As we have already pointed out in article two, gradually a division took place between the ministry and the people. It did not take long before there was an agitation among the ministry as to who should be the greatest. During the first and part of the second century each church was self-governing, with its own local elders or bishops. As the churches increased in numbers, they united in provincial dioceses with their own government for each diocese.
The creation of an episcopacy originated this way: Each large city church had its own board of elders or bishops, presided over by an elder or bishop. In time these chairmen became a distinct order, and were called bishops as distinguished from the local elders or presbyters. Very soon the question arose as to who was to be the greatest among the new order of bishops. The answer to the question was solved in the creation of a metropolitan bishop, who presided in the chief city of each province in the Roman Empire, such as Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome, Carthage, and others.
As the church grew in numbers of bishops, the Roman idea became disseminated in the church, and she changed from a pure democracy to an episcopal form of government. In many places the laity had no voice in church affairs. Neander holds that by about 250 A. D. the laity had no vote in the church. But this was not true all over the empire, for in some places, even in Italy, the laity had their share in voting as late as 495 A. D. In remote parts of the empire they voted for several more centuries in local dioceses, or approximately until 800-1000 A. D.
When, in the year 255 A. D., Cyprian convened the council in Carthage, he argued for the equality of all bishops, maintaining that the metropolitan bishop should and had the right to convene synods or councils. The Bishop of Rome, Stephen, laid claim to the primacy of all the metropolitans. This caused the question to arise, Who is to be the greatest among the metropolitan bishops? which were in other words archbishops. This necessitated the creation of another order of bishops among the metropolitans. Hence the introduction of patriarchs, such as the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, etc.
Now arose the question, Who among the patriarchs is to be the greatest? The Bishop of Rome from the days of Victor, 192 A. n., had claimed the primacy, but so long as the church was free from the state, none of the other metropolitan or patriarchal bishops were willing to accede to the claim of the Roman bishop. But no sooner had the church and state united before this question of primacy of the bishops had to be settled by imperial decree and a general council. The same mode of procedure which a united church and state had used in extirpating the pagan religion, was now used in the exaltation of the Roman bishop and the excommunication of heretics.
At the general council held in Constantinople in the year 381 A. D., seven canons were passed, all of them dealing with bishops and heretics. Canon 3 reads, " The bishop of Constantinople shall hold the first rank after the Bishop of Rome, because Constantinople is new Rome." But neither of these canons had any force until approved by the state. Accordingly, the bishops wrote a petition to the emperor, asking for his approval of the canons passed upon by the council. Part of it reads: " We have also, for the sake of ecclesiastical order, drawn up certain canons; and all this we append to our letter. We pray you now, of your goodness, to confirm by a letter of your piety the decision of the synod, that, as you have honored the church by your letters of convocation, you would thus seal the decisions," etc. " The emperor Theodosius granted the wish here expressed, and from Heraclea, on the 30th of July, 381, he issued the command that all the churches were at once to be surrendered to the bishops who believed in the oneness of the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost," etc. (See Hefele, " History of Church Councils," Vol. II, pp. 357, 369.)
This demonstrates the position of the church in the state. It was now a truly Catholic Imperial State Church, since no decision arrived at by the council had any force until confirmed by the emperor, who convoked councils. This council was attended by Eastern bishops only. A little while after, in the west, during the pontificate of Leo the Great (440-461 A. a.), the Western emporer Valentinian the Third issued a law which reads: " The primacy of the apostolic seat having been established by the merit of the apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of a holy synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that seat. For peace can be universally observed only when the whole church acknowledges its ruler." (See the Catholic Church historian, Alzog, " Manual of Universal Church History " for original Latin and translation, Vol. I, p. 622.)
Leo the Great called himself the vicar of Christ, and Cardinal Hergenrother quotes him as saying: " I govern the church in the name of him whose confession was glorified by the Lord Jesus, and whose faith destroys all heresies."—" Church and State," Joseph Hergenrother, Vol. I, p. 94.
We have now reached a very critical period in the development of the papacy. How these laws of emperors and synods worked out in practice will be the subject of the next article.
Orlando, Fla.