But there

regarded by many as the first ecclesiastical council. were present, besides members of the church at Jerusalem delegates from Antioch only; and these were seeking not so much an opportunity for common deliberation as authoritative advice from the Apostles on certain points of doctrine and observance, concerning which sharp discussion had arisen. It was not till the latter half of the second century that we hear of regular assemblies of the delegates from different churches. This feature of ecclesiastical organization first made its appearance in Greece, where in the early time confederations of independent States were not uncommon, and where under the Roman rule provincial assemblies were regularly held. Its advantages were so great and so much in harmony with the spirit of Christianity that soon throughout the empire, wherever the Gospel had taken root, the churches of the different provinces formed themselves into associations, and held assemblies to which each sent its delegates to deliberate in common on matters of general interest. To these gatherings the Greeks gave the name Synod, the Latins, Council; the articles there adopted as embodying the general opinions were known as canons, or rules.

The institution of councils brought about great changes. The bishops were naturally the most prominent and influential representatives of their congregations. Most of the councils came to be left entirely in their hands. Though at first acknowledging themselves to be simply the delegates of their respective churches, they imperceptibly acquired great authority. The decrees of councils were ere long announced as laws, promulgated authoritatively; for, it was claimed, Christ and the Holy Spirit gave to the heads of the churches sitting in council wisdom to guide and power to bind those under their supervision, in short, to prescribe rules of faith and action. While the election of the higher clergy by the people remained a fixed principle, the appointment of the lower clergy by the bishops became equally established, as early as the third century. Gradations of rank among bishops even were ere long introduced. The bishop of the chief city of the province was naturally in most cases called on to preside at the assemblies; hence arose an episcopal

headship, and the position of metropolitan. Only one thing
more was needed to complete the organization of the church
as a whole. That was supplied by Constantine, when in
the year 325 he convened the first general council at Nicæa.
The church then received the impress of unity. To each
of the eighteen hundred bishops of the empire was sent,
together with an invitation to be present, means for the con-
veyance to the place of meeting both for himself and for two
presbyters. Although but three hundred and eighteen of the
bishops responded to the call, the precedent was established,
the principle was once for all sanctioned that the opinion of
the majority of the representatives of the whole body sitting
in general council is the authoritative judgment of the Cath-
olic Church. The right to bind the individual will by that of
the majority was distinctly recognized.
From the express
sanction of this principle in the course of time momentous
results followed.

For centuries the bishop was elected in the same manner as the defensor civitatis. At first all bishops were called popes; but the Bishop of Rome, as metropolitan of the entire Latin Church gradually gained prestige over all the rest and alone retained the title; yet for centuries he was elected to his position in the same manner as the rest, by the clergy and the laity of the city of Rome. About the opening of the sixth century the choosing of bishops began to pass out of the hands of the people; yet decree after decree of courts and councils aimed to assure the maintenance of the primitive custom. The Council of Clemont (year 549) declared that the bishop must be ordained by the Metropolitan, with the consent of both clergy and people. The same principle was reaffirmed at the Council of Chalons, a century later; while at the Council of Rheims (year 1040) it was decreed that no one should be "raised to the government of the churches without the election of the clergy and the people." In France more than in any other country the right to the choice of religious leaders and governors was tenaciously adhered to. An edict of Clotair the Second, dated 645, sanctions the election of bishops "by the clergy and the people;" similar edicts of Dagobert, Charlemagne, Louis the First, and others of the early Kings are

1

still extant. Occasionally, as in the case of Carloman, the throne usurped the power of naming candidates for episcopal investiture; but it was not till the general council of the Lateran in 1215 that the right of choosing bishops passed entirely from the power of the people. Down to this date the records of French towns and cities are full of the records of episcopal elections. The office of bishop had grown to be of great importance on account of the control of the vast estates and revenues of the Church. To the disposal of it therefore both Pope and King looked with longing eyes. The wonder is not that the people lost the privilege of election to the see so early, but so late. No doubt the retention of this early custom so long was due to the influence of the municipal system, with its organized self-government.

In France national councils early became a marked feature of the ecclesiastical organization. In the fourth century fifteen were held, at which were present all or at least a large part of the bishops of Gaul or deputies in their stead. In 439 at the council of Riez it was enacted that a council be held twice a year; and in 441, at Orange, that no council should be dismissed without designating time and place for another, in case "the severity of the weather" should prevent the holding of the two councils as provided. The same principle was often reaffirmed in the course of the fifth and the following centuries. It does not appear that perfect regularity in the holding of councils was ever attained; but they continually increased in influence and authority. They could not, in the strict sense of the term, be representative, especially after the bishops ceased to be elected by the people. Yet they were deliberative bodies, possessing in Church matters both judicial and legislative functions; and the utmost freedom of discussion was allowed. The French clergy never forgot their former privileges as members of the Church. To the time of the Reformation they were always prepared by united action to repel aggressions on the part of either Pope or King.

How the Catholic Church, influenced and sustained by the traditions of the Roman supremacy, extended its dominion to things temporal as well as spiritual it is not needful here to

show. Suffice it to say that in western Europe, above cities, states and peoples, there existed a vast system of government the foundation principles of whose organization were election and representation. With the gradual centralization of all authority at Rome both principles were partially lost sight of; yet not till they had served an important end in the development of modern principles and forms of government.

In thus tracing the origin of representative institutions in France, a careful examination of the facts shows that down through the ages many influences were tending to the same end. The Gauls were characterized by a bold independence and a tendency toward federation that centuries of subjection could not eradicate. The Roman provincial administration kept alive the federative principle and foreshadowed that of representation, while in the municipal system was cherished through long periods of darkness the precious boon of civil rights and the elective franchise. The Germans, through the borough founded in principles of freedom, supplemented the influence of the Roman municipal town in the development of local government; and through the popular assembly, with its outgrowth in the feudal court, established a recognition of the rights of the governed through common deliberation. Finally the Church, by exalting the dignity and responsibility of the individual, and inculcating doctrines of self-sacrifice, humanity and mercy, furthered the cause of popular liberties; at the same time in its organization it furnished to the secular world the model of a representative body. There was needed in France only a centralizing power which by breaking down local and personal interests should unite the people; then would the nation's voice find natural expression through a rep resentative institution. The first meeting of the States General therefore marked a new era in the development of the French nationality.

ARTICLE IV.-MR. SCHUYLER'S PETER THE GREAT.

Peter the Great. A Study of Historical Biography. By EUGENE SCHUYLER, Ph.D., LL.D., author of "Turkistan." New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1884.

VOLTAIRE. Histoire de l'Empire de Russie sous Pierre le Grand. 1773.

HERRMANN. Geschichte des Russischen Staates. 4. Band. Hamburg, 1849.

MOTLEY. 1875. CARLYLE.

Ch. vii.

Peter the Great. North American Review: Oct.,

History of Friedrich the Second.
New York: Harper & Brothers, 1859.

Book IV.,

WALLACE. Russia. New York: Henry Holt & Co., 1877.

BRÜCKNER.

Peter der Grosse. Berlin, 1879.

Quarterly Review. July, 1884.

WHEN the Tsar Alexis was still in the prime of manhood, he lost his wife, a princess of the Miloslávsky family. Within the following year, two sons by this marriage died, and of the remaining two, Theodore was very infirm and sickly, and Iván was almost blind, had a defect of speech, and lacked little of being an idiot. Under the circumstances it seemed probable that the Tsar would marry again, and preparations were made for the inspection of candidates. According to custom the young girls, either in Moscow or the distant provinces, whose position and beauty rendered them suitable to be the Tsar's bride, might appear for inspection and review. Of course opportunity would always be furnished the Tsar to make his choice with deliberation; but in this instance the review was a mere formality. Alexis had already chosen a lady whom he had met at the house of his chief minister, Matvéief. This lady, Natalia Naryshkin, became the mother of Peter. From