cause of the advancement of that authority which ecclesiastical governors afterwards acquired.

In the early Christian writers we find not only remonstrances against the fickleness of the people, but an attempt to prove that the authority of each officebearer was from God, on the ground that the general government of the church was acknowledged to be divine. And many, among the more peaceable of the believers, were doubtless inclined to assent to such reasoning, in the hope of seeing their differences and distractions terminated by the settlement of some authority which might enforce universal regard.

Nor were the generality of the early Christian congregations, from the materials with which they were composed, likely to observe, on the one hand, a well regulated measure of freedom, or, on the other hand, to detect the commencing encroachments of power. Slavery had worn out the numbers and consequence of the middle class, and was gradually wasting the Roman empire, before Christianity appeared. There remained but the two extremes of society in many parts of the country, a few luxurious and overgrown landed proprietors, and the herds of bondsmen who were employed in cultivating the soil. No doubt, in great towns, in which Christianity was first preached and established, society retained longer its ancient variety of ranks and conditions. Still even there slaves formed a large portion of the members of the churches; and their times of assembling together for worship, either early in the

morning, or late in the evening, not only indicated a fear of persecution, but the necessity that many of the Christians were under of working the greater part of the Lord's day under their Egyptian task-masters. Amongst the many depressed by their condition, and limited in their opportunity of instructing themselves in sacred knowledge, there were doubtless several rich men, and here and there a philosopher, whose learning and leisure, however, instead of being employed in the pursuit of truth, were too often expended in idle and pernicious speculations.

In these miscellaneous elements, of which the first Christian societies were composed, there was too much agitation and ferment, too little of a regular check against the assumption of power by their rulers. Another cause of the increase of the power of the bishops arose from the persecutions of the government under which they lived. The Christian converts, finding no protection from the heathen magistrates of their country, naturally looked up in the midst of their wrongs and oppressions for consolation and advice, if not for assistance, to their bishop, who. of course, was their judge in any disputes that might occur amongst themselves, and who thus united some portion of civil power to ecclesiastical authori ty. Persecution gave also new eminence to the bishops, placed, as they were, in front of danger, and only too ready to become martyrs to the Christian

cause.

But, perhaps, the greatest accession to their authority proceeded from the number of converts now too numerous to meet together in any one place, but who, though partially separated into different congregations, yet remained attached to the main body of believers, and continued under the same head, without forming distinct church government of their own. Had each assembly of Christians, when too numerous to be conveniently united, divided itself into new bodies, all formed after the same model of government, many of the evils which overspread the Christian world would have been nipt in the bud. It was, however, natural to regard the Mother Church with reverence, and to keep up their dependence on its long established and venerated authority. Hence, instead of having bishops of their own, the affiliated assemblies were governed by presbyters deputed by the general bishop, and a bishopric grew up, from being merely the superintendency of a small upper room, to comprehend within the sweep of its authority many of the surrounding towns and villages.

III. While bishops gradually subjected to their authority the city in which they lived, and its sursurrounding district all the bishops in their turn gradually became subordinate to the bishop of the Metropolis. Christian churches at first resembled a number of small independent republics scattered through the Roman empire, and often removed to a

considerable distance from each other. They had a common interest but no common government. They had the same objects and the same dangers, but no established medium of union and communication. The ancient cities of Greece had been placed in somewhat similar circumstances, and laboured under the same difficulties, and adopted the only means of removing them by assembling a general meeting of delegates from each city, as in the case of the Paionian confederacy, or the Amphictyonic council, where the rites of religion were regulated, and political dangers provided against. These ancient councils were first imitated by the Christians in Greece, but from the advantages derived from them, rapidly spread over the Roman empire.

The bishops received a new increase of authority by being the delegates and representatives of their respective flocks at these councils, but their power, while it seemed to be advanced by them, was gradually undermined. Though all the bishops were equal in office, they did not represent churches of equal importance, wealth, and power. He who represented the capital city of the province necessarily carried more weight with him than the delegate of an obscure and scanty population. When a president was to be chosen for the council, the choice na turally fell upon the metropolitan bishop, and a primacy of rank was thus conceded to him, while he,

in addition to this, claimed, and whenever he had opportunity, exerted a primacy of power. Thus, the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch became supreme over the provinces of Syria and Egypt, while the Bishop of Rome, as the chief and representative of the church in the imperial city, assumed a supremacy over the whole Roman empire.

This claim, however extravagant, is less absurd than the arguments on which it rests. In looking around among the apostles for some one superior to his brethren, the choice naturally fell upon Peter for a patron, and upon the declaration made to him, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." But the difficulty was to point out any connexion between Peter and the Church of Rome. There is no authority to prove that St. Peter was ever at Rome. Jerusalem, not Rome, was his proper residence, and if he had any authority to bequeath to the locality in which he lived, Jerusalem, not Rome, must have profited by it, and become the seat of the spiritual empire. But, above all, in this attempt at reasoning, there is the confusion of the authority of an apostle with that of a bishop, of an authority strictly personal, consisting in being an eyewitness of Christ's miracles, and being the organ of divine revelation,-an authority which was therefore incommunicable by succession, and the authority of a primitive bishop which consisted in teaching and ruling a single meeting of Christians. The pope has been equally prosperous as a reasoner in