All publish the results of their council. The publication of these results made him known in all the churches. 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 began to be emulous of receiving consecration at the hands of the metropolitan; and, accordingly, he began, as opportunity presented, to assume the right of ordaining. Thus the process of centralization went steadily on, widening the circle of its influence, and drawing more under 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, &c. 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, &c.; 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 1 Comp. Ziegler's Versuch., pp. 69-71. 2 The development of the metropolitan system is briefly stated by Siegel, Handbuch, 11, p. 264, seq.; and more at length, by Planck, Gesell. Verfass., 1, pp. 572-598, and by Ziegler, pp. 61-164. We are now arrived to that period in the history of the church, in which its government appears almost in total contrast with that of its apostolical and primitive organization. The supreme authority is no longer vested in the church collectively, under a popular administration, but in an ecclesiastical aristocracy, entrusting the government of the church to a clerical hierarchy, who both make and administer the laws, without the intervention of the people. This, then, is a proper point to pause, and contemplate the practical bearings and results of this system of ecclesiastical polity which has taken the place of that which the church originally received at the hands of the apostles. II. Results of the system. These may be contemplated in their relations to the laity, to the clergy, and to the general interests of religion. 1. In regard to the laity. (a) It destroyed the sovereignty of the church as a collective body. The sovereign authority was formerly vested, not in the apostles, not in the clergy, but in the whole body of the church. They enjoyed the inherent right of all popular assemblies,—that of enacting their own laws and regulations, and of controlling the execution of them, by electing their own officers for the administration of their government. Under the Episcopal government, this cardinal right, the only basis of all rational liberty, civil or religious, was taken away from them. They had no part in framing the rules by which they were governed. Though they still retained some control over the election of their spiritual rulers, the system itself was already a virtual disfranchisement of the people ; and finally resulted in the total separation of the people from all part even in the elections to ecclesiastical offices. The law-making power was now entirely in the hands of the bishops, who gave laws to the people, under the sanction of divine authority, and executed them at their own pleasure. The result is given by Planck, in the following terms: "From the spirit of most of the ordinances which these new lawgivers made for the laity, this much, at least, is apparent from the execution of them, that they were directly designed or adapted to bring the people yet more under the yoke of the clergy, or to give them opportunity more frequently and firmly to exercise their power."3 (b) It exposed the laity to unjust exactions, by uniting the legislative and executive branches of government. The union of these has ever been the grand expedient of despotic usurpation; and it holds good, as truly in church as in state, that when those two great departments of government are united in one and the same man, or body of men, the subjugation of the people is well nigh completed. They may have wise and good magistrates, who will graciously extend over them a virtuous administration; but the checks and restraints by which the popular rights are guarded in every free government, are effectually removed. They were thus taken away in the church by the organization now under consideration. The people had no adequate protection against the exercise of arbitrary power, nor any available mode of redress, under the injustice to which they stood exposed. But the clergy enjoyed many privileges, by which they were, in a measure, withdrawn from the operation of law, on the one hand, and on the other, were entrusted with civil and judicial authority over the laity. Three particulars are stated by Planck. 1. In certain civil cases they exercised a direct jurisdiction over the laity. 2. The state submitted entirely to them the adjudication of all offences of the laity, of a religious nature. 3. Certain other cases, styled ecclesiastical, causae ecclesiasticae, were tried before them exclusively. 3 Gesell. Verfass., 1, pp. 452, 453. The practical bearings of this arrangement, and its effects upon the clergy and the laity, are detailed by the same author, to whom we must refer the reader.4 (c) The laity were separated injuriously from the control of the revenues which they contributed, both for the maintenance of the government of the church, and for charitable purposes. This obnoxious feature in the ecclesiastical polity, which prevailed at this time, has been already mentioned. It is, obviously, an equitable principle, that every man or body of men should themselves be at liberty to do as they will with their own. This principle requires every government that would respect the rights of the people, to submit to them, in some form, the control of the revenue. To deny them this right is injustice, oppression, unmitigated despotism. The hierarchy was a spiritual despotism, which completed the subjugation of the people, by removing them from a just participation in the disbursement of the revenues of the church. All measures of this nature, instead of originating with the people, as in all popular governments, began and ended with the priesthood.5 The wealth of the laity was now made to flow in streams into the church. New expedients were devised to draw money from them.6 Constantine himself also contributed large sums to enrich the coffers of the church, which he also authorized, A. D. 321, to inherit property by will. This permission opened new sources of wealth to the clergy, while it presented equal incentives to their cupidity. With what address 4 Gesell. Verfass., 1, p. 308, seq. 5 Conc. Gan., Can. 7, 8. Bracar. 11, c. 7. The above canons clearly indicate the unjust and oppressive operation of this system. 6 It was a law of the church in the fourth century, that the laity should, every Sabbath, partake of the sacrament; the effect of which law was to augment the revenues of the church, each communicant being required to bring his offering to the altar. Afterwards, when this custom was discontinued, the offering was still claimed.-Cong. Agath., A. D. 585, c. 4. 7 Cod. Theod. 4, 16, Tit. 2, C. 4. Euseb., 10, 6. Sozomen, Lib. 1, c. 8. Lib. 5, 5. they employed their newly-acquired rights is apparent from the fact stated by Planck, "that in the space of ten years every man, at his decease, left a legacy to the church; and, within fifty years the clergy, in the several provinces, under the color of the church, held in their possession one tenth part of the entire property of the province. By the end of the fourth century, the emperors themselves were obliged to interpose to check the accumulation of these immense revenues:-a measure which Jerome said he could not regret, but he could only regret that his brethren had made it necessary. Many other expedients were attempted to check this insatiable cupidity, but they only aggravated the evil which they were intended to relieve. (d) The system in question was not only a violation of the natural rights of the laity, but it was equally injurious to their spiritual interests. If it be important that the people should appoint those who rule over them in civil government, much more is it that they should control the appointment of those who are to be set over them in the Lord. It is a serious objection to this system that it interfered with this religious privilege. The clergy were elected by the bishop, and the bishop again, appointed the clergy. The intervention of the people was often a form, and even the form itself was finally discontinued. A ministry imposed in this manner upon a people, must of necessity be coldly received and comparatively barren in its results. This topic opens a fruitful subject of remark, but it has already come under consideration, and we submit it to the reflections of the reader without further remark. (e) The tendency of this form of government was to render the laity indifferent to the religious interests of the church. 8 Gesell. Verfass., 1, p. 281. Comp. Pertsch, Kirch. Hist., sec. 11, c. 9. |