This evi

denced fur

the rules and canons of the Church.

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 ther from and canons, and the known practice of the Church in this case. For when any provinces were divided in the State, there commonly followed a division in the Church also: and when any 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 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

7 C. 3. (t. 2. p. 947 c.) Τὸν μένω τοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβεῖα τῆς τιμῆς μετὰ τὸν τῆς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν 'Ρώμην.

8 C. 28. (t. 4. p. 770 a.) Πανταχοῦ τοῖς τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων ὅροις ἑπόμενοι, καὶ τὸν ἀρτίως ἀναγνωσθέντα κανόνα τῶν ρν. θεοφιλεστάτων ἐπισκόπων γνωρίζοντες, τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὁρίζομεν καὶ ψηφιζόμεθα περὶ τῶν πρεσβείων τῆς ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, νέας Ρώμης. Καὶ γὰρ τῷ θρόνῳ τῆς πρεσβυτέρας Ρώμης, διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν ἐκείνην, οἱ πατέρες εἰκότως ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβεῖα καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ σκοπῷ

κινούμενοι οἱ ρν. θεοφιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι τὰ ἴσα πρεσβεῖα ἀπένειμαν τῷ τῆς νέας Ρώμης ἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ, εὐ λόγως κρίναντες, τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθεῖσαν πόλιν, καὶ τῶν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῇ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ρώμῃ, καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἐκκλησιαστικοῖς, ὡς ἐκείνην, μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι, δευτέραν μετ ̓ ἐκεί νην ὑπάρχουσαν· καὶ ὥστε τοὺς Ποντικῆς, καὶ τῆς ̓Ασιανῆς, καὶ τῆς Θρᾳκικῆς διοικήσεως μητροπολίτας μόνους, ἔτι δὲ καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς βαρβαρικοῖς ἐπισκόπους τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων χειροτονεῖσθαι ἀπὸ τοῦ προειρημένου ἁγιωτάτου θρόνου τῆς κατὰ Κωνσταντινούπολιν ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας

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 Antioch9 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 Turin 10 determined

δηλαδὴ ἑκάστου μητροπολίτου τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων, μετὰ τῶν τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπων, χειροτονοῦντος τοὺς τῆς ἐπαρχίας ἐπισκόπους, καθὼς τοῖς θείοις κανόσι διηγόρευταῖ· χειροτονεῖσθαι δὲ, καθὼς εἴρηται, τοὺς μητροπολίτας τῶν προειρημένων διοικήσεων παρὰ τοῦ Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἀρχιεπισκόπου, ψηφισμάτων συμφώνων κατὰ τὸ ἔθος γενομένων καὶ ἐπ ̓ αὐτὸν ἀναφερομένων.

9 C. 9. (t. 2. p. 565 a.) Tovs κað’ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν ἐπισκόπους εἰδέναι χρὴ, τὸν ἐν τῇ μητροπόλει προεστῶτα

ἐπίσκοπον καὶ τὴν φροντίδα ἀναδέχεσθαι πάσης τῆς ἐπαρχίας, διὰ τὸ ἐν τῇ μητροπόλει πανταχόθεν συντρέχειν πάντας τοὺς πράγματα ἔχοντας· ὅθεν ἔδοξε καὶ τῇ τιμῇ προηγεῖσθαι αὐτὸν, μηδέν τε πράττειν περιττὸν τοὺς λοιποὺς ἐπισκόπους ἄνευ αὐτοῦ, κατὰ τὸν ἀρχαῖον κρατήσαντα τῶν πατέρων ἡμῶν κανόνα, ἢ ταῦτα μόνα, ὅσα τῇ ἑκάστου ἐπιβάλλει παροικίᾳ καὶ ταῖς ὑπ ̓ αὐτὴν χώραις.

10 C. 1. (ibid. p. 1156 b.) Illud ... inter episcopos urbium Arelatensis 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

tus apud nos honore certabant, a sancta synodo definitum est, ut qui exeis comprobaverit [al. approbaverit] suam civitatem esse metropolim, is totius provinciæ honorem primatus obtineat, et ipse juxta praeceptum canonum ordinationum habeat potestatem.

11 C. 12. (t. 4. p. 762 b.) Ἦλθεν εἰς ἡμᾶς, ὥς τινες παρὰ τοὺς ἐκκλησιαστικούς θεσμοὺς προσδραμόντες δυναστείαις, διὰ πραγματικῶν βασιλικῶν, τὴν μίαν ἐπαρχίαν εἰς δύο κατέτεμον, ὡς ἐκ τούτου δύο μητροπολίτας εἶναι ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ ἐπαρχίᾳ· ὥρισε τοίς νυν ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος, τοῦ λοιποῦ μηδὲν

τοιοῦτον τολμᾶσθαι παρὰ ἐπισκόπῳ [al. ἐπισκόπων]· ἐπεὶ τὸν τούτῳ ἐπιχειροῦντα ἐκπίπτειν τοῦ οἰκείου βαθε μov.

12 C. 17. (ibid. p. 763 c.) E Tis ἐκ βασιλικῆς ἐξουσίας ἐκαινίσθη πόλις, ἢ αὖθις καινισθείη, τοῖς πολιτικοῖς καὶ δημοσίοις τύποις καὶ τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν παροικιῶν ἡ τάξις ἀκολούθείτω.

13 C. 38. (t. 6. p. 1159 d.) Tov ek τῶν πατέρων τιθέντα κανόνα καὶ ἡμεῖς παραφυλάττομεν, τὸν οὕτω διαγορεύ οντα· Εἴ τις ἐκ βασιλικῆς ἐξουσίας, K. T. X. as in C. Chalced. reading 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.) Τῶν οὖν καθ' ἡμᾶς ἐπισκόπων τις τῆς Γαζαίων πόλεως, τετελευτηκότος τοῦ προεστῶ τος τῆς Μαΐουμιτῶν ἐκκλησίας, ἐσπούδασεν ἀμφοτέρους τοὺς κλήρους ὑφ' ἑαυτὸν ποιῆσαι, μὴ θεμιτὸν εἶναι λέγων, μιᾶς πόλεως δύο ἐπισκόπους προεστάναι ἀντειπόντων δὲ τῶν Μαἵουμιτῶν, διέγνω ἡ τοῦ ἔθνους σύνο

δος, καὶ ἕτερον ἐχειροτόνησεν ἐπίσκοπον πάντως προσήκειν δοκιμάσασα, τοὺς δι ̓ εὐσέβειαν δικαίων πόλεως ἀξιωθέντας, διὰ δὲ κρίσιν Ἑλληνισ τοῦ βασιλέως ἄλλως πράξαντας, ἐν ἱερωσύναις καὶ τάξει ἐκκλησιῶν, μὴ χρῆναι ἀφαιρεῖσθαι τῶν δοθέντων γερῶν.

Yet the

Church not tied precisely to observe this

used her

liberty in varying from it.

8. 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 conmodel, but ducive to the ends of her own spiritual government and discipline. And therefore she did not imitate the model of the State 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 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 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,

enim circa sacerdotium illarum [urbium tredecim] innovamus, &c.

16 Ep. 18. (CC. t. 2. p. 1269 b.) Nam quod sciscitaxis, utrum divisis imperiali judicio provinciis, ut duæ metropoles fiant, sic duo metropolitani episcopi debeant nominari?`non vere visum est ad mobilitatem necessitatum mundanarum Dei ecclesiam commutari, honoresque aut divisiones perpeti, quas pro suis causis faciendas duxerit imperator.