Ecumenical Christian Library

  • Loading…

VII.8. How far the power of Bishops hath reached from the beginning in respect of territory or local compass.

159437 min read

VIII. How far the power which bishops had did reach, what number of persons was subject unto them at the first, and how large their territories were, it is not for the question we have in hand a thing very greatly material to know. For if we prove that bishops have lawfully of old ruled over other ministers, it is enough, how few soever those ministers have been, how small soever the circuit of place which hath contained them. Yet hereof somewhat, to the end we may so far forth illustrate church antiquities.

A law imperial there is, which sheweth that there was great care had to provide for every Christian city a bishop as near as might be1, and that each city had some territory belonging unto it, which territory was also under the bishop of the same city; that because it was not universally thus, but in some countries one bishop had subject unto him many cities and their territories, the law which provided for establishment of the other orders, should not prejudice those churches wherein this contrary custom had before prevailed. Unto the bishop of every such city, not only the presbyters of the same city, but also of the territory thereunto belonging, were from the first beginning subject. For we must note that when as yet there were in cities no parish churches, but only colleges of presbyters under their bishop’s regiment, yet smaller congregations and churches there were even then abroad, in which churches there was but some one only presbyter to perform among them divine duties2. Towns and villages abroad receiving the faith of Christ from cities whereunto they were adjacent, did as spiritual and heavenly colonies by their subjection honour those ancient mother churches out of which they grew. And in the Christian cities themselves, when the mighty increase of believers made it necessary to have them divided into certain several companies, and over every of those companies one only pastor to be appointed for the ministry of holy things; between the first and the rest after it there could not but be a natural inequality, even as between the temple and synagogues in Jerusalem. The clergy of cities were termed urbici3, to shew a difference between them and the clergies of the towns, of villages, of castles abroad. And how many soever these parishes or congregations were in number, which did depend on any one principal city church, unto the bishop of that one church they and their several sole presbyters were all subject.

For if so be, as some imagine, every petty congregation or hamlet had had his own particular bishop, what sense could there be in those words of Jerome4 concerning castles, villages, and other places abroad, which having only presbyters to teach them and to minister unto them the sacraments, were resorted unto by bishops for the administration of that wherewith their presbyters were not licensed to meddle. To note a difference of that one church where the bishop hath his seat, and the rest which depend upon it, that one hath usually been termed cathedral, according to the same sense wherein Ignatius speaking of the Church of Antioch termeth it his throne; and Cyprian making mention of Evaristus, who had been bishop and was now deposed, termeth him cathedræ extorrem5, one that was thrust besides his chair. The church where the bishop is set with his college of presbyters about him we call a see; the local compass of his authority we term a diocess6. Unto a bishop within the compass of his own both see and diocess, it hath by right of his place evermore appertained to ordain presbyters7, to make deacons, and with judgment to dispose of all things of weight. The apostle St. Paul had episcopal authority, but so at large that we cannot assign unto him any one certain diocess. His8 positive orders and constitutions churches every where did obey. Yea, “a charge and a care,” saith he9, “I have even of all the churches.” The walks of Titus and Timothy were limited within the bounds of a narrow precinct. As for other bishops, that which Chrysostom hath concerning them, if they be evil, could not possibly agree unto them, unless their authority had reached farther than to some one only congregation. “The danger being so great as it is, to him that scandalizeth one soul, what shall he,” saith Chrysostom10, speaking of a bishop, “what shall he deserve, by whom so many souls, yea, even whole cities and peoples, men, women, and children, citizens, peasants, inhabitants, both of his own city, and of other towns subject unto it, are offended?” A thing so unusual it was for a bishop not to have ample jurisdiction, that Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria, for making one a bishop of a small town, is noted as a proud despiser of the commendable orders of the Church with this censure11: “Such novelties Theophilus presumed every where to begin, taking upon him, as it had been, another Moses.”

Whereby is discovered also their error, who think that such as in ecclesiastical writings they find termed Chorepiscopos were the same in the country which the bishop was in the city: whereas the old Chorepiscopi are they that were appointed of the bishop12 to have, as his vicegerents13, some oversight of those churches abroad, which were subject unto his see; in which churches they had also power to make subdeacons, readers, and such like petty church officers. With which power so stinted, they not contenting themselves, but adventuring at the length to ordain even deacons and presbyters also, as the bishop himself did, their presumption herein was controlled and stayed by the ancient edict of councils. For example that of Antioch14, “It hath seemed good to the holy synod that such in towns and countries as are called Chorepiscopi do know their limits and govern the churches under them, contenting themselves with the charge thereof, and with authority to make readers, sub-deacons, exorcists, and to be leaders or guiders of them; but not to meddle with the ordination either of a presbyter or of a deacon, without the bishop of that city, whereunto the Chorepiscopus and his territory also is subject.” The same synod appointed likewise that those Chorepiscopi shall be made by none but the bishop of that city under which they are. Much might hereunto be added, if it were further needful to prove that the local compass of a bishop’s authority and power was never so straitly listed, as some men would have the world to imagine.

But to go forward; degrees there are and have been of old even amongst bishops also themselves; one sort of bishops being superiors unto presbyters only, another sort having preeminence also above bishops. It cometh here to be considered in what respect inequality of bishops was thought at the first a thing expedient for the Church, and what odds there hath been between them, by how much the power of one hath been larger, higher, and greater than of another. Touching the causes for which it hath been esteemed meet that bishops themselves should not every way be equals; they are the same for which the wisdom both of God and man hath evermore approved it as most requisite, that where many governors must of necessity concur for the ordering of the same affairs, of what nature soever they be, one should have some kind of sway or stroke more than all the residue. For where number is, there must be order, or else of force there will be confusion. Let there be divers agents, of whom each hath his private inducements with resolute purpose to follow them (as each may have); unless in this case some had preeminence above the rest, a chance it were if ever any thing should be either begun, proceeded in, or brought unto any conclusion by them; deliberations and counsels would seldom go forward, their meetings would always be in danger to break up with jars and contradictions. In an army a number of captains, all of equal power, without some higher to oversway them; what good would they do? In all nations where a number are to draw any one way, there must be some one principal mover.

Let the practice of our very adversaries themselves herein be considered; are the presbyters able to determine of church affairs, unless their pastors do strike the chiefest stroke and have power above the rest? Can their pastoral synod do any thing, unless they have some president amongst them? In synods they are forced to give one pastor preeminence and superiority above the rest. But they answer, that he who being a pastor according to the order of their discipline is for the time some little deal mightier than his brethren, doth not continue so longer than only during the synod15. Which answer serveth not to help them out of the briers; for by their practice they confirm our principle touching the necessity of one man’s preeminence wheresoever a concurrency of many is required unto any one solemn action: this nature teacheth, and this they cannot choose but acknowledge. As for the change of his person to whom they give this preeminence, if they think it expedient to make for every synod a new superior, there is no law of God which bindeth them so to [do]16; neither any that telleth them that they might [not?] suffer one and the same man being made president even to continue so during life, and to leave his preeminence unto his successors after him, as by the ancient order of the Church, archbishops, presidents amongst bishops, have used to do.

The ground therefore of their preeminence above bishops is the necessity of often concurrency of many bishops about the public affairs of the Church, as consecrations of bishops, consultations of remedy of general disorders, audience judicial, when the actions of any bishop should be called in question, or appeals are made from his sentence by such as think themselves wronged. These and the like affairs usually requiring that many bishops should orderly assemble, begin, and conclude somewhat; it hath seemed in the eyes of reverend antiquity a thing most requisite, that the Church should not only have bishops, but even amongst bishops some to be in authority chiefest17.

Unto which purpose, the very state of the whole world, immediately before Christianity took place, doth seem by the special providence of God to have been prepared. For we must know, that the countries where the Gospel was first planted, were for the most part subject to the Roman empire. The Romans’ use was commonly, when by war they had subdued foreign nations, to make them provinces, that is, to place over them Roman governors, such as might order them according to the laws and customs of Rome. And, to the end that all things might be the more easily and orderly done, a whole country being divided into sundry parts, there was in each part some one city, whereinto they about did resort for justice. Every such part was termed a diocess18. Howbeit, the name diocess is sometime so generally taken, that it containeth not only more19 such parts of a province, but even more provinces also than one; as the diocess of Asia contained eight20, the diocess of Africa seven21. Touching diocesses according unto a stricter sense, whereby they are taken for a part of a province, the words of Livy22 do plainly shew what order the Romans did observe in them. For at what time they had brought the Macedonians into subjection, the Roman governor, by order from the senate of Rome, gave charge that Macedonia should be divided into four regions or diocesses. “Capita regionum ubi concilia fierent, primæ sedis Amphipolim, secundæ Thessalonicen, tertiæ Pellam, quartæ Pelagoniam fecit. Eo concilia suæ cujusque regionis indici, pecuniam conferri, ibi magistratus creari jussit.” This being before the days of the emperors, by their appointment Thessalonica was afterwards the chiefest23, and in it the highest governor of Macedonia had his seat. Whereupon the other three diocesses were in that respect inferior unto it, as daughters unto a mother city; for not unto every town of justice was that title given, but was peculiar unto those cities wherein principal courts were kept. Thus in Macedonia the mother city was Thessalonica; in Asia, Ephesus24; in Africa, Carthage; for so Justinian in his time made it25. The governors, officers, and inhabitants of these mother cities were termed for difference’ sake metropolites, that is to say, mother city men; than which nothing could possibly have been devised more fit to suit with the nature of that form of spiritual regiment under which afterward the Church should live.

Wherefore if the prophet saw cause to acknowledge unto the Lord that the light of his gracious providence did shine no where more apparently to the eye than in preparing the land of Canaan to be [a]26 receptacle for that Church which was of old27, “Thou hast brought a vine out of Egypt, thou hast cast out the heathen and planted it, thou madest room for it, and when it had taken root it filled the land:” how much more ought we to wonder at the handy-work of Almighty God who to settle the kingdom of his dear Son did not cast out any one people, but directed in such sort the politic counsels of them who ruled far and wide over all, that they throughout all nations, people and countries upon earth, should unwittingly prepare the field wherein the vine which God did intend, that is to say, the Church of his dearly-beloved Son was to take root? For unto nothing else can we attribute it, saving only unto the very incomprehensible force of Divine providence, that the world was in so marvellous fit sort divided, levelled and laid out before-hand. Whose work could it be but his alone to make such provision for the direct implantation of his Church?

Wherefore inequality of Bishops being found a thing convenient for the Church of God, in such consideration as hath been shewed, when it came secondly in question which bishops should be higher and which lower, it seemed herein not to the civil monarch only, but to the most, expedient that the dignity and celebrity of mother cities should be respected28. They which dream that if civil authority had not given such preeminence unto one city more than another, there had never grown an inequality amongst bishops, are deceived: superiority of one bishop over another would be requisite in the Church although that civil distinction were abolished: other causes having made it necessary even amongst bishops to have some in degree higher than the rest, the civil dignity of place was considered only as a reason wherefore this bishop should be preferred before that: which deliberation had been likely enough to have raised no small trouble, but that such was the circumstance of place, as being followed in that choice, besides the manifest conveniency thereof, took away all show of partiality, prevented secret emulations, and gave no man occasion to think his person disgraced in that another was preferred before him.

Thus we see upon what occasion metropolitan bishops became archbishops. Now while the whole Christian world in a manner still continued under one civil government, there being oftentimes within some one more large territory divers and sundry mother churches, the metropolitans whereof were archbishops; as for order’s sake it grew hereupon expedient there should be a difference also amongst them, so no way seemed in those times more fit than to give preeminence unto them whose metropolitan sees were of special desert or dignity: for which cause these as being bishops in the chiefest mother churches were termed primates, and at the length by way of excellency, patriarchs. For ignorant we are not, how sometimes the title of patriarch is generally given to all metropolitan bishops.

They are mightily therefore to blame which are so bold and confident, as to affirm29 that for the space of above four hundred and thirty years after Christ, all metropolitan bishops were in every respect equals, till the second council of Constantinople30 exalted certain metropolitans above the rest. True it is, they were equals as touching the exercise of spiritual power within their diocesses, when they dealt with their own flock. For what is it that one of them might do within the compass of his own precinct, but another within his might do the same? But that there was no subordination at all of one of them unto another; that when they all, or sundry of them, were to deal in the same causes, there was no difference of first and second in degree, no distinction of higher and lower in authority acknowledged amongst them; is most untrue.

The great council of Nice was after our Saviour Christ but three hundred twenty-four years, and in that council31 certain metropolitans are said even then to have had an ancient preeminence and dignity above the rest; namely the primate of Alexandria, of Rome, and of Antioch. Threescore years after this there were synods32 under the emperor Theodosius; which synod was the first at Constantinople, whereat one hundred and fifty bishops were assembled: at which council it was decreed33 that the bishop of Constantinople should not only be added unto the former primates, but also that his place should be second amongst them, the next to the bishop of Rome in dignity. The same decree again renewed concerning Constantinople, and the reason thereof laid open34 in the council of Chalcedon: at the length came that second of Constantinople35, whereat were six hundred and thirty bishops, for a third confirmation thereof. Laws imperial there are likewise extant36 to the same effect. Herewith the bishop of Constantinople being overmuch puffed up, not only could not endure that see to be in estimation higher, whereunto his own had preferment to be the next, but he challenged more than ever any Christian bishop in the world before either had, or with reason could have. What he challenged, and was therein as then refused by the bishop of Rome, the same the bishop of Rome in process of time obtained for himself, and having gotten it by bad means, hath both upheld and augmented it, and upholdeth it by acts and practices much worse.

But primates, according to their first institution, were all, in relation unto archbishops, the same by prerogative37 which archbishops were being compared unto bishops. Before the council of Nice, albeit there were both metropolitans and primates, yet could not this be a means forcible enough to procure the peace of the Church, but all things were wonderful tumultuous and troublesome, by reason of one special practice common unto the heretics of those times; which was, that when they had been condemned and cast out of the Church by the sentence of their own bishops, they contrary to the ancient received orders of the Church, had a custom to wander up and down, and to insinuate themselves into favour where they were not known, imagining themselves to be safe enough, and not to be clean cut off from the body of the Church, if they could any where find a bishop which was content to communicate with them; whereupon ensued, as in that case there needs must, every day quarrels and jars unappeasable amongst bishops. The Nicene council for redress hereof considered the bounds of every archbishop’s ecclesiastical jurisdiction, what they had been in former times, and accordingly appointed unto each grand part of the Christian world some one primate, from whose judgment no man living within his territory might appeal, unless it were to a council general of all bishops. The drift and purpose of which order was, that neither any man oppressed by his own particular bishop might be destitute of a remedy through appeal unto the more indifferent sentence of some other ordinary judge; nor yet every man be left at such liberty as before, to shift himself out of their hands for whom it was most meet to have the hearing and determining of his cause. The evil, for remedy whereof this order was taken, annoyed at that present especially the church of Alexandria in Egypt, where Arianism begun. For which cause the state of that church is in the Nicene canons concerning this matter mentioned before the rest. The words of their sacred edict are these38: “Let those customs remain in force which have been of old, the customs of Egypt and Libya, and Pentapolis; by which customs the bishop of Alexandria hath authority over all these; the rather for that this hath also been the use of the bishop of Rome, yea the same hath been kept in Antioch and in other provinces.” Now because the custom likewise had been that great honour should be done to the bishop of Ælia or Jerusalem, therefore lest their decree concerning the primate of Antioch should any whit prejudice the dignity and honour of that see, special provision is made39, that although it were inferior in degree, not only unto Antioch the chief of the East, but even unto Cæsarea too, yet such preeminence it should retain as belonged to a mother city, and enjoy whatsoever special prerogative or privilege it had besides. Let men therefore hereby judge of what continuance this order which upholdeth degrees of bishops must needs have been, when a general council of three hundred and eighteen bishops living themselves within three hundred years after Christ doth reverence the same for antiquity’s sake, as a thing which had been even then of old observed in the most renowned parts of the Christian world40.

Wherefore needless altogether are those vain and wanton demands, “No mention of an archbishop in Theophilus bishop of Antioch? None in Ignatius? None in Clemens of Alexandria? None in Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian? None in all those old historiographers, out of which Eusebius gathereth his story? None till the time of the council of Nice, three hundred and twenty years after Christ41?” As if the mention which is thereof made in that very council, where so many bishops acknowledge archiepiscopal dignity even then ancient, were not of far more weight and value than if every of those Fathers had written large discourses thereof. But what is it which they will blush at, who dare so confidently set it down42, that in the council of Nice some bishops being termed metropolitans, no more difference is thereby meant to have been between one bishop and another, than is shewed between one minister and another, when we say such a one is a minister in the city of London, and such a one minister in the town of Newington? So that to be termed a metropolitan bishop did in their conceit import no [more43] preeminence above other bishops, than we mean that a girdler44 hath over others of the same trade, if we term him which doth inhabit some mother city for difference’ sake a metropolitan girdler.

But the truth is too manifest to be so deluded; a bishop at that time had power in his own diocess over all other ministers there, and a metropolitan bishop sundry preeminences above other bishops, one of which preeminences was in the ordination of bishops, to have κυ̑ρος τω̑ν γινομένων, the chief power of ordering all things done. Which preeminence that council itself doth mention45, as also a greater belonging unto the patriarch or primate of Alexandria, concerning whom it is there likewise said, that to him did belong ἐξουσία, authority and power over all Egypt, Pentapolis, and Libya: within which compass sundry metropolitan sees to have been, there is no man ignorant, which in those antiquities have [hath?] any knowledge.

Certain prerogatives there are wherein metropolitans excelled other bishops, certain also wherein primates excelled other metropolitans. Archiepiscopal or metropolitan prerogatives are those mentioned in old imperial constitutions, to convocate46 the holy bishops under them within the compass of their own provinces, when need required their meeting together for inquisition and redress of public disorders; to grant unto bishops under them leave and faculty of absence from their own diocesses47, when it seemed necessary that they should otherwhere converse for some reasonable while; to give notice48 unto bishops under them of things commanded by supreme authority; to have the hearing49 and first determining of such causes as any man had against a bishop; to receive the appeals of the inferior clergy, in case they found themselves overborne by the bishop their immediate judge50. And lest haply it should be imagined that canons ecclesiastical we want to make the selfsame thing manifest; in the council of Antioch it was thus decreed51: “The bishops in every province must know, that he which is bishop in the mother city hath not only charge of his own parish or diocess, but even of the whole province also.” Again: “It hath seemed good that other bishops without him should do nothing more than only that which concerns each one’s parish and the places underneath it.” Further by the selfsame council all councils provincial are reckoned void and frustrate52, unless the bishop of the mother city within that province where such councils should be, were present at them. So that the want of his presence, and in canons for church-government, want of his approbation also, did disannul them: not so the want of any others. Finally, concerning elections of bishops, the council of Nice hath this general rule53, that the chief ordering of all things here, is in every province committed to the metropolitan.

Touching them, who amongst metropolitans were also primates, and had of sundry united provinces the chiefest metropolitan see, of such that canon in the council of Carthage was eminent, whereby54 a bishop is forbidden to go beyond seas without the license of the highest chair within the same bishop’s own country; and of such which beareth the name of apostolical, is that ancient canon likewise, which chargeth55 the bishops of each nation, to know him which is first amongst them, and to esteem of him as an head, and to do no extraordinary thing but with his leave. The chief primates of the Christian world were the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. To whom the bishop of Constantinople being afterwards added, St. Chrysostom the bishop of that see is in that respect said56 to have had the care and charge not only of the city of Constantinople, “sed etiam totius Thraciæ, quæ sex præfecturis est divisa, et Asiæ totius, quæ ab undecim præsidibus regitur.” The rest of the East was under Antioch, the South under Alexandria, and the West under Rome. Whereas therefore John the bishop of Jerusalem being noted of heresy, had written an apology for himself unto the bishop of Alexandria, named Theophilus; St. Jerome57 reproveth his breach of the order of the Church herein, saying, “Tu qui regulas quæris ecclesiasticas, et Niceni concilii canonibus uteris, responde mihi, ad Alexandrinum episcopum Palæstina quid pertinet? Ni fallor, hoc ibi decernitur, ut Palæstinæ metropolis Cæsarea sit, et totius Orientis Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Cæsariensem episcopum referre debueras; aut si procul expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam potius literæ dirigendæ.” Thus much concerning that Local Compass which was anciently set out to bishops; within the bounds and limits whereof we find that they did accordingly exercise that episcopal authority and power which they had over the Church of Christ.

← After what sort Bishops together with presby · Contents · In what respects episcopal regiment hath bee →

Footnotes

  1. L. 36. C. de Episc. et Cler. [Cod. Just. i. 3. de Episc. et Cler. 36. p. 35. ed. Gothofr. 1688. Hooker gives almost verbatim the Greek version of Photius, (†890.) Nomocanon, p. 85. ed. Paris. 1620.] Ἑκάστη πόλις ἴδιον ἐπίσκοπον ἐχέτω· καὶ κᾂν διὰ θείας ἀντιγραϕη̑ς τολμήσῃ τις ἀϕελέσθαι πόλιν του̑ ἰδίου ἐπισκόπου ἢ τη̑ς περιοικίδος αὐτη̑ς ἢ τινὸς ἄλλου δικαίου, γυμνου̑ται τω̑ν ὄντων καὶ ἀτιμου̑ται. Ἐξῄρηται δὲ ἡ Τομέων Σκυθίας πόλις. Ὁ γὰρ ἐπίσκοπος αὐτη̑ς καὶ τω̑ν λοιπω̑ν προνοει̑. Καὶ ἡ Λεοντόπολις Ἰσαυρίας ὑπὸ τὸν ἐπίσκοπόν ἐστιν Ἰσαυροπόλεως. Besides, Cypr. Ep. 52. [p. 73. ed. Baluz. al. 55. c. 14.] “Cum jampridem per omnes provincias et per urbes singulas ordinati sunt episcopi.” ↩

  2. “Ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offert et tingit sacerdos qui est ibi solus.” Tertull. Exhort. ad Castit. [c. 7.] ↩

  3. Cypr. Ep. 25. [40. ed. Baluz. p. 53. “Cum semel placuerit tam nobis quam confessoribus et clericis urbicis, item universis episcopis vel in nostra provincia vel trans mare constitutis,” &c.] ↩

  4. Hieron. advers. Lucifer. [§ 9. “Non quidem abnuo hanc ecclesiarum esse consuetudinem, ut ad eos qui longe in minoribus urbibus per presbyteros et diaconos baptizati sunt, episcopus ad invocationem Sancti Spiritus manum impositurus excurrat.”] ↩

  5. Cypr. Ep. 49. [al. 52. c. 1. “Didicimus, atque docere et instruere cæteros cœpimus, Evaristum de episcopo, jam nec laicum remansisse, cathedræ et plebis extorrem, et de ecclesia Christi exsulem.” p. 63. ed. Baluz.] ↩

  6. [So Keble. Johnson quotes Whitgift and Raleigh for this form. So Gauden’s text 1676, but in ed. 1682 it is diocese.] 1886. ↩

  7. [Ἕκαστον ἐπίσκοπον ἐξουσίαν ἔχειν τη̑ς ἑαυτου̑ παροικίας, διοικει̑ν τε κατὰ τὴν ἑκάστῳ ἐπιβάλλουσαν εὐλάβειαν καὶ πρόνοιαν ποιει̑σθαι πάσης τη̑ς χω̑ρας τη̑ς ὑπὸ τὴν ἑαυτου̑ πόλιν, ὣς καὶ χειροτονει̑ν πρεσβυτέρους καὶ διακόνους, καὶ μετὰ κρίσεως ἕκαστα διαλαμβάνειν· περαιτέρω δὲ μηδὲν πράττειν ἐπιχειρει̑ν δίχα του̑ τη̑ς μητροπόλεως ἐπισκόπου, μηδὲ αὐτὸν ἄνευ τη̑ς τω̑ν λοιπω̑ν γνώμης.] Conc. Antioch. cap. 9. [ad 341. t. i. 597. ed. Harduin.] Ἀκλήτους δὲ ἐπισκόπους ὑπὲρ διοίκησιν μὴ ἐπιβαίνειν, ἐπὶ χειροτονίᾳ ἤ τισιν ἄλλαις οἰκονομίαις ἐκκλησιαστικαι̑ς. Conc. Const. can. 2. [ad 381. t. i. 809.] Του̑το γὰρ πρότερον διὰ τοὺς διωγμοὺς ἐγίνετο ἀδιαϕόρως. Socr. lib. v. cap. 8. ↩

  8. “As I have ordained in the churches of Galatia, the same do ye also.” 1 Cor. xvi. 1. ↩

  9. 2 Cor. xi. 28. ↩

  10. Chrys. in i. ad Tit. [εἰ δὲ ὁ μίαν ψυχὴν σκανδαλίζων, συμϕέρει αὐτῳ̑ ἵνα μύλος ὀνικὸς κρεμασθῃ̑ εἰς τὸν τράχηλον αὐτου̑, καὶ καταποντισθῃ̑ ἐν τῳ̑ πελάγει τη̑ς θαλάσσης. ὁ τὰς τοσαύτας ψυχὰς σκανδαλίζων, πόλεις ὁλοκλήρους, καὶ δήμους, καὶ μυρίας ψυχὰς, ἄνδρας, γυναι̑κας, παι̑δας, πολίτας, γεωργοὺς, τοὺς ἐν αὐτῃ̑ τῃ̑ πόλει, τοὺς ἐν ἑτέραις ται̑ς ὑπ’ ἐκείνην τὴν πόλιν, τί ὑποστήσεται;] ↩

  11. Pallad. in Vita Chrys. [c. 7.] καὶ τὸν μὲν χειροτονει̑ ἐπίσκοπον, ἐγκατατάξας κωμυδρίῳ, πόλιν οὐκ ἔχων· ἀδεω̑ς γὰρ καὶ τὰς καινοτομίας εἰργάζετο, ἄλλον ἑαυτὸν Μωσέα ὀνομάζων. ap. Chrys. ed. Bened. t. xiii. 22 F.] ↩

  12. a bishops, Keble; so Gauden 1676. ↩

  13. b vicegerent, Keble; and so 1676. ↩

  14. Concil. Antioch. ad 341. can. 10. [τοὺς ἐν ται̑ς κώμαις, ἢ ται̑ς χώραις, ἢ τοὺς καλουμένους χωρεπισκόπους, εἰ καὶ χειροθεσίαν εἰ̑εν ἐπισκόπων εἰληϕότες, ἔδοξε τῃ̑ ἁγίᾳ συνόδῳ εἰδέναι τὰ ἑαυτω̑ν μέτρα, καὶ διοικει̑ν τὰς ὑποκειμένας ἑαυτοι̑ς ἐκκλησίας, καὶ τῃ̑ τούτων ἀρκει̑σθαι ϕροντίδι καὶ κηδεμονίᾳ, καθιστα̑ν δὲ ἀναγνώστας, καὶ ὑποδιακόνους, καὶ ἐϕορκιστὰς, καὶ τῃ̑ τούτων ἀρκει̑σθαι προαγωγῃ̑· μήτε πρεσβύτερον, μήτε διάκονον χειροτονει̑ν τολμᾳ̑ν, δίχα του̑ ἐν τῃ̑ πόλει ἐπισκόπου, ᾑ̑ ὑπόκεινται αὐτός τε καὶ ἡ χώρα· εἰ δὲ τολμήσειέ τις παραβη̑ναι τὰ ὁρισθέντα, καθαιρει̑σθαι αὐτὸν καὶ ἣς μετέχει τιμη̑ς· χωρεπίσκοπον δὲ γίνεσθαι ὑπὸ του̑ τη̑ς πόλεως, ᾑ̑ ὑπόκειται, ἐπισκόπου. t. i. p. 597. ed. Harduin. ad 341.] ↩

  15. [T. C. i. 85. apud Whitgift. Def. 392. al. 110. “If any man will call this a rule or presidentship, and him that executeth the office a president or moderator, or a governor, we will not strive, so that it be with these cautions, that he be not called simply governor or moderator, but governor or moderator of that action and for that time, and subject to the orders that others be, and to be censured by the company of the brethren as well as others, if he be judged any way faulty. And that after that action ended and meeting dissolved, he sit him down in his old place, and set himself in equal estate with the rest of the ministers. Thirdly, that this government or presidentship, or whatsoever like name you will give it, be not so tied unto that minister, but that at the next meeting it shall be lawful to take another if another be thought meeter.”] ↩

  16. c So ed. 1676, 1682. ↩

  17. [Of Archbishops, see Admon. ap. Whitg. Def. 298; Answ. ibid. al. 95-103; T. C. i. 61. al. 82; Def. 297, &c.; T. C. ii. 453-514.] ↩

  18. “Si quid habebis cum aliquo Hellespontio controversiæ, ut in illam διοίκησιν rejicias.” Cic. Fam. Ep. 53. lib. xiii. The suit which Tully maketh was this, that the party in whose behalf he wrote to the proprætor, might have his causes put over to that court which was held in the diocess of Hellespont, where the man did abide, and not to his trouble be forced to follow them at Ephesus, which was the chiefest court in that province. ↩

  19. d mo, ed. 1676; more, 1682. ↩

  20. [Notit. Imp. Orient. per Pancirollum, p. 78. ed. 1593.] ↩

  21. [According to the Notitia, p. 153, Africa had but five provinces; according to Sextus Rufus, six; ap. Gruter. Script. Hist. Rom. p. 1194.] ↩

  22. [Lib. xlv. c. 29.] ↩

  23. [Theodoret. E. H. v. 17; Cod. Theodos. xi. tit. i. 33.] ↩

  24. Cic. ad Attic. lib. v. ep. 13. Item, l. Observ. D. de Officio Proconsulis et Legati. [“Imperator noster Antoninus Augustus ad desideria Asianorum rescripsit, proconsuli necessitatem impositam per mare Asiam applicare, καὶ τω̑ν μητροπολέων Ἔϕεσον, i.e. inter matrices urbes Ephesum primam attingere.” ap. Gothofred. Corp. Jur. Civ. p. 28. ed. 1688.] ↩

  25. “Sancimus … ut sicut Oriens atque Illyricum, ita et Africa prætoriana maxima potestate specialiter a nostra clementia decoretur. Cujus sedem jubemus esse Carthaginem … et ab ea, auxiliante Deo, septem provinciæ cum suis judicibus disponantur.” Lib. i. tit. 27. l. i. sect. 1, 2. [Cod. Justinian. p. 100. ed. Gothofr. 1688.] ↩

  26. e So ed. 1676, 1682. ↩

  27. Psalm lxxx. 8, 9. ↩

  28. Concil. Antiochen. can. 9. Τοὺς καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν ἐπισκόπους εἰδέναι χρὴ τὸν ἐν τῃ̑ μητροπόλει προεστω̑τα ἐπίσκοπον καὶ τὴν ϕροντίδα ἀναδέχεσθαι πάσης τη̑ς ἐπαρχίας, διὰ τὸ ἐν τῃ̑ μητροπόλει πανταχόθεν συντρέχειν πάντας τοὺς τὰ πράγματα ἔχοντας, ὅθεν ἔδοξε καὶ τῃ̑ τιμῃ̑ προηγει̑σθαι αὐτόν. [t. i. 595. ed. Harduin. ad 341.] ↩

  29. Vilierius de Statu primitivæ Ecclesiæ. [“Hæc quidem Ecclesiæ Christianæ instituta adusque cccc amplius xxx annos integra atque inviolata permanserunt … . At paucis post annis, Constantinopolitanus Episcopus ambitione et cupiditate regnandi ac census ausus est præclaram illam Ecclesiæ descriptionem et œconomiam convellere. Cum enim imperatores sedem imperii sui, senatumque in ea civitate constituissent, ille artibus suis perfecit, ut ea … dignitatem quoque et potestatem aliquam præter cæteras metropoles eximiam ac perpetuam obtineret. Itaque quod Constantinopolitani primi cap. 2°. constitutum erat, ut Asiæ, Ponti, et Thraciæ metropolitæ, suæ quisque provinciæ procurationem gererent, … proximo universali concilio, i. e. Chalcedonensi, funditus abrogatum est, et novo more, nullo exemplo constitutum, ut harum omnium provinciarum metropolitas solus Constantinopolitanus episcopus constitueret: qua lege … nemo non videt … æquabilitatem provinciarum, quæ a majoribus conservata ac tradita fuerat, turpissime confusam ac perturbatam.” fol. 143. ad calcem Reg. Poli, Def. Eccl. Unit.; Argentorat. 1555. The tract was written in reality by François Hotman, the distinguished French protestant lawyer, and was first printed at Geneva, 1553: Hotman being then Professor of Law at Strasburg. Vid. Gesneri Biblioth. as epitomized by Simler, Zurich, 1574. p. 202; et Biogr. Univ. art. Hotman.] ↩

  30. [I. e. the council of Chalcedon, ad 451; in its 28th canon, cited below.] ↩

  31. [Can. vi. Τὰ ἀρχαι̑α ἔθη κρατείτω, τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ Λιβύῃ καὶ Πενταπόλει, ὥστε τὸν Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπον πάντων τούτων ἔχειν τὴν ἐξουσίαν, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τῳ̑ ἐν τῃ̑ Ῥώμῃ ἐπισκόπῳ του̑το σύνηθές ἐστιν. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ κατὰ τὴν Ἀντιόχειαν, καὶ ἐν ται̑ς ἄλλαις ἐπαρχίαις, τὰ πρεσβει̑α σώζεσθαι ται̑ς ἐκκλησίαις. Conc. Harduin. i. 325.] ↩

  32. Socr. lib. v. c. 8. ↩

  33. [ad 381. Can. ii. Κατὰ τοὺς κανόνας, τὸν μὲν Ἀλεξανδρείας ἐπίσκοπον τὰ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ μόνον οἰκονομει̑ν· τοὺς δὲ τη̑ς ἀνατολη̑ς ἐπισκόπους τὴν ἀνατολὴν μόνην διοικει̑ν, ϕυλαττομένων τω̑ν ἐν τοι̑ς κανόσι τοι̑ς κατὰ Νικαίαν πρεσβείων τῃ̑ Ἀντοιχέων ἐκκλησίᾳ. And Can. iii. Τὸν μέντοι Κωνσταντινουπόλεως ἐπίσκοπον ἔχειν τὰ πρεσβει̑α τη̑ς τιμη̑ς μετὰ τὸν τη̑ς Ῥώμης ἐπίσκοπον, διὰ τὸ εἰ̑ναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμην. Conc. i. 809.] ↩

  34. Can. 28. [ad 451. Τὰ αὐτὰ καὶ ἡμει̑ς ὁρίζομεν καὶ ψηϕιζόμεθα περὶ τω̑ν πρεσβείων τη̑ς ἁγιωτάτης ἐκκλησίας Κωνσταντινουπόλεως, ψέας Ῥώμης· καὶ γὰρ τῳ̑ θρόνῳ τη̑ς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης, διὰ τὸ βασιλεύειν τὴν πόλιν ἐκείνην, οἱ πατέρες εἰκότως ἀποδεδώκασι τὰ πρεσβει̑α, καὶ τῳ̑ αὐτῳ̑ σκόπῳ κινουμένοι οἱ ρν́ θεοϕιλέστατοι ἐπίσκοποι, τὰ ἰ̑σα πρεσβει̑α ἀπένειμαν τῳ̑ τη̑ς νέας Ῥώμης ἁγιωτάτῳ θρόνῳ, εὐλόγως κρίναντες, τὴν βασιλείᾳ καὶ συγκλήτῳ τιμηθει̑σαν πόλιν, καὶ τω̑ν ἴσων ἀπολαύουσαν πρεσβείων τῃ̑ πρεσβυτέρᾳ βασιλίδι Ῥώμῃ, καὶ ἐν τοι̑ς ἐκκλησιαστικοι̑ς ὡς ἐκείνην μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασιν, δευτέραν μετ’ ἐκείνην ὑπάρχουσαν. Ibid. ii. 612.] ↩

  35. Can. 36. [There is an historical oversight here. The council meant is that called Quinisextum, or “in Trullo,” ad 706; of which the 36th canon appeals to the 630 bishops assembled at Chalcedon. Ἀνανεούμενοι τὰ παρὰ τω̑ν ρν́ ἁγίων πατἐρων τω̑ν ἐν τῃ̑ θεοϕυλάκτῳ ταύτῃ καὶ βασιλίδι πόλει συνελθόντων, καὶ τω̑ν χλ́. τω̑ν ἐν Χαλκήδονι συνελθόντων νομοθετηθέντα, ὁρίζομεν, ὥστε τὸν Κωνσταντινουπόλεως θρόνον τω̑ν ἴσων ἀπολαύειν πρεσβείων του̑ τη̑ς πρεσβυτέρας Ῥώμης θρόνου, καὶ ἐν τοι̑ς ἐκκλησιαστικοι̑ς ὡς ἐκει̑νον μεγαλύνεσθαι πράγμασι, δεύτερον μετ’ ἐκει̑νον ὑπάρχοντα· μεθ’ ὃν ὁ τη̑ς Ἀλεξανδρέων μεγαλοπόλεως ἀριθμείσθω θρόνος· εἰ̑τα ὁ τη̑ς Ἀντιοχέων· καὶ μετὰ του̑τον ὁ τη̑ς Ἱεροσολυμιτω̑ν πόλεως. Ibid. iii. 1676.] ↩

  36. [E. g. of Theodosius ii. xvi. Cod. Theodos. tit. ii. l. 45. ad 421. “Omni innovatione cessante, vetustatem et canones pristinos ecclesiasticos qui nunc usque tenuerunt, per omnes Illyrici provincias servari præcipimus: tum, si quid dubietatis emerserit, id oporteat non absque scientia viri reverendissimi sacrosanctæ legis antistitis urbis Constantinopolitanæ (quæ Romæ veteris prærogativa lætatur) conventui sacerdotali sanctoque judicio reservari.” t. vi. 89. ed. Gothofred. And of Justinian, Novell. cxxxi. c. 1, 2. ad 541. “Sancimus vicem legum obtinere sanctas ecclesiasticas regulas, quæ a sanctis quatuor conciliis expositæ sunt, aut firmatæ … Ideoque sancimus secundum earum definitiones sanctissimum senioris Romæ Papam primum esse omnium sacerdotum; beatissimum autem Archiepiscopum Constantinopoleos novæ Romæ secundum habere locum post sanctam apostolicam senioris Romæ sedem; aliis autem omnibus sedibus præponatur.” p. 275. ed. Gothofr. 1688.] ↩

  37. Novell. cxxiii. 22. [“Si quis vero sanctissimorum episcoporum ejusdem synodi dubitationem aliquam ad invicem habeat, sive pro ecclesiastico jure, sive pro aliis quibusdam rebus, prius metropolita eorum cum aliis de sua synodo episcopis causam examinet et judicet; et si non rata habuerit utraque pars ea quæ judicata sunt, tunc beatissimus Patriarcha diœceseos illius inter eos audiat, et illa determinet, quæ ecclesiasticis canonibus et regulis consonant, nulla parte ejus sententiæ contradicere valente. Si autem et a clero, aut alio quocunque aditio contra episcopum fiat propter quamlibet causam; apud sanctissimum ejus metropolitam secundum sacras regulas et nostras leges causa judicetur; et siquis judicatis contradixerit, ad beatissimum archiepiscopum et patriarcham diœceseos illius referatur causa, et ille secundum canones et leges huic præbeat finem. Si vero contra metropolitam talis aditio fiat ab episcopo aut clero, aut alia quacunque persona, diœceseos illius beatissimus patriarcha simili modo causam judicet.” p. 259. ed. Gothofr. 1688. ad 541.] ↩

  38. Conc. Nic. c. 6. [t. i. 325. ed. Harduin. vid. supr. § 9. p. 193, note 1.] ↩

  39. Ejusd. Conc. c. 7. [ἐπειδὴ συνήθεια κεκράτηκε καὶ παράδοσις ἀρχαία, ὥστε τὸν ἐν Αἰλίᾳ ἐπίσκοπον τιμα̑σθαι, ἐχέτω τὴν ἀκολουθίαν τη̑ς τιμη̑ς, τῃ̑ μητροπόλει σωζομένου του̑ οἰκείου ἀξιώματος. It appears that Hooker’s copy placed the comma after μητροπόλει.] ↩

  40. [Vide Sarav. de Divers. Ministr. Evang. Grad. c. 20.] ↩

  41. “What! no mention of him in Theophilus bishop of Antioch? none in Clemens Alexandrinus? none in Ignatius? none in Justin Martyr? in Irenæus, in Tertullian, in Origen, in Cyprian? in those old historiographers, out of which Eusebius gathered his story? Was it for his baseness and smallness that he could not be seen amongst the bishops, elders, and deacons, being the chief and principal of them all? Can the cedar of Lebanon be hidden amongst the box-trees?” T. C. lib. i. 92. [al. 70.] ↩

  42. T. C. lib. i. ubi supra. “A metropolitan bishop was nothing else but a bishop of that place which it pleased the emperor or magistrate to make the chief of the diocess or shire; and as for this name, it makes no more difference between a bishop and a bishop, than when I say a minister of London and a minister of Newington.” ↩

  43. f more, so in edd. 1676, 1682. ↩

  44. [“Girdler, ‘a maker of girdles.’ ‘Talk with the girdler, or with the milliner.’ Beaum. and Fletcher, Honest Man’s Fortune.” Todd’s Johnson’s Dict.] ↩

  45. Conc. Nicen. c. 6. “Illud autem omnino manifestum, quod siquis absque metropolitani sententia factus sit episcopus, hunc magna synodus definivit episcopum esse non oportere.” [καθόλου δὲ πρόδηλον ἐκει̑νο, ὅτι εἴτις χωρὶς γνώμης του̑ μητροπολίτου γένοιτο ἐπίσκοπος, τὸν τοιου̑τον ἡ μεγαλὴ σύνοδος ὥρισε μὴ δει̑ν εἰ̑ναι ἐπίσκοπον.] Can. 4. [ἐπίσκοπον προσήκει μάλιστα μὲν ὑπὸ πάντων τω̑ν ἐν τῃ̑ ἐπαρχίᾳ καθίστασθαι· εἰ δὲ δυσχερὲς εἴη τὸ τοιου̑το, ἢ διὰ κατεπείγουσαν ἀνάγκην, ἢ διὰ μη̑κος ὁδου̑, ἐξ ἅπαντος τρει̑ς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συναγομένους, συμψήϕων γινομένων καὶ τω̑ν ἀπόντων, καὶ συντιθεμένων διὰ γραμμάτων, τότε τὴν χειροτονίαν ποιει̑σθαι· τὸ δὲ κυ̑ρος τω̑ν γινομένων δίδοσθαι καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν τῳ̑ μητροπολίτῃ. t. i. 324. ed. Harduin.] ↩

  46. Novell. cxxiii. can. 10. [“Ut omnis ecclesiasticus status et sacræ regulæ diligenter custodiantur; jubemus unumquemque beatum archiepiscopum et patriarcham et metropolitam sanctissimos episcopos sub se constitutos in eadem provincia semel aut secundo per singulos annos ad se convocare, et omnes causas subtiliter examinare, quas episcopi aut clerici aut monachi ad invicem habeant.” p. 255.] ↩

  47. Novell. cxxiii. cap. 9. [“Interdicimus Deo amabilibus episcopis proprias relinquere ecclesias, et ad alias regiones venire. Si vero necessitas faciendi hoc contigerit, non aliter, nisi cum literis beatissimi Patriarchæ aut Metropolitæ, aut per imperialem videlicet jussionem hoc faciant.” ibid.] ↩

  48. Novell. lxxix. cap. 2. [“Imp. Just. Aug. Mennæ Archiep. Constantinop… . Tua celsitudo … . utatur ad Deo amabiles civitatum metropolitanos (quorum ipse suscepisti ordinationem) proponens propriis literis hanc nostram sacram legem. Verum illi sub se constitutis episcopis hæc nuncient, ut ex paucis literis una continuatio legis ad omnem perveniat ditionem.” p. 165.] ↩

  49. Novell. cxxiii. cap. 22. [vid. supr. § 10. p. 194, note 3.] ↩

  50. Novell. cxxiii. cap. 23. [“Œconomos autem et xenodochos, nosocomos, ptochotrophos, et aliorum venerabilium locorum gubernatores, et alios omnes clericos jubemus pro creditis sibi gubernationibus apud proprium episcopum, cui subjacent, conveniri, et rationem suæ gubernationis facere et exigi… Si vero putaverint se gravari, post repetitionem metropolita causam examinet. Si vero metropolita … debitum exegerit, et exactus putaverit se gravatum, diœceseos illius beatissimus patriarcha causam examinet.” p. 259.] ↩

  51. Can. 9. [τοὺς καθ’ ἑκάστην ἐπαρχίαν ἐπισκόπους εἰδέναι χρὴ, τὸν ἐν τῃ̑ μητροπόλει προεστω̑τα ἐπίσκοπον καὶ τὴν ϕροντίδα ἀναδέχεσθαι πάσης τη̑ς ἐπαρχίας … ὅθεν ἔδοξε … μηδὲν πράττειν περιττὸν τοὺς λοιποὺς ἐπισκόπους ἄνευ αὐτου̑, κατὰ τὸν ἀρχαι̑ον κρατήσαντα τω̑ν πατέρων ἡμω̑ν κανόνα, ἢ ταυ̑τα μόνα, ὅσα τῃ̑ ἑκάστου ἐπιβάλλει παροικίᾳ καὶ ται̑ς ὑπ’ αὐτὴν χώραις. i. 595. ed. Hard.] ↩

  52. Can. 16. [τελείαν δὲ ἐκείνην εἰ̑ναι σύνοδον, ᾑ̑ συμπάρεστι καὶ ὁ τη̑ς μητροπόλεως. i. 599.] ↩

  53. Can. 4. τὸ κυ̑ρος τω̑ν γινομένων. [i. 324.] ↩

  54. Can. 23. [28. ad 397. 3. Concil. Carthag. “Placuit, ut Episcopi transmare non proficiscantur nisi consulto primæ sedis Episcopo, sive cujusque provinciæ primate, ut ab eo præcipue possint sumere formatam, sive commendationem.” t. i. 964.] ↩

  55. Can. 34. [33. τοὺς ἐπισκόπους ἑκάστου ἔθνους εἰδέναι χρὴ τὸν ἐν αὐτοι̑ς πρω̑τον, καὶ ἡγει̑σθαι αὐτὸν ὡς κεϕαλὴν, καὶ μηδέν τι πράττειν περιττὸν ἄνευ τη̑ς ἐκείνου γνώμης. Conc. Harduin. i. 17.] ↩

  56. Cassiod. in Vita Chrysost. [Hist. Eccles. Tripart. lib. x. c. 4. from Theodoret. H. E. v. 18.] ↩

  57. Hieron. Ep. 9. [al. lib. contr. Joan. Hierosolym. § 37. t. ii. 447. ed. Vallarsii.] ↩

Backlinks