Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

God, and to renounce his son Jesus Christ, and is therefore no better than total apostacy. This was now become their manner universally.

[ocr errors]

Nay, so far did pope Stephen the second, about the middle of the eighth century, carry this matter, that in writing to Pepin, king of France, on a very urgent occasion, he thought proper to use the apostle's name instead of his own, and thus begins his letter: "Simon Peter, the servant and apostle of "Jesus Christ, to three most excellent kings, Pepin, Charles," "and Carloman, to all the holy bishops, abbots, &c. to all "the dukes, counts, and captains of the army, and to the "whole people of France, grace to you and peace be multiplied. I am the apostle Peter, to whom it was said, Thou "art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And to thee will I "give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou "shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever. "thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Feed my "sheep. As all this was said to me peculiarly, all who hear "ken to me, and obey my exhortations, may be certain that "their sins are forgiven, and that they will be admitted into "everlasting life, cleansed from all guilt, &c." He proceeds to enjoin them to assist the pope, his vicar, and the Romans, his favourite people, his chosen flock, by making war upon the Lombards, those ravening wolves, as they would hope for remission here, or admission into heaven hereafter; and assures them, that in this entreaty and command, he is joined by our lady, the virgin Mary, the mother of God, the thrones and dominions, the principalities and powers, and the whole multitude of the heavenly host. Now this, on pope Stephen's authority, you may call the third epistle of Peter. But on comparing it with the former two, we cannot help remarking the wonderful change in the apostle's style. In this he is a perfect braggart; whereas in those we find not a syllable of his high prerogatives and claims. So far was he then from assuming any superiority, that he put himself on a level not only with apostles, but with every minister of the word. The elders (says he, Pet. v. 1,) that are amongst you, I exhort, who am also an elder. The Greek words are more emphatically expressive of equality than the English, πρεσβύτερες τις εν ύμιν παρακ nadw i ovμrgerßulig. The "presbyters amongst you," he says not I their archpresbyter command, but " I their fellow-presbyter exhort." And to what does he exhort them?" To feed the "flock of God, which was among them, acting the parts of "bishops or overseers, not of lords over God's heritage, but "serving as patterns to the flock, teaching them not so much

*

"by precept as by example." Was it not, however, as under shepherds, that they were to feed and guide the christian community? Undoubtedly. Who then was the chief shepherd? This also we learn from his words. It was not Peter himself. He is very far from giving such a suggestion. But it was Jesus Christ, his and their common master. "When the chief "shepherd, αρχιποίμην, shall appear, you shall receive a crown "of glory that fadeth not away." Nothing here of that arrogant and imperious style, which his pretended successours so soon assumed, and so injuriously fathered upon him. In regard to the spirit of the epistles, I say not how different, but how opposite, are they! This, transmitted by pope Stephen, is an incentive, by every means, the grossest flattery not excepted, to war, bloodshed, and vengeance. Those we have in the sacred canon, breathe nothing but humility, peace, and love, a meek and patient submission to the worst evils that men could inflict. In regard to the new fangled titles conferred on Mary, of our lady, and the mother of God, so foreign from the simple manner of the inspired penmen, I suppose a Romanist would account for them by saying, that the apostle must have learnt these improvements on his language from St. Cyril, who had, long ere now, carried to heaven the news of the Nestorian controversy, and his own triumph at the coun cil of Ephesus.

[ocr errors]

To give you a specimen of the mode of proving which now came in vogue. The pope is the sole foundation of the christian edifice; for Christ said to Peter, On this rock I will build my church. In other places, however, all the apostles are represented equally as foundations. Again, the pope alone has the whole jurisdiction; for Christ said to Peter, To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven. Yet the same power is, almost in the same words, in another passage given to all the apostles, nay, and to the whole church. The pope is the chief shepherd, the only apostle and pastor, that derives his power from Christ: all other bishops are under shepherds that derive their power from the pope. And how is this evinced? After the shameful fall of Peter in thrice denying his master, Jesus Christ judged it meet to bring him thrice solemnly to profess his love, and subjoined this precept, as affording the apostle the means of giving the only satisfactory evidence of the truth of his profession: Feed my sheep, and feed my lambs. Hence the Romanist sagely concludes, that this charge belonged only to Peter. He might with equal reason have maintained, that as the question, Lovest thou me was put only to Peter, and the threefold profession required of none, and given by none but him, it was not a duty incumbent on the other apostles, to love their master, or to confess him. It is on this ground,

also, that some have dared to advance, in contradiction equal ly to the sense and to the words of scripture, that Peter was properly the only apostle of Jesus Christ, and that all the rest were the apostles of Peter. Seriously to refute such a principle would be almost as absurd as to maintain it.

Nay, to show a little more of their wonderful dexterity in reasoning, and the surprising advantages they derive from this tund of St. Peter, the pope's infallibility is thus demonstrated by them. Our Lord said to Peter, before the denial, as being the only disciple who was in imminent danger, (for the traitor is out of the question) Simon, Simon, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Those who think it necessary to mind the scope of the place, and the principles of reason, allege, that the prayer that his faith might not fail, means evidently that he might not proceed so far as to make a total defection from christianity, which he would soon, by repeatedly abjuring his master, appear on the brink of doing. But who thinks it necessary to mind these in disputing? The import of this passage, says the Romanist, is, Christ prayed that Peter might have the gift of infallibility, or, as they also term it, inerrability, in his judgment concerning all articles of christian doctrine. Peter then alone was, and consequently the pope, his sole heir and representative, alone is, infallible.

I shall give but one other specimen of this Romish logick. When in the ages of the church, posterior to those I have yet remarked on, the popes claimed to be the true depositaries of all secular as well as spiritual jurisdiction, how satisfactory was the proof they produced in support of their claim, from this passage. They said, Lord, behold here are two swords. And he said, It is enough. Here they shrewdly ask, Why were there neither more nor fewer than two swords? The answer is plain: It was to denote that there were two sorts of power, neither more nor fewer, deposited with the church, the temporal and the spiritual; and that these two were sufficient for all her occasions. But why are these supposed to be intrusted solely to the pope? If they were intrusted to Peter, they are certainly intrusted to the pope. And that they were intrusted to Peter is manifest from this, that Peter afterwards used one of them, as we learn from the evangelist John, in cutting off the right ear of Malchus, a servant of the high priest. And if he had one of these swords, what good reason can be given why he should not have both? Thus, by a regular deduction, as convincing to a Romanist as demonstration, it is proved, that the pope is the only fountain of all authority, both temporal and spiritual.

LECTURE XVIII.

IN my preceding lectures, on the rise and progress of the papacy, I have been more particular, and treated things more in detail, than I had at first intended. But on so complex a subject, to which so great a variety of different and even dissimilar circumstances contributed, it is not easy to consult at once brevity and perspicuity. Besides, in this deduction, I have found it impossible to elucidate the latent causes, which co-operated in rearing this wonderful fabrick, in a narrative of its advancement, according to the order of time. To have attempted this would have led me to make an abridgment of ecclesiastick history, and to interweave with it such critical inquiries, as would serve to expose the secret springs and progress of that enormous power. But this would have occasioned a still more minute detail, and would, after all, have scarcely been so satisfactory as the manner I have adopted. A number of different springs, in the great machine, which operated separately, though simultaneously, I have been obliged, for the sake of distinctness, to consider separately. In the deductions I have given of each, I have conformed myself, as much as possible, to the order of time, that the different phases, if I may so express myself, of the same plea, at different periods, might be considered and compared. Something of this kind you may have observed from what has been said on the subject of appeals, and on the different foundations on which Rome, at different periods, raised her title to jurisdiction. But when leaving one topick I recurred to another, I have been obliged to turn back, as it were, in order to resume the history of that particular, also, from the beginning. My object, in these discourses, is not to give a narrative of facts, but from known facts, with their attendant circumstances, by comparing one with another, to deduce prin

༩༢

ciples and causes. I have already gone so far this way, not with a view to supersede the accounts given by the historian, but rather to enable you to read those accounts with greater attention and advantage. Many circumstances, apparently trivial, in a detail of facts, are apt to be overlooked by a hasty reader, which yet may be of very considerable consequence for bringing to light the springs of action, and accounting for other things with which, at first, to a superficial observer, they may appear to have little or no connexion. In what remains of this inquiry into the Roman hierarchy, I do not intend to be so particular, but shall briefly take notice of some of the principal causes (for to name all would be impossible) which co-operated in rearing this strange medley of divine (as it was called) and human, spiritual and secular, dominion.

There is none who has read church history with the least attention, but must be sensible, that, from the very beginning of papal power, it has been much more considerable and conspicuous in the west, than in the east. Indeed, for some centuries, the Roman pontiff hardly made any pretensions in the east, except in regard to his precedency, which, as it had been settled by early but tacit consent, and preserved by custom, the eastern prelates were not disposed to controvert. But when from a bare precedency, in point of rank, he came to extend his claim to jurisdiction, he always met from them a vigorous and often successful opposition. The case was not entirely similar with the western bishops, over whom the pope obtained a considerable ascendant, much earlier than it was in his power to do, in regard to his oriental brethren. Several causes may be assigned for this difference.

In the first place, in some of the earliest ages, if we except the inhabitants of Rome, Carthage, and some principal cities, those in the west were in general, beyond all comparison, inferiour both in knowledge and acuteness to the orientals, and were therefore much better adapted to be implicit followers, first, during the church's worldly obscurity, of the most respectable characters, afterwards, during her worldly splendour, of the most eminent sees. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the violent measures he adopted against the Quarto-decimans, in Asia, in the second century, seems to have had no adherents, even among those, who, in the observance of Easter, the only point in dispute, followed the same custom with himself. As little had Stephen the first, in the third century, in his measures against the African rebaptizers of those who had been baptized by hereticks or schismaticks. Ireneus, bishop of Lyons, on account of his personal character, was of ten times more authority even in the west than

« PreviousContinue »