OCR Text |
Show ilncle Hack and CONVERSATION IX. (Continued.) Nephew Dick But as you say that all temporals have spiritual relations, under your doctrine the power of the church would extend to everything and you would claim for her all the functions func-tions of the government, both spiritual and temporal. She would thus be the only real government of society, would absorb the state and leave it no au-, tonomy. Here is the objection which both Gallicans and we Protestants bring against you, and unless you can show that it is unfounded, you must stand condemned. Uncle Jack I understand you. The papist, as I have told you, asserts two distinct orders, one spiritual and the other temporal, and two distinct governments, gov-ernments, one the church and the other the state, each independent and supreme su-preme in its own order, for governing them. Therefore, he says, "Render unto un-to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are Uod's." Nephew Dick Wherein, then, do you differ from the Gallicans? Uncle Jack In nothing if they consistently con-sistently carry out one set of their principles; but when they do not, we differ from them in the respect that, while we assert the independence and the supremacy of the state in its own order, we deny its independence and supremacy in relation to the spiritual order. In relation to that order, we hold that it is subordinate and independent. inde-pendent. Nephew Dick But you seem to me now to contradict yourself.- After having hav-ing asserted the independence and supremacy su-premacy of the state in its own order, now you assert its subordination and dependence in regard to the spiritual order. Uncle Jack Things are not always what they seem to those who understand under-stand them not. I assert that the state is independent and supreme in its own order, by which I mean that in the temporal order, ' which is its own order, or-der, the state has no superior, and holds its power from no other the only sense in which any man, not an atheist, can pretend that the state is independent inde-pendent and supreme. The state holds its power from God, for no est potestas nisi a Deo, therefore depends on him, is subject to his law, and, of course, in relation to him who is King of 'kings and Lord of lords, is not independent and supreme. If we would not fall into absolute political atheism, the sense in which we must understand the independence inde-pendence and supremacy of the state is, as Suarez defines it, that it hold from no other and has no superior in its own order, while in relation to another an-other and superior order it is subordinate subordi-nate and dependent. "The contradiction you imagine does not exist, because the independence and supremacy of the state denied are not in the same order with the independence inde-pendence and supremacy asserted. Even the authority of the spiritual, over the temporal, which I assert, only' indirect, and the dependence of the state on the church is not direct, that is, for the sake of, temporals as such, or as directed to a subordinate and temporal end, as Suarez says in continuation con-tinuation of the passage I have just cited: 'Ilia dependentla vocatur indi-recta, indi-recta, quia ilia superior potesta circa temporalia nort per se, aut propter e, sed quasi indirecte et propter aliud in-terdum in-terdum versatur.' " Nephew Dick But, my dear uncle, this distinction Gallicans will tell you is of no value. If the spiritual power extends to the government or the whole temporal order, it evidently matters nothing in what respect this is done, or by what name it is called. It is the substantial claim that is important. The title or classification of the power is of no consequence: "A rose By any other name will smell . as sweet." Uncle Jack Not by the name of skunk's cabbage, I am inclined to believe, be-lieve, Shakespeare to the contrary notwithstanding. not-withstanding. But the Gallican, if he goes so far as to say this, forgets his philosophy. ' Nephew Dick That is severe. Uncle Jack None too severe if he should express himself in the sense you suppose. Suarez believes, as we have seen, the distinction very real, and he is as high authority as any Gallican or quasi Gallican you can cite. Even you yourself ought to be ashamed to bring forward such an objection, either as your own or as another's. What, indeed, is the assumption? It is that to assert the plenary authority of the church over temporals in the respect that they are not temporals, but spirituals, spir-ituals, that is in the respect that they are related to a spiritual end, is identically iden-tically the same thing as to assert her plenary authority over them in every respect. Authority governing matter in relation to one end is authority to govern it in relation to every end. The objection itself denies all distinction between be-tween the temporal order and the spiritual, spir-itual, for it proceeds on the assumption assump-tion that to govern temporals in relation rela-tion to a temporal end, which can be true only on the supposition that the spiritual and the temporal are identical. "The assertion of the authority of the church over temporals in the respect that they are spiritually related, is simply sim-ply her authority to direct and govern them as to their morality. No Catholic, Catho-lic, unless carried away by the heat of controversy or a mistimed zeal, will pretend that the church has not, under God, plenary authority with regard to the morality of all human actions, whether of state or of individuals. This Pope Innocent III in his letter to Philip Augustus, king of France, very distinctly dis-tinctly asserts. 'We do not intend,' he says, 'to judge the fee; that belongs to the king of France. But we have the right to judge of the sin, and it is our duty to exercise it against the offender, be he who he may. Here is the distincton I contend for, since the holy pontiff, while he declaims all intention of judging the temporality, as related to a temporal end, claims it as his right and his duty to judge it in the respect that it is related to a spiritual spir-itual end. "But this is perhaps too old an authority. au-thority. Take, then, a recent authority, a living authority the illustrious Cardinal Car-dinal Gousset, archbishop of Rheims, a man highly esteemed at Rome and venerated ven-erated through all France. He teaches in his Observations sur le Premier Article Ar-ticle de la Declaration de 1682, if I understand un-derstand him. the very doctrine I contend con-tend for, and I will ask you to listen to what he says: " 'This article begins by laying it down that "St. Peter and his successors, succes-sors, that the church itself, has received re-ceived power from God only over spiritual spir-itual things and concerning salvation, and not over things temporal and civil," and -proceeds to prove it by scripture. But no Pope, no Catholic doctor, has ever denied the real distinction between spiritual power and temporal, nor their independence in what it pertains respectively re-spectively to their own sphere. "The church itnervents n respect to the acts church Intervenes in respect to the acts are contrary to justice, to morality, or to religion; even then she intervenes only In her quality of interpreter of the divine laws, the natural and positive, posi-tive, and as governor or director (regu-latrice) (regu-latrice) of what has a relation to conscience, con-science, to eternal salvation, and con sequently to the spiritual order. It was quite unnecessary to remind us that the 'kingdom of Christ is not of this world, or rather that it does not come from this world, for it has for its mission mis-sion to govern the things of this world only in the order of salvation, Regnum meum non est de hos mudo; quite unnecessary un-necessary to remind us that we are to "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and to God the things that I are God's"; that "every soul must be submissive to the higher powers;" that "there is no power but from God;" that "whoso resists the power, resists the ordination of God." This has never been disputed in the r-Mrrh of Jesus Christ. Assuredly the Christian world has not awaited the declaration of 1682, drawn up by order of Lous XIV, to know the sense of the gospel and the Epistle of St. Paul.' " (To be Continued.) |