« PrécédentContinuer »
and on the consequent equality of those rights. The office of the State is to maintain those rights inviolate. Among the primordial rights of man is that of spiritual independence. If the State invade this right, antagonism springs up.
If the Church persuades the State to use compulsion, that is, to violate a spiritual right-confusion is the consequence.
THE INCARNATION AND AUTHORITY
"Chose étrange, que nous avons donné la liberté à tout le monde, excepté à Dieu !"
M. DE LAMARTINE.
Moral and effective authority mutually destructive-A theocracy de
structive of the dogma of free-will— The Papacy and its results—Subordination of temporal to spiritual authority— The separation of spiritual and temporal authorities—Temporal authority is justifiable when exercised in its own domain—but immoral when it invades religionSpiritual authority can only devolve from God-Man cannot delegate it-because man cannot make another represent God to him—No moral obedience due to the temporal power when it invades spiritual rightsThe representation of authority in the Church necessary—The priesthood necessary-Confusion of functions between priest, magistrate, and soldier ruinous to authority-Authority lodged in the whole Churchbut devolves from Christ-it is absolute and it is limited-Ecclesiastical authority must be confined to the declaration of religious truths—Infallibility resides in the whole body-Fallibility in negation-Are members of branch churches bound by negations !--The duties of Catholics.
F the reader will recur to chapter iv., he will see that a
distinction has been laid down between moral and effective authority.
By moral authority is meant that authority which is persuasive, and to which obedience is morally due; whilst by effective authority is meant that authority which is of force, and to which obedience is only due out of compulsion.
I have shewn that it is impossible to unite these two authorities, because they mutually destroy each other.
I have shewn that the action of God upon man is moral, and moral only; that by constituting man free, He has refused to exercise effective authority over him, and that an ecclesiastical or political society claiming Divine Authority must exercise moral authority only; for the moment it exercises compulsion it ceases to represent God, and resolves itself into effective authority which is human, all human, and not at all Divine.
In this chapter I propose to shew what is the bearing of the dogma of the Incarnation on this distinction between authorities, and how it conciliates what otherwise must remain conflicting
First, let us see whether a theocracy is deducible from the Incarnation. Almost all priesthoods have endeavoured to unite temporal power with spiritual power; and when they have succeeded, a theocracy has been the result.
Almost all governments, kings, emperors, and republics have endeavoured to unite the spiritual power with the temporal power; and when they have succeeded, an autocracy has been the result.
Theocracy is consequently an absolute government carried on in the name of the Absolute.
An Autocracy is consequently an absolute government carried on in the name of the governmental will dominating the Absolute.
Theocracy supposes, as its metaphysical principle, the co-action of God over man for the accomplishment of His law, since it exercises this co-action only by the name and the authority of God, for the execution of His designs. It is then, in principle, absolutely contradictory to the theory of free-will, which allows man to be at liberty to follow his which is wrong
own determinations in chosing that which is right or that
It is based on a false relation between man and God. It is consistent only with a negation of freewill and a doctrine of fatalism. From it flows a complete system of constraint. Man being no more free before God, is not free before His representative, the pope, the direct representative; the king, the indirect representative, deriving his authority by papal procuration, through institution, concordat and the like.
This is tyranny elevated into divine necessity, since man not being free not to obey the law, the representative of God is not free not to exact obedience to it. Liberty of conscience is at a end; for the representative of the Deity formulates what the conscience is to accept, and cuts off all opportunities of expressing doubt or disbelief, as sacrilege and profanity. Liberty of science is at an end; for science runs counter to received religious dogmas; it must do so, for religious dogmas are on one side of the world of truth, and scientific demonstrations are on the other side. As a theocracy is founded on dogma alone, it must wage perpetual war on science, which is founded on demonstration. The Inquisition is the logical consequence of a system of government in the name of a God of compulsion.
The Papacy is the great Christian theocracy. Confusing moral authority with effective authority, it was forced to abdicate the former, and resolve itself into a despotism over men's souls and bodies. Temporal sovereignties were subordinated to the spiritual sovereignty, which became the apex of a vast pyramid weighing down humanity by Divine right. Nicholas II. (A.D. 1059) assumed this supremacy when he took upon himself to confirm the Duke of Calabria and Sicily in his possessions, for which the Duke swore fealty to the Pope. Alexander II. did likewise when he
sanctioned William the Norman's invasion of England; so did Alexander III. when he gave a grant of Ireland to Henry II. ; so did Innocent IV. when he bestowed the kingdom of Portugal on the Count of Bologna (1245). In 1265, Pope Clement IV. sold the Southern Italians to Charles of Anjou for a yearly tribute of eight hundred ounces of gold, declaring that he should be excommunicate if the first payment were deferred, and that for the second neglect the whole nation would incur interdict, i.e. deprivation of sacraments and divine worship.
The power that could confer could also take away. In 1076, Gregory VII. deposed the Emperor Henry IV. from his throne, releasing his subjects from their allegiance, and urging the princes of Germany to elect a new emperor, in these words, “In behalf of Almighty God the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, I deny to Henry the government of the whole realm of Germany and Italy, and release all Christians from the bond of the oath which they have made or will make to him, and forbid any one to serve him as if he were a king.” Alexander III. did the same to the Emperor Frederic I. in 1168; Innocent III. to the Emperor Otho IV., 1210, and to King John in 1212; Gregory IX. in 1238, and Innocent IV. in 1245, did this to the Emperor Frederic II.; John XXII. to Louis of Bavaria in 1333, and Pius V. to Queen Elizabeth in 1569.
Another case exhibits the assumption of the twofold power of giving and taking away dominions in one and the same act. When the crusade against the Albigenses, authorized by the third Lateran Council (1179) had been accomplished, and Toulouse and the adjoining country had been wrested from the Count of Toulouse, it was a question what should be done with the conquered territory. The Pope's legates for a while held provisional possession of