city of a province, and likewise that of primate, he being primus, or first of the province; but, in process of time, the title primus or primate was restrained to the bishop of some great cities. The title of archbishop was originally bestowed on metropolitans only of great eminence; but in the eighth century it began to be given indifferently to all metropolitans, and even to some bishops distinguished by no other title. As the bishop of the metropolis of a province was called metropolitan, so the bishop of the metropolis of a diocess was called exarch; which title, however, was sometimes given to metropolitans. The title of patriarch was at first common to all bishops, but afterward confined to the exarchs; and, lastly, to the bishops of the five following cities: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. It was first bestowed on the bishop of Rome by the Council of Chalcedon, after it had been long common to all the exarchs of the East, as Du Pin shows.* According to Constantine's arrangement, each diocess, consisting of several provinces, an ecclesiastical exarch,† sometimes called a primate or diocesan, sometimes a patriarch, was constituted, answering to the civil exarch of a diocess. The metropolitans or primates had, by their prerogative, a right to ordain the bishops of their respective provinces, to convene provin cial synods, and to superintend the whole province. The ordaining of bishops was a privilege common to the metropolitan, with the other bishops of the same province, but with this difference, that the presence, or at least the consent and approbation, of the metropolitan was necessary. For, according to the fourth and sixth canons of the Council of Nice," he who was not ordained or approved by the metropolitan, was not a lawful bishop." This privilege was confirmed to the metropolitan by many subsequent councils, as Arles, Laodicea, Carthage, Chalcedon, Ephesus, and many others. However, in the fifth century, the patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople began, in the East, to pretend that no bishops ought to be ordained in their respective diocesses, without their knowledge, consent, and approbation. And the Roman patriarch, still more ambitious, claimed a right to ordain all the bishops in the western provinces. The second privilege of the metropolitans gave them a right to summon the bishops of their respective provinces to meet when they thought proper; to appoint the time and place of their meeting; to preside in their synods, and to punish such as did not, without cause, comply with their summons. The superintendence of the metropolitans over their provinces implied First. That all the complaints and contests among the bishops of his province were to be brought to their tribunal, and there heard, judged, and determined, not by the metropolitan alone, but by him and the other bishops of the province, in a provincial synod. Innumerable instances of cases of this kind might be cited. Secondly. The metropolitans had a right to receive appeals from the sentence of inferior + Syn. Chalc., act. x, p. 388. * Du Pin, c. 6, n. 5. AcoinTns-Epist. Orient. ad Rufum. in Syn. Eph., p. 396. Dist. xcix, c. 1, 2. Syn. Chalc., act. 2, p. 211. Evagr., iii, 6. Concil. Arlel, can. 50. Laod., can. 12. Carth., can. 12. Eph., act. 4, &c. bishops; and, with the other bishops, to confirm or reverse their decrees. And, lastly, he was to watch over the bishops of his province, and see that they discharged the duties of their office. These privileges were granted to the metropolitans, in express terms, by innumerable councils, to cite which would be too tedious. The exarchs, or patriarchs, or diocesans, were empowered to ordain the metropolitans, convene diocesan synods, and to have a general superintendence over their respective diocesses, as the metropolitans had over their respective provinces, or the bishop over his parish.* The bishop of Rome had not the charge of a whole diocess, and was not therefore, properly speaking, exarch, or patriarch. His jurisdiction did not extend beyond the limits of the vicarage of Rome, or the ten suburbicarian provinces; and no instance can be produced of metropolitans or bishops ordained by him, out of these provinces, till the time of Valentinian III., and after the year 422. Even in the vicarage of Italy, the metropolitan of each province ordained all the bishops in his province, and were ordained themselves by the bishops of their province. But over the suburbicarian provinces, the bishops of Rome exercised greater authority than the exarchs of the East did over the provinces of their diocesses. For the latter left the ordination of the bishops to their metropolitans; whereas the former ordained not only the bishops of the metropolitan cities, but the bishops of the ten provinces of the vicarage of Rome. The reason of this was, because the provinces had no metropolitans to whom the right belonged; so that the prerogatives of the metropolitans were vested in the bishop of Rome alone. As there were no exarchs or patriarchs in the West, the bishops of each province were, by several councils, vested with the power of ordaining their own metropolitans. And that they were thus ordained in Gaul, Spain, and West Africa, admits of no dispute. And yet the advocates of the see of Rome maintain, that the bishops of that city have a divine right to ordain all metropolitans throughout the Christian world, by themselves, their vicars, or delegates. To maintain this right against the testimony of facts, they tell us that the popes, for some ages, neglected to exercise this power. But from this charge all mankind will clear them, it being too well known, that they never neglected the least opportunity of exerting to the utmost the power they had, and of usurping the power they had not. Indeed, the popes never knew of such right, till they were told it by their flattering divines. At least, Leo, surnamed the Great, did not, for, in one of his letters to the bishops of Gaul, he disclaims the right of ordaining bishops in that diocess. To conclude, the bishop of Rome was the only metropolitan in that vicarage, and as such, had a right to ordain all the bishops in the suburbicarian provinces, or the provinces subject to the civil vicar of Rome. But, for a considerable space of time, there is no instance of their ordaining either bishops or metropolitans out of the vicarage of Rome. 8. And here we may inquire into the origin and establishment of diocesses, and of exarchs, or patriarchs. It is proper to remark, that the diocess comprised many provinces ; * Zan. ad 28 can. Concil. Chale. Novell., exxxvii, cap. 5, and exxiii, cap. 10. Greg. I, ep. 11, 56. Isid. dist. xxi, cap. 1. † Du Pin, diss. i, n. 13. + Leo Magnus, ep. 89. the provinces many parishes; and the parish was the territory superintended by the bishop, or chief pastor, under whom were placed presbyters and deacons, as his assistants. Some suppose that the Council of Nice established diocesses, and appointed or regulated the exarchs or patriarchs. But this is not likely, because that council was held about the time of that division, and could scarcely take notice of so recent a change. The following are the canons of this council on this point. Canon 4. "A bishop should be ordained by all the bishops of a province, if it can be done; but if it be too difficult to assemble them all, either because of an urgent necessity, or because of their great distance, he may be ordained by three bishops, provided that those who are absent be willing, and consent by their letters, that this ordination should be made; but the validity of what is done in the province depends on the metropolitan." Canon 6. "We ordain that the ancient custom shall be observed which gives power to the bishop of Alexandria over all the provinces of Egypt, Libya, and Persepolis, because the bishop of Rome has the like jurisdiction over all the suburbicary regions. We would likewise have the rights and privileges of the church of Antioch, and the other churches, preserved, but these rights ought not to prejudice those of the metropolitans. If any one is ordained without the consent of the metropolitan, the council declares that he is no bishop, but if any one is canonically chosen by the suffrage of almost all the bishops of the province, and if there are but one or two of a contrary opinion, the suffrages of the far greater number ought to carry it for the ordination of those particular persons." We quote here the remarks of Du Pin on these two canons:* " "The sixth canon preserves to great sees their ancient privileges, that is, the jurisdiction or authority which they had over many provinces, which was afterward called the jurisdiction of the patriarch, or exarch. In this sense it is, that it compares the church of Rome to the church of Alexandria, by considering them all as patriarchal churches. It continues also to the church of Antioch, and all the other great churches, whatsoever rights they could have; and, lest their authority should be prejudicial to the ordinary metropolitans, who were subject to their jurisdiction, the council confirms what had been ordained in the fourth canon concerning the authority of the metropolitans in the ordination of bishops. This exposition is easy and natural, and we have given many proofs of it in our Latin dissertation concerning the ancient discipline of the church." The Council of Nice does not pretend to innovate, but observes a studied regard for ancient custom, and saving to the churches the privileges of which they are possessed, as appears from the 18th, 6th, and 7th canons. The council mentions only provinces, and represents the metropolitans as the chief governors in them. The council supposes the decision of weighty causes in provincial synods, which is inconsistent with diocesan authority. The council takes no notice of Constantinople, the principal diocess of the East, as the seat of the empire. The Council of Antioch, canon 19, following the footsteps of the Nicene * Eccl. Hist., vol. i, p. 600. Council, mentions only metropolitans, and the Synod of Laodicea, held A. D. 370, canon 12th, supposes only that order. In short, the Council of Nice is not recorded by any old historian as having framed the alteration providing for diocesses and exarchs or patriarchs. At the utmost, it can only be said to secure the rights of metropolitans against encroachments, which shortly after terminated in the establishment of the diocess and exarch. The second general council, held at Constantinople, A. D. 383, seems to refer to this division of diocesses, whether they introduced it or not. They made some innovation in the form of government, corresponding to the political arrangement. They expressly use the new word diocess according to the civil sense, as distinct from a province. They name distinctly the particular diocesses of the oriental empire, as they stood in the civil establishment. They prescribe that the bishops of each diocess should confine themselves to their own diocess, and not go out of its bounds to ordain or meddle with the affairs of the churches in another diocess.* They order a kind of appeal from a provincial to a diocesan synod, as appears from the sixth canon of the council, which says: "The accusation of a bishop shall be carried to the bishops of his own province. But if it so happen that the bishops of any province cannot rectify those things which are laid to the charge of a bishop, they shall then go to a greater synod of the bishops of that diocess, met together for that purpose." Historians report, that the fathers of this council did distinguish and distribute diocesses, that they constituted patriarchs, &c.‡ It is probable that this form crept in soon after the Synod of Nice, without any solemn appointment, by assumption and submission, accommodated to the political course; the greater bishops being advanced in interest and reputation by the wealth and power of their cities, assuming such authority to themselves, and the inferior bishops easily complying. Of this we have some proofs. Cyril, bishop of Jerusalem, being deposed by Acacius, metropolitan of Palestine, appealed to a greater judicatory. He is the first, as Socrates says, who had recourse to an appeal. It seems there was no higher tribunal in being than the provincial synod, until that time, which was some years before the Synod of Constantinople, in which there is mention made of a greater synod of the diocess. The second canon of the Council of Constantinople speaks of bishops over diocesses, as already in existence, and regulates practice accordingly, forbidding bishops to go out of the bounds of their diocess so as to meddle with the affairs of other diocesses. The council also ordered appeals to the synod of a diocess. This form of government is intimated in the Synod of Ephesus, held in 431, in their eighth canon: "And the same shall be observed in all diocesses and all provinces everywhere." Many instances might be given of authority gained by assumption and concession, without law. For instance, the see of Constantinople assumed to itself ordination and other acts of jurisdiction, in three diocesses, before any such power was granted to it by any synodical de+ Conc. Const., can. 6. * Concil. Const. i. can. 2. Theod., v, 9. Also, ep. 86, ad Flavianum. Socr., v, 8. ο Μειζον επικαλεσατο δικαστηριον.—Socr., ii, 40. Syn. Eph., can. 8. cree. Some instances are alleged in the Synod of Chalcedon.* Of Chrysostom it is there said, "That, going into Asia, he deposed fifteen bishops, and consecrated others in their room." He also deposed Gerontius, bishop of Nicomedia, belonging to the diocess of Pontus. Hence the fathers of Chalcedon asserted, "That they had, in a synod, confirmed the ancient custom which the holy church of God in Constantinople had, to ordain metropolitans in the Asian, Pontick, and Thracian diocesses." This custom was, therefore, established by the Council of Chalcedon. The most perfect instances, however, are those of the Roman, Alexandrine, and Antiochian churches, which, by degrees, assumed to themselves power over divers provinces. The other diocesan bishops, in imitation of them, also enlarged their jurisdiction. Another notable instance of assumption we have in Innocent I., who was elected pope in 402, and died on the 12th of March, 417. In his letters, he lays claim to the primacy on the ground of divine right, which was an entirely new position. Mr. Bowers, in his History of the Popes, says concerning him: "He was generally esteemed a man of good parts, and well acquainted with the laws and traditions of the church. Hence he was frequently consulted by the western, sometimes by the eastern bishops, in points both of faith and discipline. Of this general esteem, and the deference that was thereupon paid to his decisions, he took advantage to lay down, with an air of authority, and as undoubted truths, many false, groundless, and dangerous maxims, all tending to the diminution of the episcopal power, and the advancement of the papal. The dignity of the apostolic see was, as we have seen, the burden of almost all his letters; he even improved it into a claim of supremacy; and we may say with great truth, that to him the see of Rome was more indebted for the grandeur it afterward gained than to all his predecessors together. He formed the plan of that spiritual monarchy, which they, by constant application, established at last, in spite of the many almost insurmountable difficulties which they had to contend with. He was the first, who, changing the ancient foundation of the primacy, claimed it as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, as he is styled, and not as the bishop of the first city, although on that consideration alone it had been granted by the councils. I said primacy, because the word supremacy was utterly unknown in those days. The Council of Sardis, held in the year 347, had allowed, in some cases, and under several restrictions, appeals to be made to the see of Rome, as hath been observed elsewhere. But Innocent, scorning to owe any branch of his authority to that or any other council, claimed, by divine right, the power of finally deciding all ecclesiastical controversies and disputes, which was claiming, by divine right, an unlimited jurisdiction. It is true, no regard was had to such claims, nor indeed did Innocent dare to pursue them, being well apprized of the opposition he would meet with, if he should then have made such an attempt. He therefore contented himself with laying foundations, and thought it a great advance, as it certainly was, to have openly asserted such no * Syn. Chalc., act. xvi, p. 463. Soz., viii, 6. Il Vol. i., pp. 436-438. + Id., act. xi, p. 411. |