Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

pastors; destroy their churches, confiscate their property; in fine, to execute, in every way they could, their villany on the victims of persecution. Nevertheless, in the midst of so many calamities, the faithful, animated by faith, was consoled by the hope that the blood of so many martyrs would become the seed of Christians, and that in recompence of the heroic sacrifice they had made of their country, their fortune, and their lives, "the Lord would daily augment the number of those who should be saved." In suffering and in dying, these illustrious victims of their duty, these courageous champions of the faith, offered their fervent prayers for the restoration of the city of God;" that is to say, of the Catholic church, by the immutability of the faith, and the maintenance of the government of the church, under the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome.

which are not of his fold, and that hearing his voice, there may be but "one flock and one Shepherd." (John iii. 16.)

That

Beloved brethren, we have passed days and years of pain and anxiety; for though we did not lose sight of the promises of Him, who said that his church was built on a rock, and that the gates of hell should not prevail against it, nevertheless, we did not know the term he had marked out for our chastisement, nor that in which he would deign to shew mercy, time is now arrived, and we are obliged in duty and affection, to celebrate it with prayer and thanksgiving. I have called you together? to-day to discharge this sacred duty. Oh! beloved brethren, may those signal proofs of the goodness of the Lord make a lasting impression on you: may these astonishing events, which the hand of God has directed, remain deeply engraved in your memories for this day is that which the Lord hath made, let it be to us a day of gladness and holy rejoicing.

[ocr errors]

Perceiving, then, in these events, of which you have been witnesses, the manifest confirmation of the promises which Jesus Christ has made, eternally to protect his church, and the accomFor these reasons, beloved brethren, plishment of these predictions, would in engaging you to reflect seriously on it be rash presumption in us to en- the wisdom of the ways of Providence, tertain the consoling hope, that our in the means which it employs, in brethren, of another communiou, giving, preserving, and assuring, the struck, as we are, with the astonish-duration of its church, and for main ing favour of Heaven, in maintaining the apostolic chair, would be induced to examine, with attention, the causes, the progress, and the consequence, of their separation from that ancient Christian society, which enjoys, by inheritance, the blessings promised by its Divine Founder? viz. unity in its faith and spiritual government; apostolical succession; and a visibility which has never been obscured; and of course it is clear that this church is endued with all the characters which should distinguish a true church, from which no one can separate, without falling into schism. The pacification of Europe may, in the designs of Pro-lowed by a benediction of the most vidence, be the happy period when the heavenly Shepherd may bring back to the pale of "his church those sheep

taining, in despite of worldly opposi tion, the Apostolic See of St. Peter, it appears fit and necessary to us, in token of union with the whole Christian world, to manifest, by a solemn and public act, our intention of cele brating the happy re-establishment of his Holiness Pius VII. in all the "privileges of his exalted dignity, and in the government and administration of the Catholic church." Therefore, on the first Sunday of July, inmediately after the celebration of the divine mysteries, there shall be sung, in thanksgiving, in the church of St. Peter, at Baltimore, a solemn Te Deum, fol

Holy Sacrament. In the other churches of this city and diocese, the present mandate shall be read the Sunday

[ocr errors]

shall be likewise sung, or psalms, with proper devotion. Our venerable brothers, the pastors of the different congregations, are charged with the execution of these orders.

after it is received, and the Te Deum | the papal power; some tracing it to the concessions of emperors, others to the regulations of councils, most of them to the civil dignity of the city. of Rome, as the centre and head of the Roman empire; but all unanimously denying it to be a divine institution. I shall first ferent opinions, and in a few words shew the fallacy of them.

May the Almighty Father, the Author of all good, multiply his graces and blessings on the eutire church, and especially on this small part of the flock of Jesus Christ, established in the United States. Amen.

Baltimore, July 2, 1814.

ON THE POPE'S SUPREMACY.

LETTER SIXTH.

To the Editor of the Orthodox Journal.

Give me leave, Sir, to resume my correspondence, which a long absence from home, and a multiplicity of engagements, since my return, have forced me to break off. Any additional proof of the existence of the Pope's supremacy, in the first ages of the church, would be superfluous, having already sufficiently ascertained that important fact, by the most incontestible monuments of Christian antiquity; but a question remains to be decided, between our Protestant friends and us, viz. From what source arose that primitive discipline, which lodged in the hands of the bishop of Rome exclusively the right of assembling general councils; of confirming or cancelling their decrees, both in matters of faith and discipline; of receiving appeals from the judgments of all other bishops, without exception; in short, of having always the principal sway, and definitive authority, in all the general concerns of the church? -Catholics maintain that the Roman pontiffs enjoyed that right, as successors of St. Peter, by virtue of a privilege, granted to that apostle by Christ himself, and which, being connected with the essential constitution of his church, was no more to perish, at the death of St. Peter, than the church itself. Protestants pretend to have discovered a different origin of

expose

[ocr errors]

their dif

1st. Calvin, who has been followed by a crowd of heterodox writers, asserts, with his usual confidence, that Phocas, who usurped the imperial throne, in the year 602, granted to Pope Boniface III. (St. Gregory's next successor but one) that Rome should be the head of all the churches,” a title, he says, "which St. Gregory did not claim at all;" and that "Zachary (successor to Boniface) having assisted Pepin in usurping the throne of France, obtained for his reward, that the Roman see should have a jurisdiction over the churches of France

and himself become the head of all bishops, and enjoy a spiritual authority, which, being weak at first, as all new things are, was afterwards confirmed, by the authority of Charles." (Instit. I. iv, c. 7, No. 17.) You may remember, Sir, that I have anticipated this absurd tale, in my second letter on this subject, where I shew that St. Gregory did claim that title, both for his see and for himself, calling his see, the head of all churches, and himself the head of the faith; that, 150 years before the reign of Phocas, Paschasinus, the pope's legate, in presence of the general council of Chalcedon, where he presided, styled St. Leo head of the churches; and that the 630 fathers, who composed that council, bestowed the same title upon the pope, in their letter to him. (Orthod. Jour. March, p. 109.) I shall only add here, that the fathers of the council of Sardica, in 347, many of whom had assisted at the council of Nice, in their letter to Pope Julius, declare it 66 a becoming and most wholesome practice, that the bishops, from the different provinces,

should have recourse to the head, that is to the see of the apostle Peter." I have shewn, in my first letter, that St. Gregory not only exercised a jurisdiction over the bishops of France; but also claimed the same over every bishop in the world. (Ibid, February, p. 65, 66.

[ocr errors]

the sense of the clause, Because this is usual with the bishop of Rome, had not for its object to introduce new privileges, or give to bishops a rank in the hierarchy which they had not before, but to maintain them in their ancient rights. If therefore it can be inferred from this canon, that the bishop of Rome is the first patriarch, which must have been Calvin's opinion, it follows that he was so, and consequently had the first rank in the church, before the council of Nice, by a custom already of long conti nuance, at the time this council was held.

But what is the meaning of the clause, Because this is usual with the bishop of Rome? Does it mean, the bishop of Egypt will have power over all Egypt and all places, cities and towns round about, because the bishop of Rome likewise has power over all the cities and places adjacent to it?~ Such is the unfaithful translation, or rather absurd comment of Rufinus, on which Dr Burnet, and numerous writers of his communion have built their novel system; that," in the first

2d. The Popes could not have derived their universal jurisdiction and supremacy from any council. If they had, it must have been from a general one. In that case, supposing this general council to have been the first of all, their supremacy could be traced no higher than the year 325, when the first general council was held, This indeed was Calvin's opinion. "There is nothing," says that bold asserter, more ancient to establish the antiquity of the supremacy of the Roman see, than the decree of the Nicene council, by which the first place is assigned to the Roman pontiff among the patriarchs." (Inst. No. 1.) And in the margin, "The beginning of the Roman Papacy is discovered in the council of Nice." Calvin must have been extremely ignorant to believe, or if he did not believe it, ex-general council, the authority of the cessively impudent to assert, that, before the council of Nice, the patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, had no rank determined in the hierarchy; that they knew not which of them was the first; and that it was a canon of that council that raised the bishop of Rome to the first place in the church; and so gave a beginning to papacy. But in vain, Sir, do we look for such a decree among the canons of that council. The only canon of the council of Nice, which relates to the three patriarchs, merely states, that "the ancient custom is to be preserved; so that the bishop of Alexandria must have jurisdiction over Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, because this is usual with the bishop of Rome; and that, in like manner, at Antioch and through the other provinces, every church must be preserved in its privileges." It is evident therefore that this canon, whatever may be

great sees is stated as equal; and that
the bishops of Alexandria and An-
tioch are declared to have, according
to custom, the same authority over
the churches subordinate to them, that
the bishop of Rome had over those
that lay about that city." (Burnet's
Exposit. of the 39 Art. No. 37.) But
there is no such thing in the Greek
text of that council. We have it not
only in the acts of the council of
Nice, but also in those of the general
council of Chalcedon, where it was
produced, both by the pope's legate,
according to the copy kept at Rome,
and by Aetius, archdeacon of the
church of Constanstinople, according
to the copy kept in this latter church;
and there we find nothing of the
towns and countries round Egypt, or
about Rome.
Indeed, it is ridiculous
to suppose that the council of Nice
had decreed, that the bishop of Alex-
andria should have power over Egypt,

he

Lat

tria

and all adjacent countries, because | the bishop of Rome had power over Rome and a few adjacent towns, with their territories. The true meaning of this evidently is, that the bishop of Alexandria must retain his authority over Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, because the bishop of Rome always considered these three provinces as bein's longing to the jurisdiction of that So. bishop. What Dr. Burnet advances is, that the authority of the three great sees was, in the council of Nice, stated as equal, does not even follow, from the false translation or interpolation of its canon by Rufinus, which only relates to the limited jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, as patriarch of the West; but does not deny his universal jurisdiction as head of the church. This canon, on the contrary, as published by Rufinus, styles the pope, successor of the apostle Peter," thus hinting at his primacy.

it :

cil

neg

of

cil

[ocr errors]

I observed in my third letter, (April, p. 144,) that this canon, as it now stands in the acts of the council of Nice, is mutilated; the first words of it, which expressly mention the pope's supremacy, being omitted. In the copy quoted by Paschasinus, before the council of Chalcedon, it begins thus: The Roman church always had the primacy." None of the fathers, not even Aetius, though a litigious man, and the avowed antagonist of the legate, contradicted the quotation. Upon hearing it, the judges in the council drew aloud this conclusion: "From what has been alledged on both sides, we perceive, that before all, the primacy and principal honour is, according to the canous, preserved to the most beloved of God, the archbishop of Old Rome." (Sess. xvi.) Paschasinus had quoted no canon but that of the council of Nice. Since then the judges inferred, from what had been alledged, that the the supremacy of the Roman church was conformable to the canons; they must have meant this canon of Nice, is quoted by the legate; this declatation of the judges, so solemnly made

before the council, met with no contradiction. The canon, therefore, with the clause expressing the supremacy of the church of Rome, was silently acknowledged to be genuine by all the father's of Chalcedon. Thus it is manifest, that the first general council, far from giving a beginning to the pope's primacy, as Calvin pretends, or stating the authority of the great sees to be equal, as Dr. Burnet asserts, declared on the contrary, that the Roman church had always enjoyed the supremacy; thus sanctioning, indirectly, the divine origin of it.

3. A prevailing opinion among Protestant divines is, that the supremacy of the Pope arose chiefly from the preeminence of the city of Rome, as the capital of the empire. They accordingly believe, that, if any of the disciples of the apostles, Luke for example, or Timothy, had, instead of Peter, been the first bishop of Rome, and died there; the successors of Luke or Timothy, in that see, would have claimed the same rights, and enjoyed the same jurisdiction over all other bishops, which the successors of St. Peter have done; and on the other hand, that if Peter, instead of dying at Rome, had, like his fellow-apostle James, ended his days at Jerusalem, the successors of Peter in this see, would no more have enjoyed universal jurisdiction, than those of James did. This, however, was not the sense of the primitive christians, with whom it was customary to style the church, established at Rome, by St. Peter, not the imperial church, but "the Apostolic See;" and who revered in the Pope, not the bishop of the capital, but St. Peter's successor, and received his decrees as emanating from St. Peter himself. Peter has spoken these things, "by Leo,” the exclamation of the bishops assembled at Ephesus, after the letter of this pope had been read to them. When the fathers assembled at Sardica, anno 347, they directed that the bishops who thought themselves wronged, by the sentence of the other bishops, might with the

was

pope's leave, obtain a revission of the affair and a new trial; Osius, the president, the same illustrious bishop who had already presided in the council of Nice observed, that this was done "to honour the memory of the apostle Peter!" (can. 3) St. Cyprian, who died a martyr in 250, calls the Roman see 66 the chair of Peter, the principal church, whence the sacerdotal unity took its rise;" (ep. 59.) thus shewing this see to have been considered, at that early period, as the principal church, the centre and source of unity among the pastors of the church, because it was 66 St. Peter's chair." In the same sense, then, evidently ought we to understand that superior principality (potiorem principalitatem) of the Roman church, which St. Ireneus, a martyr of Christ, in 202, tells us, imposed upon all other churches, a necessity of having recourse to it. These are his words:

"As it would be very long to enumerate the successions of all the churches, by shewing the tradition and faith of the greatest and most ancient church known to every body, which was founded and established at Rome by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul; a tradition which she has from the apostles; a faith which was announced to (all) men, and is come down to us by the suceessions of bishops; we confound all those who, any way, whether through self-complacency, or vain glory; or blindness, or perverse opinion gather (disciples) wrongfully. For it is necessary that every church, that is the faithful from all parts, should have recourse to this church, on account of her superior principality, in which that tradition, which is from the apostles, has always been preserved by the faithful, who are from all parts," (that is to say, Catholic.) Hæres. l. iii.

[blocks in formation]

merely meant the civil power of Rome; that, if there was a necessity for the faithful to have recourse or resort to that church, it was not from an obligation of receiving their faith from her, or keeping communion with her bishop, as Catholics understand it, but because, being otherwise forced to go to the capital of the empire, for their temporal concerns, they naturally applied to the church established there; and he seeks to support this interpretation, by a passage of St. Gregory Nazianzen, which, he supposes, speaks of the church of Constantinople, in terms similar to those used by St. Ireneus with regard to the Roman church. But if the bishop of Rome had no superiority over other bishops; if, as all Protestants suppose it, Christ had established a perfect equality among all the pastors of his church, what occa sion was there for every church to consult the Roman pontiff, or any bishop at all, except their own? St. Ireneus does not speak here, it seems, of individuals, but of churches, omnem ecclesiam; nor does he say, it was necessary for them to go to Rome, but to have recourse to the church there; and for what reason? Because in that church were preserved the faith and tradition of the apostles, who had founded it, through a succes sion of bishops descended from them. Because she was the greatest of all churches; and being the greatest, she therefore enjoyed a principality supe rior to, or more powerful than, any other. For it is not of the principa lity of the city of Rome the holy mar tyr speaks, but of that of the Roman church; but what superiority or power over other churches could that church enjoy, at a time when she was persecuted above all the rest, and all her bishops, almost without exception, successively put to death, but a spiri tual superiority and power?-The words of St. Gregory Nazianzen, in which Dr. Grabe thought he had discovered a resemblance with those of St. Ireneus, merely allude to the geographical situation of Constantinople,

« AnteriorContinuar »