When the Catholic system was set up, and the bishop of Rome recognized as its Head, he was not supposed to possess, in his new position, any arbitrary or despotic authority.  He was simply understood to hold among pastors the place which had previously been occupied by the senior elder in the presbytery—­that is, he was the president or moderator.  The theoretical parity of all bishops, the chief pastor of Rome included, was a principle long jealously asserted. [568:1] But the prelate of the capital was the individual to whom other bishops addressed themselves respecting all matters affecting the general interests of the ecclesiastical community; he collected their sentiments; and he announced the decisions of their united wisdom.  It was, however, scarcely possible for an official in his circumstances either to satisfy all parties, or to keep within the limits of his legitimate power.  When his personal feelings were known to run strongly in a particular channel, the minority, to whom he was opposed, would at least suspect him of attempting domination.  Hence it was that by those who were discontented with his policy he was tauntingly designated, as early as the beginning of the third century, The Supreme Pontiff, and The Bishop of Bishops. [568:2] These titles cannot now be gravely quoted as proofs of the existence of the claims which they indicate; for they were employed ironically by malcontents who wished thus either to impeach his partiality, or to condemn his interference.  But they supply clear evidence that his growing influence was beginning to be formidable, and that he already stood at the head of the ministers of Christendom.

The preceding statements enable us to understand why the interests of Rome and of the Catholic Church have always been identified.  The metropolis of Italy has, in fact, from the beginning been the heart of the Catholic system.  In ancient times Roman statesmen were noted for their skill in fitting up the machinery of political government:  Roman churchmen have laboured no less successfully in the department of ecclesiastical organization.  The Catholic system is a wonderful specimen of constructive ability; and there is every reason to believe that the same city which produced Prelacy, also gave birth, about the same time, to this masterpiece of human contrivance.  The fact may be established, as well by other evidences, as by the positive testimony of Cyprian.  The bishop of Carthage, who flourished only about a century after it appeared, was connected with that quarter of the Church in which it originated.  We cannot, therefore, reasonably reject the depositions of so competent a witness, more especially when he speaks so frequently and so confidently of its source.  When he describes the Roman bishopric as “the root and womb of the Catholic Church,” [569:1] his language admits of no second interpretation.  He was well aware that the Church of Jerusalem was the root and womb of all the apostolic Churches; and when he employs such phraseology, he must refer to some new phase of Christianity which had originated in the capital of the Empire.  In another place he speaks of “the see of Peter, and the principal Church, whence the unity of the priesthood took its rise.” [569:2] Such statements shut us up to the conclusion that Rome was the source and centre from which Catholicism radiated.