CÆSARISM AND ULTRAMONTISM.

New Zealand Tablet, Volume I, Issue 49, 4 April 1874, Page 11

CÆSARISM AND ULTRAMONTISM.

A paper bearing this title was read on Tuesday evening before the " Academia of the Catholic Religion," by the Archbishop of Westminster. The Archbishop said, — My object in this paper is to enquire whether there be any special character in the conflict which the Church has to encounter at this day ; and, if so, of what kind it is. In one sense the conflict of the Church and the world is always the ■ ime. The enmity of the world is one, and the t -uth v one ; nevertheless, the forms of that enmity are endless and always charging. In one point indeed the warfare of the world against the Church is always the same. It always uses the same weapons, but the motives and aims of those that use them vary. The motives have been, arc, and always will be the civil power. For the first three centuries the Jews and the heretical sects excited the suspicions, fears, and hatred of the Roman Empire against the Church. In the Middle Ages the ambition or despoti-m of Chrittian lrinees wielded the civil power against the Church. Now, for the Uut 300 years, and especially in this century, it is a world departing from Christianity which uses the civil power for the oppression of the Church. In one word, the antagonist of the Church hns always been Cseaarism, or the supremacy of the civil over the spiritual. In a former paper I traced this out in the history of Christianity in England, and showed, first, with what care our Saxon forefathers guaranteed, by the oaths of kings and by Acts of Parliament, the full spiritual liberties of the Church ; next, during the whole Norman and English period of our monarchy, our Parliaments always recognised and guaranteed the liberties of the Church in the very text of the statute law, eren in times when custom, the corruption of Royal courts, or national jealousy habitually violated its freedom ; and, lastly, that froji the date when the legal Church of England wae established, the word liberties, which till then had always been incorporated in Acts of Parliament, vanished from the statutebook. What thus happened in England has happened also throughout the history of Europe. Csesarism is to be found in all agee and countries, but the Caesarisin of th« 19th century has a character of its own. The first manifestation of Csesarism in history, for I am not dealing with tha pre-historic legends or with Oriental tyrannies, may be seen in the Imperial despotism of Rome after the suppression of the Republic, and in the Roman Emperors who have stamped it with their name. In essence it is the absolute domiuion of man over man : the power of life and death, including t-upreme power over liberty and goods, and extending to the whole life of man, politic.il and religious, social and domestic. It may be summed up in a few words — ""Divus Ctesar, Imperator et Buminus Pontifex." There is nothing in the public or private life of man that escapes from the sweeping jurisdiction of this universal sovereignty. The sovereignty of Caesarism is absolute aud dependent on no conditions; it is also exclusive, because it does not tolerate any jurisdiction above and within its own. It does not recognise any laws except of its own making. NNy/,o v/, this supreme power need not'be held in the hands of one man. It may be a Peoplo or a Senate, or a King or an Emperor. Its essence is the churn to absolute and exclusive sovereignty. It by necessity excludes God, llis sovereignty, and his laws. The sole fovintain of law is the human will, individual or collective. Caspar finds the law in himself, and creates right and wrong, the just and the unjust, the sacred and the profane. It has no Statute-books but human nature, and Csesar is the solo and supreme interpreter and expositor of that natural law. Therefore law, moials, politics, and religion all come from him, and all ■ depend upon him. The Sovereign Prince or State legislates, judges, executes by its own will and hand. This sovereign power creates everything : it fashions the political constitution ; it de-legatee jurisdiction, revocable at its word ; it buspends or measures out personal liberty ; it controls domestic life ; it claims the children as its own ; it educates them at its will, and after models and theories of its own. Now, this exclusion of (Sod is the deification of mar. It puts man in the place of God aa the supreme legislator, the fountain of authority, liberty, law, and right. It gives to him the control of men's ajtions and men's minds. " Quod prineipi placuit legis habet vigorem," and i " Cujus regio ejus e3t religio," are the axioms of Caejarism. This is ! the Lex Regia, and where this is human liberty no longer exists. ] When I say that God was excluded from the State of Imperial Rome, i I moan the one true God, Creator and Governor of all thing", for

Some was full of Gods. But the Supreme Pontificate of all the religions congregated in Rome was vested in Ctesar. He was "Summus Pontifex." He was invested with a divinity. He was addressed ns "JEternifas Tua," and Diocletian could say, "Diocletianu* maximus tcternus imperator Ad divinas aures nostras fama q rise-dam pervenit." The author of the Histoire Universelle de VEglise, in these words describes the Csesarism of Caligula :—": — " The Pagan ides of the Pagan Caesar was perfectly realised in his person. He declared himself to be a God; he consecrated to himself a temple, with priests and sacrifices. His sister Drusilln, with whom he had been guilty of incest, being dead, he made her a Goddess, and publicly swore by her divinity. He gave to his agenta in Rome authority over all the goods of all men ; and he told one of his kindred to remember that 'everything was lawful to him in respect to all rn.cn ' — omnia et in omnes sibi licere " (1). It is not to be forgotten that Caligula made his horse a Consul. This was the Lex Segia, wliieh may be thus summed up : Caesar inherited all the rijhts of the Senate and of tlie people. In political matters he was t ie chief of the army and of the navy ; he had the power of peace and •war. In administration he wns perpetunl Consul, Proconsul, Senator, President of the Senate, and Tribune of the people. In the civil order he was Cedsor ond Praetor ; his edicts, letters, rescripts, decisions, had force of law. In religion he was priest, argur, Sovereign Pontiff head of all priesthoods and of all religions. He was jur'ge of all questions of religious rites, ceremonies, aVid worships, and interpreter of all mysteries. In fact, the sovereignty of the people in all its functions was transferred to Ca^ar. Terrasson describes the Lex Regia in these terms :—"All: — "All power— religious, political, legislative, nnd civil— in a ■word omnipotence in all things and over all things — the people and the Senate transferred to Cresar when the republic passed into the Empire. And this took place in virtue of the Lex Regia, of which TJlpian speaks in these words :— Quod principi placnit legis habuit vigorem, utpote cum Lege Kegia.quse de imperio ejus lata est, populus ci et in cum omne suam imperium et potestatem conferat" (2). This Imperial power was, therefore, absolute, exclusive, unlimited, and • nnipotent. We will now proceed to trace the course of Csesarism in the Christian world. The greatest of Divine acts is the Incarnation of God. Christianity has changed tlie state of mankind in every relation to God and to men in this world and in the world to come. The theological aspect of the Incarnation lies beyond the bounds of our subject ; but the political consequences of the Incarnation constitute the essenpp of the moral, social, domestic, and civil life of man and of nations. King Herod had a true instinct in seeking the life of the King who was born at Bethlehem. The Caesars of this wot Id hate followed his example. There can be no Cae3arism where Christ reignß. Christianity, in consecrating the civil authority of the world, has laid on it the limits of the Divine law. Within its own sphere Chnstiaaity has confirmed its power ns a delegation from God Himself, but by the same acl Christianity has limited the sphere of its jurisdiction. It has withdrawn from its cognisance and control the w':ole inner fife of man. It canaot command his intellect, it c.innot control his conscience, it cannot coerce his will. Christianity has subjected the outward actions of man, indeed, to civil government, but it has withdrawn from civil rulers the whole domain of religion. The State may imprison the body, and even take its life, but it has no jurisdiction over the soul. All its acts are free. They have no lawgiver or sovereign but God alone. By the coming of Christ into the world the kingdom of God was set up among the kingdoms of men. Csesar was no longer " Divus " nor " Pontifex Maximus," nor absolute nor exclusive lord of men. No man any longer had unlimited sovereignty over man, and no man could by right hold property in man. The Son of God had brought deliverance to the captives, and the opening of the prison to thorn that were bound. He had redeemed men into the liberty of the sons of God, and he secured that liberty for ever by a sovereign act. He divided the two powers, spiritual and civil, and gave them ir.to different hands, so that they could never ho again united in one person, except Himself and His Vicar, upon earth By this Divine fact the Lex Regia was abolished for ever, and the cujut regio ejus religio became a heresy as well as a tyranny. The presence of the Catholic Church among tho civil Powers of the world had Changed the whole political order of mankind. It has established upon earth a legislature,^ tribunal, nnd an executive independent of all human authority. It has withdrawn from the reach of human laws the whole domain of faith and of conscience. These depend on God alone, and are subjected by Him to His own authority, vested in His Church which is guided by Himself. ' This is the solution of the problem, whuh the world cannot solve Obedience to tho Church is liberty ; and it is liberty because the Church cannot err or mislead either men or nations. If the Church were not infallible, obedience to it might be the worst of bondage. This is \iltrnmoiitanisin, or the liberty of the soul divinely guaranteed by an infallible Church ; the proper check and restraint of Ceesarism, aa Cresarism is tho proper antagonist of the sovereignty of God. But to tins we will return hereafter. I will draw out somewhat more exactly and technically what is the separation nnd partition of the two powers, spiritual and civil, in order to show that it is from the Christian Church that the world has learnt the stable liberties of the civil order and the measured equity of a "written law. St. Gelasius, in his letter to the Emperor Anastasius, draws out the whole doctrine in a few words. " There are," he says, " august Emperor, two things by which this world is governed — the sacred autlioiity of the Pontiff and the power of Ceesar. The authority of Bishops is all tho more to be venerated, as they must render account to God in the last judgment even of the salvation of kings. You are not ignorant that, though your dignity lifts you above other men, you are bound humbly to bow tho head to Pontiffs, who are charged with t\). IWhrbiicher. Hist. Univ. da l'Eglise. Tom. xviii., pp. 1& 2. (■>). Terradson. Histona de la Jurisprudence Romam— p. 241. Ulrian— lib i t> §de Coustit. Pciucip.

the dispensation of Divine things, and that you owe to them submission in all that belongs to the order of religion and to the administration of the holy mysteries. ... In all things which are of the public order these same Bishops obey your laws, and in your turn you ought to obey them in all things which concern the sacred things of which they are the dispensers" (3). And what a Pontiff said to an Emperor an Emperor said to Bishops. Constantino at Nicea said, " God has elected you to be priests and rulers, to judge and to decide for the people, and has given you a divine authority as being elevated far above the rest of men" (4.) St Bernard expresses the same in a passage of profound insight and beauty. Writing to Conrad, King of the Romans, he says": " Let not my soul enter into the council of them who s*y that the peace and prosperity of the Church is hurtful to the Empire, or the prosperity ond exnltation of the Empire is hurtful to the Church. For, God, who is the founder of earth, has united them, not for destruction, but for edification. If you know this, how long will you connive at the insult and tho injury of both ? Is not Rome, as well as the Apostolic See, as the Head of the Empire ? To say nothing of the Church, is it an honour to the King to hold in his hands an Empire which is a headless trunk ? . . . . Wherefore gird thee with Ihy sword upon thy thigh, O most mighty, and let Caesar restore to himself the things which ore Caesar's, and to God the things which are God's. It is clear that both are the interest of Caesar, that is, to defend his own crown and to protect the Church" (5). St. Thorras Aquinas defines this doctrine more precisely as follows :—": — " The end of the Commonwealth is the same as that of individuals. If you ask a Chiiman 'Why has God created you and placed you in the world ?' he answers, • God has created "me and placed me in this world to know, to love, and to serve Him, and by these means to obtain eternal life, which is my (fiual) end. If the Commonwealth be asked the same, every Christian Society ought to make the same answer ; no other can stand" (6). From this St. Thomas proves that though the King or Prince* has only civil power he is bound to use it for the eternal good of the Commonwealth. He adds, " If man could obtain by his natural power this last end, it would be the duty of the King to guide him in it. ... But, aa man cainot by merely human virtues attain to his end, which is the possession of God, it follows that it is no human dii ection, but a Divine direction, flat must conduct him to it. The King to whom tl at supreme direction belongs is n it man alone, but God also — our Lord Jeßus Christ. In order that spiritual things may be distinct from earthly tilings, the authority of His kingdon is committed not to earthly Kings, but to priests, and especially to the chief of priests — the successor of IVter, the Vicar of Christ, the Roman Pontiff, to whom all Kin»s of Christendom ou»ht to be subject, as to our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Forasmuch as the bliss of heaven is the end of tbo life which we now live, it belongs to the office of a King for that reason to promote a gooJ life in his people, with a view to attaiu the i)liss of heaven — that is, in enjoining those things which te'id to the attainment of heavenly bliss and in forbidding as far as possible, what is contrary to them. But what things conduce to the bliss of heaven, un ( what things are |a hindrance to its attainment, are to be known ut df the Divine law, the teaching of which belongs to the office of p i.-sts" (7). From thesf princij le3 we see the difference between the pagan Osesarisin and wh.it I will call the Christian Csesarism. 1. The first r'gards the State as its own creation, the second as the creation of UoJ. L\ Hi.- first — i.e., Pontiff and King over body and soul absolute md i xclusive ; the second is subject in all that belongs to the soul to the Divine l.iw and to the Church of Jesus Christ. 3. The first makes religion a,i instrument or depaitment of the State; the second makea it tlie litnil ition of c ivil power, and the protection of human liberty. i Th«* first treats tlie Church as subject to itself; the second treats all civil power as -übject to God and His law, of which the Church is the guardian uud thi* interpreter. 5. The first regards all power, civil and religious, as derived from the people ; the second regards civil power us formally from God, and the spiritual power as exclusively from Go I, and therefore dependent on God alone. This is Ultramontanistn, the essence of which is that the Church, being a Divine institution, and by divine assistance infallible, ie,i c , witlun its spheie, independent of all civil powers ; and, as the guardian and interpreter of the Divine law, is tlie proper judge of men and of nations in things touching that law in faith of morals. Inasmuch as at thi* moment the term " Ultramontaiue" is cited as a nickname to kindle persecution against the Church by false accusations and misleading the public opinion of this country, I will draw out a proof that Ullramontainism and Catholicism are identical, as are also Catholicism and true Christianity. Christianity, or the faith and law of Jesus C iri»r, has, asl have said, introduced two principles of divine authority into human society : the one the absolute separation of the two powers, spiritual and civil, the other the supremacy of the spiritual ovir th« civil in all matters within its competence or divine jurisdiction. Ido not know how any iran without reuouneiug his Christian name or the coherence of his reason, can deny either of these principles. I can indeed understand that, admitting both, he may dispute as to the Tinge or reach of that jurisdiction. He may contend that it is wider or narrower, that it does or does not extend to this ov that pnrticular matter But on this, also, I will speak hereafter. For the present it is enough to say that thesj two principles are held by all Christiana, except. Erustiuns, who deny the spiritual office of the Church, if not also its existence. But I hope to show that these two principles are Ultramontuuism ; that the Bull " Unam >nuctam" contains no more, that the Vatican Council could define no less, that in its definition it enunciated nothing new, that its two constitutions were, as Parliameut would say, not enacting but declaratory Acts, that they have changed (S) St. Gelcisius ad Anastasium. Labbe et Cossart. Concil., torn, v., p. 308. ' (4) Gelaaii Cyric. Hist. Concil. Nice, apud Labbe et Cosßait. Concil., torn. ii. (5) St. Bernardi Epistol., ccxliii. (0) Golasii Cyric Hist. Concil. Nicaen. apud Labbe et Cossart Concil., torn, ii,, p. 175. (7) bt. Thomas Aq.. de Regimine Principum, lib. i., chap. xiv.

nothing and added nothing either to the constitution of the Church or to the relations of the Church with the civil Powers of the world. To make this clear let us shortly examine these two principle?. First, as to the spiritual and civil power the whole history of Christendom is sufficient evidence. The Civil Sovereignty is coeval with man. Society is not of man's making. The relations of authority, submission, and equality lie in the human family, and from it are extended to commonwealths, kingdoms, empires. The Civil Sovereignty resides materially in society at large, formally in the person or persons to whom society may commit its exercise. Immediately, therefore, Sovereignty is given by God to society ; mediately, through society, to the person who wields it. Both materially and formally, mediately and immediately, Sovereignty is from God, and within its competence is supreme and sacred. Civil allegiance to Sovereigns is, therefore, a part of Christianity,, and treason is both a crime against a lawful authority and also a sin against God, who has ordained that authority. Ultramontanism teaches that within the sphere of its competence the civil power is to be obeyed, not only ' for wrath but for conscience sake' (8). It is a part of the Christian religion to obey " the powers —that are." As to the independence of the Spiritual power we nee d waste no words. The existence of the Church and the primacy of its head in these 1,800 years are proof enough. Further, no Christian of sound mind -will deny that these two distinct and separate powers have distinct and separate spheres, and that within these spheres respectively they hold their power from God. Where the limits of these spheres are to be traced it i 9 easy enough to decide in all matters purely civil or in all matters purely spiritual. The conflict arises over the mixed questions. And yet here there ought to be no real difficulty. Nobody can decide what questions are pure or what questions are mixed except a judge who can define the limits of the two element* respectively, and therefore of the respective jurisdictions. In any questions not within the competence of the two powers either there must be some judge to decide what does and what doas not fall within their respective spheres, or they are delivered over to perpetual doubt end to perpetual conflict. But who can define what is not in the jurisdiction of the Church in faith and morals, except a judge who knows what the sphere of faith and morals contains and how far it extends ? And surely it is not enough that such a judge should guess, or opine, or pronounce npon doubtful evidence, or with an uncertain knowledge. Such a sentence would be, not an end of contention, but a beginning and renewal of strife. It is clear that the civil power cannot define how far the circumference of faith and morals extends. If it could, it would be invested with one of the endowments of the Church. It must know the whole deposit of explicit and implicit faith ; or, in other words, it must be the guardian of the Christian Revelation. Now, no Christian, nor any man of sound mind, claims this for the civil power ; and if not, then either there is no judge to end strife or that judge must be the Church, to which alone the revelation of Christi inity in faith and roorajs was divinely intrusted. And if this be so still, unless the Church be divinely certain as to the limits of Us jurisdiction, its voice in such matters is fina'. But an autaority that can alone define the limits of its own office is absolute because it depends on none, and infallible because it knows with a divine certainty the faith which it has received in charge. If then, the civil power be not competent to decide the limits of the spiritual power, and if the spiritual power can define with a divine certainty its own limits, it is evidently supreme. Or, in other words, the spiritual power knows with divine certaity then limits of its own jurisdiction ; and it knows, therefore, the limits and the competence of the civil power. It is, thereby, in matters of religion and conscience supreme. I do not see how this can be denied without denying Christianity. And if this be co, this is the doctrine of the Bull Unam Sanctam, and of the Syllabus, and of the Vatican Council. It, is, in fact, Ultramontanism, for this term means neither less nor more. The Church, therefore, is separate and supreme. Let us, then, ascertain somewhat further -what is the meaning of Bupreme. Any power which is independent and can alone fix the limit, of its own jurisdiction, and can thereby fix the limits of all other jurisdici ions, is ipso Jacto, supreme. But the Church of Jesus Christ, within the sphere of revelation, of faith and morals, is nil thiß, or is nothing, or worse than nothing, an imposture and usurpation — that is, it is Christ or Antichrist. If it be Antichrist, every Caesar from Nero to this day is justified. If it be Christ, it is the Supreme power among men ; that is to say (1), it holds its commission and authority from God ; (2), it t holds in custody the faith and law of Jesus Christ ; (3i, it is the sole interpretation of that faith and the sole expositor of that law ; it has within the sphere of that commission a power to legislate -with authority ; to bind the consciences of all men born again ia the baptism of Jesus Christ ; it alone can fix the limits of the faith and law intrusted to it, and therefore the sphere of its own jurisdiction ; it alone can decide in questions where its power is in contact with the civil power — that is, in mixed questions ; for it alone can determine how far its own Divine office, or its own Divine trust, enter into and are implicated in such questions ; and it is precisely that element in any mixed questions of disputed jurisdiction which belongs to a higher order and a higher tribunal. For instance, a Catholic Professor of Theology in a State University, salaried by the State, refuses the definitions of the Vatican Council. The Bishop excommunicates him, the State supports and pays him in spite of the excommunication of the Church as a Professor of Catholic Theology. Here is a mixed up question made up of stipend and orthodoxy. Surely orthodoxy is a higher element than stipend ; faith is of a higher ordf.r than thalers ; and to judge of orthodoxy and faith belongs not to the Civil but the Spiritual Tribunal, which is (in that sphere) superior, absolute, and final ? The same is true of every mixed question of the benefice — in a word, to every question of contract between the Church with the State, so far as faith and morals enter ; and it belongs to the Church to determine whether they enter or no, and how far they enter and are implicated in the conflict. (8) Romans, Xiii, 5. (To be continued.)