ART. IV.-History of Latin Christianity; including that of the Popes, to the Pontificate of Nicholas V. By H. H. MILMAN, D.D., Dean of St. Paul's. First Portion. 3 vols. 8vo. 1855. THAT the Papacy is still generally recognised as the keystone of the Roman Catholic religion, is sufficiently apparent from the title of the work placed at the head of this article. The history of Latin Christianity is, by its learned and eloquent author, assumed as the equivalent of the history of the Popes. In truth, the lives and actions of the Roman Pontiffs are to the history of the Church of the West, from the death of Gregory the Great, what the lives and actions of the Cæsars were during the period of the Emperors. They occupy so large and prominent a place in the historical canvas as to overshadow every other object upon it. A sufficient cause to be assigned for this, is the circumstance that the Popes succeeded by degrees to much of the temporal power which originally belonged to the Roman Cæsars; and that to this, there was at length superadded an authority far greater, more potent, and more universal, than the Cæsars ever claimed. This it is which necessarily gives to their history so large a space, in the annals of what is called Christianity, during the ten centuries that followed the period we have referred to. Painful as it may be in an age like the present to look backwards, and behold the corruptions of religion thus filling the pages of the historian, and leaving scarcely any room for details of a purer and more spiritual kind in relation to its progress; we cannot complain of the manner in which this task is performed if, upon the whole, we are led thereby to estimate more justly the enormous influence which the Roman Pontiffs exercised over the Church under their sway by example or authority. That system of error and superstition which once bestrode the earth "like a Colossus," and to which we significantly apply the term Popery, was no image which fell down suddenly from Jupiter; but one which was slowly and cunningly fabricated by art and man's device. It grew up under the plastic hands of a succession of men claiming for themselves privileges far beyond those of the ordinary "master builders" of Christ's Church, and assuming a right of authority in the name of St. Peter, which that apostle never claimed-a throne upon which, if he ever sat, it was not as an earthly monarch, but as the humble fisherman of Galilee. Unquestionably, then, "the large room" occupied by the Papacy in the pages of ecclesiastical history, and of which we have another indication in the elaborate history before us, is a proof that it has ever been the stronghold of whatever is most characteristic of Rome and its system of corrupt Christianity. We are thus warranted to presume, that in proportion as the Papacy gathered strength, the Christian religion became gradually more and more estranged from scriptural purity, till at length it lost entirely its native simplicity and integrity, to become impregnated with the foul offspring of secular vices. Not a little remarkable, however, is it to observe that, even in the present day, when this ancient Lady of Rome has lost so much of her former power to allure and attract, among her old votaries, she has retained still so much semblance of beauty or virtue as to draw within her nets, even some of those who, at a distance from her, have been brought up in the sternest schools of Protestantism, and nurtured in the bosom of a pure and scriptural church. It would seem, indeed, as if those who, so to speak," have gone out from us because they were not truly of us," have done so primarily because they attached to their theory of the Papal head, some extraordinary notions of its unity and supremacy; notions neither substantiated by fact nor history, and which cannot be reconciled even with the declarations of Romanists themselves in the controversies of the age. Visionary and delusive as we may deem such theories, the fact is significant, as serving to show what must have been the all-absorbing, all-controlling influence which this notion must have exercised over the minds of men in what have been called the dark ages. We should greatly err, as the late accessions to Romanism evince, if we supposed that none of this darkness is still left among us. We cannot deny that there is still remaining in the head of the Romish Church, a power like that of the famed Gorgon of old; to fascinate or benumb those who approach too nearly, or gaze too ardently upon its awful features. Some warrior of more immortal name than the ancient hero, we yet wait for, by whose sword a blow may be struck to deprive this head of its monstrous charm; or, more properly, to transfer this headship to the ægis of a really heaven-inspired wisdom and spiritual unity, that may rightly assert its power in confound See particularly the controversies of some of the Romanists in reference to the Papal Bull, confirming the dogma of the Immaculate Conception and the pamphlet of the Abbè Laborde, entitled—“ La Croyancé à l'’immaculé e Conception de la Sainte Vièrge ne peut devenir dogmé de foi." CHARACTER OF THE POPES. 107 ing the devices of the wicked, and establishing the reign of the Prince of peace. Meanwhile, and with a view specially to guard ourselves, our children, and our country against the sorceries and enchantments of a system, which, in the person of its supposed infallible head, loses nothing of its potency upon those who rashly resign themselves to its spells, we cannot do better than to become well acquainted with its past history, more particularly that part of it which bears witness to the manner in which the Popes have exerted the powers entrusted to them in several ages of the Church. If we entertain any doubts as to whether the Papacy is a human or divine institution, we must needs inquire what evidences the annals of the Church itself furnish on this head. To determine its true character, we must watch well its rise and progress, and then compare these with what Scripture declares to be the standard and measure of all human actions. "By their fruits ye shall know them," is a simple rule, which the Divine Founder of our faith has left us in relation to himself and his followers. This rule must of necessity apply itself to all ages alike, and to all persons. To claim exemption for the highest of the latter, or for an order of men who are supposed, from their title, pre-eminently to represent holiness, would be virtually to make the rule itself entirely null and void. Applying it then to the Papacy, or to the majority of those bishops who represent the See of Rome, what, we ask, is the conclusion at which we must arrive? If the tree is known by its fruits, what are the fruits which have appeared most conspicuously in the lives of the Roman Pontiffs; history, and history too as recorded in the writings of their own contemporaries, or by the pens of men of their own Church, being their judges? Can it be denied that the darkest stains of iniquity are found throughout the pages of this history? and, this being the case, how is it to be reconciled with the presumption that Christ left behind him a succession of such men to be his highest representatives upon earth? Admitting, for the sake of argument, that the great head of the Church might have designed to establish Peter as the Rock upon which he meant to build this Church, by raising up a succession of bishops after him, to sit in due time upon the throne of the great city of the earth-to hold the keys that should open heaven, and the sceptre of a universal supremacy, is it not reasonable to believe that he would, in that case, have provided for a succession of good men, whose lives, during their possession of the Apostolic See, should bear witness to the truth of the promise," Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world?" But if, on the contrary, we find it to be true that the men who have sat in the pretended chair of Saint Peter and of Christ, were men whose flagitious lives were for the most part at variance with the whole design of the Christian religion, which was to destroy the works of the devil, and not to promote them, what can be our conclusion, but that these men had in reality no such power as that claimed for them and by them. If Christ had established his Church upon any human foundation, it must have been one in which meekness, gentleness, truth and righteousness were the predominant virtues. To suppose it otherwise, is to believe that an authority given to govern men was in direct opposition to his own teaching while upon earth. How, also, could it be said with reason or propriety, that the gates of hell should not prevail against the Church, if that rock on which it was built were of Peter's successors in the Roman See? when history assures us that amongst these there were monsters of iniquity, and not a few of such, concerning whom it is not too much to say, that by the magnitude of their evil deeds they were hell itself personified, with its very gates of darkness; in short, a combination of all those dire agencies whose power has been exerted like the allegorical Sin described in Milton's immortal poem, to unlock with "fatal key" the infernal portals, and, by the aid of the "Asiarch old," to pave the way over the gulf of chaos. "A bridge of wondrous length, From Hell continued, reaching th' utmost orb To tempt or punish mortals, except whom God and good angels guard by special grace." Should this view of the effects of the Papacy be thought too dark and overcharged, and should any think that history preents us with aspects of it much more favourable from certain points, we are content to rest our argument against its divine claims upon somewhat lower grounds. We put the question, therefore, in another shape-What must be the evidences upon which any man, or a succession of men, could assume to themselves a function to rule and teach infallibly the universal Church of God? Can anything less be required in such a case than that some unequivocal signs should be manifested of so divine a commission? What less could be required than an amount of moral purity which could in no case contradict the truth of Christian doctrine? Anything less than this PERILS OF THE PAPAL POSITION. 109 must at once throw the strongest suspicion upon claims, by no means unquestionable, even if supported by a show of miracles or piety; but utterly inadmissible if wholly destitute of that holy impress which Christianity, from the first moment of its propagation, has aimed to stamp upon the humblest member of its community. And yet in what age has the Papacy furnished such evidence of its pretensions? Take any number of the Popes during a given period, from the seventh century downwards, and compare them with the same number of merely secular Christian potentates for a similar lapse of time; in what respect, we ask, will they be found to sustain a comparison which is to their advantage? Do they exhibit examples of superior virtue, or, rather, in how many respects will not their moral worth be found inferior, if tried by the common standard of mere worldly rectitude? How rare is it to meet in history with a Pope whose excellence is that of a religious man, simply adorning his office, not to speak of a saint, or of one emulous to be a worthy successor, in moral deeds, of the prince of the Apostles, if this term be justly applied to Peter! From whatever cause it arises, certain it is, that the Popedom has ever proved itself to be a dignity beset with more than the ordinary amount of that moral danger which is expressed in the significant phrase, "spiritual wickedness in high places." Even the possessors of that dignity have admitted this truth; and one of them, Marcellus the Second, whose rare erudition, prudence, and sanctity of life gave great hopes of his reign, though it was terminated in less than a month, is said to have repeated with emphasis, immediately after his elevation, the remark of Adrian the Sixth, that "it seemed hardly possible for one who reached this dignity to secure his salvation." An admission of this kind seems fatal to the divine claims of the Papal office for it supposes that the success and safety of Christ's Church was to be secured in the persons of those who would be most liable to expose it to the mockery of its enemies; in other words, those to whom the largest share of spiritual power was entrusted, were to be placed thereby in a position in which they could scarcely do otherwise than make shipwreck of their faith and of a good conscience. They who, in some sense, like the Apostles, were set in a theatre, and "made a spectacle to the world, to angels, and to men," were thus compelled, by the nature of their office, to act anything but the part they were intended to perform; too often exposing their apostolic functions to contempt by folly, or sullying them by crime. One Judas there might be safely |