Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

LECTURE XVIII.

treated things more But on so complex

In my preceding lectures on the rise and progress of the papacy, I have been more particular, and in detail, than I had at first intended. a subject, to which so great a variety of different, and even dissimilar circumstances contributed, it is not easy to consult at once brevity and perspicuity. Besides, in this deduction I have found it impossible to elucidate the latent causes which co-operated in rearing this wonderful fabric, in a narrative of its advancement according to the order of time. To have attempted this would have led me to make an abridgment of ecclesiastic history, and to interweave with it such critical inquiries as would serve to expose the secret springs and progress of that enormous power. But this would have occasioned a still more minute detail, and would, after all, have scarcely been so satisfactory as the manner I have adopted. A number of different springs in the great machine, which operated separately, though simultaneously, I have been obliged, for the sake of distinctness, to consider separately. In the deductions I have given of each, I have conformed myself as much as possible to the order of time, that the different phases, if I may so express myself, of the same plea, at different periods, might be considered and compared. Something of this kind ye may have observed from what has been said on the subject of appeals, and on the different foundations on which Rome, at different periods, raised her title to jurisdiction. But when, leaving one topic, I recurred to another, I have been obliged to turn back as it were, in order to resume the history of that particular also, from the beginning. My object, in these discourses, is not to give a narrative of facts, but from known facts, with their attendant circumstances, by comparing one with another, to deduce principles and causes. I have already gone so far this way, not with a view to supersede the accounts given by the historian, but rather to enable you to read those accounts with greater attention and advantage. Many circumstances, apparently

trivial in a detail of facts, are apt to be overlooked by a hasty reader, which yet may be of very considerable consequence for bringing to light the springs of action, and accounting for other things with which, at first, to a superficial observer, they may appear to have little or no connexion. In what remains of this inquiry into the Roman hierarchy, I do not intend to be so particular, but shall briefly take notice of some of the principal causes, (for to name all would be impossible), which co-operated in rearing this strange medley of divine (as it was called) and human, spiritual and secular dominion.

There is none who has read church history with the least attention but must be sensible, that, from the very beginning of papal power, it has been much more considerable and conspicuous in the west than in the east. Indeed, for some centuries, the Roman pontiff hardly made any pretensions in the east, except in regard to his precedency, which, as it had been settled by early but tacit consent, and preserved by custom, the eastern prelates were not disposed to controvert. But when, from a bare precedency in point of rank, he came to extend his claim to jurisdiction, he always met from them a vigorous and often successful opposition. The case was not entirely similar with the western bishops, over whom the Pope obtained a considerable ascendant, much earlier than it was in his power to do in regard to his oriental brethren. Several causes may be assigned for this difference.

In the first place, in some of the earliest ages, if we except the inhabitants of Rome, Carthage, and some principal cities, those in the west were in general, beyond all comparison, inferior both in knowledge and acuteness to the Orientals, and were therefore much better adapted to be implicit followers, first, during the church's worldly obscurity, of the most respectable characters; afterwards, during her worldly splendour, of the most eminent sees. Victor, bishop of Rome, in the violent measures he adopted against the Quarto-decimans in Asia, in the second century, seems to have had no adherents, even among those who, in the observance of Easter, the only point in dispute, followed the same custom with himself. As little had Stephen I. in the third century, in his

measures against the African rebaptizers of those who had been baptized by heretics or schismatics. Ireneus, bishop of Lyons, on account of his personal character, was of ten times more authority even in the west than Pope Victor; and Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, than Pope Stephen. But matters underwent a very great change after Christianity had received the sanction of a legal establishment. Then, indeed, the difference between one see and another, both in riches and in power, soon became enormous. And this could not fail

to produce, in the sentiments of mankind, the usual consequences. Such is the constant progress in all human polities whatever. In the most simple state of society, personal merit, of some kind or other, makes the only noticeable distinction between man and man. In polities purely republican, it is still the chief distinction. But the farther ye recede from these, and the nearer ye approach the monarchical model, the more does this natural distinction give place to those artificial distinctions created by riches, office, and rank.

When Rome was become immensely superior, both in splendour and in opulence, to every western see, she would with great facility, and as it were naturally, (if nothing very unusual or alarming was attempted), dictate to the other sees in the west; the people there having had, for several ages, very little of the disputatious dogmatizing humour of their brethren in the east. It no doubt contributed to the same effect, that Rome was the only see of very great note which concurred with several of them in language; Latin being the predominant tongue among the western churches, as Greek was among the eastern. It was natural for the former, therefore, to consider themselves as more closely connected with the Roman patriarch than with the Constantinopolitan, or any of the other oriental patriarchs. A similar reason, when not counteracted by other causes, operated among the Greeks, to make them prefer a Grecian patriarch before a Latin one.

I acknowledge, as I hinted before, that this natural bias was frequently surmounted by other causes. When the Orientals were divided into parties by their disputes, as was often the case, the Romans could then obtain almost any thing

from the side they favoured, such was the violence of the parties against each other. But this humour, though it was not entirely without effect, was but temporary with them, and commonly lasted no longer than the controversy which gave rise to it. Like an elastic body, though it may be very much. bent by the proper application of external force, no sooner is the force removed, than of itself it resumes its former state. Nevertheless, on bodies of this sort, such violence, frequently repeated, will produce some change.

One thing which rendered it very difficult to effect a hearty coalition between Greeks and Latins, was the contempt which the former were, from early childhood, inured to entertain of the genius and understanding of the latter. Notwithstanding the superiority the Romans had obtained over them by subduing their country, and all the eastern monarchies which had sprung out of the Macedonian conquests, the Grecians could not help considering them as no better than a sort of barbarians, a little more civilized than the Scythians or the Tartars. "These men," said Photius, the Greek patriarch, who, in the ninth century, proved the occasion of the schism between the oriental churches and the occidental; these men, speaking of the Latins, "sprung from the darkness of the west, have corrupted every thing by their ignorance, and have even proceeded to that pitch of impiety and madness, as to foist words into the sacred symbol confirmed by all the councils." The Greeks often bragged that the Latins were their scholars. They have nothing," said they," which they have not gotten from us, not even the names of their ceremonies, mysteries, and dignities, such as baptism, eucharist, liturgy, parish, diocese, bishop, presbyter, deacon, monk, church, which they often stupidly misunderstand, and wretchedly misapply." But though the Greeks never showed much inclination to a cordial union with the Latins, they were far from being so closely united among themselves as the Latins generally were. I have already hinted at some of the causes of this difference in the Greeks, such as their ingenuity itself, which could ill brook the dictatorial manner, and their disputative and inquisitive turn of mind.

66

But there was another remarkable cause arising from the different constitutions of these two great parts of the empire, the oriental and the occidental. The former, as being beyond all comparison the richest, the most populous, and the most civilized, was sooner brought to a regular form of government, ecclesiastical as well as civil. I had before occasion to observe, that the ecclesiastic polity was in a great measure modelled upon the civil. All the cities of greatest eminence, as well as the most ancient churches, were situated in the east: Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, Cesarea, Ephesus, were cities of that note, with which nothing in the west, if we abstract Rome itself, was worthy to be compared. Accordingly, except Milan in Italy, and Carthage in West Africa, there does not appear to have been any bishop in the occidental churches above the rank of a metropolitan.

And even those I have named, Milan and Carthage, were considerably inferior, both in jurisdiction and in wealth, not only to the three great patriarchal sees in the east, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, but even to the principal of those called exarchal, such as Ephesus and Cesarea. Consequently, the Pope had not in the west a single bishop of consideration and rank, sufficient to be in any degree qualified for either a rival or a check. It is manifest, that in Gaul, Spain, and Britain, there were not, at least for some ages, any who had the inspection of more than a single province. The disparity, therefore, was so exceedingly great in the west, as to give the utmost scope for the ambition of a see, which, in respect of worldly circumstances, had been so remarkably distinguished.

When there is an equality, or even nearness, in riches and power, among those who share it, we may be assured there will always be emulation; but if-you raise one of the possessors distinguishably above the rest, you not only destroy their emulation, but give a contrary direction to their ambition, and make them fain to court the man whom they cannot hope successfully to emulate. Nay, the very rivalship which the rest entertain of one another, leads them to act this part with regard to him whom more fortunate circumstances has

« ZurückWeiter »