« AnteriorContinuar »
of a disputed question. Does that minister begin by declaring war, by forcing his proposal with a bayonet down the throats of the people to whom he is accredited ? No, he tries every mild means first. The contrary course would be neither politic nor wise, neither humane nor in accordance with the rules of civilized society. The great and the peculiar character of the people of the United States, is neither to provoke nor to brook aggression. If her rights are violated, she endeavors to convince the violator of his injustice, to disabuse him of his error, to win him back to a sense of rectitude by persuasion and just remonstrance. If this fails, she resorts to arms, and though she loves peace she is prepared for war. In a word she is terribly peaceful. Now mark the course of the legates. They entreat Michael to reconsider his conduct, they urge every argument that zeal can sugo gest, but finding all their efforts fruitless, they afterwards act in pursuance of their instructions, with perfect ingenuousness and openness. Observe their procedure. They ascend the altar of the great church of St. Sophia, the seventh wonder of the world-at whose portals stood that large vase for the holy water, wherewith Greeks and Romans, commemorating the sprinkling of the blood of Christ, by which our consciences are purified from dead works to serve the living God, were accustomed alike to bless themselves; and on which were inscribed the Greek words “Ninoo Avépenpesta pen pores ofár" purify O God, our transgressions, and not our countenance only." They went on the altar and in a formal speech explained to the assembled multitude what were the grounds of the anathema. The crime of Mi. chael was that in defiance of the prohibitions both of the old and new law, he had made eunuchs priests. He was also accused of Arianism. Now the Arians deny the divinity of Christ-I have heard from some of our most respectable citizens, that Mr. Campbell also denies that cardinal dogma, but I do not vouch for the correctness of their assertion. (MR. CAMPBELL here stated that he did not deny the divinity of Christ.)
It appears pretty plain from history that the people were for the legates and opposed to their own usurping archbishop. Why? " The legates flattered them.” But how? So far from it their whole argument was directed against a man living amongst this very people, and for an individual far distant. It is natural to suppose that the people were prejudiced in favor of their own archbishop and against one who was a stranger to them. In short, were they not speaking against the primacy and the assumptions of the ecclesiastical dignitary of the very church in which they spoke, and of the very people to whom they spoke. Did they flatter the clergy? no; they strongly inveighed against the unscriptural and uncanonical ordination of the odious eunuchs, by whom the patriarch was surrounded. This was a fine illustration of the zeal for sound doctrine and discipline, displayed in every previous and subsequent age by the holy see. It was acting on the apostolic maxim-It is better to obey God than man—That duties are ours and consequences are God's. .
"Oh Timothy, guard the deposit” (of faith) said St. Paul. "Now the spirit manifestly saith, that in the last ti
es, some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, speaking lies in hypocrisy, baving their consciences seared with a red hot iron. These things proposing to the brethren thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of the faith and of the good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained."1st Ep. to Tim. ch. iv. v. 1. 2. 6.
Thus on this occasion did the pope. My friend could not understand in what sense the patriarch of Constantinople claimed the title of universal bishop; and wanted to learn how his claim differed from the present understanding of the office. He has the answer in this history of facts. He has, or his authority Du Pin has for him, admitted that this Michael had said in effect that he was Lord God over all the earth; and that there was no authority without his sanction for any officer of the church to perform any of the ordinances of religion. Even the pope of Rome must crouch to his feet before he could administer the eucharist or even baptize an infant. And the historian says that the document accusing the archbishop was read before the people of Constantinople—the very city where he reigned, where he was known, and where all the facts of the case were before them. What is the most natural supposition ? Surely this; that if that document had not been true the people would have cried out against it;~they would not have assented to it. So that all this is a splendid triumph of the supremacy of the Roman see. But why refer to particular instances, when ecclesiastical history is full of appeals made to the bishop of Rome by all the other bishops of christendom, and all acquiescing in his decision as not only the decision of Peter, but of Christ himself. “The extraordinary commission given to Paul,” says Bossuet, “ expired with him in Rome, and blending with the authority of Peter, to which it was subordinate, raised the Roman see to the height of authority and glory. This is the church which, taught by Peter and his successors, has never been infected with heresy. This power of binding and loosing from sin, was given first to Peter and then to the rest of the twelve apostles. For it was manifestly the design of Jesus Christ, to place first in one what he afterwards intended to confer on many, but the sequel impairs not the commencement, nor does the first lose his place. All receive the same power from the same source, but not all in the same degree, nor to the same extent, for Jesus Christ communicates himself as he pleases, and always in the manner best calculated to establish the unity of the church.” “Peter," says St. Augustin, “who, in the honor of his primacy, represented the entire church, first and alone, receives the keys, which were next to be communicated to all the others.” The reason of this is assigned by St. Casarius of Arles, that the ecclesiastical authority, first established in a single bishop, and afterwards diffused among many, may be forever brought back to the principle of unity, and remain inseparably united in the same chair. This is the Roman chair, the chair of Peter so much celebrated by the Fathers, in which they vied with one another in extolling the principality of the apostolic chair, the principal principality, the source of unity, the mother church, the head (or centre) of the episcopacy, whence parts the ray of government, the chief, the only see which bindeth all in unity.”
In these words you hear Optatus, St. Augustin, St. Cyprian, St. Irenæus, St. Prosper, St. Avitus, Theodoret, the council of Chalcedon, Africa and Gaul, Greece and Asia, the east and the west united together. This is the doctrine of all the church; this is its unity and strength. Here all is strong because all is divine, all is united. And as each part is divine, the bond also is divine, and the union and
arrangement such that each member acts with the force of the entire * body. Hence whilst the ancient bishops said, they exercised authority in their respective churches as the vicars of Jesus Christ and successors of the apostles sent immediately by him, they also declared that they acted in the name of Peter in virtue of the authority given to all bishops in the person of Peter; so that the correspondence, the union and harmony of the entire body of the church are such that what one bishop does, in accordance with the spirit and rules of Catholic unity, all the church, all the Episcopacy, and the chief of the Episcopacy act in concert and accomplish with him.
My friend observes that the Greeks were always uneasy under the Roman popedom. I admit this to a great extent, but St. John, and Polycarp, and Ignatins and Irenæus (his name signifies Peace, or the peaceful) and Eusebius and Chrysostom and a hundred others were Greeks, and the most eloquent advocates, and the ablest supporters of the preeminence of the church of Rome above all other churches.
Here then is a cloud of witnesses who furnish an astonishing mass of testimony to the fact that in the early days, the Greek church as well as the Latin submitted willingly to the authority of St. Peter and his successors——the authority necessary to preserve order and peace and unity, &c. in the church of God on earth.
With regard to the controversy of the gentleman with Bishop Otey; there was a mooted point between Mr. Campbell and himself. I understood however that all the discussion was on Mr. Campbell's side.
(MR. CAMPBELL here explained that he had had a private discussion with Bishop Otey, and had afterwards written him seven letters upon the Episcopacy.)
Bishop PURCELL. I really do not know what Mr. Campbell's tenets are, or what he believes. My brethren, I am fighting in the dark. I am obliged to answer on the spot charges and objections against my religion which I cannot anticipate, while I really know not what my antagonist's belief is, what qualifications, what marks of a divine call to the ministry he considers necessary, if indeed he believes in any peculiar separation of any man or set of men, for priestly functions.
Will my friend say definitely, before this assembly, if he believe in the necessity of such call or mission.
MR. CAMPBELL. I do.
BISHOP Purcell. How is that calling made known, that mission given? * MR. CAMPBELL. By the word and providence of God.
BISHOP PURCELL. How can we ascertain that word and providence of God?
Mr. CAMPBELL. By the voice of the people and the written word “ vox populi vox Dei.”
BISHOP Purcell. Suppose the people are displeased, for instance, with a Presbyterian pastor, have they the sole power to remove him?
MR. CAMPBELL.. Yes.
Bishop PURCELL. Suppose the ministry of a Presbyterian church are displeased with him, and the people of his church are pleased with him. May he then retain his station against the will of the ministry?
MR. CAMPBELL. If the people will have it so, it must be so. “ Vox populi, vox Dei”!
bishop I'URCELL. There my brethren, you have heard him! Such declarations !
SATURDAY, JANUARY 14TH., Half past 9 o'clock, A. M. MR. CAMPBELL rises,
I shall resume the subject where I closed yesterday evening, reserving my remarks on the last speech of my opponent till the conclusion of my present argument.
The gentleman read in the various reasons assigned for the bull of Nicholas, against the patriarch of Constantinople and his brethren, among others, the statement that the Greeks pretended to be the only true, catholic and apostolic church. It would not be difficult to prove from history that in point of seniority, the Greek church has a superior claim to the Roman. It is first in point of time, and claims a regular descent from the apostles. There is one strong argument in her favor which never has been met. To her belong the first seven councils. They were held in Grecian cities, called by Grecian emperors, and composed of Grecian bishops. They were wholly Grecian. The Roman church has no right to claim them. And if the doctrines proclaimed by these councils be true, they are the doctrines of the Greek church subsequently borrowed by the Romans.
As this is an important point, I will expatiate a little more fully upon it. I have taken the trouble to collect the following facts: at the first council of Nice there were 318 bishops: of these 315 were Greek and 3 Roman. This was the first general council, A. D. 325. At the first council of Constantinople, the second general council of the church,) A. D. 381. there were 150 bishops; of these 149 were Greeks, and only 1 was Roman. At the third council held at Ephesus, A. D. 431, there were but 68 bishops present. Of these 67 were Greek, and one was Roman. At the fourth general council, which was the largest and most authoritative of the first four, held at Chalcedon A. D. 451, against Eutyches, there were present 353 bishops : 350 of whom were Greeks, and only 3 Roman. At the second council of Constantinople (the fifth general council) there were present 164 bishops : 156 of whom were Greeks, and 6 Romans-held against Origen and others, A. D. 553. At the third council of Constantinople, (and the sixth gen eral council,) there were 56 bishops present: 51 of whom were Greeks, and 5 Romans. This council met against the Monothelites A. D. 680. At the second council of Nice, (the seventh general council,) there were present 377 bishops; 370 of whom were Greeks, and 7 Romans. They met to restore images, A. D. 787. These were the first seven general councils of the church. I have been at the pains to make this collection of facts, to ascertain the nierits of the controversy between the Greek and Roman sects, as respects the question to whom of right belong the doctrines of the ancient councils. I find that the whole number of bishops in these councils was 1486 : only 26 of whom were Romans. Certainly the Greek church has the prior claim on our attention, and ought to be revered for her antiquity and authority, more than the schism which haughtily separated from her!
But, in addition to these councils having been called-not by the authority of the church of Rome: but by eastern emperors, and composed of eastern bishops; every great question discussed in the first four; and, indeed, I may add, in the last three councils, was of Gre
cian origin. They grew up in the Greek school-a school easily distinguished from the Latin, hy the peculiar subtilty of its definitions a school long accustomed to nice distinctions, and whose reasoners could split the thousandth part of an idea. Of this, their wars about homousios and homoousios are ample proof. There are no questions more purely abstract and metaphysical than many of those discussed in these seven great ecumenical councils.
Again, these councils were not only called by Greeks, composed of Greeks, and occupied about Greek questions; but were all assembled in Grecian cities.
If there be any virtue in councils to establish doctrines and the priority of churches, the Greek church must be considered the mother of the Roman, rather than her daughter. At all events, it is fully proved that the Roman Catholic church is a sect or schism, which is the burthen of the proposition before us. To strengthen this conviction, I proceed to comment on a standard definition of Catholicity.
I would now ask if there be any objection to the book which I hold in my hand, as a good Roman Catholic authority. I believe it to be the true standard of the Roman Catholic church. It is “ the doctrine of the council of Trent, as expressed in the creed of pope Pius the iv.” But while the word “catholic” is in my eye, I am reminded that my. friend has asserted, that catholic is a scripture title of the church.' Í reply that it is not so used in the New Testament; and that it is only found as a general, running title to some epistles: that its antiquity is very doubtful, as it cannot be found in the body of the book; and, consequently, it has no authority. But now for the definition from the approved standard of the church :
"Section IV. Under the head, “ That the church of Christ is CATHOLIC or UNIVERSAL,” it is asked, What do you understand by this ?
Answer. “ Not only that the church of Christ shall always be known by the name of Catholic, by which she is called in the creed; but that she shall also be truly Catholic or Universal by being the church of all ages and nations." p. 15.
We have been showing that the church of Christ was not originally known by the name catholic; that the Roman sect was not the church of the first six centuries; and, therefore, that the approved definition of the creed will not apply to this party. I have proved that she had no pope, or supreme head, for full six hundred years, and in corroboration of the argument, drawn from general councils, I have shown that the first seven were not hers, but peculiarly those of the Greek church; and that the Greek church is, in fact, the mother.
But there are yet other, and perhaps stronger arguments to show her daughtership. Some of my audience can appreciate the following: That the Hebrew is a more ancient language than the Greek, and the Greek than the Roman, needs not be stated but for a few. One proof of this fact is, that the Hebrew has given many words to the Greek, while the Greek has given none to the Hebrew. So the Greek has given many words to the Latin, while the Latin has given none to the Greek. Thus we prove the Roman church to have come out of the bosom of the Greek, from the fact, that all the leading ecclesiastical terms in the Roman church are Greek. For example: "pope," "patriarch,” osynod," "ecclesiastic," "schism," "schismatic," wheresy," Theretic,” sheresiarch," "catechumen,” shierarchy," "church,” schrism,"