網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版
[ocr errors]

I am fenfible, that notwithstanding what has been urg'd, I fhall be accus'd of broaching a novel opinion, the mere product of arrogance, and founded only on violence; but I leave every reasonable man to judge which opinion. feems the newest, that which I have laid down, or theirs at Rome, who deny fovereigns part of their proper jurifdiction. In fhort, what was the end of the old canons, which order'd, that every clergyman, convicted of any enormous crime, fhould be degraded and deliver'd over to the fecular judge? Was it not to fave an ecclefiaftical judge the trouble and vexation of decreeing exceffive and capital punishment, because it does not become a facred judge to dip his hands in blood, even tho' the enormity of the crime requir'd it? The Council of Trent confirm'd this cuftom by an express decree; but confidering that in order to conform this degradation to the manner prefcrib'd by the ancients, they fhould be oblig'd to delay the punishment of the criminal a long time, because of the many bifhops it would be neceffary to affemble for that end, they therefore order'd that abbats fhould be fummon'd, intead of bishops; and for want of these, the chief incumbents of cathedrals.

Therefore, I fay, 'tis not facrilege, as is loudly pretended, for a fecular prince to try and condemn ecclefiaftical criminals; becaufe not only the canon laws, but also the Council of Trent, demand it at their hands. Degra

dation does not make a priest cease to be a prieft, for the facrament of ordination is one of thofe that imprefs an indelible character, which all the power of man cannot deface. The whole that degradation does, is the putting a priest under a state of interdict, by forbidding him the exercife of his office. It does not take away his capacity of performing his functions, and if a prieft, who is degraded, confecrate the facrifice, it will be valid, tho' he commit a fin by doing that which is forbidden him. Moreover, if a degraded priest be condemn'd to die, and a layman happen to fall fo ill on a fudden, that his life is in danger, and no other prieft is at hand to confefs him, then the prieft, who is under fentence of death,might, and ought to hear his confeffion, tho' he is just going to the gallows; and the dying man, fo abfolv'd from his fins by the faid priest, will be truly and properly abfolv'd before God. fay, that fuch priest not only might, but ought to confefs the dying man, because the obligation of obedience to the precept of confeffion is greater than the fufpenfion pronounc'd by the bishops. 'Tis evident, therefore, that, according to the canons themselves, a fecular prince may judge ecclefiaftics; and if it happens that he do it without degrading them, 'tis becaute every crime is not capital; but the delinquent, tho' he does not deferve death, ought not to come off without any punishment at all, for the fake of obferving that formality;

I

befides

befides that fuch impunity would be attended with the inconveniency I have already mention'd, it would promote licentioufnefs among the laity, becaule fin is always countenanc'd by retarding the punishment of the criminal, tho' he does not at length wholly pass unpunish'd. When a prince happens to punish a clergyman, without ftaying for his degradation, he fails in his obfervation of the canon that prescribes it; and all the fault that the court of Rome could pretend to find with fuch procedure, would be only the neglect of a mere piece of formality, in no wife effential in it felf, because degradation does indeed fufpend, but not efface the character of ordination. But to return once more to the ecclefiaftical judges; are they themselves fuch ftrict Obfervers of thefe canons, that when they find an irregular, fcandalous prieft, in countries fubject to the Church, both in fpirituals and temporals, they degrade him, and then turn him over to the fecular arm? No verily; they firft condemn fuch prieft either to the galleys, or the gibbet, according to the nature of his crime, without delivering him over to the secular power, obferving the diftinction I have already mention'd, viz. that they pronounce this fentence not as priests (because then they would fall into an abfurdity) but as minifters of a temporal prince, or of an ecclefiaftic one, who exercises a temporal power and authority. By this conduct, they do as good as acknowledge

ledge that 'tis neceffary, for the good government of a temporal ftate, to pass judgment without delay, and to condemn the guilty, whether they are laymen or clergy, without ftanding for the ceremony of degradation, or carrying them about from one tribunal to another. Why then do they scruple to allow the fame right to a temporal prince, who is as much concern'd furely as they are to govern the fubjects well, and not to fleep when the guilty deserve punishment; efpecially those who have committed great crimes? if they make no fcruple to break those canons which they ought to obey, I don't think the neglect of them can be a crime in a temporal prince, who indeed owns his obligation to obey the divine law, but does not think he is, nor is he any way oblig'd to mind the canons in matters relating to his government, fince he has no fuperior to account for it to, but God alone.

These are the ufurpations which the court of Rome would fain fee establish'd all over the world. They would have it believ'd that the ecclefiaftical courts have greater authority, in these modern times, than the ancient prelates had formerly. They preach up obedience and juftice, but leave the practice thereof to others. If a layman commits a robbery, or murder, in a Church, and, being profecuted for the fame at law, flies for protection to another Church, the canons are against his enjoying the privileges of the immunity; because,

fay

fay they, he has already dishonour'd the facred place by his crime. By parity of reason, when, a clergyman, who is by his profeffion bound to lift up his eyes to heaven, and to use his hands in adminiftring the facraments, is the firft man to fully his facred character by robbery, murder, or other great enormities, why then should he enjoy the privileges of that order which he has thus defil'd? for ecclefiaftical liberty was establish'd for our edification, and not for our deftruction. The Council of Trent is full of decrees made in favour of epifcopal authority, with a view to render the bishops more eafy in the government of their diocefes; which was often molefted and hinder'd by temporal princes granting exemptions, favours, protections, and the like, to certain places of devotion, military orders, and royal chaplains; which exemptions and privileges, claim'd by offenders, are fo many impediments and obftacles to the right adminiftration of juftice: Therefore the Council frees the bishops from fhewing any regard to conceffions of that kind, and they allow a bifhop the more liberty, in this cafe, to encourage him to conftant refidence in his diocefe, and to reward him for his pains in it. Why then should not a lawful prince have the fame free liberty, who holds his authority and government from God himself, and the law of nature? for my own part, I cannot help thinking it intolerable prefumption, to pretend to make the bishop's jurifdiction larger than the

t

prince's

« 上一頁繼續 »