world. And even with regard to the particular church of that city, it was surely entitled to the highest honours, inasmuch as it was, in the strictest sense, founded by Jesus Christ himself. For on occasion of the election of Matthias, before the descent of the Holy Spirit, and, consequently, before the apostles entered on their office, the number of disciples that were convened there, probably not all that were in Jerusalem, was, says the sacred historian, about a hundred and twenty. And as the foundation of that individual church was laid by him who is the Lord and head of the whole, so the raising of the superstructure may most justly be accounted the work not of one apostle, but of the whole college of apostles. Yet the bishop of Jerusalem, though honoured with some special privileges, came in fact to be ranked among the patriarchs only in the fifth place, his patriarchal diocess being, in reality, but a small part, taken from the diocess of Antioch. And if the rejection of the Jews, on account of their unbelief, be held a good reason for the rejection of Jerusalem from being the capital of this spiritual kingdom, consisting mostly of converts from gentilism; why was not Cæsarea, or, as it was anciently called, Straton's tower, preferred before every other city; concerning which we have undoubted evidence, that it was honoured to be the place where, by the preaching of Peter to Cornelius and his friends, the door of faith was first opened to the gentiles? Yet the bishop of this Cæsarea never attained any higher dignity than that of metropolitan.

What but its new-acquired importance raised the see of Constantinople, formerly Byzantium, whose bishop, till the city was made by Constantine the seat of empire, was suffra gan to the exarch of Heraclea, to be one of the principal patriarchates in the christian world; and to which its former superiour became, in his turn, suffragan? That it arose from no other cause, is manifest from the canon which first vested this see with that pre-eminence. The canon, I mean, is the third of the council of Constantinople, in the year 381, being the second ecumenical council. The words are. Tov v Tol Kovσαντινεπόλεως επισκοπον έχειν τα πρεσβεια της τιμης μελα τον της Ρώμης επισκο που δια το είναι αυτην νέαν Ρωμην. "The bishop of Constantinople shall enjoy the honour of precedency next after the bishop of Rome, because it is new Rome." The first place is given to Rome as the elder sister, and that from which the empire still continued to be named. The second is given to Constantinople, because now an imperial city as well as the other. In the reason assigned for giving the second place to the latter, they clearly indicate the only reason then known for giving the first place to the former. This is still more explicitly

expressed in the twenty-eighth canon of the council of Chalcedon, holden in 451, being the fourth ecumenical council, It is said to have consisted of 630 bishops, and, consequently, was the most numerous that had yet been assembled. The reason on which the fathers ground their resolve, is thus expressed in the canon: Και γαρ τω χρόνω της πρεσβυτέρας Ρώμης. δια το βασιλεύειν την πολιν εκείνην, οἱ πατερες εικόνως αποδεδωκασι τα πρεσβεια και του αύλω σκοπω κινδμενοι οι ον θεοφιλεσάζοι επίσκοποι. τα ίσα πρεσβεία απονείμαντα της νέας Ρώμης άγιωτάτω θρόνω, ευλόγως κριναντες την βασιλεία και συγκλήτω τιμηθείσαν πολιν, και των εσων απολαυσαν πρεσβείων τη πρεσβύτερη βασιλιδι Ρώμη, και εν τοις εκκλέσιαςικοίς, ὡς εκείνην μεγαληνεσθαι πραγμασι, δευτεραν μετ ̓ EXEIVNY STARK STAY. "Whereas the fathers, with great propriety, "bestowed the chief honours on the see of Old Rome, BE"CAUSE IT WAS THE IMPERIAL CITY, and whereas the 150 "(Constantinopolitan) fathers beloved of God, actuated by the same motive, conferred the like dignity on the most holy see "of New Rome, (that is, Constantinople) judging it reason"able, that the city honoured to be the seat of empire, and of "the senate, and equal in civil privileges with ancient royal "Rome, should be equally distinguished also by ecclesiastical "privileges, and enjoy the second place in the church, being "next to Old Rome-we ratify and confirm," &c. And as the council of Constantinople had given rank to that patriarch, this of Chalcedon proceeded to add jurisdiction. My principal reasons for adducing this passage are to show first, that the rank and dignity of the several bishops was, at that time, considered by them as conferred by the church, and not as derived from Jesus Christ, St. Peter, or the college of apostles, none of whom are so much as mentioned by them; that therefore it is of human, not of divine institution: and, secondly, that the only reason assigned for the preference given is the dignity of the city, and the rank it bears in the empire. It is to no purpose to urge, that the bishop of Rome could never be prevailed on to ratify this canon of Chalcedon. It obtained, notwithstanding his opposition, was engrossed in the acts of the council, and remained a rule in the east ever after. It was no wonder, that the sudden rise of this new dignitary roused the jealousy of Rome. Constantinople, from a place of no consideration, was, in half a century, become the principal see in the east. An obscure suffragan was made chief of the Greek patriarchs, and next in rank to the Roman pontiff. Since the removal of the seat of empire, Constantinople was grown a great and flourishing city, and still appeared to be increasing; Rome was as evidently on the decline. It was natural for the pope to argue in this manner : "If things "proceed thus, can it be doubted, that a bishoprick, scarcely

"named in former ages, which has, with so little ceremony, "been at one step exalted above all the patriarchates of the "east, and had the second place in the church assigned it, will, "at the next, with as little ceremony, be raised above the "Roman see, and made the first?" There appeared some danger in overlooking these alterations, and therefore, under pretence of defending the rights of the sees of Alexandria and Antioch, and the canons of Nice, which, by the way, had not a syllable relating to the question, he warded off the evil which he suspected it would bring upon Rome. It is, however, sufficient for my purpose to show, what may be justly called the sense of the universal church at that time on this article; for the above canon was subscribed by all the bishops of that numerous council, with the exception of a very few, who favoured Rome. Allow me to add, that these councils, the Constantinopolitan and the Chalcedonian, are two of the four which pope Gregory the Great declared he held in equal veneration with the four gospels, and which are to this day in the highest authority in the Romish church. I pass the consideration of the validity of those canons, leaving it to the dis cussion of scholastick sophisters and Roman canonists. I regard them solely as the unanimous testimony of the leading men, and, consequently, of the church in those periods, concerning the source of the prerogatives enjoyed by particular sees, and the grounds on which they were bestowed. And in this view they are certainly of the greatest moment.

Indeed, so notorious it is, that the dignity and authority of the sees were almost entirely correspondent to the dignity and authority of the civil governours of the place, that when the emperour judged it proper to divide a province into two, a thing which often happened, giving them separate magistrates; the ecclesiastical polity underwent the like alteration, and the bishop of the new metropolis was raised to the dignity of a metropolitan. The provincial churches also were divided, and all those situated within the province newly erected, were withdrawn from their old metropolitan. This would not fail to create great animosities and discontents among the clergy, as well as to prove a strong incentive to ambitious prelates, who had interest at court, to apply for such a division of the province, as would raise their city to a metropolis. But as this practice was attended with gross inconveniences, and productive of very great abuses, a timely check was put to such alterations in the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, by the council of Chalcedon, that very council which established the preroga tives of the Constantinopolitan patriarch. Nothing, however, can be more evident, or is more universally admitted by all

who know any thing of these matters, than that the whole fa brick of ecclesiastical government was raised on the model of the civil polity, that the very manner in which power was distributed, and apportioned to the great officers of the state, was, in most cases, servilely copied by the rulers of the church. Nay, the very erection of their dignities, and the investiture of the dignitaries, were generally effected by the imperial edict; for those never hesitated to acknowledge the power of the emperour in these matters who were themselves benefited by his power. Afterwards, indeed, when perfectly secured by long possession, the possessors were not so willing to acknowledge the source whence their wealth and honours were originally derived.

In regard to Rome in particular, it is astonishing to think how suddenly, upon the establishment of christianity, its bishops arose, by the munificence of the emperours, and the misjudged devotion of some great and opulent proselytes, especially among the ladies, from a state of obscurity to the most envied opulence and grandeur. Ammianus Marcellinus, a pagan and contemporary writer, speaking of the horrible conflict betwixt Damasus and Ursinus for the episcopal chair of Rome, which happened about the middle of the fourth century, a conflict in which the prefect of the city was compelled to take refuge in the suburbs, and which ended in the cruel massacre of a hundred and thirty-seven people in the basilick of Liberius, says, in order to account, in some measure, for the violence and fury with which this contest had been conducted, "I must acknowledge, that when I reflect on the pomp attending that dignity, I am not surprised, that those who are fond of parade should quarrel and fight, and strain every 66 nerve to attain this office, since they are sure, if they succeed, "to be enriched with the presents of the matrons, to appear "abroad no more on foot, but in stately chariots, and gorge"ously attired, to keep sumptuous tables, nay, and to surpass "kings themselves in the splendour and magnificence of their "entertainments. But how happy would they be, if despising "the voluptuousness and show of the city, which they plead "in excuse for their luxury, they followed the example of "some bishops in the provinces, who, by the temperance and "frugality of their diet, the poverty and plainness of their "dress, the unassuming modesty of their looks, approve "themselves pure and upright to the eternal God, and all his "genuine worshippers*." I bring this quotation the rather, because it affords the testimony of a heathen, (who, therefore,

66

* Lib. xxvii. cap. 3.

cannot be supposed partial to the cause of christianity) that to whatever pitch of pride and arrogance the church potentates, in the great cities, were now arrived, there were not wanting christian pastors in the country, whose lives did honour to their profession, showing, that the spirit of the meek and humble Jesus was not totally extinct among those who were denomi nated his followers and servants. Let me add, that the readiness with which that author gives so honourable a testimony to the temper and manners of several ministers of Christ, raises him above the suspicion of being actuated by malice to the cause, in the reproaches he throws on the ostentation and sensuality of others.

In confirmation, if it be thought necessary, of the account given by an infidel, of the grandeur, and even more than royal state, in which the Roman pontiff then lived, I shall add what is told by Jerom, a christian writer, and a father of the church, who was also a contemporary and an intimate friend of the bishop. Prætextatus, a nobleman of the highest rank, and honoured with the greatest and most lucrative employments of the empire, but zealously attached to paganism, conversing once familiarly with Damasus, the successful candidate, on the subject of their different religions, said to the prelate, in a sort of pleasantry, "Make me but bishop of Rome, and I will turn christian immediately." Now it deserves to be remarked, that christianity, considered as an establishment, supported by legal sanctions, and enjoying the countenance of the magistrate was then only of about fifty years standing. It was no longer since the church had emerged out of obscurity, and been released from a most bloody persecution, begun by Dioclesian, about the beginning of the century, and continued with little interruption for ten successive years. That in so short a compass this episcopal see should have mounted almost to the summit of earthly grandeur, would be looked upon, if not so amply attested, as a thing incredible.

But whatever its wealth and splendour might be even at this early period, its power was yet but in its infancy. It is, however, certain, that a remarkable superiority in respect of property, is the surest foundation on which a permanent domi nion can be raised. But to account, in some measure, for the suddenness of this acquisition of riches, it ought to be ob served, that it had been, long before, customary for all christians that were capable, but especially the more wealty, to make liberal offerings to the church, as on other occasions, so particularly at the celebration of the more solemn festivals. These offerings, after supplying the needs of the church; and

C C