7. The Origin of Metropolitans.—Gradually and almost imperceptibly the church in its government began to follow the civil divisions of the Roman empire. The bishops of the metropolis of a civil province, in time, came to be regarded as having a general supervision of all the churches in that province, over the archbishops and indirectly over the suburban bishops or suffragans, as they began to be called, and finally, bishops merely. The bishops of these provinces were soon designated as metropolitans.
8. The Rise and Influence of Councils.—Concurrent with these changes arose the custom, first derived from the Greeks, of holding provincial councils. The bishops living in a single province met in council to confer upon matters of common interest to the churches of the province. These provincial councils met at stated times of the year, usually in the spring and autumn. At the first the attending bishops looked upon themselves as merely the representatives of their respective churches, without jurisdiction further than to discuss and come to agreement on matters of common concern. But gradually they usurped the power to order by decree where at first they were accustomed to advise or entreat—so easy is it to change the language of exhortation to that of command! Nor was it long ere the decrees of these provincial councils were forced upon the respective churches as laws to be implicitly obeyed. There was some resistance to this at first from the lower orders of the clergy; but that resistance was quickly overcome by the activity and ambition of the bishops, who were only too glad to escape from the restraints which the doctrine of "common consent"—a doctrine which made it necessary for the bishops to submit any matter of importance to their respective churches for the approbation of the people—imposed upon them. (See note 4, end of section.)
9. Conduct of Lower Clergy.—As many changes occurred among the lower orders of the clergy as among the bishops. The elders and deacons became too proud to attend to the humble duties of their offices and hence a number of other officers were added to the church, while the elders and deacons spent much of their time in indolence and pleasure.
10. Corruption of Church Officials.—To the evils of contention for power and place, which had its origin in arrogance and ambition—unbecoming those who profess to be followers and servants of Jesus Christ—must be added the vices of dissipation and voluptuousness. Many bishops, in the third century, affected the state of princes, especially those who had charge of the more populous and wealthy congregations; for they sat on thrones, surrounded by their ministers and other signs of their power, and dazzled the eyes and the minds of the populace with their splendid attire.[[48]]
11. Church Government Modeled on the Plan of the Civil Government.—It was reserved for the fourth century to see the church government more completely modeled on the plan of the civil government of the Roman empire, to witness more pride and arrogance in its rulers, and an increase of vices both in clergy and people. Early in this century, it will be remembered, Constantine, the emperor of Rome, avowed his conversion to Christianity, and as might have been expected that fact produced great changes in the fortunes of the church. It not only put an end to its persecutions but loaded its bishops with new honors and enlarged powers.
12. In saying that the church government was modeled upon the plan of the civil government we would not be understood as saying that the first was a fac simile of the second; there were some differences between them, but the civil divisions of the empire suggested the ecclesiastical divisions.
13. Under Constantine the Roman empire was divided into four prefectures, containing thirteen dioceses, embracing one hundred and sixteen provinces. Officers called praetorian prefects presided over the four prefectures—exarchs over the dioceses and governors over the provinces. The Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria having gained a pre-eminence over all other metropolitans were made to correspond with the four prefectures by Constantine, and assumed, before the close of the century, the title of patriarchs. Next to the patriarchs stood the bishops, whose jurisdiction extended over several provinces, corresponding to the civil exarchs,[[49]] though the bishops of this dignity did not equal in number the civil exarchs. Next came the metropolitan bishops, whose jurisdiction was limited to a single province. They corresponded to the civil governors of the provinces, whose authority was limited in like manner. After the metropolitans came the arch-bishops,[[50]] and then the bishops. Some of the latter were exempt from the jurisdiction of both metropolitans and arch-bishops, and hence were called independent bishops.
14. Pre-Eminence of the Bishops of Rome.—The distinctions of rank among the bishops of the Christian church first arose largely through the opulence and civil importance of the respective cities and provinces over which they presided—the membership of the church and its wealth usually bearing a just proportion to the size and civil importance of the city in which it was located. It is not surprisingg, therefore, that the metropolitans and patriarchs also struggled for pre-eminence upon the same basis. That basis gave the bishop of Rome great advantage; for, as stated by Gibbon, "the Roman church was the greatest, the most numerous, and, in regard to the west, the most ancient of all the Christian establishments, many of which had received their religion from the pious labors of here missionaries." The fact, too, that for so many ages Rome had been the capital of the great empire led men naturally to give pre-eminence to the church established there.
15. Another thing which went far to establish the supremacy of the bishop of Rome was the tradition that Peter, the chief or "prince" of the apostles, had founded that church; that he became its first bishop; that the bishops succeeding him succeeded to his apostleship and to whatever of pre-eminence he held over his fellow apostles; and that pre-eminence, it is claimed, amounted to the right of presidency over the universal church.
16. Objections to the Claims of the Bishop of Rome.—That Peter, aided by Paul, did found the church at Rome there is little cause to doubt. It is also true that Peter was the chief or president of the apostles; that to him had been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.[[51]] But that he became the bishop of Rome, or that the bishops of Rome succeeded to the apostleship and to that power which made him the president of the universal church of Christ, we cannot allow.