« AnteriorContinuar »
to the divine head of the church in Heaven, but to the representative of his divine commission on earth. I affirm that what Christ thought necessary in the days of the apostles, is necessary now; and the more remote we are from that day, the more necessary does it become. Jesus Christ well knew that there must be scandals and errors; and he determined his church should not be left headless. We know this head exists and where it resides; but we are not slaves in the Catholic church. We acknowledge no mere human authority between us and God. We are as free and untrammeled as any people under heaven. It is not the man, but the authority, we respect. The man may err, and if the pope claims a power not belonging to him, we soon remind him of his mistake. How this lesson has been taught to a few popes, the history of the church will show.
My friend now contradicts the statement he made to-day. He first argued that the introduction of patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, deacons, and so on, into the church, was of exotic growth—and, as if he had forgotten what he had previously denied, he turns round, and tells us, nearly in the same breath, that he goes for bishops and deacons and orders. So far then, Mr. Campbell is a good Catholic, and I congratulate him on this advance towards the truth. [Symptoms of applause in the andience, were here manifested, but were immediately checked by the moderators; and bishop Purcell besought them, once for all, to abstain from the least demonstration of the kind during the debate. It was improper in a discussion of this character, and the house being greatly crowded, much inconvenience would follow, and the debate could not go on.]
As to the authority he has produced here (Du Pin's Ecclesiastical history) I will remark that I consider DuPin a learned man. I would even select him as a splendid illustration of the strength imparted to the human intellect by the Catholic intellectual discipline. He was truly a prodigy of learning and of precision of style. But there was a plague spot, a gangrene upon him, which must forever neutralize his authority as a Catholic. Before the gentleman pronounced his name we had a flourish of rhetoric, and a labored eulogy upon my tact in managing this controversy. For my part, I must say that I am quite a novice in these matters—I am not accustomed to debate. My friend has complimented me upon oratorical powers to which I lay no claim. If I have any advantage, I owe it not to practice but to the force of truth.
Du Pin, on whom my friend relies as Catholic authority, recognized by the church, was in constant correspondence with Wake, the archbishop of Canterbury. He tried every stratagem to bring about a re-union of the church of England, and the church of Rome. Leibnitz, and many a distinguished name, had previously labored in the same vocation. But Revd. Dr. Du Pin's motives were, unfortunately, suspicious. He proposed as the basis of the re-union, the abolition of auricular confession, of religious vows, of the Lenten fast and abstinence, of the pope's supremacy, and of the celibacy of the clergy He was himself, like Cranmer, secretly married; and after his death, his pretended wife came publicly forward to assert her right to his goods and chattels. And this is Catholic authority! It is said these papers were discovered in his study after his death. But he was censuffiarry pope Clement XI. even during his life-time; and when, as Lhaye stated, Louis XIV. removed him from among the Doctors of the Sorbonne, Clement approved the act.
If my friend can produce Roman Catholic authority, let him do so. But let him not produce one that approaches with a mask. The authority of Du Pin I have challenged on just grounds; but this has nothing to do with the views I have stated upon the great question we are discussing.
We are told that the commission spoken of in Ephesians, 4th chapter, "To some he gave apostles, &c." confers, not powers, but simply gifts. This I deny. St. Paul tells us authority was given to the rulers of his church by Christ, not for their sakes but that we may be no longer children tossed to andfro by every wind of doctrine. They were not, then, merely gifts, they were powers and authorities to regulate the church, and to rule the people of God. These commissions are the foundation of the church established on earth by Christ, before he ascended on high. They were necessary, as the more solid parts of a temple are first laid, that the whole building may afterwards have strength, consistency, and symmetry. I deny that the church ever has been or could be without a foundation. The foundation is at least as necessary as the superstructure. Christ made Peter, therefore, the rock of his church, and was himself the corner stone whereon that rock rested, as did the whole edifice securely rest upon the rock.
Why has Mr. Campbell anticipated the subject of the third or fourth day of this discussion, and brought up the pope as the man of sin—the sea monster of Daniel—the youngest horn of the beast? &c. For aught I know, he may prove the pope to be the sea serpent—no doubt his powers of logic are adequate to the task. We shall see.
Again—the pope is not a tyrant, nor does he claim the title of Universal Father, in the sense in which Gregory rebuked John for claiming it. Mr. Campbell has solved the question beforehand, in stating the arrogant pretensions of the bishop of C. P. who pretended that all authority proceeded from him. I do not derive all my authority from the pope. The bishops of the United States consulttogether. They propose candidates for the vacant sees; and they send to Rome the names of three clergymen, marked according to their judgment, "Worthy, Worthier, Worthiest." The pope generally trusts to their wisdom, and acquiesces in their choice. It was thus that a certain testimony of my fitness to succeed the venerable Fenwick, as bishop of this diocese, was forwarded to Rome. The sovereign pontiff, Gregory XVI. ratified the selection of the prelacy of the United States, and expedited the brief, or letters, in virtue of which I was ordained a bishop; but my power to consecrate, to baptize, and to perform other episcopal functions, comes not from the pope; it comes like that of the apostles, directly from God.
There are other denominations, besides the Catholic, that contend for the necessity of apostolical succession of orders and mission, and these too are the objects of my friend's sarcasm. I select only two— the Episcopalians and the German Reformed.
In the last number of his Millennial Harbinger, in speaking of the Episcopalian bishop Otey of Tennessee, he asks "why is bishop Otey silent? He either feels that his castle of Episcopalianism has been demolished: bv the editor of the Harbinger (Mr. Campbell) or he does not. ft he-teeK that it has been overthrown, as an honest man he ought to acknowledge it. But if he still thinks that he is adorning "the doctrine of God?' by sustaining Episcopalianism, let him shew his strength to such as wish to read both sides of the question. It la an apostolic admonition to "contend earnestly for the faith delivered to the saints." If he is sent of God, as he professes to be, as a faithful watchman on Zion's walls, he should not remain mute; but cry aloud, seeing his opinions have been politely assailed. Percontator."
Answer.—Many reasons might be imagined for bishop Otey's silence, but I will venture upon only one, viz. that like M. de La Motte (I presume the witty and pious bishop of Amiens) he is waiting for a reply to his silence. How, &c.
Again—Mr. Lancellot Bell, addressing the editor, Mr. Campbell (vid. Mil. Harbinger, p. 570.) says "I accompanied brother L. to Cavetown, where he addressed the citizens, &c. Two of the "called and sent" of the German Reformed church, considering, I suppose, their "craft in danger," came to the place, and I spoke against these things, contradicting, who were going—to express it in the language of some of the people, to "lick us up like salt," &c. &c.
Mr. Campbell, therefore, has changed his tone; he is now in favor of orders; and this change has apparently taken place within a few days.
I have proved that the headship of the church was no new thing in the beginning of the fourth century. Du Pin spoke of the decision of the council of Nice, respecting the contest between the bishops of Alexandria and of Rome, but said that this decision of the council did not disprove the primacy of Rome, so that this doctrine is at least as old as the year 318, when Sylvester of Rome presided by his legate Osius of Cordova at the council of Nice. This shows that the authority of Rome was then recognized. He spoke of the council of Chalcedon. I have here an authentic historian recognized by the Catholics, and one who tells sharp truths of individual Catholics, when he conceives them to be in the wrong. It is Barronius. In his Annals, year of Christ 451, of pope Leo, 12th, twenty seventh of Valentine and 2nd of Marcian, he says that in this council the authority of the see of Peter was recognized. 360 bishops met in this council. Circumstances not permitting pope Leo to assist at it in person, he sent three legates, two bishops and a priest, to preside in his name. At the first session Paschasinus, bishop of Lillibeum, and one of the legates of the pope, preferred charges against Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, for his uncanonical conduct in the conventicle of Ephesus. Dioscorus, thus accused and convicted, was compelled to leave his seat and sit in an inferior place in the middle of the assembly. Subsequently a sentence of deposition was pronounced against him; and as his guilt was manifest, he left the assembly and appeared no more. The fathers of the council unanimously exclaimed that the doctrinal decisions of Leo were those of Peter himself—" Petrus per Leonem locutus est"—Peter hath spoken by the mouth of Leo. (vid. Reeves, 1st vol. 263.) the fathers of the council directed to St. Leo a synodical letter, in which they acknowledge him for the interpreter of St. Peter, for their head and guide." (vid. Barronius, ibid.) Nowhere is the authority of the first general council of Nice, as quoted by Labbe. Greek bishops say:
"The Roman church has always had the primacy" (Labbe, t. 2. p. 41.) The second general council and first of Constantinople says: "Let the bishop of Constantinople have the first share of honor after the bishop of Rome." (Alexandria was entitled to the second rank.)
The third general council of Ephesus says:
"St. Peter, the prince and head of the apostles, the foundation of the Catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, and the power of loosing and of binding sin was given to him, which to the present time, as it ever has done, subsists and exercises judgment in his successors."
The fourth general council ofChalcedon, writing to St. Leo, says:
"We therefore entreat you, to honor our judgment by your decrees; and as we have adhered to our head in good things, so let your supremacy supply what becometh (or is wanting) for thy children."
The council of Florence in which the Greek and Latin bishops were present, thus speaks:
"We define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold the primacy over the entire earth, and that he is the successor of the blessed Peter, the prince of the apostles,the true vicar of Christ, and the head of the whole church/, &c. T. 13. p. 515.
The general council of Trent, speaks in the following terms:
"The sovereign pontiffs, in virtue of the supreme power delivered to them over the entire church, had a right to reserve the judgment of certain more grievous crimes to their own tribunal."
Melancthon holds the following language, as quoted by Bossuet in his history of the variations. L. 5, n. 24.
"Our people agree, that the ecclesiastical polity, in which are recognized superior bishops of many churches and the bishop of Rome superior to all bishops, is permitted. Thus there is no contest respecting the supremacy of the
I>ope and the authority of bishops, and also the pope and the bishops could casiy preserve this authority, for it is necessary for a church to have leaders to maintain order, to keep an eye upon those called to the ecclesiastical state, and upon the doctrine of the priests, and to exercise ecclesiastical judgment, so that if there were no bishops we would have to make them. The monarchy of the pope would also serve much to preserve amongst many nations the unity of doctrine; wherefore we could easily agree as to the supremacy of the pope if we could agree in every thing else."
Leibnitz, as quoted by De Starck, p. 22, speaks as follows: "As God is the God of order, and as by divine appointment, the body of the only, apostolic, Catholic church can be maintained by a single, hierarchical and universal government, it follows, that there must be a supreme spiritual chief, who shall be confined within proper bounds, established by the same (divine) right, and invested with all the power and dictatorial authority necessary for the preservation of the church."
St. Irenaeus of Lyons, the disciple of St. Polycarp, who himself appears to have been consecrated by St. John the Evangelist, repeatedly urges this argument against his contemporary heretics. He says:
"We can count up those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the apostles and their successors down to us, none of whom taught this doctrine. But as it would be tedious to enumerate the succession of bishops in the different churches, we refer you to the tradition of that greatest, most ancient, and universally known church, founded at Rome by St. Peter and St. Paul, and which has been preserved therethrough the succession of its bishops, down to the present time."
Tertullian, who also flourished in the same century (year 150), argues in the same manner and challenges certain heretics in these terms:"Let them produce the origin of their church; let them display the succession of their bishops, so that the first of them may appear to have been ordained by an apostolic man, who persevered in their communion."
St. Athanasius writes to St. Felix, the Roman Pontiff: "For this purpose Christ placed you and your predecessors to guide the ark and to have the care of all the churches, that you may help us."
St. Cyprian, in his 55th Epistle, holds the following language: "They dare to sail and carry letters to the chair of Peter and the principal church, whence sacerdotal unity proceeds."
St^Kpgustin, who wrote in the fifth century, mentions the following among*ther motives of credibility in favor of the Catholic religion.
"There are many other things which keep me in the bosom of the Catholic church. The agreement of different people and nations keeps me there. The authority established by miracles, nourished by hope, increased by charity, and confirmed by antiquity, keeps me there. The succession of bishops in the see of St. Peter, the apostle (to whom our Lord after his resurrection, committed his sheep to be fed) down to the present bishop, keeps me there. Finally the very name of Cathoijc which, among so many heresies, this church alone possesses, keeps me there."
St. Jerome in his 4th Epistle to pope Damasus says:
"I, following no leader but Christ, am in communion with your holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. Whoever gathereth not with you scattereth, that is, whoever is not of Christ is of anti-Christ."
This is, in substance, the testimony of the bishops throughout the world, in every age to the present time.—[Time expired.]
Four o'clock, P. M. Ma. Camprell rises—
On the subject of the emendation of the term Roman Catholic, by prefixing the word English, &c, I am willing that my friend should have all the advantage to be derived from that explanation. I am willing that he should appear before the public with that explanation, if he thinks it can help the matter. On the same principle he may say the Philadelphia Pittsburg church of Cincinnati. The church, I argued, had no mortal head for six hundred years. He certainly could not have understood me as denying that Christ was the head of his church! I admit that Christ is the immortal head of the church which is his body, and Christ is her only head. Christ's church requires a living and omnipresent head. She needs not two heads, for her head is the head of all principality and power. Can the pope be omnipresent, keeping order in all his dominions 1
I was surprised at the gentleman's hypothesis, that if I argued that the church had no visible and human head for six hundred years, I then asserted that Christ was not the head of his church. I spoke not of Christ, but of the great hierarch on earth, who claims to be the fountain of all power and authority in the church. Could he not understand me 1
The gentleman says, that the Catholics are as free as others. I ask have they the same liberty to read the Bible, to think and act for themselves, as have the Protestants? I am sorry that he seemed to take advantage of my acknowledging myself a friend to bishops and deacons in the church. In my enumeration of the different orders, in the present Roman church, I mentioned .tfrcA-bishops and Jlrch-deacons; but he did not hear me say bishops and deacons. They were on purpose left out of that enumeration, that I might not fall into the error which he has imagined for me.
I dispose of the gentleman's extract from the Millennial Harbinger and of his learned remarks upon them, by informing him that he has mistaken the writer: I am not the author of the article in question.
Still I must ask, why this evasion of the question in debats? Why seek to excite the odium theologicum, on account of some distorted theory unjustly attributed to me—on subjects, too, wholly foreign to this debate! Are these the weapons by which my learned opponent is compelled to defend the " mother and mistress of all churches" from