Singular absurdity.

The apostle John subject to the second Pope.

them, having succeeded upon the martyrdom of pope Peter. Now, it is not denied by any, that the apostle John outlived Peter about thirty years. If then Peter was the supreme head of the church, and Linus was his successor in the supremacy, then of course the inspired apostle John must have been inferior to Linus in rank and dignity, and subject to him in precisely the same way as Roman Catholic bishops are now subject to their pope. Now when it is remembered that Linus, of whom we know scarcely anything more than his name, was not one of the apostles, it will be seen that this supposition is directly at variance with the inspired declaration of Paul, "God hath set some in the Church, FIRST, apostles; secondarily, prophets; thirdly, teachers; after that miracles; then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues." (1 Cor. xii., 28.) To such strange absurdities does this doctrine of the papal supremacy lead. Of course the same conclusion will follow, whichever of the various theories is adopted, as to the supposed immediate successor of Peter.*

Notwithstanding, however, the weakness of these pretensions, after the city of Rome had fallen from its ancient dignity, into the power of the barbarians, and the superiority of its lordly bishop could no longer be quietly submitted to from the superiority of that city to every other, the pontiffs renewed and reiterated this arro

and gives us several Lives of Cletus, and Anacletus, making them of several nations, and to have been popes at different times, putting Clement between them. Yet the aforesaid bishop of Chester [Pearson] PROVES these were ONLY TWO NAMES of the SAME PERSON. And every one may see the folly of the Romish church, which venerates two several saints on two several days, one of which never had a real being, for Cletus is but the abbreviation of Anacletus's name." (Dr. Comber on "Roman Forgeries in Councils," part i., c. i.)

Amidst all these varying and opposing lists, this contradiction and confusion worse confounded, how utterly baseless must be those pretensions, whether made by the papists of Rome, or the semi-papists of Oxford, which are founded upon a supposed ascertained, and unbroken descent from the apostles? The arguments to sustain them are lighter than air. Hence we are not surprised to hear that bright luminary of the British establishment, Archbishop Whately, declare his solemn conviction, that "THERE IS NOT A MINISTER IN ALL CHRISTENDOM, WHO IS ABLE TO TRACE UP, WITH ANY APPROACH TO CERTAINTY, HIS OWN SPIRITUAL PEDIGREE. The ultimate consequence must be," remarks the same excellent prelate, "that any one who sincerely believes that his claim to the benefits of the gospel covenant depends on his own minister's claim to the supposed sacramental virtue of true ordination, and this again on apostolical succession, must be involved, in proportion as he reads, and inquires, and reflects, and reasons on the subject, in the most distressing doubt and perplexity. It is no wonder, therefore, that the advocates of this theory studiously disparage reasoning, deprecate all exercise of the mind in reflection, decry appeals to evidence, and lament that even the power of reading should be imparted to the people. It is not without cause that they dread and lament 'an age of too much light,' and wish to involve religion in a solemn and awful gloom.' It is not without cause that, having removed the Christian's confidence from a rock, to base it on sand, they forbid all prying curiosity to examine their foundation." (Whately on the Kingdom of Christ, Essay ii., 30.)

Those who wish to see the argument on this subject carried out in a masterly way, are referred to the treatise of the learned Barrow, on the Pope's supremacy.

Another fierce contest between rival bishops of Rome.

Symmachus and Laurenuus.

gant claim to supremacy from divine right, with an earnestness proportioned to the danger that existed of sinking into a second rank, from the rising political importance and splendor of the rival city of Constantinople.

CHAPTER V.

POPERY FULLY ESTABLISHED. THE MAN OF SIN REVEALED.

§22.-IN the course of the sixth century, the city of Rome thrice witnessed the disgraceful spectacle of rival pontiffs, with fierce hatred, bloodshed, and massacre, contending with each other for the spiritual throne. The first of these struggles occurred about the commencement of the century, "between Symmachus and Laurentius, who were on the same day elected to the pontificate by different parties, and whose dispute was at length decided by Theodoric, king of the Goths. Each of these ecclesiastics maintained obstinately the validity of his election; they reciprocally accused each other of the most detestable crimes; and to their mutual dishonor, their accusations did not appear on either side entirely destitute of foundation. Three different councils, assembled at Rome, endeavored to terminate this odious schism, but without success. A fourth was summoned by Theodoric, in 503, to examine the accusations brought against Symmachus, to whom this prince had, at the beginning of the schism, adjudged the papal chair. This council was held about the commencement of this century, and in it the Roman pontiff was acquitted of the crimes laid to his charge. But the adverse party refused to acquiesce in this decision, and this gave occasion to Ennodius, bishop of Ticinum, now Pavia, to draw up his adulatory apology for the council and Symmachus." It was on this occasion and in this apology, says Gieseler, that the assertion was first hazarded, that "the bishop of Rome was subject to no earthly tribunal. Not long afterward an attempt was made to give this principle a historical basis, by bringing forward forged acts of former pontiffs."* In subsequent ages, it will be seen that the popes not only declared themselves free from all subjection to every earthly tribunal, but boldly maintained that all earthly powers and potentates were subject to them. In this apology for Symmachus, the servile flatterer, Ennodius, styles the object of his flattery," JUDGE IN THE PLACE OF GOD, AND VICEGERENT OF THE MOST HIGH." This was the first time so far as is known, that this blasphemous title

* Gieseler, vol. i., page 339.

More quarrels at Rome.

Dispute about the title of universal bishop

was given to man, though some centuries afterward it was commonly applied to the popes, thus fulfilling the prophetic words of Paul: "So that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God." (2 Thess. ii., 4.)

About the year 530, there was another disgraceful contest, and the city of Rome was again agitated by the rival claims of Boniface II., and Dioscurus, though the premature death of the latter soon put a period to this clerical war. But the century did not close without a scene alike disgraceful. A prelate of the name of Vigilius, intrigued at court to procure the deposition of the reigning bishop Silverus. The latter was, in consequence, deprived of his dignities and banished. He appealed to the emperor Justinian, who interfered in his behalf, and encouraged him to return to Rome, with the delusive expectation of regaining his rights; but the artifices of Vigilius prevailed-his antagonist was resigned to his power, and immediately confined by him in the islands of Pontus and Pandatara, where, in penury and affliction, he terminated his wretched exist

ence.

§ 23.-During the last few years of the sixth century, the contest for supremacy between the bishops of Rome and Constantinople raged with greater acrimony than at any preceding period. The bishop of Constantinople not only claimed an unrivalled sovereignty over the eastern churches, but also maintained that his church was, in point of dignity, no way inferior to that of Rome. The Roman pontiffs beheld with impatience these pretensions, and warmly asserted the pre-eminence of their church, and its undoubted superiority over that of Constantinople. Gregory the Great distinguished himself in this violent contest; and the fact that in a council held. in 588, John, the faster, bishop of Constantinople, assumed the title of universal bishop, furnished Gregory with a favorable opportunity of exerting his zeal. Supposing that the design of his rival was to obtain the supremacy over all Christian churches, Gregory opposed his pretensions with the utmost vehemence, and in order to establish, more firmly, his own authority, invented the fiction of the power of the keys, as committed to the successor of St. Peter, rather than to the body of the bishops, according to the previous opinion, and, says Waddington," He betrayed on many occasions a very ridiculous eagerness to secure their honor. Consequently he was profuse in his distribution of certain keys, endowed, as he was not ashamed to assert, with supernatural qualities; he even ventured to insult Anastasius, the patriarch of Antioch, by such a gift. I have sent you (he says), keys of the blessed apostle Peter, your guardian, which, when placed upon the sick, are wont to be resplendent with numerous miracles." 'Amatoris vestri, beati Petri apostoli, vobis claves transmisi, quæ super ægros positæ multis solent miraculis coruscare.' We may attribute this absurdity to the basest superstition, or to the most impudent hypocrisy; and we would gladly have preferred the more excusable motive, if the supposed advancement of the See,

Letter of Saint Gregory, about the "blasphemous," "infernal," and "diabolical" title.

which was clearly concerned in these presents, did not rather lead us to the latter." (Wad. Ch. Hist. 143.)

§ 24. Besides these vain pretensions, Gregory wrote epistles to his own ambassador at Constantinople, to the patriarch John, and to the emperor Mauritius, in which in various passages he denounces the title of universal bishop as "vain," "execrable," "anti-Christian," "blasphemous," "infernal," and " diabolical." In his letter to the patriarch of Constantinople, he pleads with him thus: "Discipulis Dominus dicit, autem nolite vocari rabbi, unus enim Magister vester est, vos omnes fratres estis," &c. 'Our Lord says unto his disciples, be not ye called rabbi, for one is your Master, and all ye are brethren.' What, therefore, most dear brother, are you, in the terrible examination of the coming Judge, to say, who, generalis pater in mundo vocari appetis? desire to be called, not father only, but the general father of the world?

"Beware of the sinful suggestions of the wicked. I beg, I entreat, and I beseech, with all possible suavity, that your brotherhood resist all these flatterers who offer you this NAME of error, and that you refuse to be designated by so foolish and so proud an appellation. For I indeed say it with tears, and from the inward anguish of my bowels, that to my sins I attribute it, that my brother cannot to this day be brought to humility, who was made bishop for this end, that he might lead the minds of others to humility. It is written, 'God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble :' and again it is said, 'he is unclean before God, who exalteth his heart;" hence, it is written against the proud man, Quid superbis, terra et cinis? Earth and ashes, why art thou proud?'

6

66

"Perpende, rogo, quia in hac presumptione pax totius turbatur ecclesia," &c. Consider, I entreat you, that by this rash presumption is the peace of the whole church disturbed, and the grace poured out in common upon all contradicted: in which you can increase only in proportion as you carefully decrease in self-esteem, and become the greater the more you restrain yourself from this name of proud and foolish usurpation; love humility, therefore, my dearest brother, with your whole heart, by which concord among all the brethren and the unity of the holy universal church may be preserved. Truly, when Paul, the apostle, heard some say, 'I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas,' he, vehemently abhorring this tearing asunder of the Lord's body, by which they, in some sense, united his members to other heads, cries out, Was Paul crucified for you, or were you baptized in the name of Paul? If, then, he would not suffer the members of the Lord's body to be, as it were, particularly subject to certain heads, beyond Christ, and they apostles too, what will you say to Christ the head of his universal holy church, in the trial of his last judgment, who endeavor to subject all his members under the title of universal? Whom, pray, do you propose to imitate by this perverse name, but him, who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to break forth, and ascend to an elevation peculiar to himself, that he

Gregory says that no true saint would accept it.

Writes against it to the Emperor

might seem to be subject to none, and to be above all of them? Who also said, 'I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven; I will be like the Most High! For what are all your brother bishops of the universal church, but the stars of heaven, whose lives and preaching give light among the sins and errors of men, as in the darkness of night? Above whom, when you thus desire to elevate yourself by this haughty title, and to tread down their name in comparison of yours, what do you say but I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven?

"Atque ut cuncta brevi singulo locutionis astringam," &c. And that I may sum up all in one word: the saints before the law, the saints under the law, and the saints under grace, the gospel-all these, making up the perfect body of our Lord, are constituted but members of the church; none of them would ever have himself called UNIVERSAL. Let your holiness then acknowledge how he must swell with pride, who covets to be called by this name, which no true saint would presume to accept. Were not, as your brotherhood knows, my predecessors in the apostolical See, which I now serve by God's providence, called by the council of Chalcedon to this offered honor? but none of them would ever allow himself to be named by such a title-none snatched at this rash name, lest if he should seize on this singular glory of the pontificate, he should seem to deny it to all his brethren.

"Sed omnia quæ prædicta sunt, fiunt: rex superbiæ prope est et quod dici nefas est, sacerdotum est præparatus excitus (vel exercitus) ei qui cervice militant elationis." But all things which are foretold are come to pass; the king of pride approaches, and O, horrid to tell! the going forth of (or the army of the priests), is ready for him, who fight with the neck of pride, though appointed to lead to humility."*

6

§25. In his letters to the emperor Mauritius, Gregory reiterates the same sentiments. On account of their importance, the following extracts from these letters are subjoined. "The care and principality of the whole church," says Gregory, "is committed. to St. Peter; and yet he is not called 'universal apostle'-though this holy man, John, my fellow priest, labors to be called 'universal bishop! I am compelled to cry out, O the corruption of times and manners?' Behold the barbarians are become lords of all Europe: cities are destroyed, castles are beaten down, provinces depopulated, there are no husbandmen to till the ground. Idolaters rage and domineer over Christians; and yet priests, who ought to lie weeping upon the pavement, in sackcloth and ashes, covet names of vanity, and glory in new and profane titles.

"Do I, most religious sovereign, in this plead my own cause? Do I vindicate a wrong done to myself, and not maintain the cause of Almighty God, and of the church universal? Who is he who

Epist. Greg., lib. iv., epist. 38.