274 THIRD PEKIOD. A.D. 311-590.
Cyprus in the Eastern cliiirch, and tlie bi.^hops of Milan, Aqiiileia, and Ravenna in tlie Western, during this period maintained their autocracy with reference to the patriarchs to whose dioceses they geographically belonged. In the fifth century, the patriarchs of Antioch attempted to subject the island of Cyprus, where Paul first liad preached the gospel, to their jurisdiction ; but the ecumenical council of Ephesus, in 431, confirmed to the church of Cyprus its ancient right to ordain its own bishops.' The North African bishops also, witli all respect for tlie Roman see, long maintained Cyprian's spirit of independence, and in a council at Hippo Regius, in 393, protested against such titles as jyrinceps sacerdotum^ summus sacerdos, assumed by the patriarchs, and were willing only to allow the title oijpriviCB sedis episcojpus^
When, in consequence of the Christological controversies, the Nestorians and Monophy sites split off from the orthodox church, they established independent schismatic patriarchates, which continue to this day, showing that the patriarchal constitution answers most nearly to the oriental type of Christianity. The orthodox Greek church, as well as the schismatic sects of the East, has substantially remained true to the patriarchal system down to the present time; while the Latin church endeavored to establish the principle of monarchical centralization so early as Leo the Great, and in the course of the middle age produced the absolute paj^acy.
§ 56. Synodioal Legislation oti the Pat/riarchal Power and Jurisdiction.
To follow now the ecclesiastical legislation respecting tliis patriarchal oligarchy in chronologi(;al order :
The germs of it already lay in the ante-Nicene period, when the bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, partly in virtue of the age and apostolic origin of their churches, partly on account of the political prominence of those three cities as the three capitals of the Roman empire, steadily a&
' Comp. Wiltsch, i. p. 232 sq., and ii. 469.
• Cod. can. eccl. Afr. can. 39, cited by Neaudcr, iii. p. 335 (Germ. ed.).
§ 56. SYNODICAL LEGISLATION, ETC. 275
?erted a position of preeminence. The apostolic origin of tiie cnurches of Rome and Antioch is evident from the New Testament : Alexandria traced its Christiaiiity, at least indirectly through the evangelist Mark, to Peter, and was politically more important than Antioch ; while Rome from the first had precedence of both in church and in state. This preeminence of the oldest and most powerful metropolitans acquired formal legislative validity and firm establishment through the ecumenical councils of the fourth and fifth centuries.
The first ecumenical council of Nice, in 325, as yet knew nothing of five patriarchs, but only the three metropolitans above named, confirming them in their traditional rights.' In the much-canvassed sixth canon, probably on occasion of the Meletian schism in Egypt, and the attacks connected with it on the rights of the bishop of Alexandria, that council declared as follows :
"The ancient custom, which has obtained in Egypt, Libya, and the " Pentapolis, shall continue in force, viz. : that the bishop of Alexandria *' have rule over all these [provinces], since this also is customary with the " bishop of Kome [that is, not in Egypt, but witli reference to his own "diocese]. Likewise also at Antioch and in the other eparchies, the "churches shall retain their prerogatives. Now, it is perfectly clear, that, " if any one has been made bishop without the consent of the metropolitan, " the great council does not allow him to be bishoii." "^
The IS^icene fathers passed this canon not as introducing anything new, but merely as confirming an existing relation on the basis of church tradition ; and that, with special reference to Alexandria, on a(;count of the troubles existing there. Rome was named only for illustration ; and Antioch and all
' Accordingly Pope Nicolas, in 866, in a letter to the Bulgarian prince Bogoris, would acknowledge only the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch aspatriarcha in the proper sense, because they presided over apostolic churches ; whereas Conetantinople was not of apostolic founding, and was not even mentioned by the most venerable of all councils, the Nicene ; Jerusalem was named indeed by these councils, but only under the name of ^lia,
' In the oldest Latin Cod. canonum (in Mansi, vi. 1186) this canon is preceded by the important words : Ecclesia Romana xemper habuit primatum These are, however, manifestly spurious, being originally no part of the canon itself, but a Fuperscription, which gave an expression to the Roman inference from the Nicene oonoo. Comp. Gieseler, i. 2, § 93, note 1 ; and Hefele, Hist, of Councils, i. S84 sqq.