Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

1848.]

Mr. Fox's Opinion.

221

Neither is it true, on the other hand, that the Stuarts sought the reëstablishment of Popery for its own sake, irrespectively of the political advantages which they might derive from that religion considered as an instrument of arbitrary power. They sought the establishment of an absolute dominion over their subjects; and it was only during a short time under the reign of James II. that the restoration of Popery was regarded as a matter of primary importance. On this point we know of no one whose opinion should have so much weight as that of Mr. Fox, certainly one of the greatest statesmen that England has ever produced. Mr. Fox remarks upon this view as follows: —

"Mr. Hume says, the king found himself, by degrees, under the necessity of falling into an union with the French monarch, who could alone assist him in promoting the Catholic religion in England. But when that historian wrote, those documents had not been made public from which the account of the communications with Barillon has been taken, and by which it appears that a connection with France was, as well in point of time as in importance, the first object of his reign, and that the immediate specific motive to that connection was the same as that of his brother; the desire of rendering himself independent of Parliament, and absolute, not that of establishing Popery in England, which was considered as a more remote contingency. That this was the case is evident from all the circumstances of the transaction, and especially from the zeal with which he was served in it by ministers who were never suspected of any leaning towards Popery, and not one of whom (Sunderland excepted) could be brought to the measures that were afterwards taken in favor of that religion. It is the more material to attend to this distinction, because the Tory historians, especially such of them as are not Jacobites, have taken much pains to induce us to attribute the violences and illegalities of this reign to James's religion, which was peculiar to him, rather than to that desire of absolute power, which so many other princes have had, have, and always will have, in common with him. The policy of such misrepresentations is obvious. If this reign is to be considered as a period insulated, as it were, and unconnected with the general course of history, and if the events of it are to be attributed exclusively to the particular character and particular attachments of the monarch, the sole inference will be, that we must not have a Catholic for our king; whereas, if we consider it, which history well warrants us to do, as a part of that system which had been pursued by all the Stuart kings, as well prior as subsequent to the Restoration, the lesson which it affords is very different, as well VOL. XLIV. - 4TH S. VOL. IX. NO. II.

20

as far more instructive. We are taught, generally, the dangers Englishmen will always be liable to, if, from favor to a prince upon the throne, or from a confidence, however grounded, that his views are agreeable to our own notion of the constitution, we in any considerable degree abate of that vigilant and unremitting jealousy of the power of the crown, which can alone secure to us the effect of those wise laws that have been provided for the benefit of the subject; and still more particularly, that it is in vain to think of making a compromise with power, and, by yielding to it in other points, preserving some favorite object, such, for instance, as the Church in James's case, from its grasp." History, pp. 346, 347.

Throughout this passage we perceive how philosophically Mr. Fox had regarded this whole period of history. No one is more competent to pronounce decisively on the practical workings of parties, or of their objects in such a struggle as the English Revolution, than he who for so many years from the opposition benches of the House of Commons thundered against arbitrary power and ministerial encroachments. In view of the facts to which we have referred, supported by the opinion of one of the greatest statesmen of modern times, we may boldly affirm that the English Revolution was not a mere religious struggle to prevent the establishment of Popery. When we assert that it was, we are unjust to the popular leaders, for we make them bigots by implying that they were unwilling to allow toleration to the Catholics, which is not true; we do more than justice to the Stuarts, for we make them martyrs to a religious sense of duty, which they were not. In truth, not one of them except James II. was a sincere Catholic.

We have thus endeavoured to point out two of the principal popular errors respecting the English Revolution, the unauthorized importance attached to the life and character of Cromwell, and the idea that the Revolution was a struggle between Protestants and Papists. We think that neither of the views to which we have alluded finds any adequate support in a careful examination of this period of mingled glory and shame. Nay more, both, we believe, are utterly at variance with the real facts in the case. The importance of entertaining_correct opinions on great historical questions is manifest. History is the teacher of nations as well as of individuals. To preserve the integrity and give the right in-. terpretation of her teaching is, therefore, one of our most solemn duties.

C. C. S.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

FOR the sake of those of our readers who may not be familiar with the work or collection called the "Apostolical Constitutions," including what are termed the "Canons of the Apostles," we will, before proceeding to give an account of the publication for which we are indebted to Dr. Chase, say a few words respecting the history and character of these relics of Christian antiquity. There is no notice of any production under the title of "Apostolical Constitutions" by any writer during the first three centuries of the Christian era, nor until late in the fourth. Epiphanius, who wrote during the latter part of the fourth century and died early in the fifth, is the first who names a work with this title. He quotes from what he calls the "Constitution of the Apostles," a composition, he says, which, though held of doubtful authority by many, is not to be condemned, since it contains a true account of the ecclesiastical discipline and laws. Eusebius and Athanasius, it is true, refer to what they call the "Teachings" or "Doctrine" of the Apostles, and it has been thought by some, that under this title they designated the work afterwards quoted by Epiphanius. But of this there is no decisive evidence, and their identity is matter of conjecture merely. With the exception of Epiphanius, if he be an exception, none of the distinguished writers of the fourth century allude to the work, and the next mention we find of it is in what is known as the "Incomplete Work on Matthew," written after the death of Theodosius the Great, and it may have been late in the fifth century. This is all the external evidence relating to the existence of such a work found within the first five centuries; and it is not certain that our present

* 1. The Work claiming to be the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles, including the Canons; Whiston's Version, revised from the Greek; with a Prize Essay, at the University of Bonn, upon their Origin and Contents; translated from the German, by IRAH CHASE, D. D. New York: D. Appleton & Co. 1848. 8vo. pp. 496.

2. General History of the Christian Religion and Church; from the German of Dr. Augustus Neander. Translated from the First, revised and altered throughout according to the Second Edition. By JOSEPH TORREY, Professor of Moral and Intellectual Philosophy in the University of VerVolume Second: comprising the second great Division of the History: Boston: Crocker & Brewster. 1848. 8vo. pp. 768.

mont.

"Constitutions" is the same work quoted by Epiphanius. If substantially the same, it is very clear that it has been interpolated, or has received additions, or both, since his time.

The work claims to have the Apostles for its authors, and is sent out in their name through their "fellow-minister Clement." It begins thus: "The Apostles and Elders to all who from among the Gentiles have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace from Almighty God, through our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. In the fourth chapter of the eighth book, we have these words: "Wherefore, we the Twelve Apostles of the Lord, who are now together, give you in charge these our Divine Constitutions concerning every ecclesiastical form; there being present with us Paul, the chosen vessel, our fellow-apostle, and James the Bishop," etc. Again,—“Now this we all in common proclaim," etc. But sometimes one of the number speaks individually. Thus, "I Peter," or "I Andrew," " say "; "I who was beloved by the Lord," "I Philip," or "I Bartholomew," "make this Constitution." And so of the rest, each in turn speaking in his proper person. No one now, however, thinks of attributing the work either to the Apostles or to the Roman Clement; it is universally admitted to be spurious, and, so far as the form is concerned, is, in truth, a very bungling forgery. It was written after the hierarchical principle began to develop itself and had made some progress in the Church, and treats largely of ecclesiastical discipline, forms, and observances, not omitting, however, duties of practical morality. The first book, which is exceedingly brief, is "Concerning the Laity "; the second, Concerning Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons "; the third, "Concerning Widows"; the subject of the fourth is "Orphans "; of the fifth," Martyrs"; of the sixth, "Schisms "; the seventh is "Concerning Deportment, and the Eucharist, and Initiation into Christ"; the eighth is "Concerning Gifts, and Ordinations, and Ecclesiastical Canons," and contains, as well as the seventh, various prayers and liturgical services.

Rejecting the claim of the "Constitutions" to an Apostolic origin, we may observe, that, in the absence of direct historical testimony, their age is matter of conjecture, founded on the character of their contents, which, though it precludes a very early date, leaves room for no inconsiderable latitude of opinion as to the precise period of their composition, if

1848.]

Critical Opinions.

225

they were not, as is probable, the growth of different periods. It is impossible to say positively in what century even they assuined their present form. Several of the most eminent among the earlier Catholic writers of modern times, as Bellarmin, who takes notice of their rejection by the Trullan Council, A. D. 692, Baronius, Cardinal du Perron, Petavius (Petau), and others, have pronounced them spurious, though few of them have undertaken to decide when or by whom they were written. Petavius observes, that they are different from the "Constitutions" of Epiphanius. Tillemont says, that they were a fabrication of the sixth century; others ascribe them to the third or fourth; Du Pin thinks them not the same work mentioned by Eusebius and Athanasius, and conjectures that they "belong to the third, or rather the fourth century," but that they were" from time to time corrected, altered, and augmented, according to the various customs of different ages and countries"; Cotelerius expresses doubts whether they were known to Epiphanius, and at all events thinks them interpolated and corrupted.

The opinions of Protestants have been not less diverse as to the time of their composition. Blondell, without assigning his reasons, places them late in the second century. William Beveridge ascribes them to Clement of Alexandria, instead of Clement of Rome, first mentioned as the author by the Trullan Council above referred to. But Clement of Alexandria, if he wrote them, must have stood selfcondemned, for the Constitutions do not allow the reading of heathen authors, who constituted his favorite study, and with whom he probably was more familiar than any other man of his time. For other reasons we may pronounce the opinion that he was the author of the work a very strange one and wholly untenable. Pearson supposes them a compilation with alterations and additions, made up after the age of Epiphanius from writings already in existence, some of them ancient. With Pearson agrees, in the main, Grabe. On the other hand, Whiston declares them to be the "most sacred of the canonical books of the New Testament," and says, that their contents were derived immediately from the Saviour during the forty days he passed with the Apostles after his resurrection and first ascension,* and that the place of their delivery was Mount Zion, whence the "Christian law was to

* Whiston supposed that our Lord ascended immediately after his resurrection, and returned to instruct his Apostles during the forty days.

« AnteriorContinuar »