times, proclaiming thus the burial of our Lord, and his resurrection on the third day." Consult also the works of Theodoret, and a multitude of other passages in the writings of the fathers. As for the sacrament of confirmation, or Holy Chrism, which our church administers immediately after baptism, there is the same agreement on our part with the church universal. It is well known that confirmation is nothing but a modification of the imposition of hands. Now the Apostles and their immediate successors conferred this last in regular course on the newly baptized. Consider, moreover, that in the view of all churches it is necessary to be confirmed in order to partake of the Eucharist. By not confirming children until the age of fourteen years, the churches of the West have condemned an immense majority of the human race to die before they have tasted of the bread of life! They may accumulate the most specious arguments in favor of this practice, but these arguments will never be able to stand before the right and simple faith, before the authority of the universal church of all times. Let them beware! by reasoning in this way, they will by little come at last to allow only the baptism of adults, after the example of some obscure sects of modern times. V. On the use of Leavened or Unleavened Bread in the Communion. On this disputed point, which consummated the separation of the two portions of Christendom, learning may supply a series of arguments for and against the opposing rituals. The one party will tell you that bread without leaven better represents the lamb without spot, offered up for the sins of the world; the other will reply, supporting their position by texts from the Gospel, that leaven is not always an emblem of impurity and hypocrisy, that it is also made to represent the principle of salvation. (As in the parable of the woman who kneaded the three measures of meal.) The Western Christians allege in favor of unleavened bread the rite of the Jewish passover, which excluded all leaven, and they hence infer that the Holy Supper was celebrated in the same manner; the Eastern Christians oppose to this argument the original day of the mystical Supper, and the literal sense of the Greek word aprog, which signifies leavened bread. They can appeal, moreover, to the agape of the primitive church, which were celebrated in any place, at any hour, without any preparation, with the bread and the wine which Providence furnished to the faithful. In this way the controversy may be indefinitely prolonged. But that which cuts it short at once is, that the use of leavened bread in the Sacrament is conformed to the constant tradition of the churches, which have had especially at heart to modify the Jewish usages, even to the extent of forbidding fasting and kneeling on Saturday and on the Lord's Day; and finally that the use of unleavened bread is very recent, even in the West. Behold once more, on the one part disagreement, on the other conformity. VI. Definition of the Primacy of the See of Rome. Our brethren of the West have adopted as their rule of conduct, to make large concessions in the controversy on all the disputed points, provided we will explicitly recognize that which they entitle the doctrine, namely, the supremacy, or supreme spiritual sovereignty of the See of Rome over all churches, a sovereignty which they designate under the name of the centre of Catholic unity, and the earthly vicariate of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now observe in the outset, that the term earthly vicariate belies itself by its novelty. The same may be said of the epithets infallible, indefectible, which the Christian church never used and never knew for eight centuries; for it was not until the ninth that the Popes of Rome began openly to arrogate to themselves the right of absolute supremacy in temporal matters; and that even now they contest with the Gallican Church the principle, by virtue of which the latter has maintained that Ecumenical Councils are superior to the Bishops of Rome, and may depose them. Judge from this of the foundation of that infallible, but elastic power. But what are the rank and the power of this eminent See founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul, and what primacy must we recognize in it? That which the universal church has assigned to it. She has decreed to the See of Rome, not any sovereignty, but only a primacy of rank and honor. On this point read the plain and formal langnage (1) of the Acts of the First Ecumenical Council, Canon vi.; (2) of the Acts of the Second Ecumenical Council, Canon iii.; (3) of the Acts of the Third Ecumenical Council, Canon viii.; (4) of the Acts of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Canon xxviii. The reading of these will prove to you that the primitive Church be-lieved she had the right to assign their respective places to the Apostlic Sees; that she granted the priority, the seniority, τà преσßeα, to the See of Rome, in favor of the imperial city, and not at all by divine right; that she assigned the second rank to the Bishop of Constantinople for the same reason; that she made these decrees in regard to the order of the hierarchy only in order to prevent usurpation; that the Church universal did not recognize in the See of Rome any sovereignty over other churches, and did not quote in support of the primacy which she decreed to it any passage in the Gospel. Such is also the doctrine to which we adhere unalterably even to this day. Once more compare the diverse parts of the building, and give judgment. The See of Rome cannot possess nor exercise more ample powers than those granted to Peter. To learn what these were, read the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Peter obeyed the existing powers; he had no patrimony here below; he presided with James in the Councils, without placing himself between them and our Lord Jesus Christ, in the dispensation of spiritual powers; he received and profited by the reproof of Paul; he did not pretend that other sees were such by the grace of God and of his Apostolic See, - an insulting formula, and so recent, that we must search for its origin in the middle ages. Peter, in fine, was content with being the first in the College of the Apostles, without assuming for himself any sovereignty over them, any infallibility inherent in himself alone. Descend with me the stream of time, and you will find that even down to Gregory the Great, and still later, the Bishops of Rome repudiated the title of universal, and kept themselves to their legitimate primacy; "primus inter 66 pares," first among their equals. But if the title of Prince of the Apostles applied to Peter, troubles you, remember that it is not found in any part of the New Testament. In fact the Gospel calls him the first, but it nowhere calls him Prince, in Greek, "doywv, a name applied to the Prince of darkness, ἄρχων τοῦ σκότους, but never to any one of the Apostles. In this matter, it is only the Latin language which they pervert so cunningly: "princeps apostolorum" means only in Latin the first of the Apostles, just as "editio princeps" means the first edition. But we find in the Gospels two passages which seem to imply a universal supremacy accorded to Peter by our Lord. These are, (1) that where our Saviour rewards Peter for having confessed him without hesitation in these words: "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God," by replying to him, "and I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my church;" and further on, "and I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and that which thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and that which thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Consult the Holy Fathers on the sense of that mooted passage; they will answer you, particularly Cyril, Epiphanius, and Augustine, that the rock is Jesus Christ confessed aloud in faith; that the church, which is his body, can be founded only on him; that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven represent the power of binding and loosing, conferred elsewhere directly on all the Apostles, both before and after the resurrection of our Saviour; that oftentimes as the words addressed by Christ and Peter are addressed to him as the first among equals; and finally that the change of the name of Simon to Cephas or Peter indicates the regeneration of the old man in him, whereby his faith recognized in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the man Christ, the God-man, the Son of the living God;-which is something that flesh and blood cannot reveal to us. So the Apocalypse teaches us that every man has a name different from that which he formerly bore; it shows us the City of God, founded on twelve stones representing the holy Apostles, the chief corner-stone of Jesus Christ himself. (2) The second passage which is cited in sup port of the earthly vicariate is that which contains the question and charge of the Lord addressed to Peter, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?-feed my lambsfeed my sheep." This question and charge, thrice repeated, in memory of the triple denial of Peter, manifestly only confirm his formal restoration to the apostolate. In decreeing the primacy to the See of Rome, the Church understood by it just what Cyril, Epiphanius, Cyprian, and Augustine understood. An inherent infallibility in the chair of Peter, the exclusive right of conferring the episcopate and of granting indulgences these impieties, we say, are innovations of a date so recent that Christian antiquity has not even customary words to express them. Now no established idea, no real object, can subsist for eight or nine hundred years without a fixed name. -- But before we close this prolonged parallel, whose conclusions are already evident, we must add one thing more. Our adversaries endeavor to dazzle the weak, by displaying proudly that which they call catholicity, a palpable sign, say they, of the true religion. We will not dispute the principle, provided it be remembered that this catholicity is twofold in its nature. The catholicity of places does not establish the truth of the doctrine, except in so far as it is found united with the catholicity of times: and here comes in that which we call orthodoxy. If it is not so, and if it is enough merely to cipher and count in order to discover the Catholic Church, what will you say of the epoch when Arianism had overrun the greater part of the Christian world? The conformity of the later constructions to the foundation which is common to them, is the only test by which we can discern the lesser deviations from the original plan conceived and sketched by the Author of our Salvation.* In the midst of these lamentable controversies, let our watchword be, from age to age, always the same, fidelity and charity; fidelity, for he who shall endure to the end shall be * Remember also that in Israel where every reality exhibited a type of the future, the kingdom of Israel comprised ten tribes, and that of Judah only two. |