CANON IV.

IT is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the 

bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account 

of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet 

together, and the suffrages of the absent[bishops] also being given and 

communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in 

every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the 

Metropolitan.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON IV.

A bishop is to be chosen by all the bishops of the province, or at least 

by three, the rest giving by letter their assent ; but this choice must be 

confirmed by the Metropolitan.

ZONARAS.

The present Canon might seem to be opposed to the first canon of the 

Holy Apostles, for the latter enjoins that a bishop ordained by two or 

three bishops, but this by three, the absent also agreeing and testifying their assent by writing. 

But they are not contradictory; for the Apostolical canon by ordination 

( keirotonian  ) means consecration and imposition of 

hands, but the present canon by constitution 

( katastasin  ) and ordination means the election, and 

enjoins that the election of a bishop do not take place unless three 

assemble, having the consent also of the absent by letter, or a 

declaration that they also will acquiesce in the election(or 

vote,( yhfw  ) made by the three who have assembled. 

But after the election it gives the ratification or completion of the 

matter--the imposition of hands and consecration--to the metropolitan 

of the province, so that the election is to be ratified by him. He does so 

when with two or three bishops, according to the apostolical canon, he 

consecrates with imposition of hands the one of the elected persons 

whom he himself selects.

BALSAMON

also understands  kaqistasqai   to mean election by 

vote.

BRIGHT.

The Greek canonists are certainly in error when they interpret 

 keirotonia   of election. The canon is akin to the 1st 

Apostolic canon which, as the canonists admit, must refer to the 

consecration of a new bishop, and it was cited in that sense at the 

Council of Cholcedon--Session xiii.(Mansi., vii. ). We must follow 

Rufinus and the old Latin translators, who speak of "ordinari" 

"ordinatio" and "manus impositionem."

HEFELE.

The Council of Nice thought it necessary to define by precise rules the 

duties of the bishops who took part in these episcopal elections. It 

decided(a) that a single bishop of the province was not sufficient for 

the appointment of another;(b) three at least  should meet, and(c) they 

were not to proceed  to election without the written permission of the 

absent bishops; it was necessary(d) to obtain afterward the approval of 

the metropolitan. The Council thus confirms the ordinary metropolitan 

division in its two most  important points, namely, the nomination and  

ordination of bishops, and the superior position of the metropolitan. 

The third point connected with this division--namely, the provincial 

synod--will be considered under the next canon.

Meletius was probably the occasion of this canon. It may be 

remembered that he had nominated bishops without the concurrence 

of the other bishops of the province, and without the approval of the 

metropolitan of Alexandria, and had thus occasioned a schism. This 

canon was intended to prevent the recurrence of such abuses. The 

question has been raised as to whether the fourth canon speaks only of 

the choice of the bishop, or whether it also treats of the consecration of 

the newly elected. We think, with Van Espen, that it treats equally of 

both,--as well of the part which the bishops of the province should take 

in an episcopal election, as of the consecration which completes it.

This canon has been interpreted in two ways. The Greeks had learnt by 

bitter experience to distrust the interference of princes and earthly 

potentates in episcopal elections. Accordingly, they tried to prove that 

this canon of Nice took away from the people the right of voting at the 

nomination of a bishop, and confined the nomination exclusively to 

the bishops of the province.

The Greek Commentators, Balsamon and others, therefore, only 

followed the example of the Seventh and[so-called] Eighth(Ecu-

menical Councils in affirming that this fourth canon of Nice takes 

away from the people the right previously possessed of voting in the 

choice of bishops and makes the election depend entirely on the 

decision of the bishops of the province.

The Latin Church acted otherwise. It is true that with it also the people 

have been removed from episcopal elections, but this did not happen 

till later, about the eleventh century; and it was not the people only 

who were removed, but the bishops of the province as well, and the 

election was conducted entirely by the clergy of the Cathedral Church. 

The Latins then interpreted the canon of Nice as though it said nothing 

of the rights of the bishops of the province in the election of their 

future colleague(and it does not speak of it in a very explicit manner), 

and as though it determined these two points only;(a) that for the 

ordination of a bishop three bishops at least are necessary;(b) that the 

right of confirmation rests with the metropolitan.

The whole subject of episcopal elections is treated fully by Van Espen 

and by Thomassin, in Ancienne et Nouvelle Discipline de l' Eglise, P. 

II. . .

This canon is found in the Corpus Juris Canonici, Gratian's Decretum, 

Pars I. Dist. LXIV. c. j.