The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1903-10-18
A REPLY TO MR.. COL OWN SMITH
The Argument Of \ Learned Roman Cstho.
lic TheolOglan.

lic TheslOglan.
To THE EDITOR OF THE Sun II would
be impossible In a single letter TO reply to ali
the accusations made by Mr.. Goodwin Smith
In MS letter OF last Sunday on The Crimes q,
Christendom" nor IL 1t necessary. for many
OF them have been answered again and again
In the treatises on controversial theology
There Is likewise, In some cases, a conspicu.
Gus absence OF proof, such as one would no,
readily expect in a writer Of Mr.. uoldwip
Smiths standing: and. Of course. there Ia
the usual ding at the Jesuits-it takes at all
times, In certain quarters. and Is quite the
fashion. especially since Macaulay had re.
course to 1t in order to point few antithsses
OF his artificial style. This pass over, for
propose to discuss principally Mr.. Goodwin
Smiths statement that Gregory the ureat
denounced the title Of Universal Bishop a,
blasph emous: as also his statements about
ana dh severe structures on. HIldebrand.
Patriarch Of Constantinople. and refused TO
assume il himself is true; nay. more--and
this would have added to the speciousness Of
DID not claim IL. But what matters a mere
claimed all that is now sfyninsd by the title
usssS me paum On john
Bishop Of Palermo. which proves that no had
jurisdiction over him, and in the letter ii
he calls the Roman See the head Tor source,
OF the faith.
2. He absolved Athanasius, a priest Of
hsresy that was inflicted on him a BY the Bishop
of ConstantinOple: and he did SO without con.
ssulting the, said Bishop nay. without even
on ha mpnr v the Of sssd
and authority but. be II recorded in favor
of. Gregory'5 ,politeness., he sad he would
inform Ia him tt1 later Epst lsy. lib VIZ Not.
Bishops, and in this relation II might be well
andria. Antioch and, Jerusalem. IN which
organ. is the unmistakable note OF authority
g.. In a rather sharp, letter to the Bishop
Epist. xxx; lib. x.-and the Bishop Of Milan,
needless to say, was an important parsonage
he claims that every Bishop + subject
dicton, not only over his own see, but over an
entire country, Gregory tells MS what the
Primate .Byzacenus Of Africa did in order to
oy b. ts
peror, as being in accordance with the canoni-
cal statutes-,which of itself proves, tina,
k9ms vas recognized SsSTe
quis Ell episcopus subjectus non sit. dbid)
could quote several other examples all Of
which go to prove that. whatever may be said
at least, the thing. at present signifed;
1t may. be asked what objection he had to
the title itself. He objected TO It in the sense
to the exclusion of the rights OF other Bishops,
as if he (John) were the sole Bishop. That
Gregory looked upon the title in this sense is
forth PEERS supremacy. while he asserts that
Peter did not claim the ttle--from which we
must either admit a distinction between, his
that Gregory discharged a cannon to xiii
fly from his renewal Of the condemns-
ton Of John by his predecessSer; for hay ';
An An from his letter to the Patriarchs Of
Alexandria and Antioch, urging them to de-
fend their rights as B'shops against John.
from hs writings Of his bi9sra,phsr snd
Of t,f Ais1andra in Which he says, III YOU Style
me Universal Pope, vou deny that you are what
you declare me to be universally the
Even Gregory humility. Of which he wished
to give John an example. was SUFFICIENT TO
explain his words, because he wanted to be
known as the servant of the servants OF
next come to Mr.. Gold win Smiths ex-
traordinary statement that there was no
Hildebrand Why. even Protestants and RI,
tonalists are now generally agreed that papa
supremacy has been in force since the fifth OF
sNs Is PUT .ss
Let US be up TO date. at Least, We have seen
sne Mr. s na az so%s ms o
other have read the formula OF Hormisdas
which, in $40, was signed In Constantinopls
by $500 Bishops. and which contains an ex-
| may add, Of infaliibfity. too. This presses
the question back to the Council Of Chalcedon.
Thf Be- dsed the Pope. 70 lad
before that time, 45l, shall then, but not till
then, az, do not wish to prolonS the dis
cussion longer than is necessary. discuss the
arguments that prove the claim as coming
from the time OF Peter.
4 few words, as 70 Mr.. Smiths vehement
denunciation Of Hildebrand, who n his pre-,
on tho Mount constitutes the greatest e1,,
It be- be if We said that Hildsbrand found i i
represents him in driving the, buyers and
sellers from the Temple? Indeed. Hild l., ,rI
did find 1t so necessary: Mr. smith Ia. n md e
detached from humanity and bound to the
papacy by the enforcement OF celibaoy. n"
clearly admits the power Of ,h mute lila OF ,n,-
precate the compliment But his statement
will not bear scrutiny, and supplies nm exam
pie Of the sophsm known IN logic as post noe,
ergo propter hoe because at that time the
clergy were not detached from humanity
but, inquest ionably. too human for the wei
fare of the Church. SO far from aiding Greg,
and by their celibacy. they actual opposed
him on this very ground, and felt deep resent
ment because he appealed to the laity Gnu
mainly" shall ! saw against them, An
unfortunate state of affairs TO be sure, which
came about through the too close union be
tween Church and state such M union ION. Mr. d,
record his opinion. by extolling "Christian!tv
in itself. and apart from its Unhappy enta IN
denonnces as the despot OF history the man
who rescued Christ ianity--t was only one
form then from the State. and who, In 40
doing, gave TO history its record of perhaps
the greatest victory OF high, unf1inchlng
tanosso II wer. long quote the TordI 10
STOW on Hilhebrand and 30 shall be contcn'
win giving the words Of Dean Mman wno
trmplated with awe" and who, made the
world feel that there was some being, ever
on earth, whose special duty it was to defend
the defenccless. to succor the snccorlcss; 7"
be the refuge OF the widow and the Orphan
and to be the guardian OF the poor.
NEW YORK. Oct. 49, THEoLo0us