supporting its ministers, were understood, at first, to be de voted to the relief of the distressed and needy, strangers, orphans, widows, prisoners, and sick. Accordingly, with these truly pious and charitable donations, the bishops of Rome used, in earlier times, in the first place, to relieve the poor of their own church, and when that end was attained, to send the overplus to other churches, where the poor were numerous, the people in general less affluent, and, consequently, the offerings insufficient.

Of this humane and generous practice, the duration was only whilst the church itself remained in affliction and obscurity. It may appear a paradox, but it is too well confirmed by experience, that nothing is a greater enemy to generosity, than the unexpected acquisition of boundless wealth. This proves almost invariably the parent of ambition. And when ambition comes to supplant charity, and a pompous species of superstition to be substituted for rational devotion, the poor are forgotten on all sides. The exaltation of the priesthood, the exteriour glory of the sacred service, magnificent temples, richly furnished and decorated, gorgeous vestments, with whatever can dazzle the senses of those present at the publick ministrations, appear even to the bulk of the people the noblest object of their liberality, as tending more than any other to the honour of God, and the advancement of religion. In consequence of this gradual change in men's sentiments, the oblations made to the church would be gradually alienated from the primitive purpose, not only with impunity, but even with general approbation. Though the support of the ministers, in many places, did not now, as formerly, depend on the voluntary contributions of the people, all the principal sees having fixed revenues and temporalities annexed to them, the ministers were still, by a kind of prescription, or immemorial custom, considered as having a personal interest in the sacred offerings. And though these were not wanted for the supply of the necessaries, or even of the conveniences of life, there is no imaginable limit can be set to its luxuries, and for the supply of these there would ever be occasion. The thoughts of these upstart princes would then naturally fix on splendid equipages, numerous retinues, princely apparel, expensive tables, superb palaces, and whatever else could feed their vanity, and put them upon the level (as in a few cities, Rome and Constantinople in particular, they were quickly put upon level) with the greatest monarchs.

the

But to take a brief survey of the principal causes which contributed to raise the papacy to that zenith of glory, which it actually reached, shall be reserved for the subject of some other lectures. In this I have only examined the foundation.

LECTURE XIII.

IN my last lecture, I entered on the consideration of the rise of papal dominion. I showed that the pretensions made by papists, in regard to the distinguishing prerogatives of the apostle Peter, and in regard to the title which the Roman pontiff derives from him, are equally without foundation: that neither had that apostle any such prerogatives as they ascribe to him, nor has the bishop of Rome a better title to be called his successour than any other pastor in the christian church. I took notice, that the very first pontiff, who advanced this plea as the foundation of his primacy and power, lived no earlier than the fifth century; I showed particularly, that the true origin of the pope's supremacy was the dignity of the see, and not of its founder, the wealth and temporal advantages derived from the congregation of that great metropolis, and not any spiritual authority and jurisdiction, transmitted from the fisherman of Galilee, who was styled the apostle, not of the nations, but of the circumcision. I showed further, that this account of the origin of Romish dominion perfectly corresponds with the model that the church very soon assumed in conformity to the civil constitution of the empire; the dignity and secular power of the magistrate, in every city, especially in every capital, almost invariably determining the dignity and spiritual jurisdiction of its pastor. Hence the different degrees among the bishops, of suffragan, primate, or metropolitan, and exarch. Hence also among those of the same class, the exarchs, a few, who presided in the principal cities of the empire, such as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch, were dignified with the title of patriarch. And even among these, the precedency was always regulated by the rank of their respective prefects. To these, indeed, was added Jerusalem, from respect to the place where Christ had consummated his ministry, and our redemption had been accomplished, that is, where expiation had been made for the sin of man by the sacrifice of the Son of God, where the first fruits of the resurrection had been produced in him who was both the founder and the finisher of the faith, where the Holy Spi

rit was first given, and whence the gospel issued, as from its fountain, to bless, with its salutary streams, the remotest parts of the habitable world. But this was the only city which was honoured with any pre-eminence from other considerations, than such as were merely secular. And even Jerusalem came but in the fifth place.

I observed before, that power has a sort of attractive force, which gives it a tendency to accumulate, insomuch that what, in the beginning, is a distinction barely perceptible, grows, in process of time, a most remarkable disparity. In every new and doubtful case that may occur, the bias of the imagination is in favour of him who occupies the higher place, were the superiority ever so inconsiderable. And what was originally no more than precedency in rank, becomes at length a real superiority in power. The effect will be considerably accelerated, if superiour opulence join its aid in producing it. This was eminently the case with Rome, the wealthiest see, as well as the most respectable, because the seat of empire, of any in the church.

But it may be urged on the other side, that when the imperial throne was transferred from Rome to Constantinople, it might have been expected, that this latter place would rise to a still greater eminence than the former. That indeed, notwithstanding its obscurity for ages, it did rise to very great eminence, in consequence of the translation of the seat of empire, is itself a very strong confirmation of the doctrine here maintained. That though the youngest of the patriarchal sees, it did, through the favour of the emperours, arise to such distinguished grandeur and authority, as long to appear a formidable rival to haughty Rome, and often to awake her most jealous attention, is a point which will not be disputed by any who is but moderately conversant in ecclesiastick history. But then it is to be observed, that Rome had been a church in the highest estimation for ages before the name of Constantinople had been heard. And as for Byzantium, the name by which the place had formerly been known, it never was a see of any note or consideration. In regard to the Romans, however uncertain it may be who it was that first preached the gospel to them, and founded a church among them, there can be no doubt of the antiquity of this event, since Paul, as we learn from the Acts of the Apostles, on his first coming prisoner to Rome, found a church there already planted; and since, in one of his longest letters, manifestly written some time before, and directed to that church, he mentions their faith as even, at that early period, celebrated throughout the world. Rome may therefore be justly reckon

.

ed nearly coeval with the oldest gentile churches. Certain it is, that the tradition which prevailed most concerning this church, in the days of Constantine, and for a considerable time before, was, that it had been founded by the two apostles, Peter and Paul. These were considered as the most eminent in the apostolical college, the one as the doctor of the Jews, the other of the Gentiles; the people therefore seemed to think, that it was an honour due to the mistress and capital of the world, to believe, that she had had a principal share in the ministry of both. Here was an original disadvantage, that Constantinople, or New Rome, as she was sometimes called, laboured under, which it was impossible for her ever to surmount, Antiquity has great influence on every human establishment, but especially on those of a religious nature. What advantage Old Rome derived hence, when she found it convenient in supporting her claims, to change her ground, as it were, and rear the fabrick of spiritual despotism, not as formerly, on the dignity of the world's metropolis and human constitutions, but on divine right, transmitted through the prince of the apostles, is too well known to need a particular illustration. And though the younger sister soon learnt to imitate the elder, and claim an origin and antiquity nearly equal, pretending, on I know not what grounds, to have been founded by the apostle Andrew, the brother of Peter, thought to be the elder brother, and who was certainly, as we learn from John's gospel, a disciple of Christ before him; yet the no torious recency, the suddenness, and the too manifest source of her splendour and power, rendered it impracticable for her, without arrogance, ever to vie with the elder sister in her high pretensions.

But with the two causes above-mentioned, namely, the superiour dignity of the city of Rome, and the opulence of her church, there were several others which co-operated in raising her to that amazing greatness and authority, at which, in the course of a few centuries, she arrived. To enumerate all would be impossible. I shall therefore only select a few of the principal of them.

The first I shall take notice of is the vigilant and unremitted policy she early showed in improving every advantage for her own aggrandizement, which rank and wealth could bestow. Scarcely had christianity received the sanction of the legislature, erecting it into a sort of political establishment, before the bishops of this high-minded city began to entertain the towering thoughts of erecting for themselves a new sort

* John i, 41, 42, 43.

of monarchy, a spiritual domination over their brethren, the members of the church, which might in time be rendered universal, analogous to the secular authority lodged in the emperours over the subjects of the empire. The distinctions already introduced, of presbyter, bishop, primate, and (which soon followed) patriarch, seemed naturally to pave the way for it. These distinctions, too, having taken their origin from the civil distinctions that obtained in regard to the vil lages, towns, and cities, that were the seats of these different orders, seemed to furnish a plausible argument from analogy, that the bishop of the capital of the whole should have an ascendant over the exarchs of the civil diocesses into which it was divided, similar to that which every exarch enjoyed over the metropolitans of the provinces within his diocess, or exarchate, and which every metropolitan exercised over his suffragans, the bishops of his province, and similar to that which the emperour himself exercised over all the members of the empire. Yet, by Constantine's establishment, the bishop of Rome in strictness was not so much as an exarch; the civil diocess of Italy having been, on account of its greater popu lousness and opulence, divided into two parts, called vicariates, or vicarages; the vicariate of Rome containing ten provinces, and including the islands, Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia, under the bishop of Rome; and the vicariate of Italy containing seven provinces, under the bishop of Milan. In deference, however, to a name which was become so venerable as that of Rome, the precedency, or as it was also called, the primacy, of its pastor, seems to have been very early, and very generally, admitted in the church. But that for some ages nothing further was admitted, would have been at this day universally acknowledged an indisputable historical fact, had not many learned and indefatigable writers found it their interest to exert all their abilities to perplex and darken it. It was difficult, however, for wealth and splendour, the genuine parents of ambition, to rest satisfied with so trifling a preeminence.

Besides, many fortunate incidents, as the minions of Rome no doubt thought them, contributed greatly to assist and forward her ambitious schemes. The council of Sardica, about the middle of the fourth century, at the time that the Arian controversy inflamed and divided the whole christian community, (this council I say) after the oriental bishops were withdrawn, was, by Osius bishop of Cordova, a zealous defender of Athanasius, and a firm friend of Julius, bishop of Rome, who was on the same side with him in the great controversy, then agitated with such furious zeal, was induced to make a