the rights of the people, violated the privileges of the inferior ministers, and imitated, in their conduct and in their manner of living, the arrogance, voluptuousness, and luxury of magistrates and princes."

CHAP.

XII.

31. 66 This pernicious example was soon followed by the seve- Ibid. p 339. ral ecclesiastical orders. The bishops by degrees, divested the presbyters of their ancient privileges, and their primitive authority, that they might have no importunate protestors to control their ambition, or oppose their proceedings; and principally, that they might either engross to themselves, or distribute, as they thought proper, the possessions and revenues of the church."

32. Hence it came to pass, that, at the conclusion of this [iv.] century, there remained no more than a mere shadow of the ancient government of the church." Admitting that there did remain a mere shadow, there must be an essential difference between that and the substance.

33. But it must appear evident that there did not remain the most distant resemblance of the primitive Church, if we compare the arrogance, voluptuousness and luxury of the clergy, and the barbarity, fury, inhuman contests and cabals of their subjects with what Jesus taught his true disciples.

34. But Jesus called them, and saith unto them, Ye know Mark, x. that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise 42, 43. lordship over them; and their GREAT ONES exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your [Gr. díaxovos] deacon:* and whosoever will be the chiefest shall be servant of all.

35. How diametrically opposite appears the whole course of the Catholic order! The bishops lording it over the presbyters, -the presbyters over inferior officers-and the lower class of rulers setting themselves up as great ones over the common people; and priests and people tyranizing with relentless cruelty over reputed heretics, whose lives of virtue exposed them alone, as a common prey, to the avaricious and beastly power of antichrist.

* or servant.

36. This is the Church which has been represented as the blessed mother of saints, and of GREAT SAINTS, and even of CONSTANTINE THE GREAT, under whose reign that great building, which had been erecting ever since the fall, arose to so great a height! This is that great hierarchy, and these the effects of that Catholic Gospel, for which even president Edwards could History of affirm, that no other cause could be devised but the power of Redemp. p. God. Doubtless that proverb is true. There is a way that Prov. xiv. seemeth right unto a man; but the end thereof are the ways of death.

37. Under the influence of a false education, and a deep rooted prejudice in favor of the chain of orthodoxy, the most sensible

417.

12.

CHAP.

XII.

Eccl. His

p. 28.

modern writers have labored to prove that to be the work of God, which was evidently the work of wicked and aspiring men.

38. And lest the soundness of modern Christianity should be called in question, the Protestant priesthood have universally labored to establish the credit and authority of the Catholic Church, in every age. But they have manifested the greatest degree of partiality, in charging the whole guilt of apostasy upon the bishop of Rome, while they themselves claim a relation to that very sink of corruption, out of which he arose to the papal dignity.

39. Although these modern doctors would seem to content themselves with a less degree of power than the bishop of Rome attained, and support their union only with such of the fathers as preceded him; yet, in claiming and supporting this relation, they show that if they had the same opportunity, they would not stop short of universal supremacy, any more than their fathers did.

40. Hence that very way, which was invented by the Alexandrian priesthood, and established by Constantine, seems even to this day, to be right; and kindred bishops and doctors love to have it so, and by false arguments and bold assertions, try to prove it to be so.

41. Each improving upon his predecessor, furnishes new arguguments for those that follow. So this ancient way of mixing religion and politics, still seems to be right, although after so long a proof, even according to their own accounts, it has evidently branched out into many ways of confusion, persecution and death.

42. Under all their pomp and vain glory, their compound of civil and ecclesiastical tyranny, their confused and contradictory jargon, which they called orthodoxy, it is plain that a subtle priesthood were aspiring to the entire headship over both church. and state.

43. In the fifth century, Mosheim says, "The vices of the tory, vol ii. clergy were carried to the most enormous lengths. The writers of this century are unanimous in their accounts of the luxury, arrogance, avarice, and voluptuousness of sacerdotal orders." And further observes that, "These opprobrious stains, in the characters of the clergy, would never have been endured, had not the greatest part of mankind been sunk into superstition and ignorance."

44. Candid reader, where now was the true Church of Christ, in the fifth century? What was there, then, to prevent these basest of all deceivers from setting up a false god, a false christ, false teachers, false saints, and the like?

45. The superstitious and ignorant multitude were at their control; the civil authority was on their side; the heretics were

rooted out from among them, and were either banished, or voluntarily retreated to mountains or deserts, where they might enjoy the free exercise of piety and uninterrupted peace, remote from this Babylonish mixture of confusion.

46. Nothing, in fact, remained to prevent this "synagogue of Satan" from establishing any religion or government which they could agree upon among themselves. The only difficulty they had to surmount, was, to determine which of them should be the greatest.

CHAP.

XII.

p. 29.

47. Mosheim says, that even "the office of a presbyter was Eccl. Hislooked upon of such a high and eminent nature, that Martin, tory, vol. ii. bishop of Tours, was so audacious as to maintain, at a public entertainment, that the emperor was inferior, in dignity, to one of that order." How then must the bishops have appeared?

48. Nor were the bishops themselves, at this time the highest order of ecclesiastics. Five were distinguished from the rest, under the name of patriarchs, namely, the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem; whose office it was to consecrate inferior bishops, assemble yearly councils in their respective districts, and regulate the affairs of the church universal.

49. But antichrist must needs have a supreme head; and as this had hitherto been vested in the emperors, and the ecclesiastics were now aspiring after the supremacy, it became necessary that one of that order should have power to rule the rest. ambitious quarrels, and bitter animosities arose among the patriarchs themselves, which produced the most bloody wars, and the most detestable and horrid crimes.

Hence Ibid. p. 26.

50. It would be endless to trace the artful measures which these ungodly tyrants pursued, from time to time, to supplant one another, in order to attain the last and highest degree of pre-eminence. However, "None of the contending bishops, Ibid. p. 27. (says Mosheim,) found the occurrences of the times so favorable to his ambition as the Roman pontiff."

51. And, "Among all the prelates who ruled the church of Rome during this century, there was none who asserted, with such vigor and success, the authority and pretensions of the Roman pontiff, as LEO,* commonly surnamed the GREAT;" whose supreme authority was particularly owned by the general council assembled at Chalcedon, A. D. 451.

52. About this time a new controversy arose, occasioned by certain doctrines advanced by Eutyches, a monk at Constantinople. Eutyches maintained, that in Christ, there was but one nature, viz: that of the incarnate word; for which he was accused of heresy, in a council assembled at Constantinople, A. D. 448, by Flavianus, the patriarch of that city.

53. By a decree of this council, Eutyches was ordered to re

* i. e. the

Lion.

Ibid.

p. 73.

CHAP.
XII.

Eccl. His

p. 74.

nounce the above mentioned opinion. He obstinately refused; for which he was excommunicated and deposed. He appealed to a general council, which was, accordingly, by order of the emperor THEODOSIUS, assembled at Ephesus, A. D. 449, in which Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, presided, who was of the same opinion with Eutyches.

54. By the order of this council, Eutyches was acquitted of tory, vol. ii. the charge of error; and the patriarch Flavianus, publicly scourged in the most barbarous manner, and banished to Epipas, a city of Lydia, where he soon after died of his wounds. But, previous to his death, he appealed to LEO the GREAT, who took up the cause, and demanded of THEODOSIUS, another general council, which this emperor could not be prevailed upon to grant.

Ibid. p. 75.

Ibid. p. 27.

55. Upon his death, however, his successor MARCIANUS, consented to LEO's demand, and called, in the year 451, the council of Chalcedon. In this council, the legate, or representative of LEO presided; the decrees of the council of Ephesus were annulled; an epistle, which LEO had written to Flavianus on the subject of debate, was received as a rule of faith; Eutyches was condemned; and the following doctrine, "which (says Mosheim,) is at this time almost generally received, was inculcated upon Christians [i.e. Catholics] as an object of faith, viz: That in Christ two distinct natures were united in one person, and that without any change, mixture or confusion.'

56. "A great number of Oriental and Egyptian doctors, united in opposing with the utmost vehemence, the council of Chalcedon, and the epistle of LEO, which it had adopted as a rule of faith. Hence arose deplorable discords, and civil wars, whose fury and barbarity were carried to the most excessive and incredible lengths."

57. "But the Roman pontiff, far superior to them all, in wealth and power; daily added new degrees of influence and authority to the Roman see, rendered it every where respected, and thus imperceptibly established its supremacy," and began the real reign of antichrist.

THE BEGINNING OF THE REIGN OF ANTICHRIST, IN THE

FIFTH CENTURY.

THE precise period in which antichrist began his reign, has been CHAP. I. a matter of great search; and there are but few subjects on which the learned are more divided. What has rendered this point so extremely difficult to ascertain, was the great length of time that was taken up in laying the foundations of his kingdom, and the gradual manner in which his dominion arose to its greatest height.

2. Although the intimate connexion and resemblance between the preparatory work, and actual reign of antichrist, has rendered the precise beginning of his reign a matter of such various conjecture; it has notwithstanding been agreed to by all, that there was such a period, and that the beginning of his dominion would finally be ascertained by the end, and confirmed by corroborating circumstances.

3. It is further agreed, that the reign of antichrist began with the Papal hierarchy, or supremacy of the bishop of Rome; but it is evident, that they must be greatly mistaken, who fix the date of this hierarchy at the period when the bishop of Rome had gained the entire ascendancy, and exercised all the power of a temporal monarch, on the supposed grant of Saint Peter and Constantine the Great.

4. If he must needs reign, for the purpose of bringing every enemy into subjection, his reign must have begun long before