1. Early Church Organization Not Perpetuated.—We have already stated in Part I of this work that the church organization established by Messiah—consisting of apostles, prophets, seventies, bishops, etc.—was designed to be perpetual. It is a singular fact, however, that aside from filling up the vacancy in the quorum of the twelve—occasioned by the fall of Judas Iscariot—there is no account in any of the writings of the apostles or fathers of the first centuries—on the eastern hemisphere^[43]—of any attempt to perpetuate the quorum of the twelve by filling up the vacancies occasioned by the death of the original apostles. The same may also be said of the quorum of the seventies.

2. The reason for this will doubtless be found in the fact that in the very days of the apostles the great apostasy which was to end eventually in the subversion of the Christian religion, had begun. (See note 2, end of section.) And since "the mystery of iniquity" had already begun its work in the days of the apostles, and men were rapidly proving themselves unworthy of the church of Christ, the Lord did not permit his servants to perpetuate these quorums of the higher Priesthood.

3. Establishment of the Church by the Apostles.—Whenever in their travels the apostles converted any considerable number of persons, in a city or district, they organized them into a church, or, speaking more precisely, into a branch of the great universal church of Christ, and appointed either a bishop or an elder to preside over them. As long as the apostles lived they were regarded as the presiding authority of the universal church, and were looked to for counsel and instruction in all difficult matters that arose concerning doctrine or discipline. Their decisions were accepted as final, and well might it be so, since these men were guided in their counsels by revelation^[44] as well as by the wisdom which their large experience in company with Jesus Christ had given them.

4. But when the apostles died, and no one succeeded to their authority, the branches of the church were left separate and independent organizations, united, it is true, in faith and charity, but the visible, general presidency recognized in the apostles and cheerfully submitted to by all sections of the church, ceased when the apostles passed away, and each branch was left an independent organization of itself.^[45] There is no evidence that there was such a thing as subordination among the churches when so left, or rank among the bishops. Each church was a sort of independent commonwealth, of which the bishop was president and a vassal to no other bishop.^[46]

5. Manner of Electing Bishops.—The manner in which bishops were first elected was for the apostles to nominate them, and then for the whole church over which they were to preside to sustain them by their vote. After the apostles had passed away then "other men of repute" made the nominations and the people sustained them as at first.^[47] The duties and powers of the bishops in the first and in the greater part of the second century were limited to conducting the public worship, administering the ordinances of the gospel, settling difficulties which arose between brethren, attending in person the sick and the poor. They also were made the custodians and managers of the public fund. In all these duties they were assisted by the elders [presbyters] and the deacons of the church. Yet neither the bishops nor the elders, nor both of them together, seem to have had power to ordain or determine anything without the approbation and consent of the members of the church. The principle of common consent was closely adhered to in the primitive church. (See note 3, end of section.)

6. Equality Among Bishops Changed.—This equality of rank among the bishops, together with the simple form of church government, described above, was soon changed. The bishops who lived in cities either by their own labors or those of the elders associated with them, raised up new churches in the adjacent villages and hamlets. The bishops of these rural districts being nominated and ordained by the bishops presiding in the city, very naturally, perhaps, felt themselves under the protection and dependent upon the city bishops. This idea continued to grow until these "bishops of the suburbs and the fields," were looked upon as a distinct order of officers, possessing a dignity and authority above the elders, and yet subordinate to the bishops of the cities, who soon came to be designated as archbishops.

7. The Origin of Metropolitans.—Gradually and almost imperceptibly the church in its government began to follow the civil divisions of the Roman empire. The bishops of the metropolis of a civil province, in time, came to be regarded as having a general supervision of all the churches in that province, over the archbishops and indirectly over the suburban bishops or suffragans, as they began to be called, and finally, bishops merely. The bishops of these provinces were soon designated as metropolitans.

8. The Rise and Influence of Councils.—Concurrent with these changes arose the custom, first derived from the Greeks, of holding provincial councils. The bishops living in a single province met in council to confer upon matters of common interest to the churches of the province. These provincial councils met at stated times of the year, usually in the spring and autumn. At the first the attending bishops looked upon themselves as merely the representatives of their respective churches, without jurisdiction further than to discuss and come to agreement on matters of common concern. But gradually they usurped the power to order by decree where at first they were accustomed to advise or entreat—so easy is it to change the language of exhortation to that of command! Nor was it long ere the decrees of these provincial councils were forced upon the respective churches as laws to be implicitly obeyed. There was some resistance to this at first from the lower orders of the clergy; but that resistance was quickly overcome by the activity and ambition of the bishops, who were only too glad to escape from the restraints which the doctrine of "common consent"—a doctrine which made it necessary for the bishops to submit any matter of importance to their respective churches for the approbation of the people—imposed upon them. (See note 4, end of section.) 9. Conduct of Lower Clergy.—As many changes occurred among the lower orders of the clergy as among the bishops. The elders and deacons became too proud to attend to the humble duties of their offices and hence a number of other officers were added to the church, while the elders and deacons spent much of their time in indolence and pleasure.

10. Corruption of Church Officials.—To the evils of contention for power and place, which had its origin in arrogance and ambition—unbecoming those who profess to be followers and servants of Jesus Christ—must be added the vices of dissipation and voluptuousness. Many bishops, in the third century, affected the state of princes, especially those who had charge of the more populous and wealthy congregations; for they sat on thrones, surrounded by their ministers and other signs of their power, and dazzled the eyes and the minds of the populace with their splendid attire.^[48]

11. Church Government Modeled on the Plan of the Civil Government.—It was reserved for the fourth century to see the church government more completely modeled on the plan of the civil government of the Roman empire, to witness more pride and arrogance in its rulers, and an increase of vices both in clergy and people. Early in this century, it will be remembered, Constantine, the emperor of Rome, avowed his conversion to Christianity, and as might have been expected that fact produced great changes in the fortunes of the church. It not only put an end to its persecutions but loaded its bishops with new honors and enlarged powers.

12. In saying that the church government was modeled upon the plan of the civil government we would not be understood as saying that the first was a fac simile of the second; there were some differences between them, but the civil divisions of the empire suggested the ecclesiastical divisions. 13. Under Constantine the Roman empire was divided into four prefectures, containing thirteen dioceses, embracing one hundred and sixteen provinces. Officers called praetorian prefects presided over the four prefectures—exarchs over the dioceses and governors over the provinces. The Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria having gained a pre-eminence over all other metropolitans were made to correspond with the four prefectures by Constantine, and assumed, before the close of the century, the title of patriarchs. Next to the patriarchs stood the bishops, whose jurisdiction extended over several provinces, corresponding to the civil exarchs,^[49] though the bishops of this dignity did not equal in number the civil exarchs. Next came the metropolitan bishops, whose jurisdiction was limited to a single province. They corresponded to the civil governors of the provinces, whose authority was limited in like manner. After the metropolitans came the arch-bishops,^[50] and then the bishops. Some of the latter were exempt from the jurisdiction of both metropolitans and arch-bishops, and hence were called independent bishops.

14. Pre-Eminence of the Bishops of Rome.—The distinctions of rank among the bishops of the Christian church first arose largely through the opulence and civil importance of the respective cities and provinces over which they presided—the membership of the church and its wealth usually bearing a just proportion to the size and civil importance of the city in which it was located. It is not surprisingg, therefore, that the metropolitans and patriarchs also struggled for pre-eminence upon the same basis. That basis gave the bishop of Rome great advantage; for, as stated by Gibbon, "the Roman church was the greatest, the most numerous, and, in regard to the west, the most ancient of all the Christian establishments, many of which had received their religion from the pious labors of here missionaries." The fact, too, that for so many ages Rome had been the capital of the great empire led men naturally to give pre-eminence to the church established there.

15. Another thing which went far to establish the supremacy of the bishop of Rome was the tradition that Peter, the chief or "prince" of the apostles, had founded that church; that he became its first bishop; that the bishops succeeding him succeeded to his apostleship and to whatever of pre-eminence he held over his fellow apostles; and that pre-eminence, it is claimed, amounted to the right of presidency over the universal church.

16. Objections to the Claims of the Bishop of Rome.—That Peter, aided by Paul, did found the church at Rome there is little cause to doubt. It is also true that Peter was the chief or president of the apostles; that to him had been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.^[51] But that he became the bishop of Rome, or that the bishops of Rome succeeded to the apostleship and to that power which made him the president of the universal church of Christ, we cannot allow.

17. Our first reason for saying that Peter was not bishop of Rome is that the office of apostle and bishop are not identical. If Peter presided at all over the church at Rome he did so by virtue of his apostleship, not by becoming its bishop; but as his apostleship would give him the right to act in minor offices of the church—on the principle that the greater authority includes the lesser—he may have presided for a time over the church at Rome.

18. Our second reason is that according to the very best authority on the subject, one Linus and not Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Irenaeus writing in the second century, says:

The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul] then, upon founding and erecting the church [at Rome], committed the office of administering the church to Linus. Of this Linus, Paul speaks in the epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus [An-a-cle-tus], and after him in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the bishopric.^[52]

From this it plainly appears that Peter and Paul organized a church at Rome, and as in other cities they appointed a bishop to preside over it. Peter no more became the bishop of Rome than he did of the church at Jerusalem, or Paul of Antioch, Ephesus, or Corinth.

19. The bishop of Rome did not succeed to the apostleship of Peter, much less to the pre-eminence which he held among the apostles; and that for the very good reason that the office of bishop and that of apostle, as remarked above, are not identical. It would require an apostle to succeed an apostle, and as there is no account of an apostle being ordained to succeed to Peter's office, we conclude he had no successor. Here we might let the matter rest, but it will be proper to notice the arguments which are made by those who contend that the bishops of Rome are the true successors to the office and mission of the Apostle Peter.

20. Scripture Basis of the Claims of the Bishop of Rome to Pre-Eminence.—On one occasion Jesus said to his disciples, "Whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered, * * * Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." To this Jesus said: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."^[53] He then gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven—power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. The argument is that since Peter, some time before this, had been given the name Cephas, which means a stone,^[54] therefore when Jesus said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," it is claimed that he meant than on Peter he would build his church.^[55]

21. That this is a clear misconception of the scripture is apparent. If Messiah had meant to found the church on Peter, how unfortunate that he did not say, Thou art Cephas, a stone, and upon thee will I build my church! etc. But he did not. He first assured Peter that the knowledge he had received that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, was received by revelation from God—"And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [principle] will I build my church," etc.; i.e., upon the principle of God revealing to men that Jesus was the Christ^[56]—on the principle of revelation.

22. Another passage quoted in support of the theory that the apostles had successors in the bishops of Rome is found in the following: Jesus after his resurrection said to his apostles:

All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations; * * * and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the world.^[57]

This is the argument—

The apostles themselves were only to live the ordinary term of man's life: therefore the commission of preaching and ministering, together with the promise of divine assistance, regards the successors of the apostles, no less than the apostles themselves. This proves that there must have been an uninterrupted series of successors of the apostles, in every age since their time; that is to say, successors to their doctrine, to their jurisdiction, to their orders, and to their mission.^[58]

Against this argument we put that of the late Apostle Orson Pratt:

We do not admit that the promise—"Lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world," had any reference to any persons whatever only the eleven disciples mentioned. * * * * They were the only persons whom he [Jesus] addressed and to whom he made this great promise. "But," says Dr. Milner, "they were only to live the ordinary term of man's life," and consequently he draws the conclusion that the promise could not be fulfilled to them without successors. According to this curious inference of the learned bishop, the Lord must have forsaken the eleven disciples as soon as they died; for if he admit that Jesus continued with them after the period of the death of their mortal bodies, and that he will continue with them even unto the end of the world, then what need would there be for successors in order that the promise might be fulfilled? Prove that Jesus has not been with the eleven apostles from the time of their death until the present time, and that he will not be with them even unto the end of the world, and after you have proved this, you will prove that Jesus has falsified his word; for to be with the successors of the apostles is not to be with them. But whether the apostles have successors or not, Jesus will always be with them, and will bring them with him when he shall appear in his glory, and they shall sit upon thrones and judge the house of Israel during the great Millennium, while Jesus will not only be with them, but will reign with them even unto the end of the world.^[59]

23. Those who believe that the church was founded on Peter; that he became the bishop of Rome; that those who succeeded to that bishopric became the heir to his apostleship and right of presidency over the universal church, are as weak in their arguments as they are wrong in their conceptions of the foundation of the church and the right of succession in the priesthood.

24. Primacy of the Bishops of Rome Allowed by the Fathers.—It cannot be denied that the early fathers of the Christian church conceded to the bishops of Rome a certain "primacy of order and association;" but they did not concede to them any such authority as the popes wielded from the fifth and sixth centuries onward. The assumption of autocratic powers was resisted in the third century by Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, who contended for the equality and independence of all bishops. (See note 5, end of section.)

25. Opposition of the Bishops of Constantinople.—After Cyprian the Roman pontiffs found their chief opponents in the bishops of Constantinople. That city was made the capital of the empire early in the fourth century; and became a "New Rome." The importance given to the city by this act, and the lavish embellishments and increase of population which followed it, conferred great dignity on the patriarch appointed to preside there; and the council of Constantinople held A. D. 381, conferred upon him the second place among the great bishops of the world—the bishop of Rome being first. The council of Chalcedon, held in the next century [A. D. 451], decreed that the bishop of "New Rome" ought to be equal in power and authority with the bishop of Rome, assigning as a reason that the cities where they resided were equal in rank and dignity.

26. It would appear that second place ill-suited the ambitious prelates of "New Rome," and in this century began that struggle for supremacy between the bishops of the ancient and the new capital of the empire which ended finally in the division of the church. The strife raged with varying fortunes; but in the main the Roman pontiffs were most successful. Still in the last half of the sixth century the bishop of Constantinople, John, called the Faster—on account of the austerity of his life—assumed the title of universal bishop and continued to hold it in spite of all the efforts and threats of the Roman prelates. Early in the seventh century the emperor, Phocas, being displeased with Cyriacus, the bishop of Constantinople, he divested him of the title of universal bishop and conferred it upon the Roman pontiff, Boniface III. "After Phocas' death the prelate of the east re-assumed the title. The two bishops each preserved it, and with equal ambition strove for the pre-eminence."^[60] Instead of dwelling together as brethren and working for the spread of truth, they spent their time in vain disputes about the extent of their respective jurisdictions and wasted their revenues and strength in conquests and reprisals of each other's ecclesiastical provinces.

27. The Ascendency of the Roman Pontiffs.—Gradually, however, the Roman pontiffs surpassed their eastern competitors in the struggle for power. The first reason for this will be found in the superior activity and that restless energy of the western people. While the east was at a standstill in its missionary enterprises, at this period, the west was using its best endeavors to extend the faith among the barbarous peoples of Germany and Briton; and everywhere they went they taught submission to the decrees of the Roman pontiff. Not only did Rome send missionaries to the barbarians, but the barbarians came to Rome. They came with arms in their hands, and as conquerors, it is true, and in the closing years of the fifth century obtained an easy victory over the western division of imperial Rome. But if imperial Rome was vanquished, there rose above its ruins and above the kingdoms founded upon them by the all-conquering barbarians, papal Rome, in majesty no less splendid than imperial Rome in her palmiest days; and in the course of time, the victorious barbarians bowed in as humble submission to the wand of the popes as their ancestors had to the eagle-mounted standards of the emperors.

28. Another reason why the Roman pontiff outstripped his eastern rival in the struggle for supremacy will be found in the superstitious reverence in which the barbarous nations that fell under the influence of Roman missionaries were accustomed to hold their priests. In the days of paganism in Gaul (France) and Germany the priests reigned over both people and magistrates, controlling absolutely the jurisdiction of the latter. The proselytes to the Christian faith among them, readily transferred that devout obedience which they had given to pagan priests, to the Christian bishops. The latter were not slow in appropriating to themselves all the honors the rude barbarians had before paid to their pagan priests, while the extraordinary reverence—which amounted to worship, according to some authorities—they bestowed upon their chief priest, was readily transferred to the pope. (See note 6, end of section.)

29. The Great Division of the Church in the Ninth Century.—The jealousy of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople finally ended in a division of the church, which remains to this day. It occurred in this manner: About the middle of the ninth century the emperor of the east—Michael—removed Ignatius [Ig-na-shi-us], bishop of Constantinople—whom he accused of treason—and set up one Photius [Fo-shi-us] in his place. Ignatius appealed to the bishop of Rome, Nicolaus I. Nicolaus [Nik-o-lus] called a council, which decided that the election of Photius was irregular and unlawful, and pronounced that he, with all his adherents, was unworthy of Christian communion. Instead of being humbled by this decree, and much less frightened at it, Photius convened a council, and in turn excommunicated the bishop of Rome.

30. To follow the controversies in respect to religion which followed this action, and the contests which arose about the jurisdiction over certain ecclesiastical provinces, to note the criminations and recriminations, the excommunications and counter excommunications would be not only a dreary task but one which the limits of this work preclude. Let it be sufficient to say that the breach made in the church in the middle of the ninth century, and which had its origin in the mutual jealousies of the bishops of Rome and Constantinople, rather than in the wrong done to the deposed Ignatius, or doctrinal difference which afterwards arose—continued to widen and has proven to be a chasm which up to the present it has been impossible to bridge.

31. Means by Which Roman Pontiffs Gained Ascendency.—The popes of Rome, however, easily outstripped the prelates of Constantinople in wealth, in pride, in power, in the magnificence of their courts, in the veneration paid them by their subjects, in the extent of territory they brought under their jurisdiction, in the influence wielded in the affairs of the world. For by encouraging appeals to themselves; by assuming the care of all the churches, as if it were a part of their official duty; by appointing vicars in churches, over which they had no claims to jurisdiction; by assuming to be judges where they should have only been mediators; by requiring accounts to be sent to them of the affairs of foreign churches; by imposing the rites and usages of their own church upon all others, as being of apostolic origin; by insisting that their elevation was due to the pre-eminence of the Apostle Peter—whose successor they claimed to be; by maintaining that their fancied prerogatives belonged to them by divine right; by threatening with excommunication all who would not submit to their decrees;^[61] by accepting the homage which the barbarians anciently bestowed upon their pagan priests;^[62] by assuming the temporal power of princes, and obtaining large grants of lands from kings and emperors^[63] (see note 7, end of section)—by these means was that splendid though corrupt power established, before which monarchs trembled, and which for ages ruled the destinies of Europe.

32. Rise of the Temporal Power of the Pope.—The Roman pontiffs, not satisfied with claiming to hold the keys of heaven, determined through the prestige which this claim gave them to rule the earth.

33. The popes were at first dependent for their election upon the suffrages of the clergy and people of Rome. The election after the days of Constantine had also to receive the approval of the emperor. But in course of time all this was changed. The popes succeeded at last in conferring the privilege of electing a successor to the chair of St. Peter upon the clergy alone; and finally lodged that power in the college of cardinals.^[64] The next step was to render the election independent of the sanction of the emperors. This, too, was finally accomplished. But no sooner was the church thus made independent of kings and emperors than the former began to dominate the latter, whose power was weakness in comparison with that of the popes.

34. They assumed the right not only to excommunicate and anathematize kings, but to free their subjects from their allegiance, and thus encourage rebellions and regicides. They assumed the power to inflict temporal punishments for violations of God's laws; and then claimed the power to remit those punishments for a consideration paid into the sacred treasury.^[65] Claiming to be the true successors of the humble fisherman of Galilee—St. Peter—and the vicars of the still more humble Nazarene, their crowns, and thrones and courts as far outshone in splendid worldly grandeur those of kings and emperors, as their pride and arrogance surpassed the pomp and vain glory of the princes of this world; until, at last, the pope exalted himself "above all that is called God, or that is worshiped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God."^[66] (See notes 9 and 10, end of section.)

NOTES.

1. Apostasy in the Days of the Apostles.—The great apostasy of the Christian church commenced in the first century, while there were yet inspired apostles and prophets in their midst; hence Paul, just previous to his martyrdom, enumerates a great number who had "made shipwreck of their faith," and "turned aside unto vain jangling;" teaching "that the resurrection was already past;" giving "heed to fables and endless genealogies," "doubting about questions and strifes of words whereof came envyings, railings, evil surmisings, perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds, and destitute of the truth, supposing the gain is godliness." This apostasy had become so general that Paul declares to Timothy, "that all they which are in Asia be turned away from me;" and again he says "at my first answer, no man stood with me, but all men forsook me;" he further says that "there are many unruly, and vain talkers, deceivers, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." These apostates, no doubt, pretended to be very righteous; "for," says the apostle, "they profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable and disobedient and unto every good work reprobate."—Orson Pratt.

2. Early Decline of the Church.—About the year of our Lord sixty, he [James] wrote his Catholic epistle. * * * By the practical turn of his doctrine, by his discanting on the vices of the tongue, of partiality to the rich, and of contemptuous treatment of the poor in Christian assemblies, and by his direction against vain swearing, it is but too evident that the church had considerably declined from its original purity and simplicity; and that the craft of Satan, aided ever by human depravity, was wearing out apace the precious fruits of that effusion of the Spirit, which has been described [alluding to the effusion on the day of Pentecost.]—Milner, Vol. I, page 34.

3. Powers and Duties of Bishops—First and Second Century.—We may define in a few words the narrow limits of their [the bishops] original jurisdiction, which was chiefly of a spiritual, though in some instances of a temporal nature. It consisted in the administration of the sacraments and discipline of the church, the superintendency of religious ceremonies which imperceptibly increase in number and variety, the consecration of ecclesiastical ministers to whom the bishops assigned their respective functions, the management of the public fund, and the determination of all such differences as the faithful were unwilling to expose before the tribunal of an idolatrous judge. These powers, during a short period, were exercised according to the advice of the presbyteral college [the Elders of the church], and with the consent and approbation of the assembly of Christians. The primitive bishops were considered only as the first of their equals, and the honorable servants of a free people. Whenever the Episcopal chair became vacant by death, a new president was chosen among the presbyters [elders] by the suffrage of the whole congregation, every member of which supposed himself invested with a sacred and sacerdotal character.—Gibbon (Decline and Fall, ch. xv).

4. Usurpation of Provincial Councils.—As the legislative authority of the particular churches was insensibly superseded by the use of councils, the bishops obtained by their alliance a much larger share of executive and arbitrary power; and as soon as they were connected by a sense of their common interest, they were enabled to attack, with united vigor, the original rights of their clergy [the elders and deacons] and people. The prelates of the third century imperceptibly changed the language of exhortation into that of command, scattered the seeds of future usurpations, and supplied, by scripture allegories and declamatory rhetoric, their deficiency of force and reason. They exalted the unity and power of the church as it was represented in the episcopal office, of which every bishop enjoyed an equal and undivided portion.—Gibbon (Decline and Fall, ch. xv).

5. Cyprian's Opposition to the Bishop of Rome.—Rome experienced from the nations of Asia and Africa a more vigorous resistance to her spiritual than she had formerly done to her temporal dominion. The patriotic Cyprian, who ruled with the most absolute sway the church of Carthage and the provincial synods, opposed with resolution and success the ambition of the Roman pontiff, artfully connected his own cause with that of the eastern bishops, and, like Hannibal, sought out new allies in the heart of Asia. If this punic war was carried on without any effusion of blood, it was owing much less to the moderation than to the weakness of the contending prelates. Invectives and excommunication were then the only weapons; and these, during the progress of the whole controversy, they hurled against each other with equal fury and devotion.—Gibbon (Decline and Fall, Vol. I, ch. xv).

6. Reverence of the Barbarians for the Popes.—That these pagan nations had been accustomed to treat their idolatrous priests with extraordinary reverence is a fact well known. When they became Christians they supposed they must show the same reverence to the Christian priests. Of course they honored their bishops and clergy, as they had before honored their druids; and this reverence disposed them to bear patiently their vices. Every druid was accounted a very great character, and was feared by every one; but the chief druid was actually worshiped. When these people became Christians, they supposed that the bishop of Rome was such a chief druid; and that the must be honored accordingly. And this was one cause why the Roman pontiff obtained in process of time such an ascendency in the western countries. The patriarch of Constantinople rose indeed to a great elevation; but he never attained the high rank and authority of the Roman patriarch. The reason was that the people of the east had not the same ideas of the dignity of a chief priest as the people of the west had.—Schlegel.

7. Grant of the Roman Dukedom to the Popes.—Charles [Charlemagne], being made emperor and sovereign of Rome and its territory, reserved indeed to himself, the supreme power, and the prerogatives of sovereignty; but the beneficial dominion, as it is called, and subordinate authority over the city and its territory, he seems to have conferred on the Romish church. This plan was undoubtedly suggested to him by the Roman pontiff; who persuaded the emperor, perhaps by showing him some ancient though forged papers and documents, that Constantine the Great (to whose place and authority Charles now succeeded) when he removed the seat of empire to Constantinople, committed the old seat of empire, Rome and the adjacent territories or Roman dukedom, to the possession and government of the church, reserving, however, his imperial prerogatives over it; and that, from this arrangement and ordinance of Constantine, Charles could not depart, without incurring the wrath of God and St. Peter.—Mosheim.

8. Copy of an Indulgence.—May our Lord Jesus Christ have mercy on thee, N. N., and absolve thee by the merits of his passion! And I in virtue of the apostolic power that has been confided in me, absolve thee from all ecclesiastical censures, judgments, and penalties which thou mayst have incurred; moreover, from all excesses, sins and crimes that thou mayst have committed, however great and enormous they may be, and from whatsoever cause, were they even reserved for our most holy father the pope and for the apostolic see. I blot out all the stains of inability and all marks of infamy that thou mayst have drawn upon thyself on this occasion. I remit the penalties that thou shouldst have endured in purgatory. I restore thee anew to participation in the sacraments of the church. I incorporate thee afresh in the communion of saints, and re-establish thee in the purity and innocence which thou hadst at thy baptism. So that in the hour of death, the gate by which sinners enter the place of torments and punishments will be closed against thee, and, on the contrary, the gate leading to the paradise of joy shall be open. And if thou shouldst not die for long years, this grace shall remain unalterable until thy last hour shall arrive. In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Amen. (Friar John Tetzel, Commissary, has signed this with his own hand)—D'Aubugne's Hist. Ref., book III, ch. i.

9. The Absolute Power of the Popes (13th century).—All who had any share in the government of the church, were alike sovereign lords; at least in their feelings and dispositions they stiffly maintained with violence and threats, with both wiles and weapons, those fundamental principles of the popish canon law, that the Roman pontiff is the sovereign lord of the whole world, and that all other rulers in church and state have so much power and authority as he sees fit to allow them to have. Resting on this eternal principle as they conceive it to be, the pontiffs arrogate to themselves the absolute power, not only of conferring sacred offices or benefices as they are called, but also of giving away empires, and of divesting kings and princes of their crowns and authority. The more intelligent indeed, for the most part considered [general] councils as superior to the pontiffs; and such of the kings as were not blinded by superstition, restrained the pontiffs from intermeddling with worldly or civil affairs, bid them be contented with the regulation of things sacred, maintained their power to the utmost of their ability and even claimed for themselves supremacy over the church in their respective territories. But they had to do these things cautiously, if they would not learn by experience that the pontiffs had very long arms.—Mosheim.

10. Character of Language Employed by the Popes Against Kings (8th century).—[As a sample of the arrogant language employed by the popes toward kings and emperors, we present the following taken from an epistle of Pope Gregory III, addressed to the eastern emperor Leo III. Leo at the time was opposing with commendable zeal the use of images in divine worship]: "Because you are unlearned and ignorant, we are obliged to write to you rude discourses, but full of sense and the word of God. We conjure you to quit your pride, and hear us with humility. You say that we adore stones, walls and boards. It is not so, my lord; but those symbols make us recollect the persons whose names they bear, and exalt our grovelling minds. We do not look upon them as gods; but if it be the image of Jesus, we say, 'Lord help us.' If it be his mother, we say, 'pray to your Son to save us.' If it be a martyr, we say, 'St. Stephen, pray for us.' We might as having the power of St. Peter, pronounce punishments against you, but as you have pronounced the curse upon yourself, let it stick to you. You write to us to assemble a general council; of which there is no need. Do you cease to persecute images, and all will be quiet. We fear not your threats; for if we go a league from Rome toward Campania, we are secure."—Certainly this is the language of anti-Christ supporting idolatry by pretenses to infallibility, and despising both civil magistrates and ecclesiastical councils.—Milner (Church History, Vol. III, Page 159).

REVIEW.

1. Was the early church organization perpetuated?

2. What reasons can you assign for the failure to do so?

3. What can you say of the early apostasy in the church? (Notes 1, 2).

4. What course was pursued by the apostles in respect to organizing churches?

5. In what light were the apostles regarded by the saints?

6. In what condition were the churches left at the death of the apostles?

7. Was there such a thing as subordination among the churches, or rank among the bishops?

8. What was the manner of electing bishops? 9. What was the nature of the bishop's duties in the early churches? (Note 3).

10. Describe the growth of iniquity among the bishops.

11. Give an account of the origin of metropolitan bishops.

12. Describe the rise and influence of councils. (Note 4).

13. What was the conduct of the lower officials in the church?

14. What was the moral status of the church officials in the 2nd and 3rd centuries?

15. Tell what important change was made in the form of church government in the 4th century?

16. Describe the outlines of Roman government under Constantine.

17. Tell how the church government was made somewhat to correspond with it.

18. What circumstances led to the pre-eminence of the bishop of Rome?

19. What reasons can be urged against the idea that the bishop of Rome succeeded to the apostleship of Peter and the presidency of the universal church?

20. What is the scriptural basis of the claims of the bishops of Rome to pre-eminence?

21. Refute the idea that Jesus built his church upon Peter.

22. Refute the argument that the bishops of Rome must have succeeded to the apostleship of Peter, because Jesus promised to be with the apostles unto the end of the world.

23. To what extent did the early Christian fathers admit a primacy to the bishops of Rome?

24. State the controversy which arose between the bishop of Rome and the bishop of Constantinople.

25. Through what cause did the Roman pontiffs finally force an acknowledgment of their independency? (Note 6).

26. What led to the great division of the church in the 9th century?

27. By what means did the Roman pontiffs outstrip their eastern rivals? (Note 7).

28. What of the sale of indulgences? (Note).

29. What was the climax of papal power?