CHAPTER XIII. The Hierarchy. 21.-PATRIARCHAL SYSTEM. NOTHING is clearer in the history of the Church, than the distinction of rank among her prelates. In each province one bishop presided, whose see was generally in the chief city, whence he was called metropolitan and archbishop. In some nations, one was designated primate, whose rank was superior to that of the other metropolitans. There were also exarchs, or privileged bishops, who were exempt from dependence on immediate superiors in the hierarchy, although they did not exercise metropolitical authority. The name of patriarchs was given in the fifth century to the Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, each of whom from the commencement extended his jurisdiction over large provinces, or dioceses, as they were anciently called. The Roman Bishop exercised the power of metropolitan over the provinces styled Suburbicarian, which, within Italy, extended from Liguria to the Ionian Sea, and included Sicily; and he enjoyed patriarchal jurisdiction over the dioceses of the West, namely, besides all Italy, Illyricum, Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Africa proper. The Bishop of Alexandria was second in rank, governing Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis; and the Bishop of Antioch exercised similar authority throughout the East. That the Roman Bishop was first in rank is not seriously questioned by any one who is conversant with ancient documents. "The Bishop of Rome," says Mr. Allies, "as successor of St. Peter, has a decided pre-eminence. It is very apparent, and is acknowledged in the East, as well as in the West."* "No student of antiquity can doubt the primacy of the Roman See." Describing the unquestioned constitution of the Catholic Church, at the time of the Council of Nicea, he states that "the three great Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, exercised a powerful, but entirely paternal influence on their colleagues, that of Rome having the undoubted primacy, not derived from the gift of Councils, or the rank of the imperial city, but from immemorial tradition as the See of Peter."+ Church of England, &c. p. 18. † Church of England Cleared, &c. p. 27. Although the terms patriarch and archbishop were occasionally applied to the Pope, they were not used as marking a restriction of power within local limits; on the contrary, the epithet oecumenical* was sometimes added, to denote his universal authority; and, although the Popes did, in fact, exercise throughout the provinces of the West immediate jurisdiction and superintendence, such as the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch had in their respective provinces, yet it was not exercised as merely patriarchal, but as a portion of that apostolical authority which was lodged in Peter, and which embraced in its plenitude the whole flock of Christ. All antiquity shows that the Bishop of Rome, at all times, and everywhere, acted as successor of Peter, and pastor of the Universal Church. The patriarchal jurisdiction enjoyed by the Bishops of the other two Sees, was, in truth, originally derived from the will of the apostle, who, as Innocent I. testifies, delegated to his disciple Mark, and to Evodius, a portion of his general solicitude, that they might have a more immediate supervision over their districts;† whilst he reserved to himself the immediate government of the West, besides his general superintendence over the whole Church. The Council of Nice confirmed the rights and privileges of the two Sees of Alexandria and Antioch. The celebrated sixth canon of Nice is couched in these words: "Let the ancient customs be kept, which are in Egypt, Lybia, and Pentapolis, that the Bishop of Alexandria may have full power over all these places, as this is customary also with the Bishop of Rome. In like manner, also, in Antioch and in the other provinces, let the privileges, dignities, and authority of the churches be preserved." The clause regarding the Roman Bishop, which is used as confirmatory of the Alexandrian usage, marks the similitude of the patriarchal authority as exercised by each, but does not declare that they are in all respects alike. The occasion which gave rise to this enactment shows the object which the fathers had in view. Meletius, a bishop of Egypt, having been deposed by St. Peter of Alexandria, formed a schism, and throwing off all dependence on that See, presumed to establish new bishoprics in that province.§ "This canon was enacted," as Potter avows, "upon a complaint of Alexander, the Bishop of Alexandria, that the metropolitical rights of his See had been invaded by Meletius, the schismatical Bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, who had taken upon him to ordain bishops without Alexander's consent." The fathers confirmed the usage of the Church of Alexandria by reference to the usage of Rome. The learned Clinch observes, that "from the Greek, it appears first, that no confirmation was given at * See various documents read in the Council of Chalcedon. † Ep. xxiv. ad Alex. Antioch., to Agapitus, apud Fleury, 1. xxxii. an. 536 Apol. ii. Athanas. Church Government, p. 188. See also Theodoret Hist. 1. i. c. ix. the Nicea to the usage of the Church of Rome: that on the contrary, usage of Alexandria was confirmed, because it had the authority of Roman usage. Secondly, it is equally plain, that no boundaries are either marked, or alluded to, within which the Roman Bishop exercised that general authority which the fathers had in view."* The liberty taken by Ruffinus in his version of this canon, seems wholly unwarrantable, so that the investigation of its meaning should not be embarrassed by his interpolation. It becomes necessary, however, to notice it, as it has acquired importance by the pains which the learned have taken to reconcile it with well-known facts. He interprets the canon as meaning, "that the ancient custom be observed in Alexandria and in the city of Rome, so that the former bishop should have charge of Egypt, and the latter of the suburbicarian churches."+ Great disputes have been raised as to the territory designated by the term "suburbicarian," which some have explained of the district of the "præfectus urbis," extending only to the distance of a hundred miles around Rome; whilst Sirmond has proved that it embraced the ten southern provinces of Italy, together with Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, and other adjacent islands, all of which were subject to the officer styled Vicarius urbis. Mr. Palmer asserts that this was the original and legitimate extent of the Roman patriarchate, from which he excludes even the northern provinces of Italy, as well as Gaul, Spain, Britain, and other nations. The learned, however, generally admit that the whole West, including Africa proper, was subject to the patriarchal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, since, in fact, he exercised from the earliest period, a special superintendence over all the Western nations. It is not, indeed, our interest to dispute the position of the Anglican divine; for if the patriarchal power was confined within such narrow limits, the numerous instances in which the Roman Bishop interposed in the ecclesiastical affairs of the more distant countries, can only be accounted for by his authority as primate of the entire Church. Boniface I., in the early part of the fifth century, in a letter to the bishops of Thessalia, did not hesitate to affirm, that the Nicene fathers had made no decree in reference to the prerogatives of the Holy See, because they were conscious that these flowed from a higher source than ecclesiastical legislation, namely, the will and act of Christ Himself. "The general institution of the rising Church began," he says, "with the honor of the blessed Peter, in whom its government and highest authority centre; for from this fountain ecclesiastical discipline has flowed through all the churches, as religion increased. This is obvious from the laws of the Nicene synod, which did not attempt to enact any thing in regard to him, knowing that nothing could be conferred above his merit, and that † Hist. Eccl. 1. i. c. vi. Treatise on the Church, vol. ii. part vii. p. 507. Letters on Church Government, p. 271. all things were granted to him by the voice of the Lord."* The same Pontiff describes the privileges of the Sees of Alexandria and Antioch as guarded by ecclesiastical enactments, for the purposes of unity, and with necessary dependence on the apostolic chair. In the great Council of Chalcedon the primacy of the Roman See was solemnly acknowledged and most effectually exercised. "We consider," said the fathers, "that the primacy of all and the chief honor, according to the canons, should be preserved to the most beloved of God, the Archbishop of ancient Rome." The details of the proceedings show most plainly the power which the Pontiff exercised through his legates, so that Mr. Allies, speaking of this Council, says: "that (the patriarch) of Rome has the unquestioned primacy, and is seen at the centre, sustaining and animating the whole." Leo, of whom he speaks, thus explains the whole economy of the Church: "Though priests have a like dignity, yet they have not an equal jurisdiction, since even amongst the most blessed apostles, as there was a likeness of honor, so was there a certain distinction of power, and the election of all being equal, pre-eminence over the rest was given to one, from which type the distinction between bishops also has arisen, and it was provided by an important arrangement, that all should not claim to themselves power over all, but that in every province there should be one, whose sentence should be considered the first among his brethren; and others again, seated in the greater cities, should undertake a larger care, through whom the direction of the Universal Church should converge to the one See of Peter, and nothing anywhere disagree with its head."§ 22.-WESTERN PATRIARCHATE. The claims of the Bishop of Rome on the obedience of the Western churches, were not dependent on the mere principle of authority, since he begot them in Christ, by means of apostolic men, whom he sent to evangelize them as INNOCENT I. affirmed, without fear of contradiction: "It is manifest that no one founded churches throughout all Italy, Gaul, Spain, Africa, and Sicily, and the adjacent islands, except those whom the venerable Peter, or his successors, ordained priests."|| The exercise of papal power over the churches of Western Europe is proved by the very ancient practice of sending the pallium, a badge of authority, to bishops of distinguished rank, especially to metropolitans. As early as the year 336, it was used by the Bishop of Ostia, as a mark of his privilege as consecrator of the Bishop of Rome.¶ "It was, about A.D. 500, given by Pope Symmachus to his vicar, or legate, Cesarius of * Ep. xiv. The Church of England Cleared, &c. p. 53. † Act xvi. col. 637. Ep. xiv. cap. i. xi. Arles. The same Pontiff granted it to Theodore of Laureacum,* in conformity with the usage of his predecessors.† It is spoken of as an immemorial usage by Gregory the Great, in whose letters passages abound recording its concession to various prelates. He granted it to Constantius, Bishop of Milan, a metropolitical see; to Maximus, metropolitan of Dalmatia; to Leander of Seville, metropolitan of the province of Botica, in Spain; to John of Corinth, metropolitan in the Morea; to Andrew of Nicopolis, metropolitan in Epirus; to John of the First Justiniana, or Ocrida, metropolitan of Dardania; and to the metropolitans of Aquileja, Cagliari, Dyrrachium, Crete, Philippopolis, and Salonica. He also granted it to Virgil of Arles. He directed the pallium to be given to the Bishop of Autun, in a synod, which he ordered to be held, requiring, however, a promise on his part to remove simoniacal abuses. At the same time he assigned to this bishop the next place after the Bishop of Lyons, by his own indulgence and authority.§ Notwithstanding these facts, Palmer says, that "with two exceptions, none of the Western bishops, except the Vicars of the Apostolic See, received the pallium till the time of Pope Zacharias, about 743." When Desiderius, a bishop of some place in Gaul, sought to obtain this badge of authority, Gregory answered, that after diligent search in the Roman archives, he could find no document of such a grant to the predecessors of the petitioner. Sending it to the Bishop of Palermo, he observed: "We admonish you that the reverence due to the Apostolic See should be disturbed by the presumption of no one; for the state of the members is sound, when the head of faith suffers no injury, and the authority of the canons continues always safe and inviolate."** The primacy of the Apostolic See was particularly displayed in the special privileges granted to some bishops, which were modified and changed, according as the interests of religion, in the altered circumstances of various countries, required. The See of Arles from ancient times was invested with extraordinary authority, recognised and confirmed by Pope Zosimus: "We ordain that the Bishop of the city of Arles shall have, as he always has had, chief authority in ordaining priests. Let him recall to his jurisdiction the provinces of Narbonne the first, and Narbonne the second. Be it known that whosoever hereafter, in opposition to the decrees of the Apostolic See, and to the commands of our predecessors, shall presume to ordain any one in the above provinces, without the authority of the metropolitan bishop, or whoever shall suffer himself to be unlawfully ordained, is deprived of the priesthood." Not only * The town Enns, in Austria, at the conflux of the river Enns and the Danube, is near the site of Laureacum. |