« AnteriorContinuar »
but soon fell from the right way, lost his good government, lost his light and freedom, and became a degraded, ignorant, superstitious slave. Through the corruptions of human nature? O, no! But through the cupidity and grasping ambition of the priesthood. Indeed, the author seems disposed to charge all the evils of society, and nearly all the faults of individuals, upon the priesthood, the heathen priesthoods in the world before Christ, and the Catholic priesthood since. Religion has always been perverted and man corrupted by his spiritual guides. Of antiquity, only the Jewish people were preserved in a state of true civilization, and they only by the frequent and miraculous interposition of Almighty God; that is, they were protected and prevented from falling into all the barbarism of the gentiles only by the supernatural grace of God,-precisely the doctrine maintained by the Catholic lecturer. 'In the world before Christ the author finds himself obliged to concede, and apparently without being conscious that he does concede, the practical inadequacy of nature to sustain good government and true civilization. What becomes now of his doctrine of the sufficiency of nature, of the sufficiency of our moral faculties to tell us what is right and what is wrong, and to keep our animal appetites in subjection? If this were so, how came your ancient priesthoods so corrupt, and how could they so corrupt the people and degrade them to the lowest barbarism ?
If the author may be credited, prior to the coming of Christ true civilization was maintained only by the continued supernatural intervention of Almighty God, and all nations tended to barbarism in proportion as they receded from the patriarchal religion and polity. This is precisely the doctrine the Catholic lecturer himself asserted and defended in his lectures at St. Louis, and thus far the author, consciously or unconsciously, agrees with him.
But since the coming of Christ it has not been the same. By the Christian revelation "man found that which had been lost and forgotten, and was once more restored to himself.” Nevertheless, only a short time elapsed before he, in part at least, lost himself again, and fell anew into ignorance, superstition, and slavery. His spiritual guides proved unfaithful, his faith was corrupted, and his manners
morals were debased. Whence and by what means ? Whence and in the same way in which the gentiles lost the patriarchal religion and polity. Menes, king of Egypt, "brought all the priesthood into subjection to him, and associated them with him for the purpose of enslaving and degrading the people.” In the same way Christianity was
' corrupted. Under paganism the emperor was not only supremne civil lord, but also pontifex maximus, or supreme head of the pagan church. When the emperor became converted, he “placed himself at the head of the church, in the same position which he had previously occupied with respect to the pagan church, and was now as before pontifex maximus." This is inferred from the conduct of Constantine and Theodosius, who are alleged to have imitated Menes of Egypt, especially Theodosius, who as pontifex maximus took upon himself to decree what is orthodoxy. In this way the clergy were subjected to the prince, made civil functionaries, and employed to pervert religion, and to corrupt and enslave the people. An ingenious theory, only it does not happen to be
, supported by a single fact. But suppose it to be true, what does it make in favor of the author's thesis, if thesis he has ? Suppose it, it only proves that the subjection of the church to the state, and the usurpation of ecclesiastical functions by the civil power, are fatal to religion and civilization,-precisely what the Catholic lecturer at St. Louis alleged. What does this say in favor of Protestantism, or against the position assumed, that inodern nations in proportion as they recede from the Catholic Church tend towards barbarism Surely there can be no greater departure from the church than to subject her to the civil authority, and to convert her clergy into civil functionaries. Then, again, this very absorption of the church into the state, of which the author complains, is the characteristic of Protestantism. Protestantism was sought as the emancipation of sovereigns from subjection in spirituals even to the spiritual authority, and of giving them supreme authority in both spirituals and temporals. Every Protestant sovereign claimed to be pontifex maximus in his own dominions. Henry VIII. of England assumed for himself all the powers that had previously been attributed to the pope, and caused himself to be declared supreme head of the church in his realm. The present queen of England is the sovereign pontiff or papess of the Church of England, and all the bishops hold from the crown. The same is true of the Protestant sovereigns of the Continent, and here, where democracy prevails, the great boast of Protestantism is that it emancipates the people from all subjection to spiritual authority, and gives them the con trol of their pastors, and the power to determine their religion for themselves. On the author's own principles, then, Protestantism is a departure from primitive Christianity, and tends necessarily to destroy true civilization, and barbarizes the nations that submit to it, by absorbing the spiritual power in the temporal. Why, when really reasoning from the principles of the Catholic lecturer, did the author put on the air of reasoning against them?
But the author has misread history. It is not true that Constantine or any other Christian emperor ever claimed to be in relation to the Christian church pontifex maximus, or supreme head of the church. Constantine expressly disclaimed the character, and recognized in its fullest extent the independence and exclusive jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical authorities in all things spiritual. When he entered the holy Council of Nice, he remained standing till invited to be seated by the bishops, and even then took his seat on a low stool at their feet, acknowledging that they were sovereigns, not he. Theodosius never pretended to any occlesiastical powers, and in the decree referred to he only promulgated as the law of the land the decisions and canons of the church, made by the proper ecclesiastical authorities. That some usurping emperors, both in the East and the West, sought to encroach on the liberties of the church, and in doing so caused incalculable evil, is no doubt true; but they were resisted by the church, and never succeeded in subjecting the spiritual authority to themselves, save in heretical or schismatic countries. The Catholic Church always asserted her independence in face of the temporal power, and she is the only church that has uniformly maintained the freedom of the spiritual order. Schismatics and heretics have always been ready to surrender spiritual liberty to the prince, on condition that he would protect them in their heresy, or their schism, against the church. One of the reasons alleged by the Catholic lecturer why she and she alone could preserve civilization was because she and she alone asserted and was able to maintain freedom of religion, the liberty of conscience, in face of the temporal power.
But the author tells us that subsequently the popes themselves destroyed the purity and efficacy of the Christian religion, by absorbing the state, and making themselves supreme in both orders. “The second or third successor of Hildebrand completely triumphed over the emperor, and established himself as supreme head of both temporal and spiritual affairs, and was now pontifex maximus." The pope “now placed himself on the throne of the Cæsars, and was sapreme in all things, both spiritual and temporal,—was emperor and pontifex maximus, as Constantine and Theodosius before him had been, and was like them the supreme object of adoration to his subjects." Unhappily for the author, this is all pure theory, or pure imagination. It is false as a whole, and in all its parts. The second successor of Hildebrand, or St. Gregory VII., was Urban II. He proclaimed
. the crusades, indeed, and excommunicated Philip I. of France, for a scandalous adultery, but did not completely triumph over the emperor, or exercise supreme authority as emperor any more than his predecessors. The third successor was Pascal II., whom Henry V. of Germany caused to be imprisoned, with many cardinals, bishops and nobles who adhered to the Holy See, and forced to concede to the emperor the faculty of investiture. This was no triumph over the emperor, but for the moment a triumph of the emperor over the
The fact is, none of the popes, in their struggles with the emperor, ever completely triumphed; they saved the principle at stake, but were often obliged to concede to the temporal authority in practice the faculties it claimed. There is no instance on record of a pope who was in himself both pope and emperor. The two powers have always been, under the church, distinct, and, saving in the ecclesiastical states, not only distinct, but separate; and the struggle of the popes with the civil power has never been to place themselves on the throne of the Cæsars, to absorb the imperial authority and dignity in the pontifical, but simply to maintain the freedom and independence of the spiritual order, and prevent that very union of the two powers which the author regards as the source of all spiritual and temporal evils. All the power the sovereign pontiffs have ever exercised, or pretended to exercise, over temporal sovereigns, is that of declaring the law according to which they are bound in the sight of God to govern; of subjecting them, as Catholics, to the discipline of the church for their sins, crimes, and moral offences, in like manner as if they were private individuals ; and, as the highest recognized court of Christendom, to judge the causes between sovereign and sovereign, and a sovereign and his subjects, submitted to them for adjudication. The pope's right to decide judicially causes thus submitted is unquestionable, though whether he holds it jure humano, or jure divino, may not be defined ; and whether he has or has not the right to execute by physical force the sentence he pronounces, is a question of no practical importance, because as pope he has never the physical force for the purpose at his command, and cannot have it without the consent of secular sovereigns. He has in the secular order for enforcing his commands, or for executing his sentences, whether upon private individuals or upon public persons or authorities, practically, at least, only moral means, and can have no other.
That the pope ever was “the supreme object of adoration to his subjects” is a charge which the author should never have suffered himself to bring. The supreme object of adoration to all Catholics was always, and is, and always will be, God, and God alone, and the author disparages his own understanding, rather than ours, when he supposes that any of us are incapable of distinguishing between God and the pope. The author is wholly unwarranted in his assertion that Constantine and Theodosius were the supreme object of adoration to their subjects, especially if he means their Christian subjects. The pagan emperors were adored by their pagan subjects, but no Christian emperor has ever received divine honors from his Christian subjects. Charges so foul, made without the shadow of authority, by men so respectable in their station and general character as our author, are in the last degree unpardonable, for such men cannot be ignorant that they are unfounded and utterly false. In Mr. Garland's particular case, the charge, we doubt not, was made without deliberation, and from a habit acquired when he was a transcendentalist of substituting theory for fact, and his own gloss for the text.
The author has much to say of the doctrine which he ascribes to St. Gregory VII. We have no space to follow him through his commentaries; but the whole amount of what he alleges, taking it in its fullest sense, is, in principle, that the spiritual authority is supreme, and that kings are no more exempt from the power of the keys given to St. Peter than are their subjects,-in their public than in their private conduct. Supposing the power of the keys, this is nothing to which the author can object, for he himself says the spiritual is supreme and ought to rule in the individual and the community; and it would be ridiculous to pretend that sovereigns are not as much bound to obey the law of