could have convened collectively in council. But as the representatives of their respective churches, the bishops and presbyters would of course be chiefly selected. In this manner, what was at first done by common consent would also in time become an established usage and a right confirmed by common consent. Such being the state of things, the crafty bishops would easily have seen that, by constant and uniform attendance in council, they acquired increasing consideration and respect. Such councils being frequently held, the primate, or metropolitan bishop, would of course have the prerogative of convening and presiding over them.

The political form of government which prevailed in the Grecian states, no doubt had an influence in shaping the administration of their ecclesiastical affairs. The famous Council of the Amphictyons were accustomed to assemble semiannually from all the Grecian states. Something like this, we may easily suppose, would have obtained in the administration of their church government. In the absence of direct historical testimony to this effect, it is at least remarkable that both the Council of Nice, c. 5, and the Apostolical Canons, c. 38, direct that ecclesiastical councils be held semiannually, and at the same seasons of the year when the Amphictyonic council were wont to convene. The Council of Nice only conformed to the established usage in settling upon these stated seasons for the convening of their body. This circumstance shows, beyond doubt, the influence of political institutions in ecclesiastical affairs, which is confirmed by the letter of Firmilian.

These councils of the Grecian states must, for a considerable length of time, have been circumscribed within very narrow limits. But toward the beginning of the third century they began to be better known. The controversy between the Eastern and Western church relating to Easter, threw the whole Christian world, with the exception, perhaps, of Africa, into commotion, and brought them together in opposing councils. Such councils were now held at Cæsarea, or Ælia, and at Rome; in Pontus and France; in proconsular Asia, in Mesopotamia, and probably in Achaia. Within the third century, councils began also to be held in Africa; and although they do not seem to have acquired so regular a form as among the Greeks, yet their number was greater in this country than in any other, especially during the latter half of the century. The controversy concerning the baptism of heretics and the Novatian schism furnished them with abundant matter for discussion. Cyprian did not neglect to avail himself of means so well adapted

to enhance clerical influence and power, to which he was so much inclined. In Africa, therefore, they soon became frequent; and their members gradually losing sight of the representation of their churches, considered themselves as acting by virtue of their offices. And as the presiding presbyters had become bishops of the presbyters, who constituted the presbyteries of the respective congregations, so the metropolitans soon became moderators of the provincial synods; and the patriarchs, of general councils. That of Carthage, in the reign of Decius, was convened by Cyprian, A. D. 258, to consult on the propriety of rebaptizing those who had been baptized by heretics. There were eighty-four members, who all gave their own, and sometimes also the votes of others as proxies, and the details evince that they were considered the representatives of particular churches there named. Cyprian, when opening the business, described the assembly as deliberative only, and not as designed to pass a censure upon any individual. The fifth speaker observed, that all who came to his church from heretics he baptized, "and those from their clergy he placed among the laity." It has appeared from the works of Cyprian, that episcopacy was then parochial; consequently, the presbyters of a single church must have been the clergy here named.

But without pursuing the history of these councils further, we will confine our attention to the following inquiries relating to them :—1. What was the extent of their jurisdiction? 2. What was their peculiar organization? 3. Who were appropriately the constituent members of them?

§ 2. OF THE EXTENT OF THEIR JURISDICTION.

Ar first they were, without doubt, provincial synods. This conclusion is fully implied from the fact that nothing is said relating to this subject. Had their jurisdiction extended beyond the limits of their own provinces, it must have been mentioned. The synods of Asia Minor must be understood, therefore, to have been restricted to their own provincial limits; such as that of Hierapolis in Phrygia, which was chiefly inhabited by the Montanists. Those of Anchiolus were probably limited in their jurisdiction to Thrace; but if not, they were only an exception to the prevailing custom. The councils which were held in many places respecting the controversy on the subject of Easter, were assuredly provincial synods. Such were also the synods which were held in Arabia in the third century, A. D. 243 and 246. The same is true also of the Synod of

Rome held by Cornelius in the year 251; and of the Synod of Antioch, A. D. 252, against the Novatians, and again at Rome, A. D. 260. Three provincial synods were also held at Antioch, from the year 264 to 269, against Paul of Samosata. Still, it is not to be presumed that all these were organized on precisely the same principles; the clergy from neighbouring provinces may have had a seat and a voice in some of them. Men of great weight of character, and whose counsels were highly respected, were particularly desired to attend from other places, and the convening of the council was at times delayed, in order to secure their attendance. Origen, in this capacity, though but a presbyter, attended the council in Arabia; and, by his learning and talents, settled the point in dispute to the satisfaction of the council. The bishops of Antioch also were so much embarrassed by the learning of Paul of Samosata, whom they would convict of heresy, that they invited for their aid the attendance of certain bishops from the Grecian provinces in Asia, including Palestine and Egypt. The metropolitan of Alexandria excused himself by reason of his great age; but many bishops from those provinces attended the council-Firmilian from Cappadocia, Gregory and Athenodorus from Pontus, Helenus of Tarsus, Nicomas of Iconium; and the archbishops Hymenæus of Jerusalem, and Theotecnus of Cæsarea, together with the bishop Maximus from Arabia. Paul, however, by his talents withstood them all; and the council dispersed without gaining any advantage over him. Foreigners, in like manner, attended both the second and third councils which were held for the same purpose. In the last council, a presbyter, Malchion, bore a conspicuous part, and was the principal agent in putting an end to the discussion.

About the same period of time other councils were held, which were sometimes more and at others less than provincial synods. The Council of Iconium, A. D. 235, consisted of bishops from Phrygia, Galatia, Cilicia, and other neighbouring provinces. Another council was also held in opposition to this in a neighbouring town, Synada, of which we know only that it had little or no influence against the first at Iconium. But this is sufficient to show that no established system of ecclesiastical jurisdiction at this time prevailed, even in the states of Greece, where such councils were first held.

In Africa, there was much less of system in these matters than in the Grecian states. Cyprian informs us that he thought it necessary to convene a council of many of the clergy, to deliberate

respecting the common good, in which council many topics were proposed and discussed. But he adds, "I am aware that some will never change their minds, nor give over a cherished purpose; but however harmonious their colleagues may be, they will persist in the support of their own peculiar views. Under these circumstances, it is not my business to attempt, by constraint, to give laws to any one; but, in the administration of the church, to leave every one to the freedom of his own choice, who must answer unto God for his conduct."3

The first ecclesiastical Council of Africa cannot be said to have been either provincial or general. Under Galba this country had been divided into three provinces. Constantine divided it into six. And yet it appears from Cyprian,* that the former division of Galba was still observed in the organization of the council, and that one even of these provinces was not represented; but for what reason does not appear. All, however, by common consent appear to have accorded to Cyprian, at Carthage, the right of convening a general council at his pleasure. This is the more probable from the fact, that in the year 255, several bishops, who apparently composed a provincial synod, appealed to him for the settlement of certain subjects of discussion among them.

The other councils in Africa were, for the most part, provincial in their character. Such was the council which was held before the time of Cyprian, the date of which is not distinctly known. So also were the councils held by Cyprian in the years 249, 251, 252, 255, and 256.

From all which it appears that most of the councils which were held in Africa were limited in their jurisdiction, and provincial in their character. Some, however, were of a more general character. At the end of the fourth century, such councils began to be held, which took the name of plenary councils. The councils generally of every country, like those of Greece and Africa, were provincial, and limited in their jurisdiction.

§ 3. OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCILS.

In general, the highest ecclesiastic within the province, whether bishop, metropolitan, or patriarch, presided in these councils. The popular character of these assemblies would indeed have permitted any one to be elevated to the office of moderator. But the gradations of the priesthood and the jealousy of the several orders were

such that none but he that was highest in official rank could have been placed in the chair to the mutual satisfaction of all classes. The presbyters would have claimed precedence of the deacons, the bishops of the presbyters; and so on, until none should be found to dispute the claim with the higest dignitary of the assembly. The greatest number of the members of the council would also come from the diocese of the highest functionary, which circumstance would give him the strongest party in the election. And there are many other ways in which this seat might have been secured to him.

As a natural consequence of the privilege attached to the office of president, and especially to the right of proposing or bringing forward the questions to be discussed, the views and opinions of the metropolitan obtained a predominance in the council; so that at length provincial synods became the mere organs of this dignitary. Bishops and presbyters were too dependant on him to act with due independence. Councils were of consequence the great means of advancing the hierarchy.

The results or decrees of the councils were usually published in the name of the moderator. There are some instances in which the names of the attending bishops accompany the decree. Such, however, was not the usual custom. The metropolitans were jealous of their rights, and strove earnestly for a controlling influence in the councils. For the same reason they insisted that the result should be published under the sanction of their authority, and in their name. They usually had the address to cause their own opinions to prevail; and few had the independence to dispute them. Thus the metropolitan of Alexandria had the influence to cause his synod to banish Origen, A. D. 230. Cornelius effected the excommunication of three bishops at Rome, A. D. 251, in the same arbitrary manner. By such strides did the principal ecclesiastics advance their spiritual hierarchy; and so tamely did the subordinate members of their councils allow the most esteemed men in the church to suffer unjustly under this spiritual despotism! The councils became merely the organ of the metropolitan to execute his arbitrary decrees.

§ 4. OF THE CONSTITUENT MEMBERS OF COUNCILS.

THE bishops early perceived that those councils would be one of the most efficient means of advancing the authority of the bishops, and of finally establishing their supremacy. It was ac