« AnteriorContinuar »
as though they had done nothing, bring their opinions to be judged at the will and pleasure of the Pope, being but one man, to the end he may pronounce his own sentence of himself, who ought rather to have answered to his complaint [the complaint against him]; since, also, the same ancient and Christian liberty, which of all right should specially be in Christian Councils, is now utterly taken away from the Council :—for these causes, I say, wise and good men ought not to marvel at this day, though we do the like now that they see was done in times past, in like case, of so many fathers apd catholic bishops—which is, though we chuse rather to sit at home, and leave our whole cause to God, than to journey thither; whereas we neither can have place, nor be able to do any good; whereas we can obtain no audience ; whereas Princes' ambassadors be but used as mocking-stocks ;r and whereas also we be all condemned already, before trial-as though the matter were aforehand dispatched, and agreed upon.
Authority of Princesos Sect. 1. Nevertheless, we can bear patiently and quietly our own private wrongs. But wherefore do they shut out Christian Kings, and good princes, from their convocation ? Why do they so uncourteously, or with such spite, leave them out, and as though either they were not Christian men, or else could not judge,
r [“ Ye say "Ye mock not princes' ambassadors, but place them next unto your Legates :'-—to sit still, I trow, and to tell the clock. For voice in judgment ye allow them none. Thus ye prune their authority, and allow them honour, and set them aloft to say nothing." Defence, p. 557.]
(JEWELL is far removed from the errors of those, who in the incipient stages of the Reformation confounded the source and exercise of ministerial authority with the will of the civil magistrate. He explicitly distinguishes them as independent authorities, derived, it is true, from a common source, but having each its distinct and incommunicable functions. He differs from Harding in maintaining the supremacy of the civil power—or its right (not inherent, but conveyed by its Divine source) to superintend the ecclesiastical power, and exact of it fidelity and diligence :-a position the exact reverse of that held by the Church
will not have them made acquainted with the causes of Christian religion, nor understand the state of their own Churches ?
of Rome, which would submit the civil authority to the beck of the ecclesiastical head.—Both differ from the principle of the Protestant Episcopal Church in this country, in allowing a subordination of either branch: she maintains the entire independence and absence of control in both; contending that as there is certainly no Divine authority for ecclesiastical usurpation of jurisdiction over the civil powers; so neither is there just warrant, either in the laws of God, or in the constitution of society, for interference on the part of the civil powers in the regulation of ecclesiastical matters, unless in so far as these interfere with the well-being of the state, or tend to encroachment upon temporal authority.
- The instances of pious princes of the Jewish commonwealth, on which so much stress is laid by JEWELL, are altogether inapplicable to the general question of the connexion of the civil and ecclesiastical powers. They were under circumstances singularly peculiar, and can be precedents only in a recurral of such circumstances-an event which the establishment of the gospel dispensation, with its spiritual kingdom, and heavenly head. has rendered impossible. David, Solomon. Hezekiah, and Josiah, were the special vicegerents of the Deity in the administration of his own government over a people of which He, and lte alone, was both the temporal and spiritual head. The civil and ecclesiastical authorities among the Israelites were no co-ordinate powers, emanating from a common source; but were inseparably combined, first in the Great Head of the Nation, the Lord who had reserved to Himself this people from among all the nations of the earth, that he should be their King; and subordinately, in his delegates, either ordinary or extraordinary. David and Solomon acted, in the administration both of the civil and of the ecclesiastical powers, by special Divine direction, being them.selves under the influence of inspiration : Hezekiah and Josiah received for their acts the explicit Divine sanction, by the intervention of the inspired prophets. Until a theocracy is again established, (an event which Christ's coming, and the character of the gospel, teach us never to expect,) the acts of the Israelitish kings can be no precedents to civil rulers for intermeddling with ecclesiastical affairs.
These general remarks may serve as an answer to the whole strain of JEWELL's arguments in this chapter : to descend to particulars would increase the bulk of the notes, without the accrual of any proportionate profit to the reader from the litigation of a question already almost obsolete.--A work entitled 'Letters on the Church, by an Episcopalian,' published in London in 1826, and in subsequent editions, furnishes the soundest views of this subject, in a strain of unanswerable reasoning and rich illustration.)
[In this paragraph, JEWELL verges into a subject very different from the authority of princes in ecclesiastical matters, namely, the right of the laity to a voice in the counsels of the Church. His argument, based on the principles of common equity, is good ; and it is abundantly borne out by Scriptural precedent, recorded in the Book of Acts. Yet, there is, in fact, no such thing as a regular exercise of that right in the Church which JEWELL was defending. The high-handed interference of Parliament in church affairs is no participation of the
Or, if the said kings and princes happen to intermeddle in such matters, and take upon them to do that they may do, and ought of duty to do, and the same things that we know both David, and Solomon, and other good princes have done ; that is, if they, whiles the Pope and his prelates slug and sleep, or else mis. chievously withstand them, do bridle the priests' sensuality, and drive them to do their duty, and keep them still to it-if they do overthrow idols—if they take away superstition, and set up again the true worshipping of God; why do they by and by make an outcry upon them, that such princes trouble all, and press by violence into another body's office, and do therein wickedly and malapertly? What Scripture hath at any time forbidden a Christian prince to be made privy to such causes? Who, but themselves alone, made ever any such law?
Sect. 2. They will say to this, I guess, •Civil princes have learned to govern a commonwealth, and to order matters of war : but they understand not the secret mysteries of religion. If that be so ; what is the Pope, I pray you, at this day, other than a monarch, or a prince ?u Or what be the Cardinals, who must be none laity in ecclesiastical regulations; it is an irregular assumption of the whole power, to the virtual exclusion of the clergy-since the total want of representation of the lower orders of the clergy, and the mere numerical votes of the bishops so greatly outnumbered by those of the temporal peers, leave the clerical body, as such, with a merely nominal interest in the proceedings of Parliament. Apart from this irregular interference of a civil body in ecclesiastical matters, the laity of the Church of England have no share in either its legislation or its administration. They possess neither representation nor elective franchise, The happy contrast between this state of things and the republican constitution of our own Church is sufficiently obvious. The American Episcopalian can read JEWELL'S argument for the rights of Christian laity with double pride and thankfulness, while he knows, not only that these things ought to be so, but that they are so in his own favoured branch of Christ's Church catholic.)
[His allusion is to the temporalty, or civil possessions, of the Pope ; known as the Ecclesiastical State, the Dominion of the Church, or the Popedom. This, now greatly diminished by successive spoliations, was once no inconsiderable portion of the fairest part of Italy.
But, in the Defence, JEWELL supports this assertion with reference to another object--the external assumption of princely state. "Pope Boniface VIIJ.," says he, “in a great Jubilee, and in a solemn procession, went apparelled in the Emperor's robes, and had the crown
other now but princes and kings' sons ? What else be the Patriarchs, and, for the most part, the Archbishops, the Bishops, the Abbots ? What be they else at this present in the Pope's kingdom, but worldly princes, dukes, and earls, gorgeously accompanied with bands of men whithersoever they go : oftentimes, also, gaily arrayed with chains and collars of gold ?' They have at times, too, certain ornaments by themselves, as crosses, hats, mitres,y and palls : 2 which pomp the imperial on his head, and the sword of majesty borne before him, as Emperor.” p. 568.
The Tiara, or triple croun, denoting the junction of the general spiritual and temporal dominions, with the particular sovereignty of the Papal territory, is a notorious token of the monarchical state assumed by the Popes.)
[" The wise and godly have evermore found fault with the ecclesiastical bravery of your Roman clergy. S. BERNARD saith: 'Quotidie vides,' &c. "You may daily see their meretricious splendour; their player-like dress; their princely caparisons ; their golden bridles, saddles, and spurs.' (In Cantic. Serm. 33.) Again he saith : 'Incedunt nitidi,' &c. “They go trim and adorned, clothed in gay coloured robes, like a bride from her chamber.' (Ibid. Serm. 77.) LAURENTIUS VALLA, although bitterly, yet not unpleasantly, thus expresseth your lordly bravery : Existimo, si qua,' &c. 'I think if the demons who dwell in the aerial regions, have any games among them, they must take their chief delight in mimicking the dress, and pomp, and luxury, and scenic shows, of the Clergy.' (De Donat. Constant.)”- Defence, p. 567. s.)
w [Crosses of gold or silver, of curious workmanship, and differing in form and magnitude, were borne before bishops, archbishops, and cardinals, by one of their foilowers, whenever they went abroad, as distinctions of their several ranks and jurisdictions. Cardinal Wolsey's silver cross as Cardinal Legate (he had another borne before him as Archbishop of York) was so heavy that a man could hardly carry it. It was the subject of an irreconcileable dispute between him and Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury, that, contrary to usage, he had this cross borne aloft before him while within the diocese of the latter.)
*[A low-crowned, broad-brimmed hat, in form much resembling that adopted by the early Quakers, of a purple colour, with a cumbersome appendage of tassels and fringe, is the distinctive badge of the dignity of a Cardinal. By a ridiculous and wholly unsupported tradition, the Church of Rome pretends to derive its use from St. JEROME.)
y' [The mitre, too well known to need description, is doubtless the result of an absurd attempt to imitate the supernatural appearance at the descent of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. When worn by the Romish bishops, (as it is always upon occasions of ceremony,) it is often enriched with gold and jewels to a very great amount, according to the wea!th of the individual prelate, or of his see.]
3 [The pall is a species of mantle, woven of undyed wool, and consecrated by the Pope himself; with which he conveys to an archbishop elect the right to perform the duties of his office.]
ancient bishops, CHRYSOSTOM, AUGUSTINE, and AnBROSE, never had. Setting these things aside, what teach they? What say they? What do they? How live they? I say not, As may become a catholic bishop, but, As may become a Christian man ?-Is it so great a, matter to have a vain title, and, by changing a garment only, to have the name of a bishop?
Sect. 3. Surely to have the principal stay and effect of all matters committed to these men's hands, who neither know, nor will know, these things, nor yet set a jot by any point of religion, save that which concerneth their belly and riot; and to have them alone sit as judges, and to be set up as overseers in the watch-tower, being no better than blind spies :—of the other side, to have a Christian prince, of good understanding and of a right judgment, to stand still like a block, or a stake, not to be suffered neither to give his voice, nor to show his judgment, but only to wait what these men shall will and command, as one that had neither ears, nor eyes, nor wit, nor heart; and whatsoever they give in charge, to allow it without exception, blindly fulfilling their commandments, be they never so blasphemous and wickedyea, although they command him quite to destroy all religion, and to crucify again Christ himself;—this, surely, besides that it is proud and spiteful, is also beyond all right and reason, and not to be endured of Christian and wise princes. For why, I pray you, may Caiaphas and Annas understand these matters, and may not David and Hezekiah do the same? Is it lawful for a Cardinal, being a man of war, and delighting in blood, to have place in a Council ? and is it not lawful for a Christian emperor, or king ?
Sect. 4. Verily, we grant no further liberty to our magistrates, than that we know hath been given them by the word of God, and also been confirmed by the
a (HARDING, in reply, challenged JEWELL to show Scriptural authority for the Supremacy attributed by the Church of Englanů to the king. As that 'supremacy' has been a fertile theme of slander and abuse in this country, among some who choose to confound the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States with the Church of England, it may not be amiss to transcribe the most pertinent of