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 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 order1 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 Antioch 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 any 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 Turin3 determined the controversy about

2 Con. Antioch. c. 9.

s Con.

1 Con. Chalced. c. 28. Taurin. c. J. Illud inter episcopos urbium Arelatensis et Viennensis, qui de primatûs apud nos honore certabant, à sanctâ synodo definitum est, ut qui ex eis comprobaverit suam civitatem esse metropolim, is totius provinciæ honorem primatûs obtineat, et ipse juxta præceptum canonum, ordinationum habeat potestatem.

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 Chalcedon1 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 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 councils of Trullo. So that if any place was advanced 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,

1 Con. Chalced. c. 12.

2 Con. Chalced. c. 17. "El rig iķ Bavidieñs ἐξεσίας ἐκαινίσθη πολις, τοῖς πολιτικοῖς καὶ δημοσίοις τύποις καὶ τῶν ἐκκλησιαςικῶν παροικιῶν ἡ τάξις ἀκολυθείτω. 3 Con. Trull. c. 38. which instead of παροικιών, reads, πραγμάτων.

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," 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.

SECT. S.-Yet the Church not tied precisely to observe this Model, but used her Liberty in varying from it.

Yet these being matters only of conveniency and outward order, the Church did not tie herself absolutely to follow that model, but only so far as she judged it expedient and conducive to the ends of her own spiritual government and discipline. And therefore she did not imitate the Statemodel in all things: she never had one universal bishop in 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

1 Sozom. lib. v. c. 3.

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, 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, 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 metropolitan 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, or have her honours and dignitaries multiplied or divided according to what the Emperor thought fit to do in his own affairs." This shows, that the Church was at liberty in this matter, to follow the model and divisions of the civil State or not, as she judged most expedient for herself: and when alterations of this nature were made, they were generany ally done by the direction or consent of a provincial or general council, or the tacit consent and approbation of the Church.

1 Justin. Novel. 31. Quæ verò ad sacerdotia spectant, ea volumus in pristinâ manere formâ, ut neque circa jus metropoliticum, neque circa ordinationes quicquam innovetur. Vid. 28. c. 2. Innocent. Ep. 18. ad

Alex. Antioch. Quod sciscitaris, utrum divisis imperiali judicio provinciis, ut duæ metropoles fiant, sic duo metropolitani episcopi debeant nominari? non visum est ad mobilitatem necessitatum mundanarum Dei ecclesiam commutari, honoresque aut divisiones perpeti, quas pro suis causis faciendas duxerit imperator.

SECT. 9.-An Account of the Ecclesiæ Suburbicaria in the District of the Roman Church.

Whilst we are upon this head relating to the ancient division of the Church, it comes properly to be inquired, what the primitive writers mean by the term Ecclesiæ Suburbicariæ, suburbicary churches, in the district of the Roman Church. Ruffinus, in his translation and abstract of the Nicene canons, gives us the sixth of them in these words;1 “The ancient custom of Alexandria and Rome shall still be observed, that the one shall have the care or government of the Egyptian, and the other that of the suburbicary churches." A great many questions have been raised by learned men in the last age concerning this, which I shall not clog this discourse with, but only resolve two questions, which are most material for a reader to know. 1. What was the extent of this district? 2. Whether it was the limits of his metropolitical or patriarchal power?

To know what was the extent of this district, we cannot take a surer way, than to consider what is meant by the suburbicary regions in other places. For this is a term that often occurs in the Theodosian Code, where Gothofreds and our learned Dr. Cave, and many others take it to signify the district of the Præfectus Urbis, or jurisdiction of the provost of Rome, which was a circuit of about an hundred miles next to Rome; as is evident from the ancient law, which says, his government extended not only to Rome, but to an hundred miles round it, where the limits of his jurisdiction ceased. Which is noted also by Cassiodore, and Dio, who instead of "Centesimus Lapis," uses the phrase of seven hundred and fifty stadia, or furlongs," which is not much short of the legal computation. Others reckon the Regiones Suburbicaria to be the same ten pro

"

1 Ruffin. Hist. lib. i. c.6. Ut apud Alexandriam, et in Urbe Româ, vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Ægypti, vel hic suburbicariarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat. 2 Cod. Th. lib. xi. tit, 1. de Annonâ. leg. 9. Vid. plura apud Gothofred. in Locum. 8 Gothofred. in Cod. Th. lib. xi. tit. 1. de Annonâ, leg. 9. Cave, Anc. Church-Gov. c. iii. p. 115,

5 Digest. lib. i. tit. 12. leg. 1. Si quid intra centisimum milliarium admissum sit, ad præfectum urbi pertinet, &c.

6 Cassiodor. Form. lib. v.

p. 207.

7

Dio, lib. lii. p. 548.