Stephen excommunicates St. Cyprian. Remark of a heathen on the extravagance of the Roman bishops.

fury of the latter was redoubled at this notification, and produced many threatenings and invectives against Cyprian, who replied, with great force and resolution, and, in a second council held at Carthage, declared the baptism, administered by heretics, void of all efficacy and validity. Upon this, the choler of Stephen swelled beyond measure, and, by a decree full of invectives, which was received with contempt, he excommunicated the African bishops, whose moderation, on the one hand, and the death of their imperious antagonist on the other, put an end to the violent controversy.*

In relating these quarrels, of course, we express no opinion as to which party was right. In all probability, the heretics, whose baptism they questioned, were in many cases nearer the truth than either party. Our single object in relating the dispute is to show, that so late as the year 256, when the council of Carthage was held, the decisions of the bishop of Rome, when they conflicted with the views of other bishops, were not received as authority; and that SAINT Cyprian, as he is called by Romanists themselves, could reject his decrees with contempt without forfeiting his title to the honors of subsequent canonization. What greater proof could be required that the blasphemous dogma that the bishop of Rome is supreme head of the church, and vicegerent of God upon earth, had never yet been heard of? He was travelling step by step, towards, but he had not yet reached, nor did he attain, till more than three centuries afterwards, that blasphemous eminence, when, according to the prediction of Paul, he "opposed and exalted himself above all that is called God or is worshipped."

He far surpassed all his brethren in the magnificence and splendor of the church over which he presided; in the riches of his revenues and possessions; in the number and variety of his ministers; in his credit with the people; and in his sumptuous and splendid manner of living. Ammianus Marcellinus, a Roman historian, who lived during these times, adverting to this subject, says, “It was no wonder to see those who were ambitious of human greatness, contending with so much heat and animosity for that dignity, because when they had obtained it, they were sure to be enriched by the offerings of the matrons, of appearing abroad in great splendor, of being admired for their costly coaches, and sumptuous feasts, outdoing sovereign princes in the expenses of their table." This led Prætextatus, a heathen, who was præfect of the city, to say, "Make me bishop of Rome, and I'll be a Christian too !"†

These dazzling marks of human power, these ambiguous proofs of true greatness and felicity, had such a mighty influence upon the minds of the multitude, that the See of Rome became, in this century, a most seducing object of sacerdotal ambition. Hence it happened, that when a new pontiff was to be elected by the suffrages of the presbyters and people, the city of Rome was generally agitated

* Cyprian's Epistles, lxx., lxxiii.

† Ammianus Marcellinus, Liber xxvii., cap. 3.

Bloody feud between rival bishops of Rome.

Rudeness of Martin of Tours to the Emperor.

with dissensions, tumults, and cabals, whose consequences were often deplorable and fatal. The intrigues and disturbances that prevailed in that city in the year 366, when, upon the death of Liberius, another pontiff was to be chosen in his place, are a sufficient proof of what we have now advanced. Upon this occasion, one faction elected Damasus to that high dignity, while the opposite party chose Ursicinus, a deacon of the vacant church, to succeed Liberius. This double election gave rise to a dangerous schism, and to a sort of civil war within the city of Rome, which was carried on with the utmost barbarity and fury, and produced the most cruel massacres and desolations.

In this disgraceful contest, which ended in the victory of Damasus, according to the historian Socrates, great numbers were murdered on either side, no less than one hundred and thirty-seven persons being destroyed in the very church itself. Who does not perceive, in these wicked strifes and sanguinary struggles, a proof that now that which "let" or hindered was "taken out of the way," the full revelation of the predicted "man of sin" was rapidly hastening onward ?

While such an example of worldly pride and domination was set by those who were looked up to as the heads of the church, it is not surprising that other bishops partook of the same spirit. As an instance of their haughty bearing towards earthly kings and rulers, it is related of Martin, bishop of Tours, in France, that in the year 455, he was invited to dine with the Emperor Maximus. When the cup of wine was presented to the Emperor by the servant, he directed that it should be first offered to the bishop, expecting, of course, that then he should receive it from the hand of Martin. Instead of this, however, Martin handed the cup to a priest of inferior rank who sat near him, thus by his rudeness intimating that he regarded him as of higher dignity than the Emperor.* Some time after this the queen asked her husband's consent that she might be allowed, in the character of a servant, to wait on the bishop at supper, and, strange to say, her request was granted. For this conduct, according to the superstitious notions of the times, Sulpitius, the biographer of Martin, compares her to the queen of Sheba. A Roman Catholic historian, referring to this bishop, uses the following language:"The great St. Martin, the glory and light of Gaul, was a disciple of St. Hilary. The utter extirpation of idolatry out of the diocese of Tours, and all that part of Gaul, was the fruit of his edifying piety, illustrious miracles, zealous labors, and fervent exhortations and instructions. He was remarkable for his humility, charity, austerity, and all other heroic virtues."+ Certainly this historian, to say the least, must have had singular notions of what constitutes true Christian humility.

* "Exspectans atque ambiens, ut ab illius dextera poculum sumeret. Sed Martinus ubi ebibit, pateram presbytero suo tradidit, nullum scilicet existimans digniorem, qui post se biberet.' Sulp. Severus de vita Mart. c. 20, quoted by Gieseler. † Gahan's History of the Church, page 153.

36

CHAPTER III.

STEPS TOWARDS PAPAL SUPREMACY.

§ 11.--NOTHING could be more simple and unpretending than the form of church organization and government in primitive times. Each church consisted of a company of believers in the Lord Jesus, united together in covenant relationship, for the worship of God, the maintenance of gospel doctrines, and the due administration of the ordinances appointed by Christ. "Every church," says Waddington, an Episcopalian, "in the management of its internal affairs, was essentially independent of every other." The same historian adds that "the churches formed a sort of federative body of independent religious communities, dispersed through the greater part of the empire, in continual communication and in constant harmony with each other." (Wad. Ch. Hist., p. 43.)

"The rulers of the church," says Mosheim, a Lutheran, "were called either presbyters (i. e. elders), or bishops, which two titles are, in the New Testament, undoubtedly applied to the same order of men."* (Acts xx., 17, 28; Phil. i., 1), &c. (Mosheim, vol. i., p. 99.) These were persons of eminent gravity, and such as had distinguished themselves by their superior sanctity and merit. "Let none," says the same learned author, "confound the bishops of this primitive and golden period of the church, with those of whom we read in the following ages. For, though they were both distinguished by the same name, yet they differed extremely, and that in many respects. A bishop, during the first and second century, was a person who had the care of one Christian assembly, which, at that time, was, generally speaking, small enough to be contained in a private house." Thus when writing to the Colossians, the apostle Paul sends a salutation to Nymphas, and "the church which is in his house." (ch. iv., 15.) In the commencement of the epistle to the Philippians, he refers to the officers of these primitive churches, when he directs his letter "to all the saints in Christ Jesus, which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons." (ch. i., 1.)

§12.-In process of time, however, the beautiful simplicity of the primitive churches was abandoned; the independence of each particular church was lost, and as we have already seen, a variety of church dignitaries were created in the place of the primitive elders or bishops of the apostolic age; and as this change constituted the

*This is now universally admitted by all denominations, Episcopalians as well as others. Thus, in the tract" Episcopacy tested by Scripture," published by the Protestant Episcopal Tract Society, New York (p. 12), the author, who is acknowledged to be one of their ablest advocates, remarks concerning the use of the title bishop in the New Testament, "That the name is there given to the middle order or presbyters; and all that we read in the New Testament concerning 'bishops,' including of course the words 'overseer' and 'oversight,' which have the same derivation," says he," is to be regarded as pertaining to that middle grade," that is, to the presbyters or elders.

Gieseler's and Mosheim's account of the organization and government of the primitive churches.

foundation stone upon which the structure of papal assumption was afterward reared, I shall relate, in the words of two distinguished historians, the account of this first step in this pernicious innovation.

It has been seen from Dr. Mosheim and others, that according to New Testament usage, the title bishop belonged to presbyters or elders. Soon after the death of the apostles, however, this title began to be claimed exclusively by such as sought pre-eminence over their brethren in the ministry. The words in which Gieseler relates this change, are as follows: "After the death of the apostles, and the pupils of the apostles, to whom the general direction of the churches had always been conceded, some one amongst the presbyters of each church was suffered gradually to take the lead in its affairs. In the same irregular way the title of niσxono (bishop) was appropriated to the first presbyter. Hence the different accounts of the order of the first bishops in the church at Rome."* Mosheim's account of the gradual assumption of authority by these early bishops, and of the early loss of the primitive independency of the churches, is as follows: "The power and jurisdiction of the bishops were not long confined to their original narrow limits, but soon extended themselves, and that by the following means. The bishops who lived in the cities, had, either by their own ministry or that of their presbyters, erected new churches in the neighboring towns and villages. These churches, continuing under the inspection and ministry of the bishops, by whose labors and counsels they had been engaged to embrace the gospel, grew imperceptibly into ecclesiastical provinces, which the Greeks afterwards called dioceses. The churches, in those early times, were entirely independent; none of them subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each one governed by its own rulers and its own laws. For, though the churches founded by the apostles had this particular deference shown them, that they were consulted in difficult and doubtful cases; yet they had no juridical authority, no sort of supremacy over the others, nor the least right to enact laws for them. Nothing, on the contrary, is more evident than the perfect equality that reigned among the primitive churches; nor does there even appear in the first century, the smallest trace of that association of provincial churches, from which councils and metropolitans derive their origin.

"During great part of the second century, the Christian churches were independent of each other; nor were they joined together by association, confederacy, or any other bonds but those of charity. Each Christian assembly was a little state, governed by its own laws, which were either enacted, or at least approved by the society. But, in process of time, all the Christian churches of a province were formed into one large ecclesiastical body, which, like confederate states, assembled at certain times, in order to deliberate about the common interests of the whole. This institu

*Gieseler's Ecclesiastical History, Vol. i., page 65.

Consequences of the establishment of Synods or Councils.

tion had its origin among the Greeks, with whom nothing was more common than this confederacy of independent states, and the regular assemblies which met, in consequence thereof, at fixed times, and were composed of the deputies of each respective state. But these ecclesiastical associations were not long confined to the Greeks; their great utility was no sooner perceived, than they became universal, and were formed in all places where the gospel had been planted. To these assemblies in which the deputies or commissioners of several churches consulted together, the name of synods was appropriated by the Greeks, and that of councils by the Latins; and the laws that were enacted in these general meetings, were called canons, i. e., rules.

"These councils, of which we find not the smallest trace before the middle of the second century, changed the whole face of the church, and gave it a new form; for by them the ancient privileges of the people were considerably diminished, and the power and authority of the bishops greatly augmented. The humility, indeed, and prudence of these pious prelates, prevented their assuming all at once, the power with which they were afterward invested. At their first appearance in these general councils, they acknowledged that they were no more than the delegates of their respective churches, and that they acted in the name, and by the appointment, of their people. But they soon changed this humble tone, imperceptibly extended the limits of their authority, turned their influence into dominion, and their counsels into laws; and openly asserted, at length, that Christ had empowered them to prescribe to his people, authoritative rules of faith and manners.

"Another effect of these councils was the gradual abolition of that perfect equality which reigned among all bishops in the primitive times. For the order and decency of these assemblies required that some one of the provincial bishops met in council, should be invested with a superior degree of power and authority; and hence the rights of metropolitans derive their origin. In the mean time, the bounds of the church were enlarged, the custom of holding councils was followed wherever the sound of the gospel had reached; and the universal church had now the appearance of one vast republic, formed by a combination of a great number of little states. This occasioned the creation of a new order of ecclesiastics, who were appointed in different parts of the world, as heads of the church, and whose office it was to preserve the consistence and union of that immense body, whose members were so widely dispersed throughout the nations. Such was the nature and office of the patriarchs, among whom, at length, ambition being arrived at its most insolent period, formed a new dignity, investing the bishop of Rome, and his successors, with the title and authority of prince of the patriarchs.

"The Christian doctors had the good fortune to persuade the people that the ministers of the Christian church succeeded to the character, rights, and privileges of the Jewish priesthood; and this