spirit of the Jewish law having once been admitted into the Christian constitution, we find the λpos, namely, (TOû DEOû) at an early period, to form a distinct and superior caste, mediating between God and man; and, in this character, to be esteemed higher than father and mother, higher than kings and princes, (Cypr. Ep. 55, 69, &c., Const. Apost. ii. 26, 33, 34.) The needy and oppressed, widows, orphans, and virgins, were dependent for assistance and protection on the bishop, (Papa, Tertull. de Pud. 13; Táпа ieρáтатоs, Gregor. Thaum. [270] Ep. Can. i., Præpositus, Cypr. Ep. 55,) to whose care, and that of the deacons, the whole property of the Church in their diocese was confided. (Const. Apost. ii. 44.) He was also, in accordance with 1 Cor. vi. 1, seq. and the Jewish custom, (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 10, 7, and xvi. 6,) the arbitrator in all public and private differences and quarrels in his district (Const. Apost. ii. 45-53.)

In proportion as the number of Christians increased in the provinces, their communities, presided over by deacons, presbyters, or provincial bishops, (xwperiσкожо,) who were more or less dependent on the bishop of their capital, (uerρOTTOXÍTNS, metropolitanus,) raised the power and influence of the latter, partly by increasing his income, but chiefly by means of the provincial synods,* which sprung up in consequence, and since the commencement of the third century began to be held more frequently, in some provinces every year, or even twice in the year. The Council of Nice, Can. v., made them a general rule. They assembled mostly in the capital of the province, and were presided over by the metropolitan bishop, whose authority over the other bishops of his district thereby gained a still firmer ground, and finally was established as a principle by the Council of Antioch, Can. ix. Still their power continued much circumscribed. The choice of the provincial bishop chiefly rested with the community, (Clem. Rom. Ep. i. 44; Cypr. Ep. lii. 68; Origen in Levit. Hom. vi. c. iii.) and the community had likewise to approve of the presbyters proposed by the bishop, before they could be ordained. Of the inferior clergy alone, had the latter the exclusive appointment. In the discharge of his duties, he had to consult not only the presbyters, (Conc. Carth.

Their natural type was the Koívov, Commune, i. e. the assembly of the Civitates of a province, represented by delegates in the metropolis, for the purpose of deliberating on the common interests. Thus we frequently find inscribed on ancient coins, Kovov 'Aríus, Kovòv Buduvias, &c. (Eckhel, Doctr. Num.) These assemblies, or meetings, were subsequently also called concilium, provinciale concilium, (Codex Theod. lib. xii. tit. 12,) in contradistinction of the Ecclesiastical Synod, Conc. Nic. C. V., τὸ κοινὸν τῶν ἐκισκόπων.

Origin of the Christian Community at Rome.

65

Gen. iv. Can. xxiii.; Cyprian, in many places,) but in certain cases the whole community (Cypr. Ep. v. xi. xiii. xvii. xxviii. xxxi.) At the same time, the bishops had already acquired too much influence to steer free of the lust of power, of covetousness, and pride. (Origen in Exod. Homil. xi. 6.) Even exceeding ostentation had, at so early a period, crept into the Church. Paul of Samosata, elected Bishop of Antioch in 260, was accused by the Antiochian synod, assembled against him, of drawing illegal advantages from his episcopal jurisdiction, and of imitating the civil magistracy, in having a βῆμα καὶ θρόνον ὑψηλόν erected for himself; and of courting applause in the churches, by waving of handkerchiefs, and clapping of hands, a custom which in the fourth century became very general. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. vii. 30.)

As regards the origin of the Christian community at Rome, there is a great variety of opinion. It has already been mentioned, that, in the reign of Claudius, the Jews were, by a public decree, expelled from the capital, according to Orosius, (Hist. Eccl. vii. 6,) in the ninth year of Claudius-49, A.D.; and as Suetonius (Claud. c. 25,*) states, that the measure was taken against them because they were continually creating disturbances at the instigation, or as the original may also be rendered, on account of one Chrestus, into which name the Greek Xplorós is said to have been converted by the Romans, (Tertull. Lactant.) it has been inferred that Suetonius, in the passage quoted, speaks of actual differences between Christians and Jews. But the name "Chrestus" appearing also frequently on Roman monuments, (Comp. Heumann, Syllage, diss. i. p. 568,) and considering above all what St. Luke relates, Acts xxviii. 17-21: we cannot share in that opinion, nor can we agree with most Biblical expositors, who assume that Aquila and Priscilla, on their arrival at Corinth from Rome, (Acts xviii. 2,) were already Christians. The words of St. Luke appear to us positively to express the contrary. the contrary. But St. Paul, taking up his abode with them, not because they were his fellow-believers, but "because they were of the same craft," they, no doubt, soon embraced Christianity, and, in all probability, became instrumental in sowing the first seed of their new faith in the Roman capital. When St. Paul, after a prolonged stay, left Corinth, Aquila and Priscilla accompanied him as far as Ephesus, where they remained. (Acts xviii. 19, comp. 26.) This was, according to our computation, in the early part of 53. About six years later we find them

* His words are, Judaeos, impulsore Chresto assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit.

VOL. X. NO. XIX.

E

again settled at Rome, for St. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, (xvi. 3-5,) says, " Greet Aquila and Priscilla, my helpers in Christ Jesus; who have for my life laid down their own necks; unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the church that is in their house," &c. Who, in reading these words of St. Paul, can doubt but that the Christian community at Rome, then already numerous, was planted by Aquila and Priscilla? At the earnest entreaty of St. Paul, it would appear they had returned to Rome, to spread and confirm the truths of the Gospel of Christ among its adherents in that capital, until such time as he himself should be able to visit Rome, to the end that the faithful might "be established." Hence he calls Aquila and Priscilla "his helpers in Christ Jesus;" hence he says, "they have for his life laid down their own neck," which is evidently to be taken in a proverbial sense, meaning that for "his life," the promotion of the Gospel of Christ, they have made every sacrifice, and perhaps even incurred personal danger; hence he states them to be deserving not only of his individual gratitude, but of the thanks of every Gentile church. Aquila and Priscilla, as private members of the Christian community, teaching also in private, and most likely only among their immediate friends and acquaintances, the otherwise unexplainable circumstance related in Acts xxviii. 21, 22, as well as other difficulties connected with the subject, would thus be most satisfactorily accounted for. St. Paul, on his arrival in Rome, therefore, found a fruitful soil prepared for his labours, and the Church, established and edified by him, had, on the outbreak of the Neronian persecution, grown into a large and prosperous community. Nor had that persecution, fearful and almost annihilating as it was at its commencement, the effect of at all retarding the progress of the Christian doctrine. On the contrary, the number of the faithful continued rapidly to increase, and the power and influence of the clergy increasing in proportion, the bishops of the three capitals of the Roman empire, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, holding, as they did, the most extensive aparchies, were looked upon as the greatest bishops in Christendom; and to the former a certain. honorary distinction, but no real superiority was yielded. (Cypr. p. 79.)

The first instance of an undue interference on the part of the Bishops of Rome occurred in 254, in the case of the Spanish bishops, Basilides and Martialis, who, on account of the most grave offences, had been formally deposed; but on applying to Stephen, then Bishop of Rome, were by him reinstated in their office. Cyprian, however, on being hereupon requested to interfere, and although he believed Stephen to have been deceived

by the false representations of Basilides, highly disapproved of his conduct, and firmly vindicated the independence of the Church. (Ep. 68.)

A still more serious difference arose between the two bishops, two years later. In Africa, Egypt, Syria, and Asia Minor, heretics, who wished to be received into the Catholic Church, were then looked upon as unbaptized, and consequently on their admission the sacrament of baptism was administered to them in the regular form; whilst it was the custom of the Romish Church to qualify them for admission by the gradus poenitentiae. At that time the sect of the Novatians also had commenced to rebaptize their converts, and doubts as to the propriety of the usage began, in consequence thereof, to be felt even by some of the African bishops. A synod was convoked in 255 at Carthage, for the purpose of deliberating on the question; and a second one was held in the following year. Both, presided over by Cyprian, confirmed the traditional custom of the Africans, and by a synodical letter, (Cypr. Ep. 72,) this decision was communicated to the Bishop of Rome. Stephen returned an imperious, disapproving answer. Angry letters were exchanged. The Bishop of Rome dissolved the ecclesiastical communion with the African Churches. Little heeding this measure, they convoked a third synod at Carthage, (1st September 256,) and which positively confirmed their former decisions.

Firmilian, Bishop of Cesarea in Cappadocia, in an energetical letter, (Cypr. Ep. 75,) filled with bitter remarks on the foolishness and arrogance of Stephen, expressed the fullest approbation of those decisions by all the churches of his province; and Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, also conveyed to Cyprian his public and decided blame of Stephen's conduct. It is from the above letter of Firmilian, whose existence (cod. 26) is in every respect so highly vexatious and embarrassing to the Romish Church, that we learn the fact of Stephen's boasting himself to be the successor of St. Peter.

And here let us pause. To trace the further development of that idea into the conception of a primacy of the bishops of Rome; to sketch the various causes which, assisted by fraud and artifice, united to realize that gigantic scheme in the eleventh century, when Gregory VII., as "the infallible vicar of God on earth," raised the papal chair above all the thrones of Christendom, and finally turned the Church of Christ into a Roman in

* Popery, some persons say, is no longer what it was or has been; no Pope, in our enlightened age would ever again attempt or think of excommunicating a sovereign prince, and of releasing his subjects from their oath of allegiance, even though he had the power so to do. To such a mistaken notion of Popery we have

stitution, is foreign to our purpose. On the other hand, with a view to enable our readers to overlook at one glance the result of our present inquiry, we will condense it in the following table:

Stephen, 22d Bishop of Rome,

Epis.

In consequence of the sym-
bolical allusion to Rome by
the name of Babylon, in the
Apocalypse, the date of St.
Peter's first epistle begins to
be interpreted of Rome.

St. James, the
bishop of bishops.

St. Peter, first
bishop of Rome.

St. Linus, first

1 bishop of Rome.

The tradition of St. Peter's sojourn

at Rome is developing itself;

St. Paul and St. Peter, but his having been founders of the Rom- the bishop of Rome is

ish Church.

220-30

245

253

St. Clement, first

258

bishop of Rome.

St. Peter goes to
Rome to die.

253-6

as yet only known to the author of the fiction of the Clementines.

is the first Roman bishop boasting himself to be the successor of St. Peter.

The tradition of St. Peter's Roman Episcopacy is now beginning to gain ground.

Thus have we shown the hollowness of the historical foundation of the Papacy. But this is not the only result of our investigation. It leaves another, not less incontrovertible, and at the same time far more awful truth to be told. It is this:-Up to the present day the Church of Rome, by her "Professio Fidei," demands of every one of her ministers to firmly admit and embrace upon a solemn oath on the Holy Gospel, and upon that solemn oath every one of her ministers firmly does admit and embrace

AN ACKNOWLEDGED FALSEHOOD.

a simple answer. Let him who entertains it, look into the "Breviarium Romanum," and in the lesson for the 25th of May, the saint's day of the seventh Gregory, he will find the following passage: Contra Henrici Imperatoris impios conatus fortis per omnia athleta impavidus permansit, seque pro muro domui Israel ponere non timuit, ac eundem Henricum, in profundum malorum prolapsum, fidelium communione regnoque privavit, atque subditos fide ei data liberavit; and immediately after this passage the following prayer to God: Deus, qui b. Gregorium confessorem tuum atque pontificem pro tuenda ecclesiae libertate virtute constantiae roborasti, da nobis, ejus exemplo et intercessione omnia adversantia fortiter` superare.