284 THIRD PERIOD, A.D. 311-590.
At least this seems to be tlie meaning of the short and some what obscure seventli canon : '' Since it is custom and old tradition, that the bishop of jSIib, (Jerusalem) should be honored, he shall also enjoy the succession of honor,' while the metropolis (Csesarea) preserves the dignity allotted to her," The legal relation of the two remained for a long time unoer tain, till the fourth ecumenical council, at its seventh session, confirmed the bishop of Jerusalem in his patriarchal rank, and assigned to him the three provinces of Palestine as a diocese, without opposition.
§ 57. The Rival Patriarchs of Old and New Rome.
Thus at the close of the fourth century we see the Catholic church of the Graico-Roman empire under the oligarchy of live coordinate and independent patriarchs, four in the East and one in the AA'^est, But the analogy of the political constitution, and the tendency toward a visible, tangible representation of the unity of the church, which had lain at the bottom of the development of the hierarchy from the very beginnings of the episcopate, pressed beyond oligarchy to monarchy ; especially in the West. I^ow that the empire was geogi'apliically and politically severed into East and West, which, after the death of Theodosius, in 395, had their several emperors, and were never ])ermanently reunited, we can but expect in like manner a double head in the hierarchy. This we find in tlie two patriarchs of old Rome and New Rome ; the one representing the Western or Latin church, the other the Eastern or Greek. Their power and their relation to each other we must now more carefully observe.
The organization of the church in the East being so largely influenced by the political constitution, the bishop of the imperial capital could not fail to become the most powerful of the four oriental jmtriarchs. By the second and fourth ecumenical councils, as we have already seen, his actual preeminence was ratified by ecclesiastical sanction, and he was desig-
' 'A(coAov3ia T^j T»/i^s ; which is variously interpreted. Comp. Ilefele, f. 889 8(\
§ 57. TUE RIVAL PATRIARCHS OF OLD AND NEW ROME. 285
nated to tlie foremost dignity,' From Justinian I. lie furthei received supreme appellate jurisdiction, and the honorary title of emumenical patriarch, which he still continues to bear.'^ Hp ordained the other patriarchs, not seldom decided their deposition or institution by his influence, and used every occasion to interfere in their affairs, and assert his supreme authority, though the popes and their delegates at the imperial coui-t incessantly protested. The patriarchates of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria were distracted and weakened in the course of the fifth and sixth centuries by the tedious monophysite controversies, and subsequently, after the year 622, were reduced to but a shadow by the Mohammedan conquests. The patriarchate of Constantinople, on the contrary, made important advances southwest and north ; till, in its flourishing period, between the eighth and tenth centuries, it embraced, besides its original diocese, Calabria, Sicily, and all the provinces of Illyricum, the Bulgarians, and Kussia, Though often visited with destructive earthquakes "and conflagrations, and besieged by Persians, Arabians, Hungarians, Russians, Latins, and Turks, Constantinople maintained itself to the middle of the fifteenth century as the seat of the Byzantine empire and centre of the Greek church. The patriarch of Constantinople, however, remained virtually only jyrimus
' Ta irpeafifla ttii rtju^s . . . 5ia rh eluai owttji' [i. e. Constantinople] ff'ap 'Pa>/xT]y. Comp. § 56.
' The title oiKovntviKh^ Trarpidpxv^i universalis episcopux^ had before been used in flattery by oriental patriarchs, and the later Roman bishops bore it, in spite of the protest of Gregory I., without scruple. The statement of popes Gregory I. and Leo IX., that the council of Chalcedon conferred on the Roman bishop Leo the title of universalis episcopiis, and that he rejected it, is erroneous. No trace of it can be found either in the Acts of the councils or in the epistles of Leo. In the Acts, Leo is styled 6 a.ytU!TaTo<! koI /.laKaptcoTaTos apx^eiriffKOwos rrjs ^ueyaATj? Ka\ irp€a^vT(pa.i 'Pdo/xris ; which, however, in the Latin Acts sent by Leo to the Gallican bishops, was tlms enlarged: "Sanctus et beatissimus Papa, caput universalis ecclesice, Leo.* The papal legates at Chalcedon subscribed themselves : Vicarii apostolici ^miversalis ecclesice papie, which the Greeks translated: tt}? oiKoufxeytKris e«KArj(Tiav eiria-Konov. Hence probably arose the error of Gregory I. The popes wished to be papce uni versalis ecclesiae, not episcopi or patriarchm universales ; no doubt because the latter designation put them on a level with the Eastern patriarchs. Comp. Gieseler i. 2, p. 192, not. 20, and p. 228, not. 72 ; and Hefele, ii. 525 sq.