« PreviousContinue »
But, ftrange as this vision appeared to the sacred propbet, the Papal history is found to realize all the wonders of it: And, backward as we may be to interpret this vision of a church, profeffedly Christian, that church herself is so little fcandalized at the imputation of these crimes, that the is ready to avow them all; the two firft, directly and openly; and the laft, when set in a certain light, and explained in her own manner. In short, she prides herself in the extent of ber fway [f], and the fire of
[f] Not held of the civil power, of acknowledged to be fo held, but usurped upon it, and infolently directed againit it; as is well known from ecclesiastical history. The Pope is not Antichrift: God forbid! (says the good Abbé Fleury, with a zeal becoming a member of the Papal communion.) But neither is he impeccable, nor has he an absolute authority in the church over all things both temporal and spiritual-Le pape n'est pas l’Antichrift; à Dieu ne plaise ; mais il n'est pas impeccable, ni monarque absolu dans l'eglise pour le temporel et pour le fpirituel (4erne difc. sur l'hift. ecclefiaftique, p. 173. Par. 1747, 120.]
The Pope, he says, is not an absolute monarch in the church over all things temporal and spiritual : That is, he ought not to arrogate to himself the power of an absolute monarch ; for that the pope assumes to be such a mo
ber zeal [g], and only quibbles, with us about the meaning of the term, idolatry.
narch, and, in fact, exercised this supreine monarchical power in the church, through'many ages, the learned and candid writer had indifputably thewn, in the difcourse, whence these words are quoted. But now this monarchical jovereignty in all things temporal, as well as fpiritual, is certainly one prophetical note or character, by which the person or power, styled antichristian, is distinguished. Let the Pope, then, be what he will, we are warranted by M. Fleury himfelf to conclude, that he hath, at least, this mark of Antichrift,
 In the perfecution of beretics; which M. Bossuet regards as fo little dishonourable to his cominunion, - that he thinks it a point not to be called in question--calls the use of the fword in matters of religion, an undoubted right--and concludes, that there is no illufion more dan"gerous than to confider TOLERATION, as a mark of the true Church -- l'exercise de la puisance du glaive dans les matieres de la religion & de la conscience; chofe, que ne peut être révoquée en doute - le droit est certain-il n'y a point d'illufion plus dangereuse que de donner LA SOUF*FRANCE pour un caractere de vraye Eglife. Hift, des Var. l. x. p. 51. Par. 1740, 12o.
Thus, this great doctor of the catholic Church, towards the close of the last century. And just now, another eminent writer of that communion very
round. ly defends the murder of the Bohemian martyrs at Contance, and (what is more provoking still) the fraud
To cut the matter short, then, and to keep clear of those endless debates concerning the worship of Images, of the Cross, and of the Host in the celebration of the Mass; debates, which a dextrous fophift may find means to carry on with a shew of argument, and with some degree of plausibility : To set aside, I say, all these topics, let it be observed, at once, That idolatry, in the scriptural sense of the word, is of two forts, and confifts either, 1. in giving the honour due to the one true God, as maker and governor of the world, to any other supposed, though subordinate god; Or, 2, in and ill-faith, through which the pious and tenderhearted Fathers of that council rụshed to the perpetration of it. M. Crevier, Hiff. de l'Université de Paris, t. iii. 1. vi. p. 435, &c. Par. 1761, 12°. - Can it be worth while to spend words in fixing this charge of in. tolerance on the church of Rome, when her ablest advocates, as we see, even in our days, openly triumph in it? But, then, hath she forgotten who it was that the prophet faw, drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus Rev. xvii. 6? Alas, no: But the wonders, by what figure of speech · beretics are called Saints; and rebels to the Pope, Martyrs of Jesus,
giving the honour due to Christ, as the sole mediator between God and Man, to any other supposed, though subordinaté, mediator. The former, is the idolatry forbidden by the Jewish law, and by the law of Nature: The latter, is Christian idolatrý, properly so called, and is the abomination, prohibited and condemned, in so severe terms, by the law of the Gospel.
Now, whether the former fpecies of ido. latry be chargeable on the church of Rome or not; and whether the crime of that species, may not be incurred by honouring the true object of worhip, through the medium of some sensible image : Whatever, I say, be determined on these two points (which, for the present, shall be set aside) the other species of idolatry is, without all doubt, chargeable on any Christian church that shall adopt or acknowledge, in its religious addresses, another mediator, besides Christ Jesus,
But the church of Rome (I do not say, in the private writings of her divines, but) Vol. II.
in the folemn forms of her ritual, publickly profelles, and, by her canons and councils, authoritatively enjoyns, the worship of saints and angels, under the idea of mediators and interceffors : not indeed in exclusion of Christ, as one, or, if you will, as chief mediator, but in manifest defiance of his claim to be, the sole mediator. This charge is truly and justly brought against that Church, as it now stands, and hath stood, for many ages; and cannot, by any subterfuge whatsoever, be evaded [b]. And
 Sée Vitringa Apocalyps. Exp. p. 603, and the authors cited by him: But, above all, see Mr. Mede's exquifite and unanswerable discourse, entitled, The Apofiacy of the latter times.
"Tis true, the Bishop of Menus is pleased to divett himself with one part of this discourse; I mean, that part, which contains [ch. xvi. and xvii.) the learned writer's interpretation of Daniel's prophecy, concerning the Gods Mahuzzim. He finds fomething pleasant in this idea, or rather in this hard word, which he repeats fo often, and in such a way; as if he thought the very found of Mabuzzim, was enough to expose the comment and Commentator to contempt. Hift. des Var. 1. xiii. p. 260, 261. But, after all, the ingenious Prelate would have done himself no discredit by being