Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

sary to suppress sees, because it is not often that the number of the faithful is so reduced in any church as to render it expedient to unite them with another church; but if such a suppression be really calculated on the whole to confer benefit on the catholic church, it seems that the christian prince may with the advice of qualified advisers unite churches, and call on the church to confirm the act by their future proceedings ".

We may now see how reasonable and catholic was the oath of regal supremacy prescribed by the parliament of queen Elizabeth, and still subscribed by the clergy of England. This formulary declares that "the king's majesty under God is the only supreme governor of this realm, and all other his highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes as temporal "." Now it is certain that the christian kings of England have, like other christian princes, the right of protecting the church's faith and discipline, making laws conformable to them, convening synods, presiding in them, confirming them, and obliging by the civil sword all members of the church, both clergy or laity, to profess its doctrines and remain in unity and subordination. This is a power which may most justly be called government, and it is this power to which the oath of supremacy refers. The thirtyseventh Article also ascribes to the prince the “chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they

The suppression of bishoprics in Ireland some years ago, being obviously intended not for the welfare but for the injury of the church, was an act to which this rule could not apply. Nothing but the apprehension of still greater evils, and especially those

which might have arisen from the want of unanimity in the church herself on that occasion, could have imposed on that church any obligation of yielding to so unjust an act.

Canon xxxvi.

be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes;" and the right to "rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal; and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers." This is the whole doctrine of the church of England, as to the authority of the christian magistrate in religion; in which she does not teach us that the prince may impose on his people false doctrines, or discipline injurious to religion; or deprive the churches of their ancient rights; or abrogate the canons; or make definitions in faith; or usurp the sacerdotal office; or do any thing else injurious to the sanctity, the purity, and the efficiency of the church. She gives him only the power of befriending religion, and of exercising an external government by temporal means, which cannot fail to be of great use in repressing the disorders of those who would otherwise neglect or despise the sacred discipline. And this indeed is a power which could not be refused even to a monarch not united to the church. So that, even if the throne were occupied by a heretic or schismatic, as James the second was, the church might still very justly admit his ecclesiastical supremacy, that is, his right to protect the faith and discipline of the catholic church established amongst us, and to use the civil sword to oblige all its members to unity and obedience.

APPENDIX I.

ON THE EXPULSION OF BISHOPS BY THE TEMPORAL POWER.

The civil magistrate not being invested with the power to punish by spiritual censures, as all our theologians hold, he is only to use the "civil sword" in protecting and supporting the church as above. It has

been disputed whether under any circumstances he may expel bishops from their sees. This question was argued with much warmth in the reign of king William, when several bishops were expelled from their sees by the temporal power, in consequence of their refusal to take the oaths to the new government, enjoined by law.

It appears to me on the whole, that though the only regular and ordinary mode of removing a bishop is by an ecclesiastical judgment, there are particular cases in which the temporal power is justified, even without any previous sentence by the ordinary ecclesiastical tribunal, in expelling a bishop from his see. First, the right will not be denied in a case where the occupant of a see is a usurper or intruder, uncanonically appointed. Secondly, the practice of the church seems to favour the opinion, that when a bishop is manifestly heretical, when he manifestly and obstinately opposes the judgment of the catholic church, when he is manifestly and notoriously guilty of any crime which by the law of the catholic church involves his degradation, and when there is urgent necessity for his immediate removal, or difficulty in assembling a synod; then a christian prince may justly expel and drive him from his see by temporal force, and procure the ordination of another bishop in his place. This however is a temporal punishment, and is not to be understood as an usurpation of the spiritual office of degradation, which can only be performed by bishops according to the immemorial custom of the catholic church. Indeed the New Testament does not exactly prescribe the tribunal which is to deprive unworthy ministers of the gospel. The Old furnishes us with the case of Solomon "thrusting out

Abiathar from being priest unto the Lord," in consequence of his treasonable practices: " and Zadok the priest did the king put in the room of Abiathard." Whatever explanation he offered of this, the fact remains, that Solomon expelled one who had been priest, and put another in his place. Whether the christian emperors in the primitive church were influenced by this example I know not; but certain it is, that the ecclesiastical laws of the emperor Justinian and his predecessors, repeatedly threaten expulsion or deprivation of their offices, to those bishops and clergy who should transgress the canons". The emperor Marcian declared in the presence of the council of Chalcedon, that any clergy who disputed further after the decision of that synod, should lose their offices'. The emperor Theodosius, at the request of John, patriarch of Antioch, gave orders to expel by temporal force from their sees, those schismatical bishops who refused to communicate with that patriarch. In subsequent ages the eastern emperors exercised this power continually, and sometimes most scandalously abused it". The archbishops and bishops of England in the "Necessary Doctrine" published A. D. 1543, held this doctrine; admitting that christian kings have the right to see that bishops and priests execute their pastoral office truly and faithfully, &c. "and if they obstinately withstand their prince's kind monition, and will not amend their faults, then

d

1 Kings ii. 27.
Verse 35.

Justinian. Novella 123. See also De Marca, De Concordia Sacerdot. et Imperii, lib. iv. c. i. art. vi. c. 18.

f Harduin. Concilia, t. ii. p. 487.

Fleury, liv. xxvii. s. 28-33.

h

See Hody's "Case of sees vacant by an unjust or uncanonical deprivation," 1693, the tract by Nicephorus Callistus, published by Hody 1691, and that of Methodius in the third volume of the Ancient Remains by Angelo Maio, p. 247, &c.

and in such case to put other in their rooms and places i."

These facts seem to me to furnish very probable reasons for thinking, that in the case of manifest offences which merit degradation, and where there is a great necessity, the christian prince may justly expel bishops from their sees. It is true that this power may be abused: so may every other branch of the ecclesiastical supremacy without exception: and so also may the power of the church itself. But the safeguards to the church in this and similar matters are first, the obli gation of the catholic prince to have only in view the welfare of the catholic church, and therefore his bounden duty to consult the most learned and orthodox prelates, before he takes any important steps in ecclesiastical affairs; and secondly, the right of the church to remonstrate, and finally, in case of extreme danger to religion, or extreme injustice, to disobey the will of the temporal prince.

If there were so extreme an injustice in the expulsion of bishops by the temporal power, that christian charity would forbid the church to lend her countenance to it, and that the security of religion were at stake; the church would neither consecrate new bishops for the sees thus vacated, nor communicate with any who might be intruded into them by temporal force. Where she does not offer any such opposition, she judges that the act is either laudable or tolerable, and dispenses with any irregularity.

It is most highly improbable, if not impossible, that any case should occur in which a catholic prince, with the advice of bishops, should make regulations which

i Formularies of Faith, p. 287.

« AnteriorContinuar »