Page images
PDF
EPUB

LECTURE XVII.

IN the preceding lecture, I illustrated, at some length, in the instance of Gregory, one of the best of the Roman pontiffs, how far the maxim could go, of reckoning every thing just and lawful, by which the papal power could be advanced, and the supremacy of Rome secured. But it was not in one or two ways only, that they showed their attention to the aforesaid maxim, but in every way wherein they could apply it to advantage. I have also observed to you some of their other prac tices of the like nature and tendency. The only artifice I shall consider at present, is the claims which Rome so long and so assiduously affected to derive from the prerogatives of the apostle Peter, the pretended founder of that see. I have hinted at this, by the way, once and again; but as it was one of her most potent engines, it will deserve our special at

tention.

In my first discourse, on the rise of the pontificate, I showed sufficiently how destitute this plea is of every thing that can deserve the name of evidence, and observed, that the first pontiff who seemed directly to found the honours of his see on the privileges of Peter, was pope Innocent, about the beginning of the fifth century. As to the apostolick age, and that immediately succeeding, there is not a vestige of either authority or precedency in the Roman pastor, more than in any other bishop or pastor of the church. Nor is this to be imputed to a defect of evidence through the injury of time, in relation to the point in question. So far from it, that next to the sacred canon, the most ancient and most valuable monument we have of christian antiquity, is a very long letter to the Corinthians from a bishop of Rome, Clement, who had been contemporary with the apostles, and is mentioned by Paul, in one of his epistles. So much the reverse do we

find here of every thing that looks like authority and state, that this worthy pastor, in the true spirit of primitive and christian humility, sinks his own name entirely in that of the congregation to which he belonged, and does not desire that he should be considered otherwise than as any other individual of the society; a manner very unlike that of his successours, and quite incompatible with their claims. The letter is titled and directed thus: "The church of God, which sojourns at "Rome, to the church of God, which sojourns at Corinth." The words of the congregation were then considered as of more weight than those of any bishop, even the bishop of Rome. Nor is there, in the whole performance, any trace of authority lodged either in him, or in his church, over the church of Corinth, or, indeed, over any person or community. In every part, he speaks the language not of a superiour to his inferiours, a master to his servants, or even a father to his children, but of equal to equal, friend to friend, and brother to brother. He uses no dictating and commanding; he only exhorts and entreats. To the contraveners there are no menacing denunciations, such as have, for many centuries, accom panied the papal bull of the vengeance of Almighty God, and the malediction of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul. The modesty of the style of this truly primitive pastor, is an infal lible index of the modesty of his pretensions; and, let me add, a very strong evidence of the great antiquity, and perfect au thenticity of the epistle.

The first who appeared to claim any thing like authority was Victor, bishop of Rome, (or pope, if you please to call him so though that name was not then peculiar) who lived near the end of the second century. This man, the first noted stickler for uniformity, quarrelled with the Asiatick bishops for following a different rule in the observance of Easter, or the feast of the passover, from that followed in the west. This festival appears from the beginning to have been distinguished by christians, not on its own account as a Jewish solemnity, in commemoration of their deliverance from Egypt, but on account of its coincidence in respect of time, with those most memorable of all events, the death and resurrection of Christ. In the east, they were accustomed to observe the 14th day of the first month, on whatever day of the week it happened. In the west, when the 14th did not fall on Sunday, they kept it the first Sunday after. When Victor found that the orientals were no more impelled by his menaces than persuaded by his arguments, to relinquish the custom they had been taught by their founders, and to adopt implicitly the Roman practice, he, in a rage, cut them off from his communion. It is of im

portance here to observe, that this phrase, as used then, was not (as it is often misunderstood by modern readers) of the same import with excommunicating, in the strictest sense. It only denotes refusing, in respect of one's self, to join with such a person in religious exercises. And this every bishop whatever considered himself as entitled to do, in regard to those whom he thought to err in essential matters. That the pope himself considered it in this manner, is manifest from the pains he took (though to no purpose) to induce other bishops to follow his example; sensible, that his refusal of communi. cating with the Quartodecimans, as they were called, did nei ther exclude them from the communion of the church, unless the resolution had become universal, nor oblige any other bishop to exclude them, till satisfied of the propriety of the measure. Accordingly, he is not considered by his contempora ries as assuming an extraordinary power, but as using very absurdly and uncharitably a power which every one of them had as well as he. Even those of the same opinion with him, in regard to Easter, would not concur in this measure. They looked on the time of observing that festival as merely circumstantial, and therefore not a sufficient reason for a breach. Such had been the opinion of his own predecessors, and such also was the opinion of all his successours, till the time of Constantine, when, by the emperour's influence with the Nicene council, the practice of the west was established throughout the church. So far, therefore, is this passage of history, as some have represented it, from being an evidence of power in the Roman pastor at that early period, that it is a very strong evidence of the contrary. In Victor, we have a pope that was wrong-headed and violent enough to attempt an extraordinary exertion, if he had had but as much influence as would have secured to his endeavours some probability of suc cess. But in any other way than that of example and persuasion, he knew that his endeavours could only serve to render himself ridiculous. Of so little account, however, were his judgment and example made, that, in this step, to his no small mortification, he remained singular. All were ashamed of it, and his immediate successour did not judge it proper to adopt it. I need not add, that on this occasion we hear not a syllable of the authority of St. Peter, or of any right in the Roman see, to direct and command all other churches.

Of no greater consequence was the excommunication of St. Cyprian, and most of the African bishops, about half a century afterwards, by pope Stephen, on occasion of the question about the validity of heretical baptism. These sentences were mere bruta fulmina, had no consequences, and, as Augustin observes, produced no schism. The pope's excommunication, when un

supported by other bishops, did, in effect, rebound upon himself, and he himself was properly the only person cut off by such a sentence from the full communion of the church. Nothing can be juster than the sentiment of Firmilian on this subject. "O Stephen," says he, " by attempting to separate "others from thee, thou hast separated thyself from all other "churches. He is the true schismatick who departs, as thou "hast done, from the unity of the church." When the bishop of Rome acted unreasonably, no person considered himself as under an obligation to follow his example more than that of any other pastor in the church. Nor was Stephen's conduct, any more than Victor's, imitated by his successour; for though the African bishops rebaptized, and most others did not, they lived peaceably in communion with each other till rebaptization was condemned in the following century, first by the synod of Arles, and then by the council of Nice.

Even as far down as the pontificate of Damasus, towards the end of the fourth century, when the see of Rome was, through the munificence of the emperours and persons of opulence, greatly increased in riches and splendour, and consequently, in dignity and power, a synod of Italian bishops, with the pope at their head, in a letter to the emperour Gratian, thus express themselves in regard to the superiority of the see of Rome: "The bishop of Rome is above other bishops, "in respect of the prerogatives of his apostolick see, but on a "level with them in respect of his ministry." Let it be observed, that the term apostolick was not yet peculiarly appropriated to the Roman see, but was conceived to belong to it, as has before been observed, in common not only with all the churches that had been founded by apostles, but even with all patriarchal and metropolitical churches. By his superiority, therefore, no more is meant than such a precedency as they supposed Peter to have enjoyed amongst his fellow-apostles. As to the latter part of the declaration, the equality of the ministry in the bishops, though it be the doctrine of all antiquity, nothing can be more repugnant, to what has been the doctrine of Rome, for many centuries, namely, that all power, both spiritual and temporal, is lodged in the pope ; that all the bishops are no more than his deputies; that all the authority and jurisdiction they are vested with, are but emanations from the plenitude of power lodged in him. But Damasus, who, though far from being unambitious, had not formed a conception of so exorbitant a claim, appears to have been well satisfied with the respect shown to his see in the above declaration.

From this event, to the time of Innocent, in the beginning of the fifth century, though the popes piqued themselves not a little on the tradition they had, however implausible, that their see was founded by the apostle Peter, they did not pretend to derive any peculiar authority from him; but in main, taining their power, always recurred to the dignity of Rome, the queen of cities, the capital of the world, to the imperial rescripts, the decrees of Sardica, which, on some occasions, they wanted to impose on mankind for the decrees of Nice, and to canons, real or, superstitious, of ecumenical councils.. That there were real canons, which gave the bishop of Rome a precedency before other bishops, is not denied; but in these it is never assigned as a reason, that this church had Peter for its founder, but solely, that the city was the world's metropolis.

But no sooner was this other foundation suggested, than its utility for the advancement of the papal interest was perceived by every body. First, this was a more popular plea. It made the papal authority much more sacred, as being held directly jure divino, whereas, on the other plea, it was held merely jure humano. Secondly, this rendered that authority immovable. What one emperour gave by his rescript, another might resume in the same manner; the canons of one council might be repealed by a posterior council. Such alterations, in matters of discipline, arrangement, and subordination, had been often made. But who darst abrogate the prerogatives granted by his Lord and Master to the prince of the apostles, and by him transmitted to his church? Thirdly, the power claimed in this way was more indefinite, and might be extended, nobody knows how far, as long as there was found enough of ignorance and superstition in the people to favour the attempts of the priesthood. Besides, when the claim was of divine right, the pontiff had this advantage, that he alone was considered as the proper interpreter of his own privileges. The case was totally different with all human decrees, authority, and claims whatever. Add to this, that whilst they derived from any terrestrial power, they could never raise their claims above the authority which was acknowledged to be the source. But when the source was believed to be in heaven, no claim over earthly powers, however arrogant, could endanger their exceeding in this respect. And though I believe, that all these considerations were not fully in view at the beginning, yet it is certain, that for these purposes they employed this topick, in the course of a few centuries, when they would have all power, secular as well as spiritual, to have been conferred by Peter, a poor fisherman of Galilee, upon the pope.

« PreviousContinue »