Page images
PDF
EPUB

holding it on the third day after the fourteenth day of the paschal full moon. Many bitter animosities and schisms arose out of this contested point, until the council of Nice, convened by Constantine the Great, decided that the Sunday after the fourteenth of the moon was the proper time, and from that epoch it became the practice of the western churches.

[ocr errors]

It is truly marvellous that, in all this time, the question seems never to have been started among them, "Who hath required this thing at your hands?" And the fact is in place of a thousand arguments to show how much the churches were under the influence of unwritten tradition. Erius, however, took different ground; he said of this, as the apostles said of a tradition which some teachers brought from them in Jerusalem to Antioch, that they gave no such commandment”—they gave no commandment about the annual celebration of a paschal feast at Easter. That usage or observance, though the most ancient of all unscriptural usages, was never sanctioned by the apostles-it is not to be found in their writings, and therefore ought to be rejected as a practice wholly foreign to true Christian unity, and serving no other purpose than to divide those whom Christ would have united solely by the word of his apostles. As to calling in question fixed annual fasts, and offering up prayers for the dead, both of which were imputed to Ærius as part of his heresy, they admit of the same answer as that now given to the non-observance of Easter-there is no authority whatever for these things in the New Testament, and on this ground Ærius rejected them, for this heretic thought himself at liberty to deny every thing in the religion of his day which he could not find supported by the authority of the holy Scripture.

In taking leave of this class of reformers I cannot but remark it as a singular circumstance that while Mosheim mentions them chiefly with the view of censuring them for troubling a corrupt church with plans of reform, and impugning their motives, several of our ecclesiastical writers have not even condescended to notice them at all, among whom are Du Pin, Spanheim, Milner, Haweis, and others; a pretty convincing proof, how little concerned they were to trace out the "footsteps of the flock" or mark the deviations that took place from apostolic simplicity.

LECTURE XXVI.

Introductory Remarks-History of the Papal Power-Its unparalleled singularity-Steps by which the Bishops of Rome gradually advanced to the plenitude of their power—Progressive advance from the Elder or Presbyter to Bishop, Archbishop, Patriarch, Pope-Grounds on which the Church of Rome claimed Supremacy over other Churches-The Bishopric of Rome an object of competition-Squabbles to obtain it— Rise of the Pope's Temporal power-Sources of opulence to the Clergy-The Laity resist their Incroachments—History of the origin and appropriation of Tithes-Remarks on the Antichristian character and tendency of this source of Revenue—Application of the subject to the Church of England-Contest between the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople for the Supremacy-Letter of Gregory the Great to the Emperor of Constantinople-Success of the Roman Pontiff. A. D. 500 to 606.

I HAVE had occasion in several of the preceding Lectures to speak of the rise of Antichrist, that singular power which was foretold by the prophet Daniel, under the emblem of "a little horn" springing up out of the ruins of the Roman Empire, and of whose exploits, both in the church and the world, much is there predicted, Dan. ch. vii. I need not tell you that those who have had occasion to speak or write concerning this article of Old Testament prophecy, have availed themselves of a variety of descriptive epithets whereby to make it known, but all of them significant in their import, and strikingly characteristic of its nature and properties. Thus, what Daniel terms "a little 2 I

VOL. I.

horn," the apostle terms "the man of sin—the son of perdition," and the writer of the Apocalypse, "a beast"-" a great whore" "the mother of harlots,"-" Babylon the great," &c. &c. Now, though there may be slight shades of difference in the precise import of these terms, yet I apprehend that there is a sufficient correspondence and analogy between them to lay a foundation for our applying the whole to one and the same specific power.

Some modern writers, when treating on this subject, have preferred to speak of it as the " Kingdom of the Clergy," and not without reason, because, when the holy apostles mention its origin, they immediately direct us to the indulgence of covetousness, inordinate ambition, and the love of pre-eminence and power on the part of the ministers of religion, as its source, fountain, or spring; for they are principles in flagrant opposition to the laws of the kingdom of Christ. Nor is it on account of its origin merely that it becomes entitled to this appellation; for the closer you look into the subject to examine its nature and constituent principles, the more satisfied you will be, that the unauthorized assumption of clerical authority over the minds, consciences, property, and bodies of men, and that by means which the religion of Christ deprecates, enters deeply into its composition, and constitutes it what it is. Contemplating it as a kingdom, or system of ecclesiastical rule, it forms a striking contrast to the heavenly kingdom of the Messiah, and I am of opinion is not unhappily designated "the Kingdom of the Clergy."

To what has been now said, I will, however, add, that one of the most common and familiar appellations which is given to this power, by the writers of ecclesiastical history, is that of the Papacy, because the popes, or bishops of the church of Rome, were what are vulgarly termed the "ring-leaders” in a confederacy, in which they usurped the authority that appertains to Christ alone in his churches, and which he never delegated to another. But I would not be misunderstood here as insinuating that the popes were the only delinquents in this "mystery of iniquity:" it is sufficient to allow them the precedence (Quorum pars magna fuimus)—their arrogant pretensions to be Christ's vicegerents on earth, were supported by the whole hierarchy, and

HISTORY OF THE PAPAL POWER.

483

not by them only, but by the kings of the earth, and the great mass of their subjects also, who basely resigned their consciences to the dictation of the clergy, and thereby became partakers of their evil deeds.

The history of the Papal power is a subject deeply interesting to all who name the name of Christ; and the time is come when it ought to be studied by every man, and that with intense application. It is not the history of Christ's Kingdom, but of a kingdom opposed to it, subverting, supplanting, counteracting, its influence in the world, and doomed to a widely different end. It is, nevertheless, very manifest that much is said of it in the apostolic writings, and particularly in the Apocalypse, of which its history constitutes the main subject; and when we call to mind that a blessing is promised to such as “read, and hear, and observe the words of that prophetical book," Rev. i. 3, we may at least infer its vast importance. I have repeatedly touched upon this topic in these Lectures, called your attention to the rise and spirit of this Antichristian kingdom, and shown how much the alliance between church and state contributed to nurse, and cherish, and foster it; but it still remains for us to mark its progress in the world, and the various steps by which it advanced to its plenitude of power: and to this specific object the present Lecture shall be devoted.

I have shown you in a former Lecture, that, originally, the bishops of Rome were nothing more than any other bishops, that is, they were the elders, presbyters, or pastors of a society of Christians, assembling together for the worship of God, and their mutual edification, in the city of Rome. Of authority and power, they had none, but what they derived from the church in which they were called to preside in conducting public worship; or in teaching, admonishing, exhorting, and preserving order in the house of God. They had no dominion over the faith of their brethren, and were merely helpers of their joy. They were the servants of the church for Jesus' sake; and such of them as imbibed the true spirit of their office took the oversight of their brethren, "not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but as ensamples to the flock :" and they were animated to a discharge of their duty by the promise that, "when the chief shepherd shall appear,

[ocr errors]

they should receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away, 1 Pet. v. 2—4. How then came the popes, who are no other than the successors of those elders, or pastors, to obtain the rank and authority that they have subsequently acquired? How, from being in the lowest state of persecution, in common with other Christians, and having nothing to do with secular affairs so far as their office was concerned-how came they to be the greatest of all persecutors themselves, and to rise to a greater plenitude of spiritual and temporal power than any sovereign, however despotic by law or constitution, ever attained? How, from being mere subjects, came this class of priests to become not only princes, but the most imperious lords of their former masters, possessed too of an ecclesiastical power still more absolute and extensive than their civil power? In the whole history of human affairs, another example of so astonishing a change in the condition of any order of men, whether civil or ecclesiastical, is not to be found. I shall, therefore, endeavour to point out some of the many steps by which this was brought about, confining myself however to the interval which elapsed from the fifth to the eighth century.

I mentioned to you on a former occasion a distinction which was early broached in the Christian church, and in process of time obtained currency, between the bishop and the elder or presbyter, for which there does not appear to be the shadow of a foundation in the New Testament; but, having touched upon this subject at the conclusion of the last Lecture, I shall not dwell upon it in this place further than to remark, that its adoption and general currency were productive of the most fatal results in the churches of Christ. The apostles, by divine appointment, in setting the churches in order, ordained in every church a plurality of bishops or elders, Acts xiv. 23—that is, of overseers or presbyters-who were equal in degree and authority; for their office, and their duties were the same. Now it is obvious that had the churches rigidly adhered to the pattern thus set them, maintaining the identity of the office and official duties of bishop and elder, and the perfect equality of such as were invested with that office, the arrogant assumption of any one man over his fellows or colleagues never could have taken place. But though bishops were originally no other than pres

« PreviousContinue »