Our opponents may justly say that the text does not require this interpretation, and that, if this really was the sense and meaning of our Lord, the apostle has expressed it in an elliptical and obscure manner. Very true. And if we had no other information than that which is furnished by St. Matthew, the real doctrine of our Lord would be doubtful. This is nothing strange or surprising. The sacred writers frequently speak in an obscure, in artificial, and elliptical manner, which obliges us to interpret their meaning from sources extraneous to the text. There is no evidence that all the words used by our Lord himself to explain his doctrine to the by-standers in public, or to his disciples in private, have been recorded with verbal accuracy or completeness. St. Matthew gave a brief summary of Christ's doctrine in his own language, which was intelligible to his readers at the time, because they already knew the law which had been promulgated in the Christian church. We hope to show hereafter what this law was, from evidence furnished by the early Christian writers and by the uniform canonical practice of the church. Meanwhile, we think we have proved that the general scope of the language of the New Testament sustains the doctrine of the indissolubility of Christian marriage.
Our second and third propositions have been established in the process of maintaining the first, and flow from it obviously. It is evident that, where thevinculum matrimoniisubsists between two persons, either of them who attempts marriage with a third party violates the rights of the lawful consort, and makes an invalid contract, whatever the civil law may decide to the contrary. It is also evident that our Lord did permit a final dissolution of theconnubiumbetween married persons for one cause, and one only. If this dissolution is not a divorcea vinculo, it must bea mensâ et thoro. We leave the subject here for the present, hoping to resume it again at a convenient opportunity; and we respectfully recommend to our learned readers, who are desirous of investigating it fully, the work of Perrone,De Matrimonio Christiano, 3 vols. Rome, 1858.
The Magnetic Polarity of Rifles. Mr. J. Spiller has lately made some very interesting observations respecting the magnetic power assumed by rifles. He finds that all the long Enfield barrels of the arms in the possession of the volunteers of his company exhibit magnetic polarity as the result of the violent and repeated concussions attending their discharge in a direction parallel to the magnetic meridian. The Royal Arsenal range runs nearly north and south, and the rifles, when in use, are always pointed either due north or a few degrees toward the west—in fact, nearly in the direction indicated by a compass-needle—so that the repeated shocks brought about by the explosion of the powder may, Mr. Spiller thinks, be considered equivalent to so many hard blows from a hammer, which, as is well known, have a similar effect. Mr. Spiller goes on to say that the magnetic character appears to be permanent, which would not be the case if the gun-barrels were of the softest description of malleable iron; and the region of the breech is, in every instance, possessed of north polarity, since it strongly attracts the south pole of the compass needle.These effects should not be noticed at all, or only to an inferior degree, in arms ordinarily fired in directions east and west; and it is supposed that by reversing the usual practice, if it were possible, and firing towards the south, the indications of polarity would be changed.
Mont Cenis Railway.—In a paper read before the Institute of Civil Engineers, Capt. H. W. Tyler has fully described the results of experiments with Mr. Fell's locomotive, which has been adopted for surmounting the steep gradients and sharp curves of the Mont Cenis route. On Mr. Fell's system an intermediate or centre rail is adopted, against which horizontal wheels worked by the engine are pressed by springs, so as to yield any requisite amount of adhesion. The engine constructed for the Mont Cenis line is partly of steel; its weight fully loaded does not exceed 17 tons. There are two 15-inch cylinders working both the four coupled horizontal and the four coupled bearing wheels. The pressure on the additional horizontal wheels can be varied by the engine-driver at pleasure; during the experiments it amounted to from 2½ to 3 tons on each wheel, or 10 tons altogether, but provision was made for increasing this pressure to 24 tons if necessary. During the official trials, with a load of 24 tons exclusive of the engine, on an average gradient of 1 in 13, with curves of 2 to 4 chains radius, the speed of 6.65 miles to 7.46 miles per hour was attained in ascending. With a load of 16 tons the speed was 10 miles.
Fossil Man in the Rhine Valley.—In the Lehm of the valley of the Rhine, near Colmar, there is a marly deposit composed of a mixture of clay, fine sand, and carbonate of lime. It forms part of the diluvial beds, and in it M. Faudel has found a number of human and other remains. These consisted of shells, bones of a huge stag, teeth ofElephas primigenuis, and a human frontal and right parietal bone of a man of middle size. M. Faudel concludes that man was contemporaneous with the mammoth fossil stag and bison.
Tobacco Smoking Injurious to the Eyes.—In a recent number (February 15) of the Bulletin de Thérapeutique, M. Viardin describes two cases of serious eye affection (amblyopia) resulting from the habit of smoking. M. Viardin at once, on learning the habits of the patients, induced them to smoke a much smaller quantity of tobacco than usual, and the result was a complete restoration of vision in a few weeks from the date of their application.
Intermittent Fevers produced by Vegetable Organisms.—Some time since, we called attention to Dr. Salisbury's observations, tending to support the theory expressed above. More recently these ideas have been, in some measure, confirmed by Professor Hannon, of the University of Brussels. In 1843, says M. Hannon, "I studied at the University of Liege; Professor Charles Morsen had created in me such an enthusiasm in the study of the fresh-water algae that the windows and mantel-piece of my chamber were encumbered with plates filled with vaucheria, oscillatoria, and confervae. My preceptor said to me: 'Take care at the period of their fructification, for the spores of the algae give intermittent fever. I have had it every time I have studied them too closely.' As I cultivated my algae in pure water, and not in the water of the marsh where I had gathered them, I did not attach any importance to his remark. I suffered for my carelessness a month later, at the period of their fructification. I was taken with shivering; my teeth chattered; I had the fever, which lasted six weeks."
Origin of Petroleum.—Although nearly all geologists are agreed as to the organic origin of petroleum, a great many are of opinion that the rock-oil is the result of a natural distillation of coal. Professor Hitchcock, however, no mean authority, comes to a different conclusion. Admitting, with all who have carefully studied the matter, that petroleum is of organic origin, he says that, in his opinion, it comes from plants, and that it is not, as some have suggested, a fish-oil or a substance altered to adipocere. It does not appear to be the result of a natural distillation of coal, since its chemical composition is different from the oil manufactured artificially from the cannels, containing neither nitro-benzole nor aniline. Moreover, petroleum occupied fissures in the silurian and devonian strata long before the trees of the coal period were growing in their native forests. The nearly universal association of brine with petroleum, and the fact of the slight solubility of hydrocarbons in fresh, but insolubility in salt water, excite the inquiry whether the salt water of primeval lagoons may not have prevented the escape of the vegetable gases beneath, and condensed them into liquids.
Structure of the Liver.—Dr. Lionel Beale's opinion as to the structure of the vertebrate liver has been recently substantiated by the researches of Herr Hering. This histologist states that the liver is constructed like the other secreting glands. It is of the tubular type, with canals, anastomosing in every direction, and having a tendency to form a series of networks. Like other secretions, the bile travels along glandular canals surrounded by glandular cells. It is easy (he says) to observe this arrangement in the livers of vertebrates. Five or more cells are disposed in simple layers around the circular and minute aperture of a hepatic utricle seen in transverse section. This arrangement loses itself insensibly in that variety of structure in which there are no utricles properly so called. Occasionally may be seen four, three, or even only two cells, uniting to form a biliary canal. The Russian anatomist denies the existence of hepatic trabeculae of biliferous capillaries, and believes that the biliary cells are persistent. He looks upon serpents' livers as the only organs for minute inquiries upon the subject.
The Cometary Theory of Shooting-Stars—to whom does it belong?—The Abbé Moigno, who has broached this question, and who evidently feels strongly on the point, makes the following observations in our contemporary, the Chemical News, of March 15th: "In a quite recent note inserted on March 3d, in the International Bulletin of the Imperial Observatory, and on the 8th inst. in the Bulletin of the Scientific Association of France, M. Le Verrier resumes on the cometary theory of shooting-stars, and persists in attributing the honor of it to himself, without condescending to mention the name of Schiaparelli, whose letters, however, have been published in a journal of great authority, the Meteorological Bulletin of the College of Rome, issued under the superintendence of the Rev. P. Secchi, and were translated by the writer before M. Le Verrier had published a single word of his researches. We are really frightened by this system of organized cool-blooded appropriation, and more so by these lines, the effect of which has been even more coolly calculated:'Sir John Herschel, who, along with his son, Alexander Herschel, has paid great attention to shooting-stars, gives his complete assent tothe theory of the swarms of November.' Poor M. Schiaparelli! Happily the Astronomische Nachrichten have collected the necessary papers, and he will soon be in a position of having his revenge."
New Form of Telegraphy.—An invention for the transmission of despatches by an automatic electro-chemical method has been devised by MM. Vavin and Fribourg. Its object is to utilize all the velocity of the current on telegraphic lines. The Abbé Moigno, who has called attention to it in England, gives the following description of it: It consists in the distribution of the current through as many small wires, very short and isolated, as there are signals to be transmitted, all the while only employing one wire on the main line. Each of these small isolated wires communicates, on the one hand, with a metallic plate, of a particular form, fixed in gutta-percha; and, on the other, with a metallic division of a disc, which is also formed of an insulating substance. A group of eleven of those small laminae form a sort of cipher, which will give all the letters of the alphabet by the suppression of certain portions of the fundamental form. "Now," says the abbé, "suppose rows of these compound characters to be placed on a sheet of prepared paper of a metallic nature, the words of the telegram to be sent are written on them with isolating ink, leaving the other parts of the small 'stereotyped' blocks untouched. The consequence is that the current is intercepted at every point touched by the ink, and a letter is, imprinted on the prepared paper at the other end of the line where the telegram is to be received."
A Cheap and Ingenious Ice Machine.—M. Tonelli, says the Abbé Moigno, has just devised an ice-making machine which bids fair to become very popular in this country, since it is convenient, cheap, and efficient. The inventor calls it the "glacier roulante." It is a simple metallic cylinder mounted on a foot. The salt of soda and the salt of ammonia are added in two operations, the smaller cylinder, containing the water to be frozen, is introduced into the interior, and the orifice is close by an india-rubber disc, and then by a cover fastened with a catch; the cylinder is then placed in a sac, or case of cloth, and it is made to roll on the table with a slight oscillatory movement given by the hand.After a lapse of ten minutes, the water in the interior of the cylinder becomes a beautiful cylinder of ice. Nothing is more simple, more economical, or more efficacious than the new "glacier roulante" which costs 10 fr., and gives us, moreover, what could not hitherto be obtained with an apparatus containing freezing mixtures the means of freezing a decanter of water or a bottle of champagne. The apparatus, in a case, packed for travelling, with 20 kilogrammes of refrigerating materials and a measure, costs, at present, only 1l.—Popular Science Review.
The "Cybele Hibernica."—The invaluable work which Mr. Watson achieved for England is being imitated on the other side of the Irish Channel. Messrs. Moore & More have issued a volume upon the subject of the distribution of Irish plants, and the facts it lays before the botanical public are both numerous and interesting. Taking the number of species for Britain proper at Mr. Watson's estimate of 1,425 species, the authors of the "Cybele Hibernica" claim for Ireland about 1,000 species. Of the 532 plants of the British type, Ireland has all, or very nearly so. The Atlantic type is the only other one where she has decidedly more than half, forty-one species out of seventy. Of the boreal species, (Highland, Scottish, and intermediate types taken together,) although there is not a single one of the twelve provinces in which there is not a hill of upward of 2,000 feet in altitude, Ireland has only 106 species out of 238. Of the 458 English and local species she has just over one half; and, finally, out of the 127 Germanic species only 18.
History Of England,from the Fall of Wolsey to the death of Elizabeth. By James Anthony Froude, M. A. Vols. VII., VIII., IX. and X. 12mo. New York: Charles Scribner & Co.
The four volumes of this work which are now before us carry the history of the reign of Elizabeth from her accession to the death of Maitland and Grange, and the consequent extinction of the Mary Stuart party in 1573. The wars and troubles in Ireland, the invasion of Ulster, the insurrections and death of Shan O'Neil, the quarrels of the Ormonds and the Desmonds; the career of John Knox; the reign of Mary Queen of Scots; the English maritime adventures of the sixteenth century; and the St. Bartholomew massacre, are some of the exciting topics which Mr. Froude touches with his brilliant pen, and upon which he lavishes his wonderful powers of narration and his skill of dramatic arrangement. That our readers should be satisfied with the pictures he presents to them is not to be expected. They must not look in his pages for candor or judicial calmness. They will find Mary Stuart painted here in darker and more horrible colors than in any other modern work; John Knox lauded as "the one supremely great man that Scotland possessed;" and the Huguenot massacre detailed with all the exaggerations and harrowing circumstances which the partisan spirit of former historians has spread about it. Mr. Froude is too anxious to make an effective story ever to be an honest historian. A picturesque grouping of events and persons has a temptation for his refined literary taste which often overcomes the cardinal principle of historical composition, to tell the truth and the whole truth. The extravagant admiration of the Tudor dynasty with which he began to write has not cooled with the progress of his labors. The fealty which he held to Henry and Edward he has now transferred unshaken to Elizabeth; but there is this to be said for him, that Elizabeth, with all her many faults, (and now and again even Mr. Froude recognizes some of them,) possessed many really great qualities, which the most uncompromising of her enemies must admire.
We have no purpose to go into the vexed question of the character of Mary Queen of Scots; but it is only fair to mention that Mr. Froude fortifies his unfavorable conclusions by copious references to authorities which have only recently been brought to light, and that he has enjoyed in particular a free use of the important manuscript archives of Simancas to which historians were so long denied access.
The Student Of Blenheim Forest; or,The Trials of a Convert.By Mrs. Anna H. Dorsey. John Murphy & Co. Baltimore.
This is a new and revised edition of an old work. It is a narrative of the trials of a convert from Protestantism to the Catholic Church at the time it was written. These trials, thank God, are daily becoming less as the doctrine and practice of the church become better known, and prejudice and misrepresentation disappear. Not every convert is called to pass through such trials as the hero of this tale, although all should have the same willingness to suffer for Christ, to give up friends and worldly hopes rather than be untrue to one's conviction.
The scene is laid in Virginia, and gives us a vivid picture of Southern life. We think, in a book intended for general reading and the diffusion of Catholic truth, it would be better to omit unfriendly allusion to what the authoress calls the "cold customs of the North."
Studies In English; Or,Glimpses Of The Inner Life Of Our Language.By M. Schele de Vere, LL.D., Professor of Modern Languages in the University of Virginia. London: Trübner & Co. New-York: Charles Scribner & Co. Printed at the Riverside Press, Cambridge.
This is one of the few American books we are called upon to notice which make a real and important addition to any solid and useful branch of learning outside of the circle of the physical sciences. It is a thoroughly scholarly production, full of the most instructive information regarding the history, formation, and component elements of the English language. This information is communicated not in a dry, technical, and college-text-book manner, but in a graceful, charming, and entertaining style, rich in illustrations and apt references to classic authors, which makes the reading of the book a true pleasure. Happily, the author does not ride the Anglo-Saxon or any other hobby, but does full justice to the Latin, Celtic, and other elements of the language. It is especially interesting to the Catholic reader to notice the abundant evidence the author furnishes of the ineffaceable impress the Catholic religion has stamped upon the English language. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of a thorough study and right understanding ofwordsas the signs of thoughts, the vehicles of the transmission of truths, the current coin of the intellectual kingdom. It is this which is one great secret of the power possessed by such great masters of the divine faculty of speech as Dr. Brownson and Dr. Newman. Sophists, like Carlyle, corrupt thought by corrupting language, and confused, inconsistent reasoners, like Dr. Pusey, obscure truth by obscuring language. The volume before us will prove an invaluable aid to the scholar who wishes to study the pure, good, sound sense, and correct use of our mother tongue. We think the author betrays some English prejudice, in ascribing a peculiar faculty of understanding the genuine doctrine of the Scriptures to the English people. This is a spice of the Anglican "True Church" theory, which all the rest of mankind laugh at. We think, also, that he somewhat exaggerates the excellence of the English language, and its influence on the world. We were reminded while reading his eulogium on the English language of the verse of Kenelm Digby:
"Greek's a harp we like to hear,Latin hath a trumpet clear,Italian rings like marriage-bells,While Spain her solemn organ swells,French with many a frolic mienTunes her jocund violin,The German beats her heavy drumAs Russian's clashing symbols come;But Britain's sons may well rejoice,For English is the human voice."
The English people are proud, and the American people are vain of a fancied superiority in all things, except the fine arts, over the rest of mankind. Neither are aware how far behind some other nations they are in many of the highest branches of science and literature. A little boasting will, therefore, add to the popularity of an author in the English language, as indeed it will in any other.We will not quarrel over this point with Professor De Vere, for nothing is more difficult than a precisely accurate judgment concerning the relative merits of the principal modern languages. We have a mother tongue with which we have every reason to be satisfied, and therefore let us try to use it well, and preserve it from corruption. On this head, we have great reason to fear for the future, and therefore we give a hearty welcome to the learned professor's suggestion that an English Academy should be constituted, which shall decide all questions respecting the spelling, pronunciation, and right use of English words.
It is enough to say that this volume is from the Riverside press to guarantee its typographical excellence, and we hope this circumstance will counterbalance, in those minds disposed to be rigid in excluding everything which has not the Boston stamp, the fact that the author hails from Virginia.
Antoine De Bonneval.A Tale of Paris in the days of St. Vincent de Paul.By Rev. W. H. Anderdon. Kelly & Piet, Baltimore.
In this narrative are portrayed some of the most exciting scenes in French history. It tells of that period in which Richelieu, Mazarin, St. Vincent de Paul, and Monsieur Olier figured so largely, and whose history is so suggestive to the thoughtful reader. The style is vigorous and the volume worthy of a place in a Sunday-school or parochial library.
Etudes Philologiques Sur QuelquesLangues Sauvages De L'amerique.Par N. O., Ancien Missionnaire.Montreal: Dawson Brothers, 55 Grande Rue St. Jacques. 1866.
The Indian dialects of North America deserve a more attentive study than they have yet received. If the inquirer did no more than confine his researches to the languages spoken by the Algic tribes, (to use an epithet happily devised by Schoolcraft to designate the native races found east of the Alleghanies,) the compensation would be fairly worth the work. Resolved into two groups, the Algonquin and Iroquois, these varieties of speech present contrasts so striking and analogies so rare as to forbid the theory of a derivation from a common stock. The words of these two families of tongues are not only wholly dissimilar, but are, for the most part, mutually unpronounceable. The Algonquin cannot articulate anfor anr; while the Iroquois, to whom these sounds are familiar, can make nothing of abor anm. The two languages, with the doubtful exception of a corrupt dialect, and then in words evidently borrowed from the conqueror, agree in little else than an odd aversion to the letterl, and, we may add perhaps, in a plentiful lack of adjectives and a most oppressive multiplicity ofverbs.
It is in this last-mentioned field (the analysis of Algic verbs) that our author N. O. has exerted his main strength, and has given the best proofs of his linguistic skill. The Algonquin verb to love,sakih, expatiates, in the course of twenty-two pages of this treatise, into two active and three passive voices, served by eight moods, three past tenses, two futures, and two first persons plural, with participles and gerunds to match; and all subject to fifteen accidents, corresponding to the various modifications of Semitic verbs. The Iroquois verb, though in quite another way, rejoices also in conjugations, moods, tenses, and numbers not unworthy of comparison with the Greek, subject to secondary forms more or less resembling the Semitic. The Algonquin participle may assume a negative shape, and it is this nullifying syllablesithat mainly distinguishes the two words which in that language signify Catholic and Protestant. The Catholics aretcipaiatikonamatizodjik, literally, "they who make upon their own persons the sign of the wood of the dead body of Christ." "Protestants" (having as usual failed to make themselves understood except as deniers of Catholicity, and who arenothing if not negative) aretcipaiatikonamatizosigok, "those who donotmake upon themselves the sign of the wood of the dead body of Christ." It is to be hoped that the theologians of the two professions have shorter and more convenient terms when they resort, as they have been known to do, to the refreshment of reciprocal objurgation.
We regret that we cannot go into details. The book is pleasantly written, lucidly arranged, and full of satisfactory evidence of a keen perception of philological distinctions. We cordially recommend it to those who are ambitious to gain an insight into the philosophy of the languages, before they also (we mean the languages) take their inevitable turn to be numbered with the dead.
The Literary Character Of The Bible.A Lecture delivered before the Wilmington Institute.By H. Beecher Swoope, Attorney-at-law.
The author delivered and now publishes this as "A Lawyer's tribute to the Bible," and it is surely a very graceful one. It shows a just appreciation of the literary excellences of the sacred volume, of the grandeur of its history, the depth of its philosophy, the sublimity of its poetry. We dislike, however, this consideration of the inspired volume merely as a literary production, without keeping in view its sacred character as the word of God. Containing as it does, the revelation of God's infinite perfections, it must necessarily contain all that is most beautiful, profound, sublime. We agree with the author that, "in order to bring out all the hidden beauties of the original Scriptures, we need a new translation brought fully up to the present standard of our language," and that "our present version of the Bible is sublime, grand, and beautiful, only because many of the ideas and conceptions are so essentially great and lofty that they necessarily appear magnificent in the most artless dress."
Catholic Anecdotes; Or, The Catechism In Examples.Illustrating the Sacraments.By the Brothers of the Christian Schools.Translated from the French by Mrs. J. Sadlier.New-York: D. & J. Sadlier & Co.
This is the third and last part of this series of anecdotes. They are intended to assist those engaged in teaching the Christian doctrine, by giving them examples illustrative of the subject they may be teaching. They are arranged in the same order as the subject matter of the Catechism, and are well adapted for this purpose.
Lives And Times Of The Roman Pontiffs.2 vols. Sadliers.
This great work, in two large quarto volumes of nearly 1000 pages each, is a translation from the French of the Chevalier Artaud de Montor. The author is both a well-informed historian and an elegant writer. Although there are some faults in the translation, and some typographical errors, the value of the work is nevertheless very great, and it is a noble addition to our Catholic literature. There is much beauty in the mechanical execution, and the illustrations are numerous. Many of the portraits and other illustrations are excellent, though a few are quite indifferent. The preface is carelessly written, and has not the excellence which ought to characterize the introduction to such a great work. The hand of a finished scholar would have done great good in retouching the whole work, which is, notwithstanding its minor defects, on the whole a superb one and a credit to its publishers.
Christianity And Its Conflicts, Ancient And Modern.By E. E. Marcy, A.M.New-York: Appleton & Co.For sale by the Catholic Publication Society, 126 Nassau street.
This work comes upon our table just as we are going to press. A rapid glance over its contents shows us that it presents a comprehensive view of the church and its work, contrasted with the vain and fruitless attempts made by her enemies to set up a rival system of Christianity. It is a work which will be widely read and excite no little interest, and deserves at our hands a more extended critical notice, which we propose to give it in our next issue. It is not an ordinary book of controversy, and we advise our readers in the mean time to get a copy and read it.
H. McGrath, Philadelphia, announces a new and illustrated volume of Poems, by E. A. S.
Books Received.
From P. O'Shea, New-York.The Beauties of Faith; or, Power of Mary's Patronage.Leaves from the Ave Maria. 1 vol. 12mo, pp. 272 and 145. Price, $2.
From Charles Scribner & Co., New-York.
Liber Librorum; its Structure, Limitations, and Purpose.A friendly communication to a reluctant sceptic.1 vol. 12mo, pp. 232. Price, $1.50.
Studies in English; or,Glimpses of the Inner Life of our Language.By M. Schele de Vere, LL.D. 1 vol. 12mo. Price, $2.50.
From D. & J. Sadlier & Co., New-York.Peter of Castle and the Fetches.By the Brothers Banim.1 vol. 12mo, pp. 348. Price, $1.50.
From M. Doolady, New-York.The History of Pendennis, etc.By W. M. Thackeray.1 vol. 16mo, pp. 479. Diamond Ed.
From the author.Dion and the Sibyls; a Romance of the First Century.By Miles Gerald O'Reilly, H. M. Colonial Secretary in Bermuda. 2 vols. 8vo Richard Bentlev, London.
From Leypoldt & Holt, New-York.
Fathers and Sons. A Novel.By Ivan Sergheievitch Turgeneff.Translated from the Russian by Eugene Schuyler, Ph.D.1 vol. 12mo. Price, $1.50.The Man with the Broken Ear;from the French of Edmond About.By Henry Holt. 1 vol. l2mo. Price, $1.50.
From P. F. Cunningham, Philadelphia.
Stories of the Commandments;The Seven Corporal Works of Mercy;Caroline, or Self-Conquest.Being vols. 16, 17, and 18 of the Young Catholic's Library. Price, 50 cents each.
[Footnote 176: See The Catholic World, July, 1867.]
M. Guettée, it will be remembered, undertakes to establish two propositions —first, "The bishop of Rome did not for eight centuries possess the authority of divine right which he has since sought to exercise; and second, The pretension of the bishop of Rome to the sovereignty of divine right over the whole church was the real cause of the division," or schism between the East and the West. To the first proposition, we have replied, the bishop of Rome is in possession, and it is for the author to prove that he is not rightfully in possession. This he can do only by proving either, first, that no such title by divine right was ever issued; or, second, that it vests in an adverse claimant. He sets up no adverse claimant, but attempts to make it appear that no such title as is claimed was ever issued. This he attempts to do by showing that the proofs of title usually relied on by Catholic writers are negatived by the Holy Scriptures and the testimony of the fathers and councils of the first eight centuries. We have seen that he has signally failed so far as the Holy Scriptures and the fathers of the first three centuries are concerned; nay, that instead of proving his proposition, he has by his own witnesses refuted it, and proved that the title did issue, and did vest in St. Peter, and consequently now vests in the bishop of Rome as Peter's successor.
This alone is enough for us, and renders any further discussion of the first proposition unnecessary. After the testimony of St. Cyprian, who is his own witness, the author really has nothing more to say. He has lost his case. But, ignorant of this, he proceeds in the fourth division of his work to interrogate the fathers and councils of the fourth and fifth centuries, but even less successfully, as we now proceed to show. We only beg the reader to bear in mind that we are not adducing our proofs of the papacy by divine right, but are simply examining the proofs the author adduces against it. We do not put forth the strength of our cause, which is not necessary in the present argument; we are only showing the weakness of the case the author makes against us.
The author attempts to devise an argument against the papal authority from the sixth canon of the council of Nicaea. This canon, as he cites it, reads: "Let the ancient custom be preserved that exists in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alexandria have authority in all these countries, since that has also passed into a custom for the bishop of Rome.Let the churches at Antioch and in the other provinces preserve also their privileges." It must not be supposed that the author cites the canon with any degree of exactness, or faithfully renders it; but let that pass. From this canon two consequences, he contends, necessarily follow: first, That "the council declared that the authority of the bishop of Rome extended over a limited district, like that of the bishop of Alexandria; and second, That this authority was only based on usage," (p. 95.)
But the authority of the bishop of Rome was not in question before the council, for that nobody disputed. "The object of the canon," the author himself says, pp. 93, 94, "was to defend the authority of the bishop of Alexandria against the partisans of Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, who refused to recognize it in episcopal ordinations; .... therefore was merely to confirm the ancient customs respecting these ordinations, and, in general, the privileges consecrated by ancient usages. Now, according to an ancient custom Rome enjoyed certain prerogatives that no one contested. The council makes use of this fact in order to confirm the similar prerogatives of Alexandria, Antioch, and other churches."
The question before the council, and which it met by this canon, evidently was not the primacy of the see of Rome—although it would seem from the form in which the papal legate, Paschasinus, quoted it, without contradiction, in the council of Chalcedon, that the council of Nicaea took care to reserve that primacy—but certain customary rights, privileges, and dignities which the bishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and some other churches held in common with the bishop of Rome. As the ancient custom was preserved in the Roman Church, the council says, so let it be in Alexandria, Antioch, and other churches. The council refers to the custom in Rome as a reason for confirming the similar custom which had obtained elsewhere, and which had been violated by Meletius of Lycopolis in Egypt, and by his partisans.
To understand this, we must recollect that prior to the fall of the great patriarchates of Alexandria and the East, the administration of ecclesiastical affairs was less centralized than at present. Now nearly all, if not all bishops depend immediately on the Holy See, but in the early ages they depended on it only mediately. The bishops of a province or of a patriarchate depended immediately on their exarch, metropolitan, or patriarch, and only mediately through him on the bishop of Rome. The appointment or election of the patriarch, and of the exarch or metropolitan of a church independent of any patriarch, as were the churches of Asia Minor, Pontus, and Thrace, needed the papal confirmation, but not their suffragans, or the bishops subject to their immediate jurisdiction. The patriarch or metropolitan confirmed their election, ordained or deposed them by his own authority, subject of course to appeal to Rome. Lycopolis, by ancient custom or canons of the fathers, depended on the bishop of Alexandria, who was its bishop's immediate superior. For some reason, Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis, had been deposed by the bishop of Alexandria, and deprived of his functions; but he refused to submit, ordained bishops by his own authority, contrary to the ancient custom, and created a schism, was to meet this case, and others like it, that the council decreed the sixth canon.
The authority confirmed by that canon was the authority of patriarchs, as they were subsequently called, and of metropolitans by usage independent of any patriarchal jurisdiction, and therefore the authority of the bishop of Rome which it recognized as derived from usage, could have been only his authority as metropolitan of the Suburbicarian churches, called the Roman territory, or as patriarch of the West.That this authority was limited, and dependent on ancient usage or custom, nobody disputes; but this is distinct from his authority as supreme pontiff or governor of the whole church. There are instances enough on record of metropolitan churches, like Aquileia, and those of Illyrium and Bulgaria, disputing their immediate dependence on the bishop of Rome, that never dreamed of calling in question his authority as supreme pontiff, or governor of the whole church. The schismatic Armenians do not deny and never have denied the supreme authority in the whole church of the bishop of Rome; they only assert that the pope gave to their apostle, Gregory the Illuminator, and to his successors, the independent government of the church in Armenia. St. Cyprian depended on the bishop of Rome, and acknowledged the papal authority, but it is questionable if he depended on him as patriarch of the West. We suspect Carthage was independent of patriarchal jurisdiction, and that St. Cyprian had no superior but the pope. However this may have been, the fact that churches did not depend immediately on the bishop of Rome did not in any sense deny or impair his universal authority as supreme pontiff. So the argument against the papacy from the sixth canon of the council of Nicaea, like the author's other arguments, proves nothing to his purpose.
M. Guettée, in his blind hatred of Rome, after having alleged the authority of the council of Nicaea in his own favor, undertakes to prove that it was no council of the church at all, but merely a council of the empire. He labors hard to prove that it was convoked by the Emperor Constantine by virtue of his imperial authority alone, that the emperor presided in its sessions, and confirmed and promulgated its acts. Does he not see that if it was so, the council had no ecclesiastical authority, and therefore that its acts have no bearing on the question before us? If anything is certain, it is that the church, as a polity, is independent of the state, and that civil rulers or magistrates, as such, have no authority in her government. Civil rulers have often usurped authority over the church and oppressed her: they did so at Constantinople, as Gregory III. complains; they attempted to do so all through the middle ages in the West, and they do so now to a most fearful extent in the Russian empire, as in all European Protestant states; but the authority they exercise is usurped, and is repugnant to the very nature and constitution of the church. Our Lord said, "My kingdom is not of this world." The Non-united Greeks as well as Catholics hold that there is and can be no oecumenical council without the bishop of Rome to convoke it, preside over it, and to confirm and promulgate its acts; and hence they confess their inability to hold an oecumenical council, and therefore really acknowledge that they are not the Catholic Church in its integrity though they claim to hold the orthodox faith. They admit the Roman Church is the primatial see, and that the presidency of a general council belongs to the bishop of Rome by the right and dignity of his see. If he did not preside in the council of Nicaea in person or by his legates or representatives, and approve formally or virtually its acts, it could not, by their own doctrine, have the authority of a general council. The confirmation and promulgation of its canons by the emperor might make them laws or edicts of the empire, but could not make them canons of the church.
It would be no difficult matter to prove that the author is as much out in his facts as in his inferences. The universal church has recognized the council of Nicaea as a legitimate council, and there are ample authorities to prove that its convocation and indiction were at the request or with the assent of the Roman pontiff, that he presided over it by his legates, Osius, bishop of Cordova, and Vitus and Vincentius, two Roman presbyters; that he virtually, if not formally, confirmed and published its acts; and that whatever the emperor did was merely executory; but the question is foreign to our present argument, and we have no space to indulge in extraneous or irrelevant discussions.If we were endeavoring to prove the papacy, we should adduce the proofs; but our line of argument requires us only to refute the reasons the author alleges for asserting that the papacy is schismatic. If the council of Nicaea was simply an imperial council, we have nothing to do with it; if it was a true general council of the church, it makes nothing for the author, for the sixth canon, the only one relied on, has, as the author cites it, no reference to the jurisdiction of the Holy Apostolic See of Rome.
M. Guettée pretends that the third canon of the second general council, the first of Constantinople, contains a denial of the papal authority by divine right. The canon, as he cites it, which is only the concluding part of it, says: "Let the bishop of Constantinople have the primacy of honor (priores honoris partes) after the bishop of Rome,because Constantinople is the new Rome." Hence he concludes that as the primacy conferred on the bishop of Constantinople was only a primacy of honor, the bishop of Rome had only a primacy of honor; and as the primacy of honor was conferred on the bishop of Constantinople because that city was the new Rome, so the primacy of the bishop of Rome was conferred because he was the bishop of old Rome, or the capital of the empire. The reasoning, which is Guettéean, if we may coin a word, is admirable, and we shall soon see what St. Leo the Great thinks of it. But the canon does not affect the authority, rank, or dignity of the bishop of Rome; it simply gives the bishop of Constantinople the precedence of the bishop of Alexandria, who had hitherto held the first rank after the bishop of Rome. It conferred on him no power, and took nothing from the authority of any one else. It was simply a matter of politeness. Besides, the canon remained without effect.
From the second general council the author rushes, pp. 96, 97, to the fourth, the council of Chalcedon, held under the pontificate of St. Leo Magnus, in 451, and lights upon the twenty-eighth canon of that council, which, as he gives it, reads: "In all things following the decrees of the holy fathers, and recognizing the canon just read (the third of the second council) by the one hundred and fifty bishops well beloved of God, we decree and establish the same thing touching the most holy church of Constantinople, the new Rome. Most justly did the fathers grant privileges to the see of ancient Rome, because she was the reigning (capital) city. Moved by the same motive the one hundred and fifty bishops well beloved of God grant equal privileges to the most holy see of the new Rome, thinking, very properly, that the city that has the honor to be the seat of the empire and the senate should enjoy in ecclesiastical things the same privileges as Rome, the ancient queen city, since the former, although of later origin, has been raised and honored as much as the former. In consequence of this decree the council subjected the dioceses of Pontus, Asia, (Asia Minor,) and Thrace to the jurisdiction of Constantinople."
Of course the author cites the canon with his usual inexactness, and makes it appear even more illogical and absurd than it really was. The alleged canon professes to decree and establish the same thing decreed and established by the one hundred and fifty bishops who composed the second council, in their third canon, which as we have seen, was simply that the bishop of Constantinople should have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, that is the second rank in the church. The canon, therefore, does not deprive the Roman pontiff of his rank, dignity, and authority as primate of the whole church, and therefore did not, as it could not, raise the see of Constantinople to an equal rank and dignity with the see of Rome. This was never pretended, and is not pretended by the author himself.The council never could, without stultifying itself, have intended anything of the sort, for it gave to the bishop of Rome the title of "universal bishop," and it says expressly: "We consider the primacy of all and the chief honor, according to the canons, should be preserved to the most beloved of God, the archbishop of Rome." [Footnote 177] The Non-united Greeks and the author himself concede that the Church of Rome was and is the first church in rank and dignity.
[Footnote 177: Act, xvi. col. 637.ApudKenrick.]
Whatever value, then, is to be attached to this twenty-eighth canon it did not and was not designed to affect in any respect the rank, dignity, or authority of the Roman pontiff. What was attempted by it was to erect the non-apostolic see of Constantinople or Byzantium into a patriarchal see, with jurisdiction over the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia Minor, Thrace, and such as should be ordained in barbarous countries, that is, in countries lying beyond the limits of the empire, and to give its bishop the first rank after the patriarch of the West. It sought to reduce the bishop of Alexandria from the second to the third, and the bishop of Antioch from the third to the fourth rank, but it did not touch the power or authority of either. It violated the rights and privileges of the metropolitans of Pontus, Asia Minor, and Thrace, by subjecting them to a patriarchal jurisdiction from which, by ancient usage, confirmed by the sixth canon of the council of Nicaea, they were exempt.
The author relies on this canon because it asserts that the privileges of the see of Rome were granted by the fathers, and grantedbecauseRome was the capital city of the empire. This sustains his position, that the importance the fathers attached to the see of Rome was not because it was the see of Peter, but because it was the see of the capital—a position we showed, in our previous article, to be untenable and also that the authority exercised by the Roman pontiff over the whole church, which he cannot deny, was not by divine right, but by ecclesiastical right. But even if this last were so, since there is confessedly no act of the universal church revoking the grant, the power would be legitimate, and the author and his friends the Non-united Greeks would be bound by a law of the church to obey the Roman pontiff, and clearly schismatics in refusing to obey him. But we have seen from St. Cyprian, the author's own witness, that the primacy was conferred by our Lord himself on the Roman pontiff as the successor of Peter to constitute him the visible centre and source of unity and authority. Besides, a canon, beyond what it decrees or defines, is not authoritative, and it is lawful to dispute the logic of a general council, and even the historical facts it alleges, at least so far as they can be separated from the definition or decree itself. The purpose of the canon of Chalcedon was not to define or decree that the privileges of the see of Rome were granted by the fathers, and because it was the see of the capital of the empire, but to elevate the see of Constantinople to the rank and authority of a patriarchal see, immediately after the see of Rome, and simply assigns this as a reason for doing so; and a very poor reason it was, too, at least in the judgment of St. Leo the Great, as we shall soon see.
But there is something more to be said in regard to this twenty-eighth canon of the council of Chalcedon. The council is generally accepted as the fourth general council, but only by virtue of the papal confirmation, and only so far as the pope confirmed its acts. In many respects the council was a scandalous assembly, almost wholly controlled by the emperor and the Byzantine lawyers or magistrates, who have no authority in the church of God. The part taken by the emperor and civil magistrates wholly vitiated it as a council of the church, and all the authority its acts had or could have for the church was derived from their confirmation by St. Leo the Great. But bad as the council was, the twenty-eighth canon never received its sanction.It was introduced by the civil magistrates, and when only one hundred and fifty bishops, all orientals, out of the six hundred composing the council, were present, and no more subscribed it. It was resisted by the legates of the Roman pontiff and protested against; the patriarchal churches of Alexandria and Antioch were unrepresented. Dioscurus, bishop of the former, was excluded for his crimes, and Macarius of Antioch had just been deposed by the emperor and council for heresy and expelled; a large number of prelates had withdrawn, and only the rump of the council remained. It is idle to pretend that the canon in question was the act even of the council, far less of the universal church.
Now, either Leo the Roman pontiff had authority to confirm the acts of the council of Chalcedon, and by his authority as supreme pastor of the church to heal their defects and make them binding on the universal church, or he had not. If he had, the controversy is ended, for that is precisely what Mr. Guettée denies; if he had not, as Mr. Guettée contends, then the acts of Chalcedon have in themselves no authority for the church, since through the tyranny of the emperor Marcian and the civil magistrates it was not a free council, and, though legally convoked and presided over, was not capable of binding the church. The author may take which horn of the dilemma he chooses, for the pope refused to confirm the twenty-eighth canon, and declared it null and void from the beginning.
The fathers of the council, or a portion of them, in the name of the council, addressed a letter to the Roman pontiff in which they recognize him as the constituted interpreter of the words and faith of Peter for all, explain what they have done, the motives from which they have acted, and pray him "to honor their judgment by hisdecrees"—that is, confirm their acts. St. Leo confirmed those of their acts that pertained to the definition of faith, but refused to confirm the twenty-eighth canon, which he annulled and declared void, as enacted without authority, and against the canons.
Mr. Guettée says, pp. 97, 98, that the council did not ask the Roman pontiff to confirm the canon in question, "but by his own decrees to honor the judgment which had been rendered. If the confirmation of the bishop of Rome had been necessary, would the decree of Chalcedon have been a judgment, a promulgated decision, before that confirmation?" An authoritatively "promulgated decision" certainly not; but the author forgets that the canon had not been promulgated, and never became "a promulgated decision." As to its being a judgment, a final or complete judgment it was not, and the council, by calling itnostrum judicium, do not pretend that it was. They present it to the Roman pontiff only as an inchoate judgment, to be completed by his confirmation. They tell the pope that his legates have protested against it, probably because they wished to preserve to him its initiation, and that in adopting it they "had deferred to the emperor, to the senate, and the whole imperial city, thinking only to finish the work which his holiness, who always delights to diffuse his favors, had begun." The plain English of which is, We have enacted the canon out of deference to the civil authority and the wishes of the imperial city, subject to your approval. "Rogamus igitur, honora et tuis sententiis nostrum judicium. We pray you, therefore, to honor our judgment by your decrees." [Footnote 178] If this does not mean asking the pope to confirm their act or judgment, we know not what would so mean. It is certain that St. Leo himself, who is one of the author's anti-papal authorities, so understood it, as is evident from his replies to the emperor, the empress, and Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, the assertion of M. Guettée to the contrary notwithstanding.
[Footnote 178: Opp. S. Leo, tom. i. col. 960-962. Migne's edition.]