THE DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINES.

CHAPTER I.

SUPREMACY.

"Neither be ye called masters; for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted."-MATT. xxiii. 10-12.

A ROMAN Catholic prelate in this country lately delivered an address on the occasion of the consecration, by him, of a piece of ground allotted for the burial of members of his church, in which he is reported to have solemnly maintained that he stood before his hearers as the representative of no new system of religion, the exponent of no novel doctrine; and that the doctrines now taught by his church are the same as those which were preached in this country "by men sent by the pope to convert our poor Saxon forefathers," and as handed down by the apostles. This broad

assertion of an alleged historical fact must rest or fall on the evidence adduced to support it.

It is on this assertion that issue is joined, and to its disproof the following pages are devoted.

B

I. We begin with the subject of prime importance, "Supremacy."

:

1

Cardinal Bellarmine says that the doctrine of the Pope's Supremacy is the "sum and substance of Christianity." He says again "The Supremacy of the bishop of Rome may be proved by fifteen several names or titles, as, namely, the Prince of Priests,' the High Priest,' the Vicar of Christ,' the Universal Bishop,' and the like.” 2

3

Proof is challenged that any of these titles were given to the bishop of Rome exclusively, from the days of the first bishop of Rome to and including Gregory I., which embraces a period of 500 years. The early Fathers would have shrunk from giving the bishop of Rome the titles of "Prince of Priests," "The High Priest," due alone to Christ. Such an exclusive title, as applied to any one bishop, was never contemplated by the Scriptures. All the people of God are called in Scripture "a royal priesthood." When, however, the term "High Priest" was ever used, it was equally applicable to all bishops. We have a remarkable instance of this recorded in the "Acts of the Councils" by the Jesuit Labbeus, wherein Anacletus, a bishop of Rome, of the second century, in his second

1 "De quâ re agitur, cum de primatu Pontificis agitur? Brevissime dicam, de summâ re Christianâ." In Lib. de Sum. Pont. in Præfat. sec. ii. Edit. Prag. 1721.

2 Ibid. Lib. ii. c. 31, sec. i.

3 Some curious details are given by the learned Benedictine, Dom de Vaines (in his Dictionnaire Raisonné de Diplomatique, Paris, 1774, p. 161), on the gradual development of the pope's titles). In the first four centuries the title of Pope (Papa) was usually given to bishops indiscriminately. In the ninth century, bishops of France were reprimanded by Gregory IV. for calling him Papa and Frater. Gregory VII., in the eleventh century, was the first who restricted the term Papa to the Bishop of Rome. The title, Vicar of Peter, is not earlier than the ninth century in the thirteenth, the bishops of Rome limited that of the Vicar of Christ to themselves: it had been previously borne by other Bishops. See Wordsworth's "Letters to Mr. Gondon." Letter II., p. 43. London, 1848.

epistle, writes—* The High Priests, that is, Bishops, are to be judged of God.”

As to the title of "Universal Bishop," it was specially repudiated by the bishops of Rome, Pelagius II., and Gregory I., when assumed by John, bishop of Constantinople, for the first time in the church, and afterwards by his successor, John Cyriacus.

Pelagius II. (A.D. 590) denounced the assumption of the title of "Universal" as an unlawful usurpation, and testified that none of his predecessors assumed such a profane appellation :

“Regard not,” he said, "the name of universality which John has unlawfully usurped to himself, for let none of the Patriarchs ever use this so profane appellation. You may well estimate what mischief may be expected rapidly to follow, when even among priests such perverted beginnings break forth; for he is near respecting whom it is written, He himself is King over all the sons of pride."

And his immediate successor, Gregory I., expressed himself no less strongly

"My fellow priest John attempts to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim: O times! O manners! Priests seek to themselves names of vanity, and glory in new and profane appellations. Do I, in this matter, defend only my own proper cause? Do I vindicate an injury specially offered to myself? Do not I rather take up the cause of God

1 "Summi Sacerdotes, id est, Episcopi, a Deo judicandi." Conc. Labb., tom. i.; Anacleti Papæ, Epist. ii. col. 521. C. Paris, 1671.

2 "Universalitatis nomen, quod sibi illicite usurpavit, nolite attendere :nullus enim patriarcharum hoc tam profano vocabulo unquam utatur.-Perpenditis, fratres carissimi, qui de vicino subsequatur, cum et in sacerdotibus erumpunt tam perversa primordia. Quia enim juxta est ille, de quo scriptum est: Ipse est rex super universos filios superbiæ." Pap. Pelag. II. Ep. viii.; Labb. et Coss., tom. v. col. 949, 950. Paris, 1671.

Omnipotent, and the cause of the church universal? Far from the very hearts of Christians be that name of blasphemy in which the honour of all priests is taken away, while it is arrogated madly to himself by a single individual,"

And, again, the same bishop said:

"No one of my predecessors ever consented to use this so profane appellation; for if a single patriarch be styled Universal, the name of Patriarch is taken from the others. But far, very far, be it from a Christian mind, that any person should wish to snatch himself a title, whence he may seem, in any even the smallest degree, to diminish the honour of his brethren."

"What," exclaims the same Gregory to his presumptuous brother of Constantinople; "what wilt thou say to Christ, the true Head of the universal church, in the examination of the last judgment-thou who attemptest to subjugate all his members to thyself by the title of Universal? In the use of so perverted a title, who, I ask, is proposed for thy imitation, save he, who, despising the legions of angels constituted in a common authority with himself, endeavoured to break forth to the summit of an isolated dignity. To consent to the adoption of that wicked appellation is nothing less than to apostatize from the faith."3

1 "Consacerdos meus Johannes vocari Universalis Episcopus conatur. Exclamare compellor ac dicere: 0 tempora! O mores! sacerdotes vanitatis sibi nomina expetunt, et novis ac profanis vocabulis gloriantur. Nunquid ego, hac in re, propriam causam defendo? Nunquid specialem injuriam vindico, et non magis causam Omnipotentis Dei et causam universalis ecclesia? Sed absit a cordibus Christianorum nomen illud Blasphemiæ, in quo omnium sacerdotum honor adimitur, dum ab uno sibi dementer arrogatur." Pap. Greg. I. Epist. lib. iv.; Epist. xx.; Opera, tom. ii. p. 748. Bened. Edit. 1705.

2 "Nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam profano vocabulo uti consensit; quia, videlicet, si unus patriarcha Universalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen cæteris derogatur. Sed absit, hoc absit a Christianâ mente, id sibi velle, quenquam arripere, unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere, ex quantulacunque parte videatur!" Pap. Gregor. I., Epist. lib. v. Ep. xxv. Opera. tom. ii. p. 771. Edit. Bened. 1705.

3 Tu quid Christo, universalis scilicet ecclesiæ capiti, in extremi judicii es dicturus examine, qui cuncta ejus membra tibimet conaris Universalis appellatione supponere? Quis, rogo, in hoc tam perverso vocabulo, nisi ille ad imitandum proponitur, qui despectis angelorum legionibus secum socialiter