Page images
PDF
EPUB

2. Title to the Use of Force.

Equally clear, and equally unsatisfactory, are the Ultramontane declarations with respect to the title of the Church to employ force. Dr. Newman holds out a hand to brethren in distress by showing that a theological authority, who inclines to the milder side, limits the kind of force which the Church has of herself a right to employ. "The lighter punishments, though temporal and corporal, such as shutting up in a monastery, prison, flogging, and others of the same kind, short of effusion of blood, the Church, jure suo, can inflict.' And again : the Church does not claim the use of force generally, but only that use of force which Professor Nuytz denied.

We can from this source better understand the meaning of Archbishop Manning, when he states that the Church has authority from God to correct departures from justice by the use of all its powers.' The favorite mode of conveying this portion of truth-a portion so modest that it loves not to be seen-is by stating that the Church is a 'perfect society.' 'The Church is a society complete and perfect in and by itself, and amply sufficing not only to bring men to salvation and everlasting bliss, but also to establish and perfectly regulate social life among them."3 The Church has been created, says Bishop Vaughan, a' perfect society or kingdom,' with full authority in the triple order, as needful for a perfect kingdom, legislative, judicial, and coercive. ' 4 His Metropolitan treats the subject at some length; assures us that the members of his communion would not make use of force if they were able, but nowhere disclaims the right. Indeed, he can not: he dares not. The inexorable Syllabus binds him to maintain it, as Ixion was bound to his wheel.

5

The subject, however, is one of the burning class; and it appears to terrify even Archbishop Manning. He refers us to the famous brief or letter of Innocent III., headed Novit, in his Appendix, where he states that the text is given in full. In the document, as it is there

[blocks in formation]

given, will be found the Pope's assertion that it is his part to pass judgment on sovereigns in respect of sin (ratione peccati), and that he can coerce them by ecclesiastical constraint (districtionem). But the text of the brief is, according to my copy of the Decretals, not given in full; and the copyist has done the Pope scanty justice. He seems to have omitted what is the clearest and most important passage of the whole, since it distinctly shows that what is contemplated is the use of force:

"The Apostle also admonishes us to rebuke disturbers; and elsewhere he says, “reprove, intreat, rebuke with all patience and doctrine." Now that we are able, and also bound to coerce, is plain from this, that the Lord says to the Prophet, who was one of the priests of Anathoth: "Behold, I have appointed thee over the nations and the kings, that thou mayest tear up, and pull down, and scatter, and build, and plant.

[ocr errors]

With regard to Dr. Newman's limitation of the Proposition, I must cite an authority certainly higher in the Papal sense. The Jesuit Schrader has published, with a Papal approbation attached, a list of the affirmative propositions answering to the negative condemnations of the Syllabus. I extract his Article 24:2

"The Church has the power to apply external coercion (aüsseren Zwang anzuwenden): she has also a temporal authority direct and indirect.'

The remark is appended, 'Not souls alone are subject to her authority.'

All, then, that I stated in the Expostulation, on the Deposing Power, and on the claims of the Roman Church to employ force, is more than made good.

It was, I suppose, to put what Burnet would call a face of propriety on these and such like tenets, that one of the combatants opposed to me in the present controversy has revived an ingenious illustration of that clever and able writer, the late Cardinal Wiseman. He held that certain doctrines present to us an unseemly appearance, because we stand outside the Papal Church, even as the most beautiful window of stained glass in a church offers to those without only a confused congeries of paint and colors, while it is to an eye viewing it from within all glory

1 Corpus Juris Canonici Decret. Greg. IX., II. i. 13. I cite from Richter's ed. (Leipsic, 1839). It has all the pretensions of a critical and careful edition. I do not however presume to determine the textual question.

2 Schrader, as above, p. 64.

and all beauty. But what does this amount to? It is simply to say that when we look at the object in the free air and full light of day which God has given us, its structure is repulsive and its arrangement chaotic; but if we will part with a great portion of that light by passing within the walls of a building made by the hand of man, then, indeed, it will be better able to bear our scrutiny. It is an ill recommendation of a commodity to point out that it looks the best where the light is scantiest.

VII. WARRANT OF ALLEGIANCE ACCORDING TO THE VATICAN. 1. Its Alleged Superiority.

2. Its Real Flaws.

3. Alleged Non-interference of the Popes for Two Hundred Years. Not satisfied with claiming to give guarantees for allegiance equal to those of their fellow-citizens, the champions of the Vatican have boldly taken a position in advance. They hold that they are in a condition to offer better warranty than ours, and this because they are guided by an infallible Pope, instead of an erratic private judgment; and because the Pope himself is exceedingly emphatic, even in the Syllabus, on the duties of subjects toward their rulers. Finally, all this is backed and riveted by an appeal to conduct. The life and conduct of the Church for eighteen centuries are an ample guarantee for her love of peace and justice.' I would rather not discuss this 'ample guarantee.' Perhaps the Bishop's appeal might shake one who believed: I am certain it would not quiet one who doubted.

The inculcation of civil obedience under the sanction of religion is, so far as I am aware, the principle and practice of all Christian communities. We must therefore look a little farther into the matter in order to detect the distinctive character, in this respect, of the Vatican. Unquestionably the Pope, and all Popes, are full and emphatic on the duties of subjects to rulers; but of what subjects to what rulers? It is the Church of England which has ever been the extravagantly loyal Church; I mean which has, in other days, exaggerated the doctrine of civil obedience, and made it an instrument of much political

'Bishop Vaughan, p. 28.

But

mischief. Passive obedience, non-resistance, and divine right, with all of good or evil they involve, were specifically her ideas. In the theology now dominant in the Church of Rome-the theology which has so long had its nest in the Roman Court-these ideas prevail, but with a rider to them: obedience is to be given, divine right is to belong, to those Princes and Governments which adopt the views of Rome, or which promote her interests: to those Princes and Governments which do right, Rome being the measure of right. I have no doubt that many outside the charmed circle praise in perfect good faith the superior bouquet and body of the wine of Roman Catholic loyalty. those within, can they make such assertions? It is hard to believe it. The great art, nowhere else so well understood or so largely practiced, is, in these matters, to seem to assert without asserting. This has been well known at least for near five centuries, since the time of Gerson, whose name for Vaticanism is Adulatio. Sentiens autem Adulatio quan doque nimis se cognosci, studet quasi modiciore sermone depressiùs uti, ut credibilior appareat.' I must say that if Vaticanists have on this occasion paraded the superior quality of the article they vend as loyalty, they have also supplied us with the means of testing the assertion; because one and all of them assert the corrective power of the Pope over Christian Sovereigns and Governments. I do not dispute that their commodity is good, in this country, for every-day tear and wear. But as to its ultimate groundwork and principle, on which in other places, and other circumstances, it might fall back, of this I will now cite a description from one of the very highest authorities; from an epistle of a most able and conspicuous great Pontiff, to whom reference has already been made, Nicholas the First.

When that Pontiff was prosecuting with iron will the cause against the divorce of Lothair from Theutberga, he was opposed by some Bishops within the dominions of the Emperor. Adventitius, Bishop of Metz, pleaded the duty of obeying his sovereign. Nicholas in reply described his view of that matter in a passage truly classical, which I translate from the Latin, as it is given in Baronius:

'You allege, that you subject yourself to Kings and Princes, because the Apostle says, "Whether to the king, as in authority." Well and good. Examine, however, whether the Kings and Princes, to whom you say that you submit, are truly Kings and Princes. Ex

1 De Potest. Eccl., Consideratio XII.; Works, vol. ii. p. 246. Ed. Hague, 1728.

1

amine whether they govern well, first themselves, then the people under them. For if one be evil to himself, how shall he be good to others? Examine whether they conduct themselves rightly as Princes; for otherwise they are rather to be deemed tyrants, than taken for Kings, and we should resist them, and mount up against them, rather than be under them. Otherwise, if we submit to such, and do not put ourselves over them, we must of necessity encourage them in their vices. Therefore be subject “to the King, as in authority, in his virtues, that is to say, not his faults; as the Apostle says, for the sake of God, not against God."" I cite the passage, not to pass a censure in the case, but for its straightforward exposition of the doctrine, now openly and widely preferred, though not so lucidly expounded, by the teaching body of the Romish Church. Plainly enough, in point of right, the title of the temporal Sovereign is valid or null according to the view which may be taken by the Pope of the nature of his conduct. 'No just Prince,' says Archbishop Manning, can be deposed by any power on earth; but whether a Prince is just or not, is a matter for the Pope to judge of.2

We are told, indeed, that it is not now the custom for the Pope to depose princes: not even Victor Emmanuel. True: he does no more than exhort the crowds who wait upon him in the Vatican to seek for the restoration of those Italian sovereigns whom the people have driven out. But no man is entitled to take credit for not doing that which he has no power to do. And one of the many irregularities in the mode of argument pursued by Vaticanism is, that such credit is constantly taken for not attempting the impossible. It is as if Louis XVI., when a prisoner in the Temple, had vaunted his own clemency in not putting the head of Robespierre under the guillotine.

But there are other kinds of interference and aggression, just as intolerable in principle as the exercise, or pretended exercise, of the deposing power. Have they been given up? We shall presently see.*

2. Its Real Flaws.

Cooks and controversialists seem to have this in common, that they nicely appreciate the standard of knowledge in those whose appetites they supply. The cook is tempted to send up ill-dressed dishes to masters who have slight skill in or care for cookery; and the controversialist occasionally shows his contempt for the intelligence of his readers by the quality of the arguments or statements which he presents for their acceptance. But this, if it is to be done with safety,

1 Baronius, A.D. 863, c. lxx.
2 Archbishop Manning, p. 46.

3

Bishop Vaughan, Pastoral, p. 34. *Infra.

« PreviousContinue »