Grades amongst the Bishops of the Church¶
The Christian ministry, consisting of the three orders of bishops, priests, and deacons, has already been shewn to be of divine institution. It cannot therefore be changed to any other form of ministry, and it will continue to be the ministry of the Church until the end of the world.
But as the Church grew and spread in the world, it was found convenient to make distinctions of rank in each of the three orders of the ministry. This was specially the case with the bishops, the chief ministers of the Church.
i¶
In early times bishops were much more numerous than they are now. Every city had its bishop, and at first all bishops were equal. But as time went on, it came about quite naturally that the greater the city, the greater was the dignity of its bishop; the rank or civil importance of the city passing on to its bishop. And it followed quite naturally, too, that the bishops of smaller towns in surrounding districts or provinces, placed themselves under the protection and guidance of those of the greater cities. This is the origin of what is known as “the provincial system,” which was not long in becoming universal, covering the whole ground of the Church.
This plan of grouping the Churches of a province under the bishop of its chief town, came about as a matter of Church order or organization: it was no part of the divine institution of the ministry, or of the divine constitution of the Church. The bishops at the head of provinces were styled metropolitans, a name derived from the word ‘metropolis,’ the mother city or capital.
The Rev. F. W. Puller, in treating of the rise of metropolitans, writes,-“As a rule, Christianity would get a footing first in the metropolis of each region. The other lesser cities would be evangelized by missions sent forth from thence; and so the suffragan sees would look on themselves as daughters of the metropolitical see. The metropolitan bishop was the natural centre of unity for the bishops of the province. When a see became vacant, it would be the metropolitan who would call together his brother bishops to consult about the appointment of a worthy pastor to succeed to the empty throne; and the metropolitan would naturally preside at the preliminary meetings for consultation and election, as well as at the consecration service itself. If troubles arose among the bishops, whether heresies or schisms or quarrels or other wrong doings, or if new and difficult questions emerged, concerning which it seemed desirable that the neighbouring bishops should act together, it would be natural for the bishops to meet in synod, and it would also be natural that the metropolitan should take the initiative and summon his brethren; and the metropolis would normally be the obvious place of meeting. Under such circumstances the metropolitan would of course preside, and in most cases he would be entrusted by the synod with the duty of seeing that its decisions were carried out. Thus, by the natural course of events, and by the free action of the essentially co-equal prelates, a certain precedence and pre-eminence, and, more than that, a certain right of initiative and of inspection and of administration, would by common consent be lodged in the occupant of the metropolitical see.”[1]
ii¶
In time “the provincial system” developed in some parts of the Church, but never universally, into what is known as “the patriarchal system.” The provinces of which we have spoken varied considerably in size. The first bishop of a large province would naturally be regarded as a more important person than the first bishop of a small province. Moreover, the bishop whose seat happened to be in a city of great importance, would possess a corresponding influence. In certain regions particular groups of provinces became subject to the bishops of the greater cities. Amongst the great cities of the world in the early days of Christianity were Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. These cities owed a further prominence in the eyes of Christians to their connection with great names in the Church. Thus both St. Peter and St. Paul had spent some time in Antioch. Rome received the apostolic succession from St. Peter and St. Paul,[2] and both of these apostles were martyred and buried there; the Church of Alexandria was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist. To this list must be added Jerusalem, the Mother-Church of Christendom, which owned St. James, a relative of our Lord, as its first bishop. Later on Constantinople, as it rose into fame as the emperor’s seat, and as the second city in the world, was added to the list. The bishops of these cities were regarded as men of rank in the Church, and upon them, in time, was bestowed the title of ‘patriarchs,’—a word which signifies ‘the heads of families.’ The groups of provinces under the care of these patriarchs were named ‘patriarchates.’ The patriarchs presided over the metropolitans, who in turn presided over the bishops of provinces. In the West, during the middle ages, the chief archbishops who presided over national Churches, were called ‘primates.’ The patriarchates were five in number; four being situated in the East, and one in the West. The patriarchates in the East were Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; whilst that in the West was Rome.[3] The patriarchates took their names from the cities in which the patriarchs resided. The patriarchs were regarded as the five presidents of the Church. Amongst the patriarchs, the custom of the Church allowed grades in rank of honour. The first place was naturally given to Rome, because Rome was the capital of the empire, and also from its connection with the greatest of the apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul. If religious considerations alone had determined the order of precedence, Jerusalem must have ranked first. Next to Rome, in rank of honour, came Constantinople, as being the seat of the Roman Emperor and his court, and hence called New Rome. In the general Council of Chalcedon held A.D. 451, it was enacted that “as the fathers fitly bestowed precedence upon the throne of Old Rome because it was the imperial city, and the 150 bishops most beloved of God”—i.e., the fathers of the second general Council A.D. 381,—“moved by the same consideration, awarded equal precedence to the most holy throne of New Rome,” i.e., Constantinople, “judging reasonably that the city honoured by the seat of the Empire, and by the Senate, should enjoy equal rank with the old imperial Rome, and like her be magnified in ecclesiastical matters, having the second place after her.”
iii¶
To sum up what has been said, we again quote the words of the Rev. F. W. Puller:
“By divine right all bishops were inherently equal, but by custom and ecclesiastical legislation the bishops of the metropolitical sees acquired certain rights, which were delegated to them by their brother bishops. Moreover, among the most important Churches a certain order of precedence grew up, which corresponded with the civil dignity of the cities in which those Churches existed; and, finally, the Churches which were founded by the apostles were treated with peculiar reverence.”[4] We must be careful to note, that, whilst the distinction between bishops, priests, and deacons, is a matter of divine appointment, these grades amongst bishops are not so. They were made for the sake of convenience in the better government of the Church. The distinctions are distinctions of honour, and of influence, and of strictly limited jurisdiction, and are useful as a matter of Church order; they are not essential to the Church’s life. St. Cyprian teaches this, when he speaks of our Lord “giving to all the apostles an equal power,” and of their being “endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power.”[5] St. Jerome, writing A.D. 393, says likewise,— “wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome, or Eugubium, whether it be at Constantinople, or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria, or at Zoan, his dignity is one, and his priesthood is one… all alike are successors of the apostles.”[6]