offices, nor to enjoy a pera "petual settlement," (that is, to be a settled inhabitant) “ who is consi“dered as an avowed enemy of the Catholic Faith, because our princes. “have thought it better to forego certain advantages which might perhaps “ be derived from commercial intercourse with men of different persua “sions, or from their improvement in the arts, than either to endanger the “faith of their suljects, or expose their empire to frequent broils and con“ tentions about the doctrines of religion." According to which opinion, thus “ adopted as their own," it is clear that the Irish prelates, if they could get the upper hand, would think themselves at liberty so to. separate from Heretics, that is, from us Protestants, as not to allow any of us to be settled inhabitants of that island, lest we should endanger the faith of their subjects or expose the empire to frequent broils and contentions in matlers of religion. And such we verily believe, reasoning from what has passed, would be the no distant consequence of giving to the Roman Catholics that ascendancy for which they are contending.
What then is it that we are left to collect from this most factious, we might say, seditious paper ?
First, that these prelates exercise the most arbitrary and despotic sway over their brethren of that communion, suspending them from their functions, censuring or excommunicating them without any check, and at their mere will and pleasare.
2dly. That, on their parts, they also are in complete subjection to the Pope, so as to be utterly incompetent" to act without his authority,
3dly. That in a case where the general opinion, and that of many among themselves, has called for some additional security to be given to the established government before they can be admitted to political power, they decide positively that there shall be none such given, because they have already given | sufficient security; although the only fact by wbich they prove this, merely demonstrates their implicit devotion to the Pope.
Lastly, that they solemnly adopt as their own, opinions which justify persecution, and allow of even the highest degree of intolerance.
Independently of all this, surely this is a most extraordinary transaction! a most extraordinary scene, however often before exhibited! a set of men, subjects of a country, sit in judgment, declaring themselves in these important points, independent of the Sovereign, and not controllable by his Government, and proudly dictating to millions of their fellow, subjects in certain cases, with which they have the assurance to say, nhat the government of the country has nothing to do. And yet one of these very points, thus decided by them, is, whether or not there shall be given to that very government any further security for their allegiance before they shall be admitted to political power !
Is this, or is this not, that “ Imperium in Imperio," so constantly and so decidedly reprobated ? ~Surely, without profageness, we may say, “ whoso is wise will ponder these things."
MELANCTHON'S FIRST LETTER.
(See page 163.) The Origin of the Regal and Papal Supremacy in the Christian Church,
and their effects respectively on the State of Society. In the early ages of the Church, Bishops were elected by the Clergy and the People, and were afterwards consecrated by some neighbouring Prelate, who could not require a stronger test of the purity of their lives, than the approbation of their flocks with whom they had lived, and whom they were to instruct; besides, their subsistence depended on the free-will offerings of the faithful. Saint Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage, who died in the year 258, declares, in his Epistles, that in all the ordinations which he made, he used to consult with the Presbyters, Deacons and People, and, by their common advice, to weigh every person's merits.--Episc. 38, 40, and 52.
In his Epistle addressed to the people of Carthage, he asks them, whether he was not chosen by their suffrages and the judgment of God ?-Idem, Epist. 40.
In his 52d Epistle, he says, that Noyatian was made a Bishop by the Clergy and the People. Origen, Bishop of Alexandria, who died in the year 254, says the same of himself.—Hom. 6. in Levit.
The election of Bishops by the People is mentioned in the 2d and 6th Canons of the Council of Nice, 323, Eusebius tells us, that Saint Fabius, Bishop of Rome, was elected by the Clergy and People in the fear 236. In this manner were persons raised to the Prelacy in the
early ages of Christianity ; but when Constantine the Great embraced it, in the year 320, and gave peace and protection to the Church, which had been previously under the frowns of the imperial government, he and his successors obtained a complete supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs, till it was usurped by Pope Gregory VII. commonly called Hildebrand, in the year 1073.--Spanheim's Ecclesiastical History, p. 1102.
They confirmed or set aside the election of Bishops, and often deposed much of them as were lapsed in heresy ; convened and presided in General Councils, either in person or by their representatives ; and established the Canons by their edict, for they were invalid without their consent.Justinian Code, 30, de episcopis et clericis, and 230 Novel.
Eusebius, Bishop of Cæsarea, who wrote the life of the conqueror Constanstine, tells us, that he was called the general Bishop, from his absolute and general supremacy over all Prelates, and that the fathers of the first General Council, convened by him, at Nice, in the year 325, obtained the confirmation of their Canons from him.-Lib. iii. cap. 18. They, by his orders, framed the Nicene Creed, which is the standard of the Christian Faith at this time in the Established Church.
Socrates, in his Ecclesiastical History, says, that the fathers of the 2d General Council, convened at Constantinople by Theodosius the Great, in the year 381, wrote to him, to confirm their Canons; and in their letter to him they say, " that he did honour to them and to their Church, in convening them, and they prayed that he would make their Canons authentic by his seal.” The code of that Emperor abounds with laws concerning religion and church-men. Code Theod. lib. xvi. tit. 5, leg. 14. Idem , tit. 4. leg. 2. p. 100. Idem lib. iii. tit. 7. leg. 2. p. 278, The 3d General Council convened at Ephesus, in the year 431, and the fourth at Chalcedon, in the year 451, by the Emperor Marcian, received the confirmation of their Canons from him. The fathers of the 5th General Council, convoked by the Emperor Justinian, at Com stantinople, in the year 553, petitioned him to legalise their Canons, His code and novellæ are full of laws concerning the Clergy, their age, their qualifications, their residence, the convocation of Synods and Councils, and the manners and deportment of Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons. He said of himself “ that his greatest care was, about the true doctrines of God, and the good liv s of the Bishops." Novel. 123. c. 10. Under severe penalties, he prohibited them from pronouncing the sentence of. excommunication, voless the cause was first notified to, and approved by him.- Justinian published an edict, by which he ordained " that all the Canons which were made by the four first General Councils should have tbe force of law.”. Code, lib. iii. c. 16. and Labb. Tom. T.
P. 422. Pope Gelasius tells us, that it was customary for those who were to be raised to the Popedom, to give a public profession of their religious principles, lest schisms should take place in the Church. Epist. 2d ad Laurent. Pope Gregory I. who was raised to the Pontificate in the year 590, in giving an account of his faith, praised in a very high strain the four first General Councils, and declared, that he reverenced them as much as the four books of the Holy Gospel. Lib. i. epist. 24.
It is well worth the reader's notice, that the four first General Councils, thus extolled by Gregory I. who was denominated Gregory the Great, for his piety and learning, were made the standard of the Chiistian Religion in England, by the first act of Elizabeth, which unquestionably proves, that the doctrines of the Established Church are consonant to the pure and primitive principles of Christianity. So sensible was that illustrious Prelate Gregory I. that no person could be raised to the See of Rome, with out the imperial sanction, that he, not wishing to fill the pontifical chair, wrote the Emperor Mauritius, to annul bis election ; but he refused, and confirmed it. "Gregor. epist. lib. i. epist. 94. He also said, agnosco imperatorem a Deo concessum non militibus solum, sed sacerdotibus imperari. “ I acknowledge, that a Prince appointed by the Lord, has a right to govern, not only the Military, but the Priesthood." He also gave the following unquestionable proof, that he condemned the pretensions of any Prelate to a supremacy in the Christian Church. When the Bishop of Constantinople assumed the title of general or acumenical Bishop, Gregory I. declared in a letter to the Emperor Mauritius, “ that it was a blasphemous title, and that none of the Roman Pontiff's had ever dared to assume so singular a one." Greg. epist. lib. iv. ind. 13. p. 137. In a letter to the Bishop of Constantinople, he said, “ what wilt thou say to Christ, the head of the Universal Church, in the day of judgment, who thus endeavourest to subject his numbers to thyself, by this title of universal ? Who, I ask thee, dost thou imitate in this but the Devil." Idem epist. 38. In a letter to the Empress, he said, “ his pride, in assuming this title, shewed that the days of Anti-Christ were at hand.” Idem. p. 36.
The claims of the Roman Bishops, at first, to a precedence in the Christian Church, arose from the grandeur of the Imperial City, in which they resided; and from the august presence of the Emperor. For as Guicciardini observes, in the 7th book of his history, " the seat of Religion followes the seat of Enipire." As there was a rivalship between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople, it was ordained by the 3d Canon of the 2d General Council, “ that the Bishops of Constantinople, on account of its being new Rome, should have the privilege of honor next