This evi

the rules and canons of the

This, in the main, was the state and division of the Church into provinces and exarchates, or metropolitical and patriarchal dioceses, in the latter end of the fourth century: from which it appears that a very near correspondence was observed between the Church and State in this matter, both in the Western and Eastern Empire.

7. And this may be evidenced further both from the rules denced further from and canons, and the known practice of the Church in this case.

For when any provinces were divided in the State, there com

monly followed a division in the Church also : and when any Church.

city was advanced to a greater dignity in the civil account, it usually obtained a like promotion in the ecclesiastical. So when controversies arose about primacy between two churches in the same province or district, the way to end the dispute was to inquire which of them was the metropolis in the State, and order the same to be the metropolis in the Church. Of all which there are manifest proofs in ancient history. It was by this rule that the bishop of Constantinople was advanced to patriarchal power in the Church, who before was not so much as a metropolitan, but subject to the primate of Heraclea in Thrace; and this very reason is given by two general Councils. which confirmed him in the possession of this newly acquired power. The first of Constantinople decreed 7 that he should have the next place of honour after the bishop of Rome, because Constantinople was New Rome.' Which was thus again confirmed and ratified in the Council of Chalcedon, which says , · Forasmuch as we think it proper to follow the decrees

[ocr errors]

7 C. 3. (t. 2. p. 947 c.) Τον μέν- κινούμενοι οι ρν. θεοφιλέστατοι επίτου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως επίσκοπος σκοποι τα ίσα πρεσβεία απένειμαν το έχειν τα πρεσβεία της τιμής μετά τον της νέας Ρώμης αγιωτάτω θρόνω, ευτης Ρώμης επίσκοπον, διά το είναι αυ- λόγως κρίναντες, την βασιλεία και την νέαν Ρώμην.

συγκλήτω τιμηθείσαν πόλιν, και των 8 C. 28. (ε. 4. p. 77o a.) Παντα- ίσων απολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τη πρεσχού τοις των αγίων πατέρων όρoις επό- βυτέρα βασιλίδι Ρώμη, και εν τοις εκμενοι, και τον αρτίως αναγνωσθέντα κλησιαστικούς, ως εκείνην, μεγαλύκανόνα των ρν. θεοφιλεστάτων επι- νεσθαι πράγμασι, δευτέραν μετ' εκείσκόπων γνωρίζοντες, τα αυτά και η- νην υπάρχουσαν και ώστε τους Πονμείς ορίζομεν και ψηφιζόμεθα περί τικής, και της 'Ασιανής, και της θρατων πρεσβείων της αγιωτάτης εκκλη- κικής διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους, σίας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, νέας Ρώ- έτι δε και τους εν τοις βαρβαρικούς μης. Και γάρ το θρόνο της πρεσβυ- επισκόπους των προειρημένων διοικήτέρας Ρώμης, διά το βασιλεύειν την σεων χειροτονείσθαι από του προειρηεκείνην, οι πατέρες είκότως αποδεδώ- μένου αγιωτάτου θρόνου της κατά Κωνκασι τα πρεσβεία και το αυτο σκοπό σταντινούπολιν αγιωτάτης εκκλησίας

of the holy fathers, and allow the canon made by those hundred and fifty bishops assembled under the Emperor Theodosius, in the royal city Constantinople, we ourselves order and decree the same concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of the said city, which is New Rome. For our forefathers gave Old Rome her privileges in regard that she was the royal city; and those hundred and fifty bishops were moved with the same consideration to grant equal privileges to the episcopal throne of New Rome; judging it but reasonable, that the city which was honoured with the royal seat of the empire and senate, and enjoyed the same privileges with Old Rome in all matters of a civil nature, should also be advanced to the same dignity in ecclesiastical affairs, and be accounted the second in order after her.' Accordingly they determined now, that the three whole dioceses of Asia, Pontus, and Thrace should be settled under the jurisdiction of this new patriarch of Constantinople: which plainly shows they had a particular regard to the model of the State in settling the bounds and limits of jurisdiction in the Church. The Council of Antiocho assigns this for the reason of paying deference to metropolitan bishops in general, because they were placed in the metropolis of the province, whither all men that had business or controversies had recourse. And therefore if


dispute happened, as sometimes there did, between two bishops in the same province about metropolitical power, each laying a claim to it; the way to end this controversy was to inquire, which of their sees was the true metropolis in the State and adjudge the same to have the true legal right and privilege in the Church. By this rule the Council of Turin 10 determined


δηλαδή εκάστου μητροπολίτου των επίσκοπον και την φροντίδα αναδέπροειρημένων διοικήσεων, μετά των χεσθαι πάσης της επαρχίας, διά το εν της επαρχίας επισκόπων, χειροτονούν- τη μητροπόλει πανταχόθεν συντρέχειν τος τους της επαρχίας επισκόπους, πάντας τους πράγματα έχοντας όθεν καθώς τοις θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευται· έδοξε και τη τιμή προηγείσθαι αυτόν, χειροτονείσθαι δε, καθώς είρηται, τους μηδέν τε πράττειν περιττόν τους λοιμητροπολίτας των προειρημένων διοι- πούς επισκόπους άνευ αυτού, κατά τον κήσεων παρά του Κωνσταντινουπόλεως αρχαίον κρατήσαντα των πατέρων ημών αρχιεπισκόπου, ψηφισμάτων συμφώ- κανόνα, ή ταύτα μόνα, όσα τη εκάστου νων κατά το έθος γενομένων και επ' επιβάλλει παροικία και ταϊς υπ' αυτήν αυτόν αναφερομένων.

χώραις. 9 C.9. (t. 2. p. 565 a.) Τους καθ' 10 C. Ι. (ibid. p. 1156 b.) Illud εκάστην επαρχίαν επισκόπους ειδέναι .. inter episcopos urbium Arelaχρή, τον έν τη μητροπόλει προεστώτα tensis et Viennensis, qui de prima

the controversy about presidency betwixt the two Churches of Arles and Vienna, decreeing, that that bishop should be the primate, who could prove his city to be the metropolis of the province.

It sometimes happened, that an ambitious spirit would petition the Emperor to grant him the honour and power of a metropolitan in the Church, when yet the province to which he belonged had but one metropolis in the State; which was so contrary to the foresaid rule of the Church, that the great Council of Chalcedon 11 made it deposition for any bishop to attempt it. But on the other hand, if the Emperor thought fit to divide a province into two, and erect a new metropolis in the second part; then the Church many times allowed the bishop of the new metropolis to become a metropolitan in the Church also. By this means Tyana, in Cappadocia, came to be a metropolitical see, as well as Cæsarea, because the province was divided into two by imperial edict. And the like happened upon the division of many other provinces, Galatia, Pamphylia, &c.; as may be seen in the Notitia of the Church, which follows in the end of this Book. The canons of the Church were made to favour this practice in the erection of new bishoprics also. For the Council of Chalcedon has another canon 12 which says, “that if the imperial power made any

, innovation in the precincts or parishes belonging to any city, then the state of the Church-precincts might be altered in conformity to the alterations that were made in the political and civil State.' Which canon is repeated and confirmed in the Council of Trullo 13. So that if any place was advanced

[ocr errors]

tus apud nos honore certabant, a τοιούτον τολμάσθαι παρά επισκόπο sancta synodo definitum est, ut qui [al. ÉTTLOKÓTWV]: éteà Tòv toutą ériex eis comprobaverit [al. approbave- χειρούντα εκπίπτειν του οικείου βαθrit] suam civitatem esse metropolim, uoù. is totius provinciæ honorem prima- 12 C. 17. (ibid. p. 763 c.) EČ TIS tus obtineat, et ipse juxta præ- ék Baoidikis é covoias ékalvioon Tróceptum canonum ordinationum ha- λις, ή αυθις καινισθείη, τους πολιτικούς beat potestatem,

και δημοσίους τύπους και των εκκλη11 C. 12. (t. 4. p. 762 b.) Ηλθεν σιαστικών παροικιών ή τάξις ακολουεις ημάς, ώς τινες παρά τους εκκλη- θείτω. σιαστικούς θεσμούς προσδραμόντες 13 C. 38. (t. 6. p. 1159 d.) Τον εκ δυναστείαις, διά πραγματικών βασιλι- των πατέρων τιθέντα κανόνα και ημείς κών, την μίαν επαρχίαν εις δύο κατέ- παραφυλάττομεν, τον ούτω διαγορεύτεμον, ως εκ τούτου δύο μητροπολίτας οντα Εί τις έκ βασιλικής εξουσίας, είναι εν τη αυτή επαρχία: ώρισε τοί- K. 7. . as in C. Chalced. reading νυν η αγία σύνοδος, του λοιπού μηδέν πραγμάτων instead of παροικιών.

to the privilege of a city, and governed by a civil magistracy of its own, which was not so before, it might then also be freed from the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of its former bishop, and be governed by one of its own, Thus when Maiuma, in Palestine, a dependant on Gaza, was advanced by Constantine to the privilege of a city, and governed by a magistracy of its own; that was presently followed with the erection of a new bishop's see, which continued ever after, notwithstanding that Julian in spite to Christianity disfranchised the city, and annexed it to Gaza again. Sozomen is our author for this; and he adds further 14, “that in his time the bishop of Gaza, upon a vacancy of Maiuma, laying claim to it as only an appendage of his own city, and pleading, that one city ought not to have two bishops, the cause came to a hearing before a provincial synod, which determined in favour of the Maiumitans, and ordained them another bishop: for they thought it not proper, that they, who for their piety had obtained the privilege of being made a city, and were only deprived of their right by the envy of a pagan prince, should lose their other rights, which concerned the priesthood and the Church.' So it always continued an episcopal see, and has its place among the rest in the Notitia of the Church. The like may be observed of Emmaus, which at first was but a village belonging to the diocese and city of Jerusalem.

But being afterward rebuilt by the Romans, and called Nicopolis, from their great victories over the Jews, it became a city and a bishop's see, under which character the reader may also find it in the Notitia of the Church. These are evident proofs, that in settling the limits of dioceses and other districts, and modelling the external polity of the Church, a great regard was had to the rules of the State, and many things ordered in conformity to the measure observed in the Roman empire.

14 L. 5. c. 3. (v.2. p. 184.5.) Των ούν δος, και έτερον εχειροτόνησεν επίσκοκαθ' ημάς επισκόπων τις της Γαζαίων πον πάντως προσήκειν δοκιμάσασα, πόλεως, τετελευτηκότος του προεστω- τους δι' ευσέβειαν δικαίων πόλεως τος της Μαϊουμιτών εκκλησίας, εσπού- αξιωθέντας, διά δε κρίσιν Ελληνισδασεν αμφοτέρους τους κλήρους υφ' του βασιλέως άλλως πράξαντας, εν εαυτόν ποιήσαι, μη θεμιτόν είναι λέ- ιερωσύναις και τάξει εκκλησιών, μη γων, μιας πόλεως δύο επισκόπους χρήναι αφαιρείσθαι των δοθέντων γεπροεστάναι: αντειπόντων δε των Μα- ρων. λουμιτών, διέγνω ή του έθνους σύνο

tied pre


Yet the 8. Yet these being matters only of conveniency and outward
Church not

order, the Church did not tie herself absolutely to follow that
cisely to model, but only so far as she judged it expedient and con-
observe this
model, but ducive to the ends of her own spiritual government and dis-
used her cipline. And therefore she did not imitate the model of the
liberty in
varying State in all things: she never had one universal bishop in
from it.

imitation of an universal emperor; nor an Eastern and a
Western pontificate, in imitation of an Eastern and Western
empire; nor four grand spiritual administrators, answering to
the four great ministers of State, the præfecti-prætorio in the
civil government; not to mention any other forms or ministers
of state-affairs, multitudes of which may be seen in the Notitia
of the Empire. Nay in those things wherein she followed the
civil form, her liberty seems to have been preserved both by
the laws of Church and State; and nothing of this nature was
forced upon her, but as she thought fit to order it in her own
wisdom and discretion. This may be collected from one of
Justinian's Novels 15, where having divided the two Armenias
into four provinces, he adds, that as to what concerned the
state of the Church, his intent was to leave every thing in its
ancient form, and make no alterations in the rights of the old
metropolitans, or their power of ordaining their suffragans, &c.'
And this appears further from the answer of Pope Innocent,
bishop of Rome, or one under his name, given to Alexander of
Antioch 16, who had put the question, “Whether upon the
division of a province, and the erection of two civil metropoles
in it by a royal decree, there ought also to be two metro-
politan bishops in the Church ?' To this he answers, • That
there was no reason the Church should undergo alterations
upon every necessary change that was made in the civil State,

15 Novel. 31. C. 2. (t. 5. p. 235.) enim circa sacerdotium illarum (urb-
Quæ vero ad sacerdotia spectant, ium tredecim) innovamus, &c.
ea ... volumus in pristina manere 16 Ep. 18. (CC. t. 2. p. 1269 b.)
forma, negotio ipso neque cura jus Nam quod sciscitaris, utrum divisis
metropoliceum, neque circa ordina- imperiali judicio provinciis, ut duæ
tiones vel mutationem, vel novatio- metropoles fiant, sic duo metropoli-
nem, suscipiente : sed prius ordi- tani episcopi debeant nominari? non
natis nunc quoque ex ordinatione vere visum est ad mobilitatem ne-
auctoritatem obtinentibus, et priori- cessitatum mundanarum Dei eccle-
bus item metropolitanis in suo per. siam commutari, honoresque aut di-
manentibus ordine : ut quantum ad visiones perpeti, quas pro suis causis
ipsa nihil penitus innovetur.-Conf. faciendas duxerit imperator.
Novel. 38. c. 2. (p. 321.) .... Nihil

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small]
« ForrigeFortsett »