« PreviousContinue »
called, the most revered, and, in some respects, not undeservedly so, of all the Roman pontiffs, in a famous dispute with the bishop of constantinople, who had taken to himself the title of (Ecumenical, or universal bishop, objects to him, the arrogance and presumption of this claim, in words remarkable enough to be quoted :-“ What wilt thou say to Christ, the head of the universal church, in the trial of the last judgment, who by the appellation of universal, dost endeavour to subject all bis, members to thee? whom, I pray, dost thou mean to imitate, in so perverse a word, but him, who despising legions of angels, constituted in fellowship with him, clid endeavour to break forth unto the top of singularity, that he might both be subject to none, and alone be over all, who also said, I will ascend into heaven, and will exalt my throne above the stars, for what are thy brethren, all the bishops of the universal church, but the stars of heaven, to whom by this haughty word, thou desirest to prefer thyself, and to trample on their name, in comparison to thee? dost thou not say, I will climb into heaven ?” Greg. Ep. iv. 38. Speaking again of the title of universal
bishop, he calls it a title of novelty, error, impiety, full of poison, and contrary to the ancient canons."* This then, as bishop Patrick observes, is the difference between Protestants and Romans, “ we believe that which has been ever believed, they believe that which was never believed, in comparison with the ancient faith,) till yesterday.”
· Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, has written a history of the church, from the birth of Christ, to the year 325. He has quoted from more than twenty-three writers of the three first centuries, yet this industrious compiler of all passages relating to the original constitution of the church, and all ecclesiastical, transactions, never once names any superior authority belonging to the see of Rome. Nor is there the least intimation of it in the following writers, whose works remain to this day,–Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilus, Clemens Alexandrinus,
* Pope Boniface III. had not, it seemis, the scruples of his predecessor Gregory. He readily accepted, or rather importunately begged the proud title of universal bishop from the emperor Phocas, and transmitted it to all his successors.
Minutius Felix, Origen, Arnobius, and Lactantius.
The fathers of the three first ages, are, in the opinion of the best divines, sufficient to shew the sense of antiquity, on any controverted point, I have availed myself of their testimony, and I hope I have clearly. shewn, that the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, was totally unknown to the primitive christians. I shall therefore conclude my remarks, upon the universal jurisdictionof the see of Rome, with the confession of Mr. Bower, who had been once a jesuit, but died in communion with the reformed church. Speaking of his lives of the popes, he says :--- This work I undertook some years since at Rome, and brought it down to the close of the second century. As I was then a most zealous champion for the pope's supremacy, my chief design was to ascertain that supremacy, by shewing, that from the apostles' time to the present, it had been acknowledged by the catholic church. But, alas ! I soon perceived, that I had undertaken more, than it was in my power to perforní, nay, while in order to maintain this
cause, I examined, with particular attention, the writings of the apostles, and of many pious and learned men, who had flourished in the three first centuries, I was so far from finding any thing that seemed the least to countenance such a doctrine, that on the contrary, it appeared evident beyond dispute, that during the above mentioned time, it had been utterly unknown to the christian world. I was very unwilling to give up a point, upon which, I had been taught by Bellarmine, that the whole of christianity depended; but great is the power of truth, and at last it prevailed. I became a proselyte to the opinion which I had proposed to confute, and sincerely abjured in my mind, that which I had undertaken to defend."* .
* See a most excellent Treatise, on the church, &c. By E. Barwick, M. A. of Trinity College, Dublin.
ON DEPOSING PRINCES, UNDER COLOUR
“ Who can stretch forth his hand, against the Lord's
anointed, and be guiltless ?” Sam. xxvi. 9.
; The relation of kings and subjects, are so obviously analagous, to those of parents and children, that kings have often been styled, the fathers of their people, and the people often called their children. No language of commendation is with more frequency or emphasis, applied to a prince, distinguished for his wisdom, justice, and benevolence, than that he was a father to his subjects.
In this manner, mankind have acknowledged the similarity of these relations, and from a similarity of relations, must arise a similarity of duties. The end of parental