The next step seems to have been taken by the bishops residing in large towns. In those towns, the ecclesiasti cal assemblies were usually held : the bishop, alway s on the spot, and growing daily in wealth and influence, was commonly chosen president of these assemblies. When once chosen, lie would not easily be prevailed upon to resign his place. In a short time, he would claim it as his right. Prescription would sanction what usurpation had begun. And thus the bishop, once upon a level with his presbyters, or at most upon a level his brethren of the episcopate, would be established in pre cedency and splendour, as the metropolitan of the pro vince to which he belonged. His powers were then extended and confirmed ; new claims were made and allowed; the civil polity of Constantine afforded an ex ample ; the ecclesiastical constitution was made to ap proximate to the political ; the rulers of the church cor responded to the high officers and governors of the state; their provinces were of similar extent, and though their functions were different, their authority was nearly the same. The metropolitan now became a patriarch, and in process of time the patriarch became a pope.
This last change, however, the completion of sacer dotal aggrandizement, was the result of other circum stances and considerations, besides those which we have mentioned above. It had been observed, that in the enumeration of the apostles, given by the sacred wri ters, Peter held the first place, probably on account of his age, and personal respectability. " Now the names of the twelve apostles," says St Matthew, " are these, first, Simon, who is called Peter, 5.:1,e4Can. 0 first Peter, that is, as Dr Campbell seems to think, " Peter, occupying the first place." It had been remarked likewise, that this apostle is represented by Christ himself as the rock on which the church was to be founded. " Thou art Peter," says he to him, " and on this rock, (alluding to the name,) will I build my church ;" that is, in consequence of thy ministry and apostolical labours, shall the religion which I am com missioned to teach, be introduced into the world, and finally established. Accordingly, the apostle Peter was the first who preached to the Jews the doctrine of our Saviour's resurrection as a tenet of the Christian faith ; and he was the first also who announced to the Gentiles, that they were admitted into the covenant of Abraham, and entitled to all its privileges and blessings. By the bishop of Rome, however, and his adherents, these pas sages of holy writ were understood in a very different sense. In their apprehension, St Peter occupied the first place, not on account of his years, and his personal respectability, but solely on account of those powers and dignities which were conferred upon him by Christ. He was the rock, they affirmed, on which the church was built, the foundation and support of the whole. And in their zeal for their own aggrandizement and interest, they forgot the declaration in which we are assured that the church is built on " the apostles and prophets" generally, " Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner-stone." But it would be of no consequence to invest St Peter with powers and dignities, unless the bishop of Rome could prove himself to be the legitimate successor of that venerable apostle. This, of course, he attempted.
It was given out, and very soon believed, that the see or Rome was founded by the apostle alluded to ; though it does not appear from any historical document, that he ever visited the capital of the Roman world. There was a prevalent tradition, however, that such had been the case. The claim once made, was not to be abandoned. It was affirmed more loudly than ever, that St Peter, the first and chief of all the apostles, was the founder of the holy see. And it was no less pertinaciously maintained, that the powers originally conferred on this distinguished individual, had descended by regular devolution upon his successors in office. The inference was plain. The Bishop of Rome, like St Peter himself, was the rock on which the church was built, the foundation and basis of the whole superstructure, without which it could not stand together for a moment, but must instantly fall into ruins. The powers of the church were invested in him alone, laid up as it were, and condensed in his sacred person. If others were the branches, he was the root ; if others might be permitted to call themselves the streams, he was the inexhaustible fountain which sup plied the whole. In one word, he was constituted by Jesus Christ himself the supreme legislator and judge of the universal church ; and all bishops, metropolitans, and patriarchs, were subject to his authority, and depen dent on his sovereign will.
This, it must be owned, was a sweeping conclusion ; but the premises were received as good, and the conse quence appeared to be unavoidable. The value of the new logic, however, was not universally allowed. The patriarch of Constantinople, in particular, was extremely dissatisfied with it. There were other churches, he said, which were founded by the apostle Peter, as well as that of Rome. By the consent of all antiquity, the church of Antioch was one of these. And he insinuated in a way which could not be misunderstood, that as Constantinople was the seat of empire, the place where the Master of the world condescended to reside, the bishop of that city was clearly entitled to the first voice in point of authority, and to all precedency in point of rank. He had his claims as well as Rome; his footing was good, and his assurance strong ; and so satisfied was he of his right and privilege, and so jealous of his rival, that he was the first who took the title of univer sal bishop. But whatever might be the claims of the Byzantine church, these claims were not ultimately es tablished. The bishop of the West was at one time too powerful, and at another too cunning, for the Eastern prelate. The Latin churches likewise united more cor dially and effectually, in supporting the pretensions of their ecclesiastical head. And at length, Felix the Se cond, a hold and resolute pontiff, summoned the patriarch of Constantinople before himself, and a synod of his Italian clergy, and after due consultation, solemnly de graded him from his rank, and deposed him from his office. It is true, the Eastern bishop laughed at the im potent attempt of his lofty antagonist, and anathematized him in his turn. But the Byzantine pontiff gradually sunk into the second place ; and though his Halms were not relinquished, he found it necessary to urge them only at favourable seasons, and with great prudence.