Imágenes de páginas

parliament of Paris issued an arret to establish the independance of the crown as a fundamental law; whilst cardinal du Perron, who owed his elevation to that prince, opposed this decree in an assembly of the states, and got it suppressed. The following expression, made use of on this occafion by Du Perron, is to be found in all the historical tracts of these times : " Should a prince, says he, turn Arian, it es would be necesary to depo e him.”


prevailed amongst all orders of monks, that the pope is a God upon earth, and can dispose of the crowns and lives of sovereigns at his pleasure. In this respect, we are inferior even to those Tartarian idolaters, who hold the grand Lama to be immortal; greedily gather the contents of his close-stool, dry these precious relics with great care, inclose them in rich cases, and kiss them with the warmest devotion. For my part, I confess, that I had rather, for the good of my country, and the sake of public tranquility, carry those relics conftantly about my neck, than to give my assent to the pope's haying in any case whatsoever, an authority over the temporals of kings, or even those of a private person.


But here I must beg the cardinal's pardon ; for let us for a while adopt his chinerical fupposition, and say, that one of our kings having read the History of the Councils and of the Fathers, and being struck with these words, “My Father is greater than me," and taking them in too literal a fense, should be divided between the council of Nice and that of Conftantinople, and adopt the opinion of Eufebius of Nicomedia: yet I should not be the less obliged to obey my king, nor think the oath of allegiance I had taken to him less binding; and if you, Mr. Cardinal, should dare to oppose him, and I was one of your judges, I should, without scruple, declare you guilty of high treason.

Du Perron carried this difpute much farther ; but I shall cut it very short, by saying with every good citizen, that I should not look upon myself *bound to obey Henry IV. beeause he was king; but because he held the crown by the incontestible right of birth, and as the just reward of his virtue and magnanimity.

[ocr errors]

Permit me then to say, that every individual is entitled by the same right to enjoy the inheritance of his father, and that he in no wise deserves G


to be deprived of it, or to be sent to the gallows, because he may perhaps be of the opinion of Ratram against Paschafius Ratberg, or of Berengarius against Scotus.


We are very sensible that there are many

of our tenets which have not been always clearly explained : Jesus Christ not having expressly told us in what manner the Holy Ghost really proceeds, both the Latin church and the Greek believed, that it proceeded only from the father; but afterwards an article was added to the creed, in which it is said to proceed from the son also. Now, I desire to know, whether the day after this new article was added, a person who might abide by the old creed, would have been deserving of death? And is there less cruelty or injustice, in punishing at this day, a person who may possibly think as they did two or three centuries

?. Or
was there


crime in believing in the time of Honorius I. that Christ had not two wills?

It is but very lately, that the belief of the immaculate conception has been established: the Dominicans have not received it as yet. Now will any one tell me the precise point of time, when the Dominicans will begin to deserve

punishpunishment in this world, and in that which is to come.

If any one can set us an example for our conduct, it is certainly the Apostles and the Evangelists. There was sufficient matter to excite a violent fcbism between St. Peter and St. Paul. The latter in his Epistles to the Galatians I, says, 6. That he withstood Peter to the face, " because he was to be blamed; for before that “ certain men came from James, he did eat o with the Gentiles : but when they were “come, he withdrew and separated himself, " fearing them which were of the circumcision, “ insomuch, that Barnabas also was carried away << with his diffimulation.” “ But, adds he, " When I saw that they walked not uprightly, " according to the truth of the Gospel, I said “ unto Peter before them all, if thou, being a “ Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and “not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the " Gentiles to live as do the Jews ?"

[ocr errors]

Here now was a subject for a violent dispute. The question was, whether the new Christians

1 Chap. ii. v. 11-14.

G 2


followed the manners of the Jews or not. St. Paul at that very time facrificed in the temple of Jerusalem; and we know that the fifteen first bishops of Jerusalem were circumcised Jews; and that they observed the Sabbath, and abstained from the meats forbidden by the Jewish law. Should a bishop of Spain or Portugal at this time be circumcised, or observe the Sabbath, he would infallibly burn at an auto-da-: and yet this fundamental point did not occasion the least animosity between the Apostles, or between the primitive Christians.

If the Evangelists had resembled our modern writers, what an immense field was there for difputation between them. St. Matthew reco kons only eight and twenty generations from David to Jesus. St. Luke reckons forty-one ; and these generations are absolutely different. Yet no diffention appears to have arisen between the disciples on account of these apparent contradictions, which have been so admirably well reconciled by the fathers of the church ; but they still continued in brotherly love, peace, and charity with each other. What more noble lesson can we have of indulgence in our dirputes, and of humility in regard to those things which we do not understand ?


« AnteriorContinuar »