to his displeasure. Under these circumstances, they were reduced to a humiliating subordination, which exposed them to the oppressive exactions of arbitrary power, while it gave security to the bishop in the exercise of it. How closely some of our modern bishops have copied after this odious canon, we have seen at the close of the preceding chapter.

The council of Antioch, A. D. 341, gave the bishops entire control over all the property of the church; and the synod of Gangra, A. D. 362-370, pronounced their solemn anathema upon any one who should either give or receive any of the goods of the church without authority from the bishop.22 The oppressive results of this system are clearly and concisely stated by Siegel,23 and more at length by Planck.24 Without the guidance of another, however, they must be obvious to any one. The subsequent history of the church is the best expositor of this policy; as unjust, as it was impolitic and injurious. "Responsibility to the people, is, therefore, a fundamental principle of republicanism; a responsibility which gives the most insignificant contributor of his money towards any object, a right to examine into the manner in which it is disbursed."25

22 Εἴ τις καρποφορίας ἐκκλησιαστικὰς ἐθέλοι λαμβάνειν ἢ δι δόναι ἔξω τῆς ἐκκλησίας παρὰ γνώμην τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἢ τοῦ ἐγκε χειρισμένου τὰ τοιαῦτα, καὶ μὴ μετά γνώμης αὐτοῦ ἐθέλοι πράττειν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Εἴ τις διδοῖ ἢ λαμβάνοι καρποφορίαν παρεκτὸς τοῦ ἐπισκόπου ἢ τοῦ ἐπιτεταγμένου εἰς οἰκονομίαν εὐποιΐας, καὶ ὁ διδοὺς καὶ ὁ λαμβάνων ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.—Conc. Gang. 7, 8, Bruns, p. 103. Comp. Conc. Aurel. 1. c. 14, 15.

23 Handbuch, 11. S. 463.

24 Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 381-402.

25"The great rule of all free institutions, that the people alone shall lay taxes,-a vital principle of all constitutional government,an essential guaranty of all safe public administration,—has become involved, is at stake; that solemn canon of republican creeds,-—that high fundamental law,-no, sir, not a law, the mere part of a code, or a constitution; it is itself a constitution; for, give but that, and a real constitution must follow; take it away, and there is an end of

6. It gave the bishop unjust power over the clergy, by allowing him to inflict upon them ecclesiastical censure.

These censures were, indeed, administered at first with caution, and not without the concurrence of a part, at least, of the clergy and of the church. Such moderation was requisite, to prevent a combination of the clergy and the people against the bishop; and the more so, before the introduction of that insidious regulation which gave the bishop, who inflicted the penalty, the sole right of removing it at pleasure. This crafty policy, introduced partly by direct coalition on the part of the bishops, and partly by silent consent on the part of the people, had more influence than any other in completing the subjugation of the clergy, and settling upon the churches the government of an oppressive ecclesiastical aristocracy. The right of appeal to the civil authority was also strictly denied.26

7. It was the occasion, in a great degree, of breaking down the good order and discipline of the church, which had hitherto prevailed.

This was the direct result of those collisions between the bishops and presbyters, to which we have already alluded. "The bishops claimed to have the highest authority, and acted accordingly in the government of the church. The presbyters refused to acknowledge this claim, and strove to make themselves independent of the bishops. This strife between the Presbyterian and Episcopal systems is of the utmost importance in developing the moral and religious state of the church in the third century. Many presbyters made use of their influence to disturb the order and discipline of the church. This strife was, in every way, injurious to its order and discipline."27

all practical freedom."-Mr. Archer's Speech in Congress, Aug. 1, 1842. See Locke on Government, c. 7. § 94. Works, Vol. II. p. 254.-Smyth's Eccl. Republicanism, p. 27.

26 Conc. Antioch, Can. 11.

27 Neander, Allgem. Kirch. Gesch, I. S. 329, 330, 2d ed.

CHAPTER IX.

THE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT.

THIS was a more comprehensive organization, to which the diocesan soon gave place. It is not easy to determine with precision the date of its establishment. It was not the production of a day, but the result of a gradual modification of the diocesan government, by a further concentration of Episcopal power, and the extension of its influence over a wider range of territory. These modifications were not altogether the same in every country, nor were they simultaneously effected. The metropolitan government was developed in the Eastern church as early as the first half of the fourth century. The council of Nice, A. D. 325, c. 4, ordered, that the "bishops should in the provinces be subject to the metropolitan ;" and again, c. 6, "that no one should be appointed bishop without the consent of the metropolitan." The council of Antioch, A. D. 341, c. 9, defined and established fully the rights of the metropolitan.

The establishment of a hierarchy in the West followed at a period somewhat later. The Christian religion was not introduced so early into the West, as into the East. It was also still more blended with paganism, especially in the provinces and remote districts; and the government of the churches was more unsettled than in those of the East. Still, the metropolitan government was finally introduced into the several districts of the Western church.

The capital of the province was not, of necessity, the seat of the metropolitan see, nor did the limits of metropolitan jurisdiction uniformly coincide with those of a province. In Africa peculiar respect was paid to seniority in office. The bishop of Carthage, however, was usually regarded as the primate of the country. The African church was also distinguished for its peculiar attachment to the free and popular constitution of the primitive church; and, to some extent, successfully resisted the encroachments of metropolitan usurpation. It would be interesting to pursue this branch of the subject, and inquire into the causes which led to the selection of those cities which became the seats, respectively, of the several metropolitan sees, but we must content ourselves with simply saying, that this distinction was conferred upon Jerusalem, Antioch, Caesarea, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth, Rome, Carthage, Lyons, and others. Thus in time the metropolitan government, in place of the diocesan, was settled upon the whole Christian church.

I. Means of its establishment.

The supremacy which the bishops had already acquired, together with the rapid extension of Christianity, soon introduced this organization as a new form of the hierarchy. After becoming the state religion under Constantine, Christianity spread with great rapidity. Small churches became large Christian communities, of sufficient importance to claim the privilege of having bishops of their own, in the place of presbyters. These bishops, however, like the presbyters who preceded them, still sustained certain relations to the bishop of the metropolis; and, in many ways, conceded to him the pre-eminence. It was his prerogative to summon the meetings of the synod, to make the introductory address, to preside over their deliberations, and to publish the results of their council. The publication of these results made him known in all the churches. All official returns from other

churches and councils were also made to him, all which contributed to establish his superiority, and to give him a controlling influence over the other bishops of the province. These provincial bishops soon became emulous of receiving consecration at the hands of the metropolitan; and, accordingly, he began as opportunity presented, to assume to himself the exclusive right of ordaining. Thus the process of centralization went steadily on, widening the circle of its influence, and drawing those at a greater distance within the power of the primate.

This authority was, as yet, wholly conventional, so that his official superiority was virtually conceded to him, and established, before the intention was entertained of confirming it by statute-law. The name of Metropolitan had not yet been conferred upon him, but in the councils of this period he is styled primate, primate of the apostolical see, etc.1 But about the beginning of the fourth century, the prerogatives of the metropolitan began to be the subject of statute-regulations. As in civil matters, the smaller towns and villages were dependent upon the larger, and all mutually dependent upon the capital of the province, so in the church, the country was divided into ecclesiastical districts, corresponding, even in name, with those of the state. Thus the church received from the Roman state, without change of signification, the terms, metropolis, diocese, etc.; so that the names of the different orders of the clergy denoted not their official duties, so much as their local relations and relative rank. Hence, the names of rural and city bishops,-provincial, diocesan, and metropolitan.2

We have now reached that period in the history of the church, in which its government appears in almost total

1 Com. Ziegler's Versuch. S. 69–71.

2 The development of the metropolitan system is briefly stated by Siegel, Handbuch, 11. S. 264 seq.; and more at length, by Planck, Gesell. Verfass. I. S. 572-598, and by Ziegler, S. 61—164.