HISTORY OF THE PAPAL POWER. 485 byters, or elders, no sooner was the distinction between them established, than the former began to appropriate certain functions exclusively to themselves: there were official duties, in the discharge of which the presbyters might not interfere, such as the ordaining of elders and deacons in any destitute church; and, as the Christian profession became more and more corrupted by the inventions of men, the number of these exceptions became also multiplied to a great extent. But another thing which contributed greatly to the increase of the evil under consideration was the assembling of the clergy in synods, to deliberate about affairs of common concern to the whole body—a custom which began about the middle of the second century. By this means the power of the clergy was considerably augmented, and the privileges of the people proportionally diminished. Bishops alone were honoured to attend these synods; and though at first, when assembled in convoca · tion, they acknowledged themselves to be no more than the deputies of the people, they did not long retain that style, but enacted decrees by their own authority, and at length claimed a power of prescribing in matters of both faith and discipline. For the more orderly holding of these assemblies, some one bishop, in an extensive district, was authorized, by common consent, to convene his peers, and to preside among them; and this being generally allotted to the bishop of the metropolis, or the city in which the civil governor resided, he was called the Metropolitan, or Archbishop. This latter title was first adopted by Athanasius, afterwards by Epiphanius, and from the year 430 it became common in the church. Thus we have the first and second steps in the ladder by which Antichrist ascended his throne. But, grand and imposing as was the title of Archbishop, it was not long before a superior to him was found in what was termed the Patriarch. This was an honorary title conferred on the bishops of the most important sees; such as Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. These patriarchs had all equal power, and differed only in respect of rank and precedency; the bishop of Rome being considered the first in rank, and this out of respect to the city in which he presided. It seems manifest, also, that, as Rome was the capital of the empire, the dignity of the city, and the immense wealth and large revenues of that see, contributed not a little to augment the authority and influence of the bishop above that of the other patriarchs. Besides which, as it had been the custom to appeal to imperial Rome in all great civil cases; so, when differences of opinion arose in the churches at a distance, it was natural for each party to wish to have the sanction of the see of Rome; and hence the frequent appeals that were made to the bishop of Rome, for the settlement of ecclesiastical matters, contributed its quota also to the evil in question. The title of Pope (Latin papa) simply means a father; a title which was not originally peculiar to the bishop of Rome, but in early times was commonly applied to other bishops, especially in the greater sees. Thus Cornelius, bishop of Rome, called Cyprian the pope of Carthage, and it was not until about the beginning of the seventh century that the bishops of Rome appropriated that title to themselves; but this is a subject to which we shall have occasion to return hereafter. The claims to supremacy which, during the preceding centuries, had been asserted by the bishops of Rome, were at first but faintly urged, and promoted by artful and almost imperceptible means. They now, however, began to insist upon the superiority as a divine right attached to their see, which they contended had been founded by the apostle Peter, to whom Christ had given "the keys of the kingdom of heaven." And this arrogant claim, which had appeared conspicuously enough in the conduct of the bishops of Rome during the fourth century, was in the fifth no longer concealed, or cautiously promulgated. A pope of the name of LEO was the first that claimed jurisdiction over other churches on the ground of his being the successor of St. Peter; and when it was decreed at the council of Chalcedon that the see of Constantinople should be second to that of Rome with respect to rank, assigning as a reason for it the pre-eminence of the city, this pope was quite dissatisfied, because his pre-eminence was not founded on something more stable than the dignity of the city, and wished to have it rest on the authority of St. Peter as the founder of the see.* And from this time * Sueur. A. D. 451. HISTORY OF THE PAPAL POWER. 487 we find this foundation for the pre-eminence of the see of Rome urged with the greatest confidence; and, what is most extraordinary, it does not appear to have been much disputed, though the ground on which it is assumed has slender claims to credibility. In a synod held at Rome, A. D. 494, Gelasius contended that the church of Rome ought to be preferred to all others, not on account of the decrees of councils, but for the words of Christ. "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church!" But, however excessive their claims, or extensive their authority in matters both ecclesiastical and secular, they still remained subject, first to the jurisdiction of the Gothic kings, and afterwards to the emperors of Constantinople. Nevertheless, such was the extensive influence of the papal intrigues, that there were few among the princes of the western empire that were not virtually brought into a state of subjection to the authority of the bishops of Rome, before the end of the fifth century. The bishopric of Rome was so elevated a station, and lying open as it did to the ambition of many, we cannot wonder that it was eagerly contested, and often obtained by fraud, chicanery, or other practices alike repugnant to the spirit of the gospel. In the course of the sixth century, no fewer than three violent contests arose between rival candidates and their partisans for its occupation. Symmachus and Laurentius, who had been elevated to the vacant see by different parties, continued for several years to assert their discordant claims. After repeated struggles, the former ultimately prevailed; and in this contest he was greatly assisted by Ennodias, the bishop of Pavia, who employed the most abject flattery in behalf of Symmachus, whom he blasphemously styles "Judge in the place of the Most High, and God's vicegerent on earth." Not long after this, the church catholic was again divided by the reciprocal claims of Boniface and Dioscorus; but the premature decease of the latter terminated this clerical war. The century, however, did not close without exhibiting a scene equally disgraceful. A prelate, whose name was Vigilius, intrigued at court to procure the deposition of the reigning bishop Silverus, and the latter was deprived of his dignities and driven into exile. He appealed to the emperor Justinian, who espoused his cause and encouraged him to return to Rome, with the delusive expectation of resuming his lost episcopate; but the artifices of Vigilius prevailed; his unfortunate rival was resigned to his power, and banished to the islands of Pontus and Pandatara, where, in penury and wretchedness, he ended his days. But, upon the disgraceful squabbles to which a competition for the bishopric of Rome gave rise, I have spoken in a former Lecture, and therefore, though the subject be abundantly prolific, consider it needless to enlarge. It was some time before the claim of infallibility, as the successors of an infallible apostle, was set up by the bishops of Rome. The first pope who seems to have preferred this claim was Agatho, about the year 680. This pontiff, in an epistle to the sixth general council held at Constantinople, had the effrontery to declare that the church of Rome never erred, nor could err in any point; and that all the constitutions of his church ought to be received as if delivered by the divine voice of St. Peter himself. This monstrous assumption, however, was not propounded all at once; for, before this time, there had not been wanting individuals who flattered the pride of the popes by very extravagant encomiums, an instance of which I have lately adduced in the case of Ennodias, who impiously termed Symmachus "God's vicegerent, &c." The temporal or secular power of the bishops of Rome advanced pari passu with their ecclesiastical encroachments on the rights and liberties of the laity. Prior to the days of Constantine, there had been no little strife or contention among the clergy which of them should take precedence in the church; but from the moment their profession was established by law as the religion of the empire, and the high road to worldly honour and dignity was thrown open to them, the grand object of competition among the clergy was, which of them should obtain the greatest portion of the good things of this world-riches, houses, lands, and whatever ministers to the pride of life. This object seems to have engrossed their whole attention; and, taking up with this world as their portion, they pursued it like hungry vultures thirsting for their prey. I formerly mentioned that covetousness became almost a characteristic vice, insomuch that * History of Popery, vol. ii. p. 5. HISTORY OF THE PAPAL POWER. 489 one of the Roman emperors, in the year 370, passed a law, prohibiting the clergy from receiving legacies bequeathed by women; and the prevailing cupidity of their contemporaries was severely reprobated by several of the fathers. The ecclesiastical hierarchy never received any territorial endowment by law, either under the Roman empire or the kingdoms established upon its ruins; but the voluntary munificence of princes as well as their subjects amply supplied the place of a more universal provision. Large private estates, or, as they were termed, patrimonies, not only within their own dioceses, but sometimes in distant countries, sustained the dignity of the principal sees, and especially of that of Rome. The French monarch, the Saxon line of emperors, and the kings of England, set hardly any bounds to their liberality, as is attested by numerous charters still extant. Many churches possessed seven or eight thousand mansi (probably acres of land):-one, with but two thousand, passed for only indifferently rich. Many of these donations, however, consisted of lands uncultivated and unappropriated. The monasteries acquired legitimate riches by the culture of these deserted tracts and by the prudent management of their revenues. Their wealth, continually accumulating, enabled them to become the regular purchasers of landed estates, especially in the times of the crusades. There were, however, other sources of wealth less pure; and the clergy derived their wealth from many sources. Persons on entering a monastery often threw their whole estates into a common stock; and even the children of rich parents were expected to make a donation of land, on taking the cowl, as it was termed ; that is, on becoming monks. Some gave their property to the church before entering on military expeditions; gifts were made by some to take effect after their lives; and bequests were made by many in the terrors of dissolution, with the view of pacifying a guilty conscience. Above all things, the clergy failed not to inculcate, upon the wealthy sinner, that no atonement could be so acceptable to heaven as liberal presents to its earthly delegates! To die without allotting a portion of wealth or property to pious uses was reckoned the next thing to suicide, or a refusal of the last sacraments; and hence, intestacy passed for a sort of fraud upon the church, which she punished by taking the |