what he says of him in another place," "That he was chief of the Egyptian bishops, and next in order to Peter in the archbishopric, being his assistant, and administering ecclesiastical affairs under him. For there the custom is, for the archbishop of Alexandria to have the ordering of ecclesiastical matters throughout all Egypt, Thebais, Mareotes, Libya, Ammoniaca, Mareotis, and Pentapolis." So that as the bishop of Alexandria had six provinces under him, he seems also to have had subordinate metropolitans or archbishops under him likewise, as the archbishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, the metropolitan of Ptolemais in Pentapolis. And if these were properly metropolitans, he must be a patriarch, under the name of metropolitan of the whole Egyptian diocese, as they were metropolitans of their respective provinces: which is the thing that St. Jerom asserts in reference to Cæsarea and Antioch, that the one was the metropolis of Palestine, and the other the metropolis of the Oriental diocese; and this from ancient custom, ratified and confirmed by the council of Nice.

Sect. 9.

established in three

general councils suc

Cessively, viz. Con

stantinople, Ephe

sus, and Chalcedon.

But however this be, (for I deter

Patriarchal power mine nothing positively in this matter,) the next age affords us very pregnant proofs of the establishment and growth of patriarchal power. The general council of Constantinople," anno 381, has a canon to fix the limits of the several dioceses: so that the bishop of Alexandria should only administer the affairs of the Egyptian diocese: the bishops of the East, the Eastern diocese, reserving the privileges granted by the council of Nice to the church of Antioch the bishops of the Asiatic diocese, the Asiatic churches only: those of the Pontic diocese, the Pontic churches: and those of the Thracian diocese, the Thracian churches only.

Theodoret," speaking of this council, says, they divided the dioceses, and assigned every diocese its proper limits and jurisdiction. And Socrates,38 more expressly, "that they constituted patriarchs, and distributed the provinces, so that no bishops should meddle with the affairs of another diocese, as was used to be done in times of persecution. Nectarius was allotted Constantinople and Thrace; Helladius, St. Basil's successor, the Pontic diocese," &c.

About fifty years after this, anno 431, the third general council was held at Ephesus, where we find the bishop of Antioch laying claim to the power of ordinations in the province of Cyprus: but this proving to be an unjust claim, the council made a

35 Hær. 68. Meletian. n. 1. 'O MEλńTOS TWY KUTÀ TÙY Αἴγυπτον προήκων, καὶ δευτερεύων τῷ Πέτρῳ, κατὰ τὴν ἀρχιεπισκοπὴν, ὡς δι ̓ ἀντιλήψεως αὐτοῦ χάριν, &c, 36 Con. C. Pol. can. 2.

37 Theod. Ep. 86. ad Flav. t. 3. p 963.

* Socrat. Η. Ε. lib. 5. c. 8. πατριάρχας καθέστη

σαν, &c.

decree in favour of the Cyprian bishops, exempting them from the jurisdiction of Antioch, because by ancient custom they always were exempt: and it is added, "that the same rule should be observed in all dioceses and provinces, that no bishop should seize upon any province, which did not anciently belong to his jurisdiction." This plainly implies, that the bishop of Antioch had then several provinces, or a whole diocese, under his power; which was confirmed to him by the council, and he was only denied jurisdiction over the province of Cyprus, because of ancient right it did not belong to him.

About eighteen years after this, Theodosius, junior, and Valentinian, called the second council of Ephesus, anno 449. And in the letter of summons to Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria, they give him orders to bring ten metropolitans" of his diocese with him. This is noted by Liberatus in his Breviary, and the letter is still extant in the council of Chalcedon," by which it appears, that at this time the archbishop of Alexandria had a great number of metropolitans within the Egyptian diocese, under his jurisdiction. So that though there be some dispute concerning the first rise and original of patriarchal power, yet there remains no manner of doubt, but that it was come to its full height and establishment in the time of the general councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon.

Therefore the next inquiry is into the rights and privileges of these patriarchs. And here it is to be nicely observed, that the power of patriarchs

Sect. 10. The power of patriarchs not exactly

the same in ail

churches.

The patriarch of

Constantinople had some peculiar privileges.

was not one and the same precisely in all churches, but differed according to the different customs of places and countries, or according as it was the pleasure of kings and councils to bestow greater privileges on them. The patriarch of Constantinople, when he was first advanced by the second general council, had only the single diocese of Thrace assigned him" for the exercise of his jurisdiction; but in the next age he was grown to be a sort of patriarch over the patriarchs of Ephesus and Cæsarea in the Asiatic and Pontic dioceses, by the voluntary consent of those two exarchs (no doubt) at first, paying a deference to the exarch of the royal city, which, advancing into a custom, was afterwards confirmed by canon in the council of Chalcedon. In the sixteenth session of that council, there is a long debate about this matter, the pope's legates warmly stickling against it; but all the metropolitans of the two dioceses of Asia

39 Con. Ephes. 1. Act. 7. Decret. de Episc. Cypr.

40 Liberat. Breviar. c. 12. Imperator dirigens sacram Dioscoro in Alexandriam, præcepit, ut cum decem metropolitanis episcopis, quos voluisset, ipse eligeret, et veniret Ephesum.

41 Con. Chalced. Act. 1. C. t. 4. p. 100.

42 Con. Const. 1. can. 2.

45

and Pontus then in council, together with Thalassius, bishop of Cæsarea, and exarch of the Pontic diocese, with one voice declaring, that the bishop of Constantinople had, by long custom and presenption, enjoyed the privilege of ordaining metropolitans in those two dioceses, as well as that of Thrace; it was decreed, that this privilege should be continued to him, notwithstanding the bishop of Rome's intercession against it." Also by two canons of that council he is allowed to receive appeals" from the exarchs of those dioceses, because his throne was in the royal city. And in such parts of those dioceses, as were chiefly in the hands of barbarians, he is authorized by another canon to ordain all the bishops, which in other parts was the sole privilege of the metropolitans. Theodoret 16 observes even of Chrysostom himself, before the council of Chalcedon, that he exercised this power over all the three dioceses. For he says, "His care extended not only over Constantinople and Thrace, which consisted of six provinces, but over Asia and Pontus, each of which had eleven civil prætors in them." We are not therefore to take an estimate of patriarchal power from the growing greatness of Constantinople, but to distinguish the peculiar privileges of some patriarchs above others, which is the only way to understand the power of each.

Sect. 11.

Alandria had also

For the patriarch of Alexandria

The patriarch of had also some prerogatives, which pritges peculiar no other patriarch besides himself enjoyed. Such was the right of consecrating and approving every single bishop throughout all the provinces of his diocese. This privilege was not allowed even to the patriarch of Constantinople; for the council of Chalcedon, in the very same place where they give him power to conseerate the metropolitans of three whole dioceses, deny him the privilege of consecrating the suffragan bishops of those metropolitans; and reserve it as an ancient right of each metropolitan, with a synod of his provincial bishops, to consecrate all the bishops within his province, the archbishops of Constantinople neither being consulted, nor having" any hand in those ordinations. But it was otherwise at Alexandria. For the bishop of Alexandria, whilst he was only a metropolitan, had the ordination of all the bishops of the six provinces of the Egyptian diocese, being the sole and only metropolitan in all those provinces: and having but the

"Con. Chalced. can. 28. et Act. 16. per tot. Ibid. can. 9 et 17. 45 Con. Chal, can. 28. Theod. Hist. Eccl. lib. 5. c. 28. Con. Chalced. Act. 16. in fin. Etiam nihil communicante in illorum ordinationibus archiepiscopo regiæ Constantinopolis.

* Dr. Cave, Anc. Ch. Gov. c. 4. p. 159.

same diocese when he came to be a patriarch, he continued his ancient custom of ordaining all the bishops throughout the six provinces, notwithstanding that new metropolitans were set up in them. And in this the patriarch of Alexandria differed from all others: for in all other dioceses the metropolitans had the right of ordaining their suffragan bishops, which here the patriarch retained to himself, as an ancient branch of his metropolitical power. I know indeed a very learned" person is of a different opinion: he says, "The bishop of Alexandria was rather a loser by being made a patriarch: for now, according to the constitution of church policy, the ordination of suffragan bishops, which before belonged entirely to him, was devolved upon the several metropolitans under him." But this assertion proceeds upon a supposition, that patriarchal rights were exactly the same in all places; which, from the instance I have given of Constantinople, appears to be otherwise; for the patriarchs of Ephesus and Cæsarea had not the ordination of their own metropolitans, but they were all subject to the bishop of Constantinople. And as to the case of Alexandria, it appears from Synesius, who was himself metropolitan of Ptolemais, that the ordination not only of the metropolitans, but of all the suffragan bishops throughout the whole district of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, belonged still to the patriarch of Alexandria. For in a letter to Theophilus, acquainting him how he and two other bishops had met at Olbia to make choice of a bishop, and that one Antonius was unanimously chosen by the people; he adds," that yet there was one thing wanting, which was more necessary than all, viz. his sacred hand to consecrate him. Which shows, that the bishop of Alexandria still retained his ancient right of consecrating all the bishops of the Egyptian diocese.

appears

Sect. 12. The 1st privilege ordain all the me of patriarchs was, to diocese, and receive from a diocesan

tropolitans of the

his own ordination

synod.

In other dioceses, the patriarch's power was chiefly seen in the ordination or confirmation of all the metropolitans that were under him. This from the forecited canons 50 of the council of Chalcedon, and several of Justinian's Novels; one of which takes notice of the bishop of Constantinople's ordaining all the metropolitans under him; and another gives the same power to the patriarch of Justiniana Prima,52 then newly advanced to patriarchal dignity by Justinian, because it was the place of his nativity.

50 Con. Chalc. can. 28. et Act. 16. 51 Justin. Novel. 7. c. 1.

51

52 Justin. Nov. 131. c. 3. Per tempus beatissimum Justinianæ Primæ patriæ nostræ archiepiscopum habere semper sub sua jurisdictione episcopos provinciarum Daciæ Mediterraneæ, et Daciæ Ripensis, et Privalis, (al. Triballiæ,) et Dardaniæ, et Mysia superioris, et Pannoniæ: et ab eo hos ordinari, ipsum vero a proprio ordinari concilio.

And that this was a peculiar privilege of patriarchs, | appears further from one of the Arabic canons published by Turrian, under the name of the Nicene Canons, which were invented after the name of patriarchs was well known in the church. The 36th of these canons, speaking of the catholic of Ethiopia, who was no patriarch, but subject to the patriarch of Alexandria, says, He shall not have power to ordain archbishops, as patriarchs have; because he hath not the power or honour of a patriarch.

53

It was therefore the prerogative of patriarchs (those of Ephesus and Cæsarea only excepted) to ordain the metropolitans under them: but they themselves were to be ordained by a diocesan synod, as Justinian's forecited Novel" informs us. And this was called the canonical ordination of a patriarch. For so the council of Constantinople, in their synodical epistle to the western bishops, prove the ordination of Flavian, bishop of Antioch, (who presided over all the Eastern diocese," as Theodoret says,) to be canonical, because he was ordained not only by the bishops of the province, but τῆς ̓Ανατολικῆς διοικήσεως, the bishops of the whole Eastern diocese synodically met together.

Sect. 13.
A 2nd privilege

was, to call diocesan

in them.

56

2. The next privilege of patriarchs

was, the power of convening their synods, and preside metropolitans and all the provincial bishops to a diocesan synod; which privilege was founded upon the same canons that granted metropolitans authority to summon provincial synods, and preside in them. For by just analogy, the patriarch was to have the same power over the metropolitans, that they had over their provincial bishops. And therefore Theodoret," speaking of his own attendance at the synods of his patriarch at Antioch, says, he did it in obedience to the ecclesiastical canons, which make him a criminal that is summoned to a synod, and refuses to pay his attendance at it.

Sect. 14.

3. Another privilege of patriarchs

A 3rd privilege, to was, the power of receiving appeals

receive appeals from

provincial synods.

metropolitans and from metropolitans and provincial synods, and reversing their decrees, if they were found faulty. If any bishop or clergyman have a controversy with the metropolitan of his province, let him have recourse to the exarch of the diocese, says the council of Chalcedon, in one canon and in another," If any man is injured by

53 Con. Nicen. Arab. c. 36. Non tamen jus habeat constituendi archiepiscopos, ut habet patriarcha; siquidem non habet patriarchæ honorem et potestatem.

54 Novel, 131. Ipsum vero (patriarcham) a proprio ordinari concilio.

his own bishop, or metropolitan, let him bring hi cause before the exarch of the diocese, or the thron of Constantinople. These canons are adopted int the civil law, and confirmed by imperial edicts. Fo by one of Justinian's constitutions," the patriarcl is to receive appeals from a provincial synod, an give a final determination to all causes that are re gularly brought before him: and the regular wa of proceeding is there specified, which is, that n man shall bring his cause first before the patriarch but first before his own bishop, then before the me tropolitan, after that before a provincial synod, and last of all before the patriarch, from whose judg ment there lay no appeal. The same is repeated and confirmed by other laws of that emperor which need not here be recited.

Sect. 15.

to censure metro

suffragans, when metropolitans were remiss in cen suring them.

4. As patriarchs might receive appeals from metropolitans, so they had A 4th privilege, power to inquire into their administra-politans, and also tion, and correct and censure them, in case of heresy, or misdemeanor, or any mal-administration, which made them liable by the canons to ecclesiastical censure. Justinian made an express law to this purpose," That if any clergyman was accused in point of faith, or morals, or transgression of the sacred canons; if he was a bishop, he should be examined before his metropolitan; but if he was a metropolitan, then before the archbishop, that is, the patriarch to whom he was subject. By virtue of this power Chrysostom deposed Gerontius," metropolitan of Nicomedia: and Atticus decided a controversy between Theodosius and Agapetus," who contended about the throne of Synada, the metropolis of Phrygia Pacatiana: and it were easy to add many other instances of the like nature out of the ancient councils, which concurred with the patriarchs in the exercise of this power.

Nor did this power extend only over metropolitans, but over their suffragan bishops also. For though every provincial bishop was to be tried by his own metropolitan and a provincial synod, yet in case they were negligent and remiss in executing the canons against delinquents, the patriarch had power to take the matter into his own cognizance, and censure any bishop within the limits of his jurisdiction. Thus Sozomen observes of Chrysostom, that at one visitation at Ephesus he deposed thirteen bishops of Asia, Lycia, and Phrygia, for simony, and such other corrupt practices. This

65

61 Just. Novel. 123. c. 22. Phot. Nomocan. tit. 9. c. 1. 62 Novel. 37. c. 5. Quoties quidam sacerdotum accusabuntur vel de fide, aut turpi vita, aut ob aliquid aliud contra sacros canones admissum; si quidem episcopus est is qui accusatus est, ejus metropolitanus examinet ea quæ dicta sunt: si vero metropolitanus sit, ejus beatissimus archiepiscopus sub quo degit.

63 Sozom. H. E. lib. 8. c. 6. 64 Socrat. H. E. lib. 7. c. 3. 65 Sozom. H. E. lib. 8. c. 6

was done in a synod of seventy bishops held at Ephesus, anno 401, as Valesius" and Du Pin observe out of Palladius, who mentions the same thing, though he speaks but of six bishops then deposed. 5. The patriarch had power to de

Sect. 16.

Patriarchs might make metropolitans ther commissionen, &c.

A privilege legate or send a metropolitan into any part of his diocese, as his commissioner, to hear and determine ecclesiastical causes in his name. At least it was so in the diocese of Egypt, where Synesius was bishop. For in one of his epistles," writing to Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, he tells him what a difficult task he had put upon him, when he sent him through an enemy's country, to Hydrax and Palæbisca, two villages in the confines of Libya, to determine a dispute that was risen there about erecting those places into bishops' sees: But, says he, there lies a necessity upon me, vóμov yeìodai, to take every thing for a law that is enjoined me by the throne of Alexandria.

The patriarch to be consulted by his metropolitans in

moment

matters of any great did nothing of any great moment without him; paying the same deference to him, that the canons obliged their suffragans to pay to them. This at least was the custom of Egypt, as appears from a noted passage related in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon," where we find, that when Pope Leo's epistle against Eutyches was subscribed by all the bishops in council, the Egyptian bishops then present refused to do it, because they had then no patriarch, and it was not lawful for them to do it without the consent of a patriarch, by the rule of the council of Nice, which orders all the bishops of the Egyptian diocese to follow the archbishop of Alexandria, and do nothing without him. This they pleaded in council, and their plea was accepted, and a decree passed in their favour upon it, That since this was the custom of the Egyptian diocese, to do nothing of this nature without the consent and authority of their archbishop, they should not be compelled to subscribe till a new archbishop was chosen.

Sect. 18. Patriarchs to mancate to the

imperial laws as esormed the church, &c.

69

7. It was the patriarch's office to publish both ecclesiastical and civil mopolitana such laws, which concerned the church, and to take care for the dispersion and publication of them in all churches of their diocese. The method is prescribed by Justinian in the Epilogue to the sixth Novel: "The patriarchs of every diocese shall publish these our laws in their respective churches, and notify them to the metropolitans under them. The metropoli

Vales. Not. in loc. Du Pin, Biblioth. vol. 3. Vit. Chrys. Synes. Ep. 67. p. 208.

"Conc. Chalced. Act. 4. p. 512, 513.

tans likewise shall publish them in their metropolitical churches, and make them known to the bishops under them; that so they may publish them in their respective churches, and no one be left ignorant in our whole empire of what we have enacted for the glory of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." See also Novel 42, directed to Menas, patriarch of Constantinople, concluding in the same tenor.

Sect. 19. The 8th privilege. Great criminals re

arch's absolution.

8. Synesius observes another privilege in the diocese of Alexandria, which was, that in the exercise of dis- served to the patricipline upon great criminals and scandalous offenders, a peculiar deference was paid to the patriarch, by reserving their absolution to his wisdom and discretion. As he gives an instance in one Lamponianus a presbyter, whom he had excommunicated for abusing Jason his fellow presbyter. "Though," says he," "he expressed his repentance with tears, and the people interceded for him, yet I refused to absolve him, but remitted him over for that to the sacred see: only assuming this to myself, that if the man should happen to be in manifest danger of death, any presbyter that was present should receive him into communion by my order. For no man shall go excommunicate out of the world by me. But in case he recovered, he should still be liable to the former penalty, and expect the ratification of his pardon from your divine and courteous soul." But whether this respect was paid by all metropolitans to their patriarch in every diocese, I have not yet observed.

Sect. 20. The greater patriarchs absolute and

another.

9. The last privilege of patriarchs was, that they were originally all coordinate and independent of one an- independent of one other. I speak now of them as they were at their first institution: for after ages, and councils, and emperors, made great alteration in this matter. At first learned men" reckon there were about thirteen or fourteen patriarchs in the church, that is, one in every capital city of each diocese of the Roman empire; the patriarch of Alexandria over the Egyptian diocese, the patriarch of Antioch over the Eastern diocese, the patriarch of Ephesus over the Asiatic diocese, the patriarch of Cæsarea in Cappadocia over the Pontic diocese ; Thessalonica in Macedon or Illyricum Orientale, Sirmium in Illyricum Occidentale, Rome in the Roman præfecture, Milan in the Italian diocese, Carthage in Africa, Lyons in France, Toledo in Spain, and York in the diocese of Britain. The greatest part of these, if not all, were real patriarchs, and independent of one another, till Rome by encroachment, and Constantinople by law, got them

69 Conc. Chalced, can. 30. ex Act. 4. 70 Synes. Ep. 67. p. 215. "Brerewood, Patriarch. Gov. qu. 1.

selves made superior to some of their neighbours, who became subordinate and subject unto them. The ancient liberties of the Britannic churches, as also the African and Italian diocese, and their long contests with Rome, before they could be brought to yield obedience to her, are largely set forth by several of our learned writers" in particular discourses on this subject. I only here note, that the Eastern patriarchs, Alexandria, Antioch, Ephesus, Cæsarea, and Constantinople, were never subject to Rome, but maintained the ancient liberty which the canons gave them. For though Cæsarea and Ephesus were made subordinate to the patriarch of Constantinople, and any one might appeal from them to him; yet the appeal was to be carried no further," unless it were to a general council. Which shows the independency of the greater patriarchs one of

another.

Sect. 21.

The patriarch of Constantinople dignified with the title

of acumenical, and

his church head of

all churches.

:

The patriarch of Constantinople had also the honourable title of œcumenical, or universal patriarch, given him; probably in regard of the great extent of his jurisdiction. Thus Justinian styles Menas, Epiphanius, and Anthemius, archbishops and œcumenical patriarchs, in several of his rescripts ;" and Leo gives the same title to Stephen, archbishop and universal patriarch, in ten laws one after another. So that it was no such new thing as Pope Gregory made it, for the patriarch of Constantinople to be styled œcumenical bishop for that title was given him by law many years before, even from the time of Justinian; and it is a vulgar error in history to date the original of that title from the time of Gregory I. which was in use at least a whole century before. But Justinian in another rescript goes a little further, and" says expressly, that Constantinople was the head of all churches. Which is as much as ever any council allowed to Rome, that is, a supremacy in its own diocese, and a precedency of honour in regard that it was the capital city of the empire. Equal privileges are granted to Constantinople upon the same ground, because it was New Rome, and the royal seat, as the councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon," with some others, word it. So that they had privileges of honour, and privileges of power; the first of which were peculiar to those two sees; the other, in a great measure common to them and all other patriarchal churches, except those of Ephesus and Cæsarea, which, as I have often observed, were legally made subordinate to that of Constantinople.

72 Brerewood, Patr. Gov. qu. 2 et 3. Cave, Anc. Ch. Gov. c. 5.

73 See the authorities cited before, sect. 14.

74 See Justin. Novel. 7. 16. 42.

75 Leo, Imp. Constit. Novel. 2, 3, &c.

76 Just. Cod. lib. 1. tit. 2. c. 24. Constantinopolitana ec

clesia omnium aliarum est caput.

Sect. 22. Of subordinate patriarchs, what f

gure they made in

the church, and the the were not mer titular patriarchs.

Some here may be desirous to know, what authority those patriarchs had in the church after their subordination to the other. There are who tell us that they were sunk down to the condition of metropolitans again by the council of Chal cedon: but that is a mistake: for, first, They retaine the name of exarchs of the diocese still, and so sub scribed themselves in all councils. As in the sixth general council, Theodoret subscribes himself metro politan of Ephesus and exarch of the Asiatic dio cese;" and Philalethes, metropolitan of Cæsarea and exarch of the Pontic diocese. Secondly, They al ways sat and voted in general councils next imme diately after the five great patriarchs, Rome, Con stantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem who by the canons " had precedence of all the rest Next to these, before all the metropolitans, the bi shops of Ephesus and Cæsarea took place, as may be seen in the subscriptions of the fourth and sixth general councils.80 Thirdly, They had power to receive appeals from metropolitans, which is evident from the same canons of Chalcedon, which give the patriarch of Constantinople power to take ap peals from them. So that they were not mere titular patriarchs, as some in after ages, but had the power as well as the name; the right of ordaining metropolitans and receiving ultimate appeals only excepted. But how long they or any others retained their power, is not my business here any further to inquire.

CHAPTER XVIII.

OF THE ̓ΑΥΤΟΚΕΦΑΛΟΙ.

Sect. 1. anciently styled All metropolitans αὐτοκέφαλει.

AMONG other titles which were anciently given to some certain bishops, we frequently meet with the name avroкépaλo, absolute and independent bishops; which was not the name of any one sort of bishops, but given to several upon different reasons. For first, before the setting up of patriarchs, all metropolitans were aurokipaλo, ordering the affairs of their own province with their provincial bishops, and being accountable to no superior but a synod, and that in case of heresy, or some great crime committed against religion and the rules of the church.

77 Con. Const. can. 3. Con. Chalced. can. 28. Con. Trull. can. 36. Justin. Novel. 131. c. 2.

18 Con. 6. Gen. Act. 18.

79 See Conc. Trull. can. 36. et Justin. Novel. 131. c. 2. 80 Con. Chalced. Act. 1 et 3. Con. 6. Gen. Act. 18.

81 Con. Chalc. can. 9 et 17.