Barrow - BX1805 .B3 1852



PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION. THE present edition of Barrow's Treatise is intended to form the first of a series of republications, consisting of the most valuable and effective works which have appeared on the Popish Controversy, which, should the publisher be encouraged in his undertaking, may form a complete Protestant Library. No such library could be deemed complete without including the masterly Treatise ofBarrow; and though it has been very frequently reprinted, it was thought that, at the present time, when the controversy has been revived in such extraordinary circumstances, another edition, accompanied with Introduction and Notes, was still demanded. The Treatise is seldom to be met with now apart from Barrow's works, which usually amount to four volumes octavo. And, besides the cheapness of the present volume, it is hoped that this edition will be found to possess several advantages above all its predecessors. The original manuscript of the Treatise is understood to be still preserved in TrinityCollege, Cambridge, ofwhich Barrowwas Master. But it was left ina very imperfect state; and no revision of the work, according to that manuscript, can supply the defects, or produce any thingmore than the first edition by Tillotson, which, we have reason to believe, was a faithful copy of the original. No attempt. however, has ever been made by subsequent editors to improve upon the first edition of the Treatise. It has been reprinted, over and over again, exactly as it appeared in 1680. To any who will be at the trouble of making the comparison, the improvements we have made on the former editions will at once be manifest; others, and those which have cost the greatest labour, may not be so apparent. We may specify, however, the following particulars: - 1. To the Treatise is prefixed an Introductory Essay, relating to the subject, the author, and the Treatise itself. This seemed to be demanded by the distance of time since the work was published, and the peculiar aspect which the supremacy of the pope has assumed in our day. The editor has attempted here, and throughout his notes,

IV PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITIQN. as far as a regard to truth would permit him, to avoid giving offence to any party holding the genuine principles of Protestantism. 2. The leading topics of the Treatise are now, for the first time, arranged in the form of contents, and also indicated by head-lines at the top of every page; thus imparting a more lively appearance to the Treatise, and furnishing, what wasno easy task, an abridgedview or synopsis of the various matters and arguments which it contains. 3. Short foot-notes have been appended where any obscure point seemed to require elucidation. To have given explanatory or con- troversial notes to every point, in a work abounding with so many references to persons and authorities, would have swelled thevolume beyond all reasonable bounds. 4. As Dr Tillotson had said that the " testimonies," or quotations from the Greek and Latin, had been translated " with great care by two of his (the author's) worthy and learned friends of his own col- lege," the present editor did not at first think of comparing them with the original. But he soon discovered that, owing to the change which our language has undergone, many of these, as they stood, were quite unintelligible, and required retouching. Thus, the quo- tation from Gregory at page 70, meaning that " however the evils of their superiors may displease good subjects, yet they will take care to conceal them from others," is thus rendered in all the former edi- tions, "The evils of their superiors do so displease good subjects, that however they do conceal them from others." Again, Chrysostom's words at page 90, "Seeing the apostles were to receivetheadministra- tion of the whole world, it was no longer becoming that they should keep close together (or, in each other's company, óu, caearTexOw), for that would have been a great loss to the world," wererendered thus, " Seeing the apostles were to receive the administration of thewhole world, they ought not afterwards to converse with one another, for that would surely have been a great damage to the world;" where the word " converse" is used in the obsolete sense of "keeping com- pany with." 5. While the text of the author has been carefully preserved throughout inviolate, we have taken the liberty of altering the anti- quated termination of th in the third person singular of verbs into the modem form, and thus, we think, facilitated in no small degree the reading of the work. 6. We have added explanatory terms [within brackets] to the numerous obsolete and unusual expressions which occur; such as " bobb off," " obventions," "discost," " acquist," " considence" for " sitting together," " insisting" for " treading," " staunch" for " strin-

PREFACE TO THE PRESENT EDITION. V gent," "passable" for "current," &c. Though thenumerous blanks, denoting spaces left in the manuscript, could not, of course, be filled up, elliptical passages have occasionally been supplied, so as to com- plete or elucidate what would otherwise be hardly intelligible. In fine, the greatest care has been taken in the correction of the press, many typographical errors in former editions having been de- tected; so that the present edition may be considered as correct as it was possible to render a work which had not the advantage of the supervision of the author. To the "Treatise of the Pope's Supremacy" we have added the author's " Discourse concerning the Unity of the Church," which Tillotson considered it proper to append as a continuation of the Treatise, and which has always been printed along with it. T. M°C. EDINTIIIRGIT, August 1852.

CONTENTS. A TREATISE OF THE POPE'S SUPREMACY. INTRODUCTORY ESSAY, BY THE EDITOR, XI DEDICATION,BY THEAUTHOR'S FATHER, . XXXIX THEPUBLISHER TO THE READER, BY ARCHBISHOP TILLOTSON, . XLI INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISEVariouS opinions of Romanists regarding the papal supremacyThe common opinion of Romanists as vouched by Bellar- mineOpinions of thepopes themselvesPapal power exalted above the regal Pope HildebrandLofty pretensions of the popes No such pretensions in early times Universal supremacy now the creed of Rome Romanists must hold the supremacy of the popeVague sentiments of some Romanists on this pointPopes themselves not agreed about their supremacyThe doctrine con- tested in the ensuing treatise The oath taken by bishops to the pope The supremacy curtailed by some PapistsThe genuine doctrine of the Roman churchSeven suppositions involved in the claim of supremacy, 3 TREATISE, 29 FIRST PAPAL SUPPOSITION, That St Peter had aprimacyover the Apostles. SEVERAL RINDS OFPRIMACY StPeter's primacy of worth St Peter's primacy of re- puteSt Peter's primacy of order St Peter had no primacy of power No mention of such power No higher office than an apostle Equality of the apostlesExorbitant claims of the pope No extraordinary powers ascribed to PeterProof from St Peter's EpistlesProof from the Acts of the Apostles No appeals to poor Pope Peter St Peter no judge or sovereign St Peter not consulted by the other apostlesThe apostles had no fixed residenceEach apostle independent St Paul independentof St Peter StPaul's famous rebuke of St. Peter St Peter did not outlive all the apostlesClaims of St Jamesand St John Testimonies from the fathers, 39 INVALIDITY OPTHE OPPOSITE ARGUMENTS First Argument for theprimacyof St Peter " Thouart Peter, and upon this rock," &c.What ismeant by " this rock "The views ofthe fathers on " this rock " The promise prospective Its truemeaning, . . 77 Second Argument "The keys"Power of "the keys" explainedNothing sin- gular in this gift, . . . . 03 ThirdArgument " Feed my sheep," addressed to all apostles and pastorsThe apostlesfellow- shepherdsHow could St Peter feedall ?Bellarminsevasion, 85 Fourth Argument Divers prerogatives, . . 91 Fifth ArgumentPlacing of St Peter's name before the rest, . 92 Sixth Argument Extravagant eulogiesof the fathersThe fathers speak as highly of other apostles St Peter and St Paul equally commended St James seems to have the best title to the primacy, . . 03

VIII CONTENTS. FAGS SECOND PAPAL SUPPOSITION, That St Peter's primacywas not personal, but derivable to his successors.. St Peter's privileges merely personal; incommunicableThe apostles, as such, had no successors All bishops successors of the apostlesDead silence ofantiquitf on St Peter's primacy, . . 99 THIRD PAPAL SUPPOSITION, That St Peter was bishop ofRome. The apostolats not a particular charge Whether St Peter was ever at Rome He must have been very seldom thereHe could not be bishop of Rome St Peter is said to have been bishopof Antioch Translations were helduncanonical Two apostles couldnot be bishops in one city, . 100 FOURTH PAPAL SUPPOSITION, That St Peter continued bishop of Rome after his translation, andwas so at his decease. St Peter could not be bishop with another Historical difficulties Proposed solu- tionThe apostles not bishops, but founders of churches Apostolic churches, why so calledApostles might reside where they pleasedCase of St James, bishop of Jerusalem, . . . . . . . . 114 FIFTH PAPAL SUPPOSITION, That the bishops ofRome, according toGod's institution, shouldhave universal supremacyover the Christian Church. UNIVERSAL SUPREMACY REFUTED. Apostolic power devolved on the churchSenti- ments of the fathers Preferableclaims of Antioch Claimsof other apostles Right of election in the church Scandalous election of Roman bishops No certain rule for electing popesPapal succession indefensible There is now no true pope, . . . . 122 No SCRIPTURAL WARRANT FOR PAPAL SUCCESSION, 136 No EARLY ANTIQUITY FORPAPAL SuccEssION.Silence of the fathersSilence of pagan writersand emperorsThe pope declared inferior to kingsKings now declared inferior to thepope Silence of the ApostolicalCanons Silence of Igna- tius, and ofpopes Silence ofClement, and ofSt Cyprian Silence ofpopes them- selvesSilence of St Basil No recourse to the popes in those days StBasil taxes thebishop of Rome StChrysostom addresses him as a " brother "No ap- peal to the popes in disputes or controversiesFacts irreconcilable with papal supremacy, . . . . 139 PAPALPRETENSIONS CONTRARY TOSCRIPTURE. Sacrilegiousarrogance of the pope " Universal Bishop" anantichristian title Christalone thehead ofthe church The Papacy aworldly dominion Scriptural equality of bishops, 157 THE INSTITUTION OF PATRIARCHS AND PRIMATES. The charge of the whole church impracticableHard work for one decrepit old manHow little "the gentle- man in Italy" can doHow often will the pope be imposed uponThe sense of the fathers in this case, . . . . . 169 THE INEVITABLE TYRANNY OF THE POPEDOM.Popery a system of priestcraft Popery an incorrigible systemPopery the source of general corruption Popery the enemy of civil societyPapal aggressionPapal authority needless anduseless, . . . . . . 176 INDEPENDENCEof BISHOPS.Equalityof bishops in theprimitive church Bishops have claimed independence of the pope Bishops addressed the pope as their equalThe style used by primitive bishops, . . 192 Ant

CONTENTS. IX FAGS GROUNDS OF T$IE PRECEDENCE GIVEN TO ROME. Metropolitan power of human origin Origin of metropolitan dignity Exarchs introduced under Constantine The change gradually crept inThe patriarchmade way for the "universal bishop"Some churches exempted from the patriarchate Advantages gained by theRoman bishopEncroachments of the popeThe oriental churches op- posedhis encroachments Corollaries from the preceding account, 203 THIRTY-SIX CAUSESACCOUNTING FOR THE GROWTH OF THE PAPACY, . 224 SIXTH PAPAL SUPPOSITION, That infact the Roman bishops, continuallyfrom St Peter's time, have enjoyed and exercised this sovereignpower. First Assumption of the popeCONVOCATION OF COUNCILS. The emperor, and not the pope, convened councilsPrincesalone should convene councils, . 239 SecondAssumption PRESIDENCY IN COUNCILS.The pope did not preside in early councils The term "presidency" ambiguousPresidency not fixed to the RomanchairThe imperial commissioners claimed the presidencyThe pope's presidency not held essential It would be unreasonable, . . . 250 ThirdAssumptionLEGISLATIVE POWER TO CONFIRM DECREES. Canons Of Councils passedwithout his consentThe controversy of the " Three Chapters "The pope's consent sometimes asked Reasons why it was askedThe emperor gave the effectual confirmation Objections answered, 259 FourthAssumptionLEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO PASS LAWS.The consent of the majority required to pass laws Metropolitan bishops had not a negative Thepope subject to the laws ofthe churchPapal jurisdiction not recognised The emperor alone could enact laws, . . . . . . 271 FifthAssumptionSovEREIGNAUTHORITY. No traces of such a power in the pri- mitive churchNo arbitrary power granted to the pope, . . . 278 Sixth AssumptionORDINATION. No foundation for this assumptionPrimitive mode of ordination Objections answeredPopes intermeddling with ordina- tionsChecked for so intermeddlingEmperors interfered in ordinationsmore than popesThe emperors constituted popes Synods and bishops confirmed ordinationsConfirmation of bishops unknown, . . . . 282 Seventh Assumption CENSURE. Power of censure belonged to synods Bishops have censured bishopsThe power of censure belonged to all bishopsBishops have deposed popesThe people and emperor have deposed popes Various popes discarded by the emperor, . . . . . . 298 Cases of papal depositions vainly alleged The case of MarcianThe case of FlavianusThe case of NestoriusThecases of Dioscorus and othersThe case of Anthimus, . . . . . . 305 Eighth AssumptionARSOLuTION.Synods alone had the power of absolution Restitution not always an act of jurisdictionSome things premisedCases of papal absolution vainly alleged, . . . . . 311 Ninth AssumptionAPPEALS.The mischief of appeals to the pope No such ap- peals in the primitive churchBellarmine's alleged cases of appeal to the pope confuted Observationson the case of TheodoretGeneral observations on ap- peals, . . . . . . . . . 313 TenthAssumption JURISDICTION. This pretence contrary to Scripture Opinions of the fathersas to jurisdictionVicegerents of the pope a modern dream Papal legates checked in England, . . . . 333 Eleventh AssumptionIRRESPoNsIRILITY.Popes have been condemned and excom- municated, . . . . . . . . 339

X CONTENTS. FAGS Twelfth Assumption SUPREME JUDGE.Synods have condemned erroneous popes, 341 Thirteenth Assumption INFALLIBILITY. Popes have erred, in the judgment of Papists themselvesMany popes must have beenheretics, . . 343 Fourteenth Assumption SUPERIORITY To COUNCILS, . 346 Fifteenth AssumptionSUPERIORITY To ICINGS, . . 1, 347 Sixteenth Assumption CONFIRMATION OF MAGISTRATES, . . 348 Other Assumptions briefly disposedof, . . 349 SEVENTH PAPAL SUPPOSITION, That thepapal supremacy is indefectibleand unalterable. Nopower on earth indefectible Ecclesiastical discipline may be changedPapal succession often interruptedThe pope's power may be forfeited Doctrine of ScriptureOpinions of the fathers Dutyof withdrawing from erroneous supe- riorsPopes not exempted from this rulePopes may be judged heretics Various papal heresies IdolatryHeresies on justificationDischarging alle- gianceTheApocryphaHeresies on the Scriptures Onmarriages Refusalof the cup Causeless cursingThe end, . . . . . 350 A DISCOURSE CONCERNING THE UNITY OF THE CHURCH. PREFATORY NOTE BYTHE EDITOR, . 376 The true universal churchTitles of the invisible applied to the visible church The church is one in faith, one in charity, one in brotherly concord, one in dis- cipline, . . 377 Reasons against theRomish notion of unityIndependence of churches Romish unity opposed to the genius of the gospelInconvenience and inexpediency of Romish unityArguments for Romish unity answeredObjection from the Independent theoryCorollaries from the preceding argumentThe Romish church chargeable with schism, - . 395

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. BY THE EDITOR. SUBJECT OFTHE TREATISE. THE recent papal aggression, whatever may have been its other results, has had the effect of turning men's minds, more intently than they have been for a whole century and a half, to the study of the popish question. Towards the close of the seventeenth century, the political state of England, with a papal bigot on the throne, bent on reducing it to the domination of Rome, and with papal allies on the Continent, backed by a servile faction at home, re-awakened the old controversy, that had lain dormant from the time of the Reformation, and produced an array of talent and learning in defence of protest- ant truth unsurpassed by any thing of the kind either before or since that era. The Reformers had to deal with Popery as a system of religious error ingeniously defended, and as a political nuisance which re- quired to be swept away. Their successors in the same field had to deal with it as a system of practical aggression ingeniously contrived, an insidious foe, whose approaches were to be obviated by erecting the most powerful bulwarks. The works of Barrow, Tillotson, Chil- lingworth, Stillingfleet, and other champions of Protestantism, cannot be said to have beenelicited by anyvigorous controversial writing on the side of the Romanists. The church of Rome has seldom been largely indebted at any time to the literary advocacy of her children; but at the period to which we refer there was no defence of Popery, worthy of the name, to demand such an amount of ponderous eru- dition and elaborate reasoning. It was the dread of Popery as a system of religious, and more especially of political despotism, as the sworn ally of arbitrary power, that whetted the intellect and nerved the energies of these defenders of our faith. They had to contend not with Papists, but with Popeiy; and their names are associated with victory in a field where none have ever ventured to encounter

XII INTRODUGTORY ESSAY. them, and where they have even yet no competitors. Popery is, indeed, unlike any other form of heresy; it resembles rather those odious shapes of vice which, however commonly practised, are too disreputable to admit of being avowedly vindicated. Unsupported by books, it finds an advocate in every unrenewed heart, and an argument in every unholy lust. Distrusting the fair field of contro- versy, it depends for success on political intrigue, and the subdolous workings of its priesthood. With such an adversary, we can only adopt measures of precaution. Like "the pestilence that walketh in darkness," the progress of the evil is most effectually stayed by drawing around the infected district a cordon sanitaire, in the shape of those treatises which have done good service in their day, and which may yet serve, if not to counteract the poison once imbibed, at least to arrest the contagion. Our object in the following remarks is not to supplement the argument of Barrow in his celebrated Treatise, but to introduce the reader to it, by attempting, what did not lie in his way, to trace the delusion of papal supremacy to its origin, and to show the bearings of this on the present aspect ofthe Papacy. Popery is, after all, one of the most ordinary phenomena of human error; it is but one of the many incarnations of the spirit of priest- craft. By priestcraft we mean the art of detaching the religious conscience of man from the Creator, its proper object, and deposit- ing it in the hands of his spiritual adviser; the art which reaches its consummation by cutting off all direct intercourse between God and man, by constituting the priest the only channel of communica- tion, and thus enabling him at his pleasure to open or shut the gate of salvation, or to prescribe such conditions of admission as may best suit his own interests or those of the system of which he forms a part. It may seem strange how a spirit so abhorrent from that blessed gospel, which brings the Christian man into close affinity with his God and Redeemer, which confers upon him the dignity of a "royal priesthood," and classes him among "God's clergy" (1 Pet. v. 3), should ever have been ingrafted upon its simple institutes. The history of the church, however, enables us to trace the process from its earliest beginnings. Long before Constantine established the hierarchy, and conferred emoluments and prerogatives on the church as a corporate society, as early as the third century, but still more in the fourth, we discover in the writings of the more zeal- ous churchmen unmistakable evidences of a tendency to elevate

SUBJECT OF THE TREATISE. XIII the Christian ministry into a privileged order, superior in spiritual dignity to the Christian people, and to exalt the church above the gospel. When we hear Cyprian affirming that every bishop is in his own church, for the present, judge in Christ's stead; and that our Lord Jesus Christ, one and only, has power to prefer us to the go- vernment of his church and to judge of our actings;1when we hear Basil asserting that a church governor (xcanyóv¡kevos) is neither more nor less than one sustaining the person of Christ (öuóev Ërepov ;ens, ñ t nu eoirijpos sareyav orp6oaorov);5 or Chrysostom saying, " We have received the commission of ambassadors, and are come from God; for this is the dignity of the episcopate; "$ such magnilo- quence, however its terms may be interpreted, too surely indicates the direction which the stream was taking. A vague notion, apparently countenanced by some expressions of the early fathers,' though plainlyat variance with thedoctrine of the New Testament, that the Christian ministry was formed on the model of the Aaronic priesthood, may have induced some, in that infantine age, to yield more readily to these assumptions. It is needless to show that the ancient priesthood was emblematical, not of the Christian ministry, but of the priesthood of Christ in present- ing the great oblation by which all the sacrificial types of the temple were fulfilled; and of the priesthood of the Christian people, who are enjoined to "present their bodies a living sacrifice, holy and accept- able to God." But how sorely the advocates of sacerdotal power were put to their shifts in attempting to bolster up their title is apparent from the fictions and forgeries, unparalleled in audacity and in num- ber, which they invented. We instanceonly the counterfeit epistles of the apostolic Ignatius, the interpolated works of Cyprian, the ficti- tious councils of the church, and the fabulous Apostolical Canons and Institutions, all of themmore or less tending to invest the "clergy" as the officers or servants of the church began to call themselves) with apower equivalent to that of their divineMaster himself. The neces- sary consequence of all thiswas the gradual depression of the " laity,". that is, thepeople (xaós) of Christ, and the exclusive claim of the clergy to represent the church. One thing only was wanting to com- plete this strange perversion of Christianity. A priesthood required some instrument of mediation; an altar, a victim, a sacrifice, must be found or invented. This was done by converting the simple feast of 1 Cypr., F.p. lv. 8 Basil. Const. Mon., cap. xxii. a Chrysost. in Coloss. Orat. iii. 4 The allusion of Clemens Romanus, in his only genuine epistle to theCorinthians, to the Jewish hierarchy, is susceptible of a sense very different from that afterwards as- signed to it.

XIV INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. the eucharist into a corporeal reality; and in the blasphemous sacri- fice of the mass the sacerdotal theory found its fitting apotheosis. The fundamental error of this theory, so early developed, did not lie merely in the notion of apostolic succession, or in conceiving that the powers and honours of the apostolate had been transmitted to the rulers of the church, a point on which Barrow has made some pertinent remarks., (Treatise, p. 100, &c.) The root lay deeper, and may befound, wehumbly think, in a fallacious idea of the authority vested in the apostles themselves. That idea was, that our blessed Lord had delegated to the apostles his authority over the church. The expressions employed by some of the earlier bishops obviously proceed on the assumption that our Lord, bygiving a commission to his apostles, invested them with a share of his authority over the church, so that they after his ascension acted as his deputies, and "judged in his stead." It is easy to see how this notion, having once taken possession of the minds of the clergy, should have ger- minated into all the arrogant assumptions of the Papacy; for let such a delegation once be granted, and it follows that the apostles were, during their lifetime, thevicars and vicegerents of Christ upon earth. And as it seems hard that the church should be deprived by death of officials invested with powers so large and influential, it was no abrupt transition to drop into the conclusion that, in the persons of certain rulers, distinguished by local dignity from their brethren, or occupying seats which fond tradition had ascribed to these venerated men, we are to seek the successors of the apostles in this deputed jurisdiction. The circumstance of the apostles having been divinely inspired did not necessarily imply that their jurisdic- tion might not descend to others, on whom the government of the church devolved; and it was not difficult to find, in Christ's promise of the continuance of his Spirit with the church to the end of the world, something analogousto inspiration. To this someofthe bishops in the fourth century actually pretended. But as clerical ambition rose to its full height, the lust of dominion proved too strong to be shared among such a multitude of claimants; and in course of time, aided by the adroit interpretation of a single passage of Scripture, which speaks of Peter in connection with the rock on which Christ should build his church, and with the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi. 18, 19), the see of Rome, the city which tradition had vaguely identified with that apostle, and which had now become the capital of Christendom, as it had formerly been that of the world, attained, after many a struggle, the acknowledged supremacy. The application of the text can be clearly shown to have been a mere

SUBJECT OF THE TREATISE. XV after-thought, a felicitous expost facto argument, got up for the occasion, and never thought of for such a purpose before; but not so the fallacy of a descending delegation of divine authority in the line of apostolical succession. This upas had taken deep root in the soil, gradually blasting every thing around it, until, under the specious pretext of unity and the growing rage for centralization, the mon- strous sophism reached its climax by vesting one man with the blas- phemous claim of " all power in heaven and in earth." In thus tracing to its veritable source the primacy claimed by the pope, we are doing no more than has been done bysome of its most ingenious and eminent advocates in modern times. The only dif- ference between us is, that what they assume as a sacred truth, " in conformity with the teaching of Christ our Lord," we hold to be a human fallacy; and what they represent as the very " point" of perfection, we look upon as the acme in the development of the " mystery of iniquity." " We fully admit," says Cardinal Wiseman, in one of his late lectures, " that this transmissionary power from bishops to others in succession is in conformity with the teaching of Christ our Lord. But upon the same principle, and for the same reasons, we believe that to ONE of these particular pastors has been given a higher charge, a chargeover the other pastors of the church; and that this also is traceable in the same way to the commission of our Lord, and forms an essen- tial part of the government of the church which he established. I might here at once ask, my brethren, does there seem at first sight any thing unnatural in this? IfGod appointed a number of pastors, who were to rule over otherpastors, bishops over clergy, and those clergymen again had to rule over their flocks, does it seem to you any thing peculiar, extravagant, that it should be thought by a great many Christians that it pleased God to bring this system of government to a point, and constitute some one over all the bishops of his church tohave the gene- ral rule? "* The fallacy involved in this plausible reasoning is exactly that to which we have adverted, and admits of easy exposure. Few can study the matter calmly in the light of the New Testament (and it is well that our opponents are now willing to appeal to this uncor- rupted standard, instead of the forged and garbled writings of unin- spired antiquity) without perceiving that the apostles of our Lord, with all their extraordinary gifts, never claimed more than a minis- terial authority in the church. Repeatedly, and in themost explicit terms, do they renounce every thing like a despotical or autocratic power lodged in their own persons: " Not for that we have domi- nion over your faith, but are helpers of your joy." (2 Cor. i. 24.) * Seventh Lecture by Cardinal Wiseman, delivered in St Mary's Church, MoorSelds, on the evening of Sunday, March 28, 1852 Subject: Papal Supremacy. From our own Reporter. (The Catholic Standard.)

xVI INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. " Wepreach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus THE LORD ; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." (2 Cor. iv. 5.) " Neither as being LORDS over God's heritage (Ws xaraxupiov-r swv xa7pav), but being ensamples to the flock." (1 Pet. v. 3.) The designation so familiar to their lips of " Servants of Jesus Christ," " Ministers of Christ," was nomere title of honour or symbol of humility, (as it is hypocritically used by the pope, who in the same breath styles himself Dominus Ecclesice, " The Lord of the Church," and Servus servorum Dei, "The servant of God's servants ! ") but was designedly employed as an exponent of the relation in which they stoodboth to the Lord and to his people. That was the relation, not of masters, but of servants. Inspired servants they doubtless were; the messages they received came immediately from heaven, and these they " made known to all nations, for theobedience of faith." But the authorityon which they claimed that obedience was not any personal authority delegated to them by Christ, and lodged in them as governors of the church. It was the authority of their divine Master himself, to whom they uni- formly appealed, and who sanctioned their appeal by his miraculous gifts. They delivered the laws and ordinances by which the church was to be regulated; but in doing so they acted in a purely minis- terial capacity, not as legislators, but as agents of the great Sove- reign of the church. " I have received of the Lord," says Paul, " that which also I delivered unto you." " So hath the Lord or- dained." From this point of view it is easy to see in what sense the apostles spoke of acting " in Christ's stead : " " Now then we are ambassa- dors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God." (2 Cor. v. 20.) The cha- racter of an ambassador precludes the idea of autocratic dominion. In his own person he has no authority; he cannot move a step be- yond his written instructions. Such were the apostles; and such is every faithful minister of Christ, with this difference, that instead of having his instructions imparted to him by immediate revelation, he has them recorded in the Word of God. As ambassadors, the apostles speak of " beseeching" and "praying" men in Christ's stead; as inspired writers, they announced his laws; and as appointed rulers, they administered them : but never do they speak of governing the church in Christ's stead, nor talk as if he had delegated to them his authorityover his church. The idea, indeed, ispreposterous. Our blessed Lorddeclares, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth;" and on theground of this authority he commissions his apostles to go forth and preach

SUBJECT OF THE TREATISE. XVII the gospel in his name. But such a claim to universal power was equivalent to an assertion of his deity. It was a power which none but God could possess or exercise,a power which he could not possibly transmit to any creature, for no creature was capable of sharing it with him, the gift of his Father's love, and the pecu- liar purchase of his own blood : " HIM hath God highly exalted, and given him a name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee might bow, and every tongue confess, of things inheaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth." Such was the authority of Christ; and had it been delegated to the apostles, unto them every knee must have bowed, and every tongue con- fessed, not only in earth and under the earth, but also in heaven! Nay, they must have been " heads over all things to the church," which would be " their body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all!" Nay, farther, the saints and angels of heaven must have in- cluded them in their doxologies, saying, " Worthy are the apostles of the Lamb to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing!" Can we imagine that the lowly apostles ever aspired to such honours? No! glorying only in the cross of their Master, they never dreamt of wielding his sceptre or wearing his crown. " The crown of glory" which they anticipated was that due to the good and faithful servant after his work and warfare upon earth; but the idea of governing in conjunction with Christ in the church below they would have repudiated with as much horror as they treated with contempt the idea of " reigning as kings" with some conceited members of the church : " Ye have reigned as kings without us: and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you." (1 Cor. iv. 8.) The promise given to them of " sitting upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel," in whatever sense it may have been understood by them, they certainly never expected to see realized in any earthly enthro- nization. Of this, at least, we are certain, that the idea of their par- ticipating in the mediatorial honours of their Master was no sooner mooted, in the rash petition of Zebedee's children, than it was put down, amidst the indignation of the rest, by the calm and decided sentence of Christ: "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise autho- rity upon them ; BUT IT SHALL NOT BE SO AMONG YOU." (Matt. xx. 25, 26.) Here, however, it may be necessary to advert to another source of the fallacy, in a strange confusion of thought, not peculiar to the Romanist party, arising from confounding the government of the VOL L B

XVIII INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. church with that of earthly rulers. Our lord having compared his church to a kingdom, and those who bear office in her being deno- minated rulers, it has been hastily inferred that as earthly kings rule by delegation under God, the sovereign of the world, so may the officers of the church be considered as ruling by delegation under Christ, the sovereign of the church: and on this ground it has been contended that the admission of a visible head of the church, acting as the vicar of Christ upon earth, does not supersede, but rather sup- pose the existence of an invisible head in heaven. Now, there cer- tainly is an analogy drawn in Scripture between the church of Christ and the kingdoms of this world; but the error lies in overlooking the real point in which the analogy holds true. It is an entire mistake to suppose that as the moral Governor of the world may be said to delegate his power of jurisdiction to civil rulers, so Christ may be said to have delegated his spiritual power of jurisdiction to spiritual rulers. The truth is, that it is God alone, as the supreme gover- nor, who delegates both the civil and the spiritual jurisdiction; and while he has committedcivil government to the hands of civil gover- nors, he has intrusted spiritual government, not into the hands of spiritual governors, but into the hands of his own Son, the sole king and head of his spiritual kingdom. The metaphor of earthly princes, ruling under God and for God, is applied in Scripture not to illustrate the power of church-governors, but the power of the Lord Christ. There is no analogy, therefore, between any delegation of power by the moral Governor of the world to earthly rulers and the appointment by Christ of officers in his church. The real ana- logy lies in the fact that as God has delegated a kingly power to earthly monarchs over their peculiar kingdoms, so has he delegated a kingly power to his Son over his church, as his peculiar kingdom. Let us take as an illustration the case of David, an eminent type of Christ in his kingly office. God was pleased to raise him up to feed his people Israel, assigning him that nation as his kingdom, and giving him the sole and undivided possession of its throne. In like manner has he raised up his Son Jesus, and given him the sole and undivided possession of his spiritual kingdom, the church. Let it be remembered that the Mediator holds and exercises his kingly autho- rity by delegation from the Father: "Yet have I set my King upon my holy hill of Zion." Our Lord Christ is, in truth, God's vicar and vicegerent, both in heaven and on earth. And to suppose that he, himself the delegate of his Father, when he went to heaven " to re- ceive for himself a kingdom," can delegate his powers to others is utterly monstrous. The very fact that "the Lord God hath given

SUBJECT OF THE TREATISE. xix him the throneof his father David" implies that he shall retain these powers in his own hand, and that " he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever." (Luke i. 32, 33.) Earthly monarchs may divide their powers with others, or be in various ways circumscribed in their exercise; but such a partition or limitation cannot for a mo- ment be asserted of the Redeemer's authority. The Scripture image of a kingdom is taken fromOriental despotisms, in which there was but one master, and all beneath himwere subjects or servants. Earthly monarchs, even the most arbitrary, find it necessary to have their vicegerents to supply their lack of service, for they are frail, imperfect mortals,they can neither be in all places at the same time, nor can they overtake in their own persons the labour of con- stant supervision; but our blessed Lord stands in no need of assis- tants or assessors. " Lo," he says, " Iam with you alway, even unto the end of the world." There is nothing involved in these remarks from which it can be justly inferred that the church. of Christ is autocratic, or that it is destitute of all rule or form of government on earth.. It is granted that the apostles were rulers in the church, and that they speak of her pastors as those who were " over her in the Lord." What is meant is, that their authority is purely administrative; and in this distinction lies the whole essence of our controversy with the papal pretensions. The apostles were rulers in the church, they were not governors of the church; they did not legislate for the church, but merely administered the laws given by the " One Lawgiver;" they did not form so many foundations of the church, but were simply builders on the " one foundation," which was Jesus Christ. But if the idea of a delegated jurisdiction, imparted by our Lord to his apostles, and by them transmitted to their successors, is so pregnant with incongruities, it becomes positively ridiculous when imagined in the hands of the pope. The subdivision of the power among many, supposed in the one case, hides the absurdity of the claim; but it develops itself in all the hideousness of caricature when the claim is put forth in behalf of one man.. Perfect unity is the distinguishing prerogative of God, and in him it is the perfection of strength. With the creature it is the very reverse ; union, is strength, unity is weakness. To invest a human unit with the attributes and prerogatives of the Infinite One is the very perfection of human absurdity and impiety. And the pretence is all the more absurd and impious when we consider that it is, in the nature of things, impossible that the man can pcasess a single kingly attribute, or ex- ercise a single kingly prerogative, properly belonging to the Head. of

XX INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. the church. In earthly governments, a substitutemay be found qua- lified for all the functions of the sovereign; but in thespiritual king- dom of the church, this miserable vicar is incapable of performing a singleact of that office which Christ executes as king of Zion. He can neither give repentance to Israel, nor the remission of sins, canneither subdue the hearts nor conquer the enemies of his people, can neither sanctify nor save their souls, can neither bless the ordinances of grace nor manage the operations of providence. He has the name of a spiritual monarch, but not a shred of the thing itself; he has " the likeness of a kingly crown," but not the reality. He is thegreatest anomaly in this world, the earthly head of a spi- ritual body, a despot without power, a viceroywithout commission, a shadowwithout a substance! One thing only was wanting to complete this climax of fictitious authority, the assumption of temporal in conjunction with and springing from the spiritual jurisdiction. With regard to the former, history attests the consequences_of the temporal authoritywith which the popes were invested. We may content ourselves with the follow- ing sketch of them by Guicciardini, the celebrated Florentine his- torian : " By these foundations and means, being raised to an earthly power, forgetting by little and little the salvation of souls and the commandments of God, and bending all their thoughts to worldly greatness, no longer using the spiritual power but as an instrument of the temporal, resembling rather secular princes than popes or bishops, their cares andendeavours were now no longer sanctity of life, no longer propagation of religion, no longer zeal and charity towards their neighbours, but to raise arms, and to make war against Christians, managing their sacrifices with bloodyhands and thoughts. Theybegan to gather treasure, to make new laws, to invent new tricks and new devices to get money on all sides, to usethe spiritual armswithout respect, for this onlyend, to profane sacred things without shame, for this onlypurpose. The great wealth lavishly bestowed upon them and their whole court was accompanied with pride, luxury, dishonesty, lust, and abominable pleasures; their successors having no care of the perpetual dignity of the Papacy. Instead whereof they had an ambitious and pestilent desire to exalt their children, nephews, and kindred, not only to excessive riches, but to principalities and kingdoms; no longer conferring dignities upon men of desert and virtue, but almost alwayseither selling them to the most giver, or distributing them to persons most fit for their ambition, avarice, and other shameful plea- sures."* But on this point we must carefully distinguish between the tem- poral honours and possessions conferred on the Roman pontiff and the temporal jurisdiction which he claims in virtue of his office. * The above is part ofthe famous passage inGuicciardini's " History of the Wars of Italy," which was expunged from the Italian and Latin editions, but restored by old Fenton in his translation of 1618, p. 177.

SUBJECT OF THE TREATISE. XXI There can be no doubt that the Papacy, in virtue of the possessions granted it at various times by superstitious or servile monarchs, be- came a temporal power. The pope has his capital and his council- lors, his ambassadors and his armies, his dominions and his subjects, his wars and his taxes. To all intents and purposes he is nothing less, and, in sober reality, he is nothingmore, than a temporal prince. Into the circumstances which led to this worldly exaltation we do not enter. It is generally acknowledged that the foundation of it was laid by Pepin theusurper of France, when, in 756 or 758, on over- coming the Lombards, he laid the keys of the conquered towns on, the altar of St Peter, and converted Pope Stephen IL into a tem- poral prince. " This," says father Daniel, " is, properly speaking, the original of the temporal power of the popes." The same remark is made by Ranke in his " History of the Popes;" and most writers on prophecy date from this period the union of the temporal withthe spiritual power of the pope.* But it would be a grievous mistake to measure the temporal power which the popepretends to exercise by the extent of his petty possessions as an Italian sovereign. This is a mere trifle in comparison with the temporal authority which he claims in virtue of his spiritual. As a spiritual prince, he asserts not merely a right to the patrimonyof St Peter, but a right to dispose of all the patrimonies and possessions of this world; to depose kings, and transfer their kingdoms to others; to absolve subjects from their allegiance; and, in short, to reign as lord paramount over the whole earth. The earthly splendour with which he is invested, so incon- sistent with his professedly spiritual character, may have served to keep up the prestige of his supremacy; but, in fact, though the pope were deposed to-morrow from his throne in the Vatican, though not an inch of territory were allowed him, though he were stripped of his purple robe, deserted by his Swiss guards and his sbirri, and left without chancery, mint, or arsenal, he would still, in virtue simply of his spiritual pretensions as the vicar of Christ, retain all the claims which his predecessors have put forth to temporal dominion. And these claims would be acknowledged by all his devoted followers; for they are founded on the same fictitious jus divinum as that on which he claims the government of the church. It is assumed that the divine prerogatives of the"Saviour have been transferred to the governors of the church, and to the pope, by way of eminence, as * Mr Fleming, the ingenious author of a " Discourse on the Rise and Fall of the Papacy," dates this event from 758. Mezerai differs both from Daniel and Fleming as to the date, which he fixes at 756, but errs as to the reigning pope, whom he makes to be Stephen III. Abrégè Citron. de l'H!st. de France, tom. i. p. 446.

XXII INTRODUCTORY ESSAY. their head. And as Christ, the king of the church, has undoubtedly received " all powerin heaven and in earth," the sameuniversaljuris- diction is presumed to belong to his delegate and representative.* That this extravagant claim has been made by the popes for many centuries is beyond all question. Our author has observed, in his Introduction, that Gregory II., who was ordained in 715 (several years before Pepin's dotation of temporal possessions to the pope), " may be reputed the father of that doctrine, which, being fostered by his successors, was by Pope Gregory VII. (Hildebrand) brought up to its robust pitch and stature," p. 17. The following may be selected frommany other decrees of the popes and councils, as a spe- cimen of the authority claimed, aild thegrounds on which it was made to rest; it is from the famous " Extravagant" of Boniface VIII.: "All the faithful of Christ, by necessity of salvation, are subject to the Roman pontiff, who has both swords, and judges all men, but is judged by no one. In the power of which successor we are taught by the evangelical sayings that there are two swords, the spiritual and the temporal; for when the apostles said, ' Behold, here,' that is, in the church, `are two swords,' the Lord did not answer that there were too many, but merely enough. Certainly he who denies that the temporal sword is in the hand of Peter attends little to that word of the Lord, `.Put up thy sward into its sheath.' Each, then, is in the power of the church, the spiritual and the material sword. But one is to beused for, the other by the church; one by the hand of the priest, the other by the hand of kings and soldiers, but at the nod and permission of the priest. Thus the prophecy of Jeremiah is verified in the church and the ecclesiastical power: `See, I have set thee this day over the nations and over the kingdoms.' There- fore, if the earthly power turn aside, it will be judged by the spiri- tual power; and if a spiritual inferior, by his superior. But if the high spiritual power turn aside, it can be judged by God alone, not by man; since the apostle bears witness, The spiritual man judgeth all things, but he himself is judged by no man.' And this authority is not human, though given to man and exercised by man; but ratherdivine, givenby the divine mouth to Peter himself and his successors, in himwhom he confirmed to be a firm rock, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound inheaven.' Whosoever, therefore, resists this power, resists the ordinance of God; unless he pretend, as the Manichees, that there are two beginnings, which we judge false andheretical, because, as Moses testifies, not in the beginnings, but `in the beginning, God See this point ably argued and illustrated in " The Papacy," by the Rev. J. A. Wylie, chap. v.

SUBJECT OF THE TREATISE. XXIII created heaven and earth! Moreover, we declare, assert, define, and pronounce, that TO BE SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF IS TOEVERY HUMAN CREATURE ALTOGETHER NECESSARY TO SALVATION. Given at the Lateran, in the eighth year of our'pontificate."* The portentous extravagance of such a pretence as that involved in this document might seem to place it beyond the category of human assumptions. But in a church which assigns to its priests the faculty of making, and to its followers the privilege of masti- cating, "the real body, blood, soul, and divinityof the Son of God," it is not easy to imagine any bounds to the ambition of the one or the credulity of the other. And the plain language of the divines of the Romish church places the matter of fact beyond all question. Bellarmine's doctrine is, "By reason of the spiritual power, the pope has, at least indirectly, a certain supreme power in temporal matters." Ferraris, a great authority in that church, is still more explicit. "The pope," he says, " is of such dignity, that he is not simply man, but, AS IT WERE, GOD I and the vicar of God. He occupies one and the same tribunal with Christ. Hence thecommon doctrine teacheth that the pope Lath the power of the two swords, namely, the spiritual and the temporal." The same doctrine is asserted by Baronius, the acknowledged champion of Romanism, who says, "There can be no doubt but that the civil principality is subject to the sacerdotal ; and that God hathmade the political government subject to the dominion of the spiritual church. "t The fallacy on which the claim rests is, ifpossible, still more glar- ing than the pope's assumed supremacy over the church; for, in the first place, the universal authoritywith which our Lord is invested as head of the church, the "power given him over all flesh," is inca- pable ofdelegation to the creature. It is the power of God, and ne- cessarily implies, in order to its efficient exercise, the attributes of omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence. It is equivalent with sovereign control over all the elements of nature, the events of pro- vidence, and the hearts of men. To claim participation in this power amounts on the part of any creature to a denial of the very sove- reignty in question; it is an impious attempt to pluck the crown of Deity from the Saviour's head, and to place it upon his own. But, in the next place, to claim a temporal jurisdiction over the kingdoms of this world is to assume what our Lord never claimed for himself, and what does not properly belong to him as mediator. During his personal abode on earth he repeatedly disclaimed all temporal jurisdiction, and refused to interfere with Extray. lib. i. tit. viii. cap. 1. t See the authorities referred to in " Elliott's Delineation of Popery," p. 597, &c.