Cambridge Ancient Hi.. - Index of

CHAPTER 24
THE ORGANIZATION OF THE CHURCH
stuart george hall
i. bishops and patriarchs
The fifth-century church inherited an organization matching that of the
empire. 1 Each community usually had its bishop, though increasingly presbyters
or sometimes deacons deputized for the bishop in governing congregations.
Above the local bishop stood the bishop of the metropolis, the
metropolian (µητροπολίτης), whose position had been codified at Nicaea
in 325. Superior to the metropolitan, the city which was the centre of an
imperial diocese (�παρχία) attained comparable status in the church, and
its bishop was called ‘archbishop’ (�ρχιεπίσκοπος). This term was frequently
used of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch at the
Council of Ephesus in 431, the same sees which had been named as exercising
territorial superiority in the canons of Nicaea in 325. The term ‘archbishop’
was limited to those of such standing till about 500. After that it is
more widely used, first of metropolitans, then of others whose independence
was being asserted. The term ‘patriarch’ (πατρια´ ρχης) then began
to be applied to the bishops of the greater sees. ‘Patriarch’ was first used of
the ancient biblical figures, and had been adopted for leading officers by the
Jewish communities before Constantine’s time. Its rare use for Christian
figures began to be extended to the superior bishops in documents associated
with the Council of Chalcedon in 451. 2 That council also specified
that the metropolitan bishops of the imperial dioceses of Pontus, Asia and
Thrace should be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople; thus the metropolitans
of Cappadocian Caesarea, Ephesus and Philippopolis, who
were to ordain bishops in their respective imperial provinces and any
pendent sees among the barbarians, were declared subordinate to the
capital. 3 Chalcedon also rewarded the conversion of Juvenal of Jerusalem
(422–58) to the imperial theology by upgrading his see to rank among the
patriarchates: he was confirmed in control of the metropolitans of the
1 Jones, LRE 873–937, and the related notes, can only be admired and palely imitated in the space
available here. Baus, Beck, Ewig and Vogt (1980) is also useful, especially chs. 13–21, 27 and 28–31. See
also Ducellier, L’Église byzantine, especially for the relations of church and emperor.
2 See PGL s.v. �ρχιεπίσκοπος, πατρια´ ρχης. 3 Canon 28.
731
Cambridge Histories Online © Cambridge University Press, 2008