My former work being strictly a reply, I avoided the introduction of topics which were not presented for discussion by Dr. Hopkins; whilst in the present I have allowed myself free scope, and treated of whatever appeared to me useful for the elucidation of my subject. It would have been more in accordance with my own wishes to confine myself to the vindication of the dogma, and leave the reader to entertain his own views as to those acts of the Popes, which are least in accordance with the polity and public opinion of our age; but on perusing the work of Barrow, on the Supremacy, I perceived that the skill of the adversaries of the Apostolic See was displayed in holding up to view the temporal supremacy which was once exercised by the Popes, and confounding it with the spiritual attributes of their office; and that every vindication of the dogma must be unsatisfactory, which left the impression unremoved, that it had been abused for ages, to raise on it a system of usurpation, extortion and cruelty. On the other hand, I felt the difficulty of conveying to the public mind a clear view of the social position which the Popes occupied in the middle ages, and of the accidental attributes wherewith the circumstances of the times invested them. I resolved, nevertheless, to attempt the correction of some of the grossest misconceptions, which generally prevail, and to give some insight into the principles and motives of the actors in scenes which are revolting to modern sentiment and feeling. Accordingly I have examined the documents, and endeavored to ascertain the facts, and to trace them to their sources. In justice to those concerned, I state their views, and the public opinion of the age by which they were supported, and without asking my readers to approve of what was done, or to adopt the sentiments which were then entertained, I would fain screen from censure men who honestly acted in accordance with general opinion. If censure must fall on them, I point to circumstances of an extenuating character, and deny that men should be considered monsters, because they were not wiser, or more humane, than their fellow-men generally. I am not anxious that my readers should admire the chivalry of the crusaders, or respect the severity of the Inquisition, but I lay before them a candid statement of facts, that they may form their own judgment. Whatever they may think of the share which the Popes had in them, the main question of the Primacy is not to be affected by it, since this is to be determined by the proofs of its divine institution, not by the use which has been made of it, much less by the abuses which have grown out of its exercise. It is not to be wondered that in the changes and convulsions of society, the power of the Chief Bishop should have been so employed as to place it in an odious light, or that it should have been occasionally abused through individual weakness or depravity: but an impartial judge will not mistake accidental aberrations for the natural characteristics of the authority itself. My object has been to shew its general tendency. Wherever in the course of these pages any views are presented which are peculiarly my own, their entire responsibility rests of course with me: nor do I mean to urge their adoption. The dogma of the Primacy-the Papal prerogatives solemnly recognized by the Universal Church-are the only objects of my solicitude. It matters but little what judgment may be formed of facts of history, and of by-gone institutions, or of disputable theories, provided the authority instituted by Christ for the maintenance of unity be sincerely and practically admitted. Holding the common faith, I value freedom of opinion on all matters on which the Church herself has not authoritatively pronounced, and in judging of historical facts and of local and temporary institutions, I feel no restraint but that which is imposed by a sacred regard for truth and justice. It may be to remark that this work was put to press long beproper fore the melancholy outbreaks of May and July of last year, which have greatly retarded its publication. As it has no reference to them, I have not hesitated to lay it before the public, now that tranquillity seems permanently restored. It is my desire to consign those scenes to oblivion, and to dissipate the vain fears of Papal influence, by which the public mind was excited. If I have not utterly misunderstood the philosophy of the history of the Popes, their authority, so far from being dangerous to civil liberty, or republican institutions, is the bulwark of Society in all its legitimate forms, and the best moral security for individual and public rights. It is plainly the only effectual means for maintaining the integrity of faith, and religious communion. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I.-Promise of the Primacy, Primacy of Jurisdiction-of order.-Admission of Anglican divines. -THE FIRST, Peter.-Mat. x. 2.-Admission of Barrow.-Mat. xvi. CHAPTER II.-Institution of the Primacy, "Feed my lambs-feed my sheep."-St. Bernard.-One fold, one shepherd.-Barrow's acknowledgment.-St. Francis de Sales.-St. CHAPTER III.-Exercise of the Primacy by Peter, Election of Matthias.-St. Chrysostom.-Council of Jerusalem.- Tertullian.-St. Jerom.-Theodoret.-Cave.-St. Chrysostom.-Bar- CHAPTER IV.-Interpretation of the Fathers, Authority of the Fathers.-Tertullian.-Origen, Cyprian.-St. James of Nisibis-St. Cyril of Jerusalem.-St. Basil.-St. Gregory of Nyssa. St. Gregory of Nazianzum.-St. Chrysostom.-St. Epi- phanius.-St. Asterius.—St. Cyril of Alexandria.-St. Hilary of Poic- tiers. St. Optatus of Mela —St. Ambrose.-St. Jerom.-St. Augus- CHAPTER V.-Peter, Bishop of Rome, Calvin.-Cave.-Babylon.--Clement.-Ignatius.--Papias.-Ire- næus.-Denys of Corinth.-Cajus.-Origen.-Eusebius.-St. Cypri- St. Ignatius.-St. Irenæus.—Tertullian.-St. Cyprian.-Pagan tes- timony. The bishops colleagues of the Pope.-Roman clergy.— St. Optatus.-St. Augustine.-Case of Meletius.--St. Chrysostom.-- Difference of discipline.--Anicetus.-Polycarp.-Victor.-Irenæus. § 4.-Controversy concerning Baptism, Change of form.-St. Cyprian.-St. Stephen.-African council.- Dionysius of Alexandria.-Vincent of Lerins.-Resistance to superior Cecilius of Carthage.-Constantine.--Melchiades.--Council of CHAPTER IX.-Guardianship of Faith, Interpretation of Theophylact--Innocent.-Zeal of the Popes.- Ancient heretics.--Origen.--Dionysius.-Novatian.--Nicene council. Canons. St. Celestine.-St. Cyprian.-St. Syricius.-Innocent I. -Zosimus.-St. Augustin.-St. Leo.-Dispensing power.-Indul. Boniface. Pretensions of Bishop of Jerusalem.-St. Leo.-The Pope supported the rights of the patriarchs: and interposed in extraor CHAPTER XII.-Deposition of Bishops, Order perpetual: jurisdiction liable to be withdrawn.-Patriarchal authority. Reservation to Pope how early.-Concession of Potter.- Marcian of Arles.-St. Cyprian.-Emperors Gratian and Valentinian. 1 -Mosheim.-Name of Acacius cancelled from the diptychs.-Gela- Case of Marcion.-Basilides.-Privatus.-Athanasius.-Letter of Early wealth of the Roman Church.-Donation of Constantine.- CHAPTER XV.-Civil Influence, Origin of civil power.-Relations of Popes to kings explained by Advantages of Papal intervention.—Urban IV.-Sir Edward San- CHAPTER XVII.-Ecclesiastical Censures, Suspension.-Interdict.-Excommunication.-Civil consequences. CHAPTER XVIII.-Deposing Power, Southey.-St. Gregory VII.-Power of bishops in middle ages.— Sylvester II.-St. Gregory VII.-Peter the hermit.-Urban II.— 195 218 230 247 258 270 306 |