Puslapio vaizdai
PDF
„ePub“

66

that speak of such authority, nay, finding several texts which clearly forbid the Apostles or any one of them to claim or exercise it, he concludes, not illogically, that no such power was ever conferred, and therefore that the Pope in claiming it is a usurper. If the Pope did claim it, or set himself up as our sovereign lord and master in the sense in which the absolute monarch claims to be our sovereign lord and master, we too would pronounce him a usurper, and refuse to obey him. But such is not the fact. So far from claiming such authority for themselves, the Popes, as well as other doctors of the Church, deny that such power is given even to temporal princes. St. Augustine says: Imperant enim qui consulant: sicut vir uxori, parentes filiis, dominii servis. Obediunt autem quibus consulitur: sicut mulieres maritis, filii parentibus, servi dominis. Sed in domo justi viventis ex fide, et adduce ab illa cælesti civitate peregrinantis, etiam qui imperant serviunt eis, quibus videntur imperare, neque enim dominandi cupiditate imperant, sed officio consulendi; nec principandi superbia, sed providendi misericordia. Hoc naturalis ordo præscribit : ita Deus hominem condidit. Nam, Dominetur, inquit, piscium maris, et volatilium cæli, et omnium repentium quæ repunt super terram. Rationalem factum ad imaginem suam noluit nisi irrationabilibus dominari: non hominem homini, sed hominem pecori. Inde primi justi, pastores pecorum magis quam reges hominum constituti sunt."* He had previously given us to understand that the king is more properly said to rule than to reign. Speaking of the Romans, who expelled their kings because they converted their power into a regal domination, he says: "Hinc est quod regalem dominationem non ferentes, annua imperia binosque imperatores sibi fecerunt, qui consules appellati sunt a consulendo, non reges aut domini a regnando atque dominando: cum et reges utique a regendo dicti melius videantur, ut regnum a regibus, reges autem, ut dictum est, a regendo; sed fastus regius non disciplina putata est regentis, vel benevolentia consulentis, sed superbia dominantis." According to St. Augustine, the subjection of man to man, the domination of the prince and the servitude of the people, as the relation of master and slave, have their origin in sin, De Civitat. Dei. Lib. XIX., cc. 14, 15. + Ibid., Lib. V., c. 12.

and are permitted by Almighty God only as its chastise

ment.

St. Gregory the Great, Pope and Doctor, speaks to the same purpose: "Potentibus viris magna virtus humilitatis, considerata æqualitas conditionis. Omnes namque

homines natura æquales sumus; sed accessit dispensatorio ordine, ut quibusdam prælati videamur. Si igitur hoc a mente deprimimus quod temporaliter accessit, invenimus citius quod naturaliter sumus. . . . . Nam, ut præfati sumus, omnes homines natura æquales genuit, sed variante meritorum ordine, alios aliis dispensatio occulta postponit. Ipsa autem diversitas, quæ accessit ex vitio, recte est divinis judiciis ordinata, ut quia omnis homo iter vitæ æque non graditur, alter ab altero regatur. Sancti autem viri cum præsunt, non in se potestatem ordinis, sed æqualitatem conditionis attendunt, nec præesse gaudent hominibus, sed prodesse. Sciunt enim quod antiqui patres nostri, non tam reges hominum quam pastores pecorum fuisse memorantur. Et cum Noe Dominus filiisque diceret: Crescite et multiplicamini et implete terram, subdit, Et terror vester ac tremor sit super cuncta animalia terræ. Non enim ait Sit super homines, qui futuri sunt, sed, Sit super cuncta animalia terræ. . . . . Homo quippe animalibus irrationabilibus, non autem cæteris hominibus natura prælatus est.*

Pope St. Gregory VII. holds the same doctrine, and follows St. Augustine and St. Gregory the Great. "Quis nesciat," he asks, "reges et duces ab iis habuisse principium, qui, Deum ignorantes, superbia, rapinis, perfidia, homicidiis, postremo universis pene sceleribus, mundi principe diabolo videlicet agitante, super pares, scilicet homines, dominari cæca cupiditate et intolerabili præsumptione affectaverunt ?" He also cites with approbation, in the

*Moralium Libri in Job, Lib. XXI., c. xi. This passage was referred to in the article on Slavery, in our Review for April last, and attributed by mistake to Pope St. Gregory VII. It is none the less authoritative by coming from Pope St. Gregory I.; but even more authoritative, if there is any difference, for St. Gregory I. is one of the four great Latin doctors of the Church. The reader will perceive that it is express to the purpose we then had in view, namely, to prove that the Catholic doctrine is that all men by nature are equal, and that one man has not, by the natural law, the dominion of another.

+ Lib. VIII., Epist. 21, Ad Herimannum, Episc. Metensem.

same letter, the following passage from St. Augustine : "Cum vero etiam eis qui sibi naturaliter pares sunt, hoc est hominibus, dominari affectat intolerabilis omnino superbia est."*

These authorities, which might be multiplied to almost any extent, prove that the Church denies that even temporal princes can rightly claim the supreme dominion of their subjects, and that in her view they are more properly pastors of flocks than kings of men, and rectors rather than lords [domini]. They, indeed, have authority to govern the people committed to their charge for their good; but they are not their possessors, or proprietors, with the right to govern them according to their own will and pleasure. It would be folly to pretend that the Popes claim for themselves a power which they have uniformly disclaimed, and which they have never ceased to brand as the offspring of pride and presumption. Undoubtedly the Popes have always asserted that the priestly or sacerdotal office is above the regal, and that priests are by virtue of their office superior to kings and Cæsars, for kings and Cæsars are members of their flocks, and as much under their charge as the humblest individuals in private life; but they have always denied that man has rightfully the dominion of man, and represented the sacerdotal as a pastoral office. The Church calls her spiritual princes pastors, and gives to the pastor or bishop the shepherd's crook as the symbol of his authority. Her bishops are pastors, and not of their own flocks, but of the flock of Christ. The Pope is chief pastor, under Christ, of the Christian flock, which flock is committed to his charge, not as his property, to be appropriated to his own use or pleasure, but to be fed, protected, guided, and defended for his and their master's honor and glory.

Understanding the Papal authority as pastoral, not as lordly, as a charge, not as a dominion, Mr. Derby may find the texts we cite to prove the Primacy was conferred on Peter, are very much to our purpose. Our Lord said to Peter, "Lovest thou me more than these ?" Then, "feed my lambs, feed my sheep," and elsewhere, "when thou art converted confirm thy brethren." These words do not,

* St. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana, Lib. I., c. xxiii., No. 23.

[ocr errors]

certainly, constitute Peter a sovereign prince, in the sense of a Gentile prince, who claims the right to lord it over his subjects, nor do they make over the flock to him as his property, for our Lord says, "Feed my lambs, feed my sheep,' by which he intimates that he himself retains the proprietorship of the flock; but they do confer on Peter the supreme pastoral office under Christ, and that is all we need, for it is all we assert. No words could be chosen more appropriate than these, to confer the chief pastoral authority, and at the same time to distinguish the nature and quality of that authority from the dominion claimed by the princes of the Gentiles. If Mr. Derby had adverted to the nature and quality of the authority, he would hardly have found any inconsistency between its possession by Peter and the lessons of humility which our Lord gave to him as well as to all the Apostles.

"When the mother of James and John desired the highest place for her sons, and the other apostles were moved with indignation. 'Jesus called them to him and said, You know that the princes of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they that are the greater exercise power upon them. It shall not be so among you; but whosoever will be the greater among you let him be your minister, and he who would be first among you shall be your servant.'* Again, our Saviour, warning his disciples against the love of rank and power, says, 'Be ye not called Rabbi, for one is your master, and all ye are brethren.'t We read in Luke, also, 'He that is least among you shall be the greatest.' And again, when there was a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest,' our Lord, after saying, 'let the leader be as him that serveth,' adds. 'I appoint to you as my Father has appointed to me, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and may sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.' Now all these lessons of humility and equality, were given by our Saviour after the gift of the keys to St. Peter, and after the promise that the church should be built on the rock, to which you refer, when pressing his claim to supremacy. And if Peter was constituted prince of the apostles, and invested with superior jurisdiction,' and 'a special dignity,' by the figurative words cf our Lord, is it consistent therewith that he shouid afterwards have inculcated such lessons o. humility and equality? Would he not have told them, bow with deference to Peter, for after I leave you, he is to be your sovereign pope and judge."

Matt. 20: 25. + Ibid. 23: 8.

[ocr errors]

Luke 9: 48; 22: 20.

NEW YORK SERIES.-VOL. II. NO. IV.

29

These texts, if against us, are equally against Mr. Derby, for he assumes the position of an Episcopalian, and the Papacy is no more repugnant to their spirit than the Episcopacy. If the power Mr. Derby claims for bishops is compatible with these texts, nothing hinders the Papacy from being equally compatible with them. If no one is to be called master, because one is our Master in heaven, and all we are brethren, by what right is one man invested with the authority of a bishop, a presbyter, or even a deacon? Certainly our Lord in these texts forbids his disciples to claim or exercise the power claimed and exercised by the princes of the Gentiles, whether in church or state, that is, he forbids them to lord it over their brethren. He certainly did not confer on Peter or on any one else the mastership, or the lordship. The words and symbols used convey only a pastoral or parental authority, and the prelates of the Church from the Pope down, never claim to be masters or lords. The title, his Lordship, or his Grace, given to a Bishop or an Archbishop, in Great Britain, Ireland, the British Colonies, and sometimes even in our own country, is no ecclesiastical title, and is nowhere in the English speaking world, a proper title to be given to Catholic prelates. It is a civil title, and originally given to Catholic prelates, not because they were prelates of the Church, but because they were made, by the constitution of the state, ex-officio members of the House of Lords. It can be given to Catholic prelates in Great Britain and America now only by courtesy, and a courtesy prohibited, I believe, in this country, by one of the Councils of Baltimore. Be this, however, as it may, the title of Lord or Grace is not and never was an ecclesiastical title. The Church has never conferred it, and in her official correspondence never uses it.

Unquestionably, the texts cited assert that Christians are brethren, are equals, and that their only Master is Christ. But this militates in nothing against either the Episcopacy or the Papacy. Christ is our only master, and the Bishop's or the Pope's master as much as he is mine. The elevation of a Christian believer to the Episcopal throne or to the Papal throne does not break the original equality or make him the master or lord of his brethren, as even our own American republicanism might teach the learned Jurist. Our republicanism asserts that all men by

« AnkstesnisTęsti »