XXII. THE CHURCH (pp. 888-91) 1369 1370 XXII. THE CHURCH (pp.

891-3)
It has also been argued from two canons of Chalcedon that the dioceses of Thrace,
Asiana and Pontica had 'exarchs'. They run: d /'Je neo, Tov Tfi, a'lirii, br.a exla,
µ rJT eonoAfr YJv lnla'Xono, {j 'XA 1J(] L'XOs dµ<pia/317Toi17, MTa).aµf3avfrw {j Tov Ua exov Tfis
l'iiot'X1J<1Ew, {j Tov Tfi, f3aaiJ.evova17, KwvC1Tavnvovn6J.Ew, 0e6vov 'Xai ln' atlTqj
OL'XaCiaOw (canon 9, A.C.Oec. IL i. 356), El /'Je n, na ea TOV lc5tov aOL'XOiTO
/11)T(]07tOAfrov, naea Tep l�dexq> Tfis 6tOL'X1JGEW, {j T<p Kwvarnvnvovn6J.ew, Oe6v cp
OL'XaCiaOw, 'Xa0d neoEle?JTai (canon 17, A.C.Oec. II. i. 357). These canons were
enacted before the creation of the patriarchate of Constantinople, and were
evidently meant to be of general application _thr �mghout t�e Eastern �hurch.
They certainly cannot mean, as has been m�10ta10e�, that 10 the patr�archate
37. AMBROSE AT SIRMIUM: P aul. V. Afllb. 11. POSITION OF SIRMIUM: Gesta of Constantinople, cases went first to the exarchs of Thrace, Ponuca and
Cone. Aquil. 16 (PL xvr. 921), caput lllyrici non nisi civitas est Sirmiensis. Asiana, and by appeal to Constantinople; for in the firs! place the patriarchate
THE DEPOSITION OF TWO DACIAN BISHOPS: Gesta Cone. Aquil. (PL xvr. 916-49); did not yet exist, and in the second 'the exarch of the diocese' and 'the throne
that the two bishops came from the diocese of Dacia is shown by PL xvr. 948, of Constantinople' are quite clearly alternative courts of equal status. Moreover
in latere Daciae Ripensis et Moesia. In this instance Ambrose was acting under on that interpretation the canons would ignore the other dioce�es of the East.
imperial authority, see the imperial constitution cited in the Gcsta 3-4 (PL xvr. The most natural interpretation of their rather obscure _word10g_ is that the
916-17). cases in question are to be referred to the head of the diocese (if any), or to
the see of Constantinople (if the diocese had no head). The 'exarchs' would
38. The whole dossier of papal, imperial and other letters beari ng on the include the bishop of Antioch, who is often styled Ua exo, Tfis 'AvaToAt'Xfis
vicariate of Illyricum was cited at a Roman council in 52 I, and is printed in l'itot'X1JGEw,; (A.C.Oec. II. i. 438, cf. . 389, Perry, The S� cond Synod . of Ephesu[,
Mansi, vm. 749-72. 355). These canons, then, do not imply that every diocese had lts , 7xarch ;
39. CTh xvr. ii. 45, 421; th e letters of Honorius and Theodosius are nos. xi on the contrary they imply that in some dioceses Constantinople exercised the
and xii in Mansi, foe. cit. jurisdiction which elsewhere fell to the 'exarch'.
40. THE VICARIATE OF ARLES: Zosimus, Ep. 1, 4-7, 10-II; it is ignored by An instance of an imperial constitution in favour of Constantinople is given
Boniface, Ep. 12, Celestine, Ep. 4 §4. by Soc. VII. 28. The visiting synod is seen func�ioning under Jo�m Chrys�sto'?
41. HILARY: Leo, Ep. 10 (cf. Val. m, Nov. xvii, 445). RAVENNrus: Leo, Ep. (Pall. Dial. p. 83) and Flavian (A.C.Oec. II. 1. 100-45) and its author1ty is
65-6. CAESARIUS: Symmachus, Ep. 16. THE VICARIATE OF SPAIN: Simplicius, confirmed in A.C.Oec. II. i. 465-6.
Ep. 21, Hormisdas, Ep. 24, 142.
42. Ephesus certainly enjoyed some form of primacy, which Palladius implies
exten ded over all Asiana, when h e says that John Chrysostom, in response
to an appeal from the church of Ephesus and the bishops the.re assembled
after the d eath of An toni nus, w ent to Ephesus l:nl x arna -r:dau µ aA.ta Ta Vlilloa rixu-r:wv
:neayµd-i:wv o),ric; Tijc; 'A aiavijc; Ot0tx 17aEwc; (Dial. p. 88). John, however, summoned
a coun cil to elect An toninus's successor from Lydia, Asia and Caria only,
and some bishops from Phrygia attended voluntarily (Dial. p. 89). This
suggests that the influence of Eph esus did not extend to the remoter provinces
of Asiana. Ther e was local i ndignation at Ephesus after Chalcedon at the loss
of its prerogatives, and in the anti-Chalcedonian reaction under Basiliscus
they w ere temporarily r estored (Zach. Myt. Chron. Iv. 5, v. 4, Evagr. rn. 6).
At the sixth ecumenical council of 680 the m etropolitans of Ephesus and
Caesarea signed as l.;aexoc; -i:ijc; 'Aa iavwv o,oixryaEwc; and· l.;aexoc; Tijc; Ilovnxijc;
owixryaEwc; respectively (Mansi, xr. 688-9), but this does n ot prove that either
see enjoyed an y special prerogatives at an earlier date : I know of n o eviden ce
that Caesarea held an y speci al position e xcept that its bishop enjoyed high
precedence, and precedence does not imply powers. There is also, as far as
I know, no eviden ce that H eraclea had any primacy in Thrace, except that its
bishop had high precedence.
The suggestion of th e imperial commissioners at Chalcedon that o, 6a1w-i:a1:01
:na-i:eu.iexm OlOlX1)GE Wc; ixda-r:ric; i:ntAE,;aµE VOt iva fj OE VTE(!OV -i:ijc; olxdac; ixaa -i:oc;
0101x 17aewc; (A.C.Oec. II. i. 274) should form a committee to draw up the creed
shows that they thought every diocese had an acknowledged head; but this
layman's suggestion was not acted upon, doubtless because it ignored the facts.