We shall adduce only one other document as prefatory to what we are going to say, and that is the letter of a certain Professor Sbarbaro, who is a prominent writer of extreme views, possessing a frankness of character that makes him attack the government at one time, even in favor of the church, though through no love of it, at another launch forth against it an amount of invective and false accusation that would warrant us in looking on him as the crater of the revolutionary volcano. This personage has written quite recently one of his characteristic letters, in which he uses all his eloquence against the church, recommending everywhere the establishment of Protestant churches and schools; because, he says, this is the only way to destroy the Catholic Church, the implacable enemy of the new order of things. Every nerve must be strained to effect this. There can be no peace till it be accomplished, and the edifice of Italian unity and
freedom tower over the ruins of ecclesiastical oppression.
With the express declaration of the deputy, Sig. Giuseppe Toscanelli, the letter of his Excellency the Keeper of the Seals and that of Professor Sbarbaro, before our eyes, we are prepared to see some fact in accordance with the ideas and sentiments therein expressed. The fact is at hand; it is a movement set on foot to obtain adhesion and subscriptions to the scheme of electing, by the people, to their positions ecclesiastics even of the highest grade. The Sovereign Pontiff himself alluded to this in his discourse to the foreign colleges, July 25, 1876, when he warned them that steps were taking to prepare the way to a popular election, “a tempo suo, anche al maggior beneficio della chiesa”—“at the proper time, to even the first benefice of the church”—in other words, the Papacy. It is worth while examining this question, because the agitation having begun, specious arguments having been advanced, and illustrious names, such as that of Rosmini—who, it is well known, retracted whatever by overzeal he had written that incurred censure at Rome—having been brought forward to support such views, it is not unlikely that elsewhere we may hear a repetition of them. Say what people may, Rome is the centre of the civilized world; the agitations that occur there, especially in the speculative order, are like the waves produced by casting a stone in the water: the ripples extend themselves from the centre to the extreme circumference. So thence the agitations strike France and Germany and Spain, extend to England, Russia, the East, and finally reach us and the other extra-European nations.
The errors on this subject of popular election in the church, where they are not affected, come from a confusion of ideas and a want of knowledge of what the church is. Protestantism has had the greatest part in misleading men; for it completely changed the essential idea of this mystic body of Christ. Our Lord, when founding his church on earth, spoke of it continually as his, as his kingdom, as his house, as his vineyard. He told his disciples that to him all power had been given in heaven and on earth. Nowhere do we see him giving to any one a title that would make him a sharer in that power; the unity of command signified by the idea of the kingdom, the absolute power of imposing laws, is his, his alone, and is entrusted to those he selected to continue his work. His words to his apostles were: “As the Father hath sent me, I send you”—the fulness of power I have I bestow upon you, that you may act in my name, in such a way that “he who hears you hears me; and he who will not hear you, let him be to you as the heathen and the publican.” He makes the distinction between those who are to hear and those who are outside his church; he constitutes in his kingdom, his church, those who are to command with his authority and those who are to obey: the apostles and their successors—the Sovereign Pontiff with the bishops—and the people or the laity. The duty of the laity is to obey, not to command, not to impose, not to exact, much less to name those who are to hold positions in the church—an act proper of its nature only to those who hold power of command, just as in a kingdom the naming to offices resides with the king or with those
he may depute for such purpose. The duty of the laity is summed up in the words of the Prince of the Apostles: Obedite præpositis vestris—Obey your prelates. Such is the divine constitution of the church, and, like everything of divine right, that constitution is unchangeable. Alongside of this fact, however, we find another that apparently conflicts with it. We see the people, even in the first period of the preaching of Christianity, taking part in the election of those who were to hold places in the church, and this at the instance of the apostles themselves. It is, however, not the rule, but the exception, in the sacred text; for we find the apostles acting directly, themselves selecting and bestowing power of orders and jurisdiction; as, for example, when St. Paul placed Timothy over the church of Ephesus, and Titus over those of Crete. This is in accordance with what we might expect from the constitution of the church. Had the election to such places been of divine right, St. Paul would have violated that right in so naming both Timothy and Titus. It follows, then, that this power of taking part in the election of prelates, priests, and deacons was introduced by the apostles and used in the early church as a matter of expediency, the continuation or interruption of which would depend upon circumstances. What was the meaning of it? Was it a conferring of power, a naming to fill a place, or a presentation, a testimony of worth of those thus selected, which the apostles and their successors sought from the people? It was a testimony of worth only. This is evident from the words of St. Peter to the one hundred and twenty gathered with him for the
nomination of St. Matthias. It is St. Peter who regulates, orders what is to be done, and commands the brethren to select one from their number. They could not agree on one; two were nominated, and the prayer and choice by lot followed. This was, of course, an extraordinary case, and we do not see this mode of election afterwards resorted to, leaving the matter to be decided by the power of God. What we do see here that is of interest to us is the act of the Prince of the Apostles prescribing what was to be done; this shows his supreme authority, and is the source of the legality of the position of St. Matthias. The testimony of the people was required to ascertain his worth and fitness. It was very natural that this testimony of the people should be resorted to, especially in the early church, in which affairs were administered and the work of the Gospel carried on rather through the spirit of charity, “that hath no law,” than by legal enactments; though we begin to see quite early traces of these, as required by the nature of the case. This example of the apostles continued in use in the church for centuries, the testimony of the people to the worth of their bishops being required; for it has always been an axiom in the conduct of affairs in the church that the bishop must be acceptable to his people; nor is any great examination needed to arrive at such a conclusion, for the office of a bishop regards the spiritual interests of his flock, and such interests cannot be furthered by one against whom his people have just cause of complaint and dissatisfaction. To obtain such testimony, or to be able to present an acceptable and worthy bishop to a flock, there is
no one essentially necessary way. Provided testimony beyond exception can be had, it matters little by what channel it comes. In process of time, when persecution, and persistent struggle with paganism for centuries after persecution, ended, “the charity of many having grown cold,” the strife that too often ensued in the choice of bishops, and the success of designing men through bribery or intrigue, brought about the change in the discipline of the church. We find the eighth general council legislating with regard to elections to patriarchates, archbishoprics, and bishoprics. We see that the powerful were making use of the means at their command either to influence the people in the choice, where this was possible, or by their own authority placing ecclesiastics in possession of sees. The council was held in the year 869, and was called on to act against Photius, the intruded patriarch of Constantinople. It drew up and promulgated these two canons:
“Can. XII. The apostolic and synodical canons wholly forbidding promotion and consecration of bishops by the power and command of princes, we concordantly define, and also pronounce sentence, that, if any bishop have received consecration to such dignity by intrigue or cunning of princes, he is to be by all means deposed as having willed and agreed to possess the house of the Lord, not by the will of God and by ecclesiastical rite and decree, but by the desire of carnal sense, from men and through men.
“Can. XXII. This holy and universal synod, in accordance with former councils, defines and decrees that the promotion and consecration of bishops are to be done by the election and decree of the college of bishops; and it rightly proclaims that no lay prince or person possessed of power shall interfere in the election of a patriarch, of a metropolitan, or of any bishop whatsoever, lest there
should arise inordinate and incongruous confusion or strife, especially as it is fitting that no prince or other layman have any power in such matters” (Version of Anastasius).