CANON VII.

SINCE custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of 

AElia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due 

dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VII.

Let the Bishop of AElia be honoured, the rights of the Metropolis 

being preserved intact.

There would seem to be a singular fitness in the Holy City Jerusalem 

holding a very exalted position among the sees of Christendom, and it 

may appear astonishing that in the earliest times it was only a 

suffragan see to the great Church of Caesarea. It must be remembered, 

however, that only about seventy years after our Lord's death the city 

of Jerusalem was entirely destroyed and ploughed as a field according 

to the prophet. As a holy city Jerusalem was a thing of the past for 

long years, and it is only in the beginning of the second century that 

we find a strong Christian Church growing up in the rapidly increasing 

city, called no longer Jerusalem, but aelia Capitolina. Possibly by the 

end of the second century the idea of the holiness of the site began to 

lend dignity to the occupant of the see; at all events Eusebius() tells 

us that "at a synod held on the subject of the Easter controversy in the 

time of Pope Victor, Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of 

Jerusalem were presidents."

It was this feeling of reverence which induced the passing of this 

seventh canon. It is very hard to determine just what was the 

"precedence" granted to the Bishop of AElia, nor is it clear which is 

the metropolis referred to in the last clause. Most writers, including 

Hefele, Balsamon, Aristenus and Beveridge consider it to be Caesarea; 

while Zonaras thinks Jerusalem to be intended, a view recently 

adopted and defended by Fuchs; [] others again suppose it is Antioch 

that is referred to. 

EXCURSUS ON THE RISE OF THE PATRIARCHATE OF 

JERUSALEM.

The narrative of the successive steps by which the See of Jerusalem 

rose from being nothing but AElia, a Gentile city, into one of the five 

patriarchal sees is sad reading for a Christian. It is but the record of 

ambition and, worse still, of knavery. No Christian can for a moment 

grudge to the Holy City of the old dispensation the honour shewn it by 

the Church, but he may well wish that the honour had been otherwise 

obtained. A careful study of such records as we possess shews that 

until the fifth century the Metropolitan of Caesarea as often took 

precedence of the Bishop of Jerusalem as vice versa, and Beveridge 

has taken great pains to shew that the learned De Marca is in error in 

supposing that the Council of Nice assigned to Jerusalem a dignity 

superior to Caesarea, and only inferior to Rome, Alexandria, and 

Antioch. It is true that in the signatures the Bishop of Jerusalem does 

sign before his metropolitan, but to this Beveridge justly replies that 

the same is the case with the occupants of two other of his suffragan 

sees. Bishop Beveridge's opinion is that the Council assigned 

Jerusalem the second place in the province, such as London enjoys in 

the Province of Canterbury. This, however, would seem to be as much 

too little as De Marca's contention grants too much. It is certain that 

almost immediately after the Council had adjourned, the Bishop of 

Jerusalem, Maximus, convoked a synod of Palestine, without any 

reference to Caesarea, which consecrated bishops and acquitted St. 

Athanasius. It is true that he was reprimanded for doing so,() but yet 

it clearly shews how lie intended to understand the action of Nice. The 

matter was not decided for a century more, and then through the 

chicanery of Juvenal the bishop of Jerusalem.

(Canon Venables, Dict. Christ. Biography.)

Juvenalis succeeded Praylius as bishop of Jerusalem somewhere about 

 A.D. The exact year cannot be determined. The episcopate of 

Praylius, which commenced in  A.D., was but short, and we can 

hardly give it at most more than three years. The statement of Cyril of 

Scythopolis, in his Life of St. Euthymius (c. ), that Juvenal died "in 

the forty-fourth year of his episcopate,"  A.D., is certainly 

incorrect, as it would make his episcopate begin in  A.D., three 

years before that of his predecessor. Juvenal occupies a prominent 

position during the Nestorian and Eutychian troubles towards the 

middle of the fifth century. But the part played by him at the councils 

of Ephesus and Chalcedon, as well as at the disgraceful 

 lhstrikh   of , was more conspicuous than 

creditable, and there are few of the actors in these turbulent and 

saddening scenes who leave a more unpleasing impression. The ruling 

object of Juvenal's episcopate, to which everything else was secondary, 

and which guided all his conduct, was the elevation of the see of 

Jerusalem from the subordinate position it held in accordance with the 

seventh of the canons of the council of Nicaea, as suffragan to the 

metropolitan see of Caesarea, to a primary place in the episcopate. Not 

content with aspiring to metropolitan rank, Juvenal coveted patriarchal 

dignity, and, in defiance of all canonical authority, he claimed 

jurisdiction over the great see of Antioch, from which he sought to 

remove Arabia and the two Phoenicias to his own province. At the 

council of Ephesus, in , he asserted for "the apostolic see of 

Jerusalem the same rank and authority with the apostolic see of Rome" 

(Labbe, Concil. iii. ). These falsehoods he did not scruple to 

support with forged documents ("insolenter ausus per commentitia 

scripta firmare," Leo. Mag. Ep.  []), and other disgraceful 

artifices. Scarcely had Juvenal been consecrated bishop of Jerusalem 

when he proceeded to assert his claims to the metropolitan rank by his 

acts. In the letter of remonstrance against the proceedings of the 

council of Ephesus, sent to Theodosius by the Oriental party, they complain that 

Juvenal, whose "ambitious designs and juggling tricks" they are only 

too well acquainted with, had ordained in provinces over which he had 

no jurisdiction (Labbe, Concil. iii. ). This audacious attempt to set 

at nought the Nicene decrees, and to falsify both history and tradition 

was regarded with the utmost indignation by the leaders of the 

Christian church. Cyril of Alexandria shuddered at the impious design 

("merito perhorrescens," Leo. u. s.), and wrote to Leo, then archdeacon 

of Rome, informing him of what Juvenal was undertaking, and 

begging that his unlawful attempts might have no sanction from the 

apostolic See ("ut nulla illicitis conatibus praeberetur assensio," u. s.). 

Juvenal, however, was far too useful an ally in his campaign against 

Nestorius for Cyril lightly to discard. When the council met at Ephesus 

Juvenal was allowed, without the slightest remonstrance, to take 

precedence of his metropolitan of Caesarea, and to occupy the position 

of vice-president of the council, coming next after Cyril himself 

(Labbe, Concil. iii. ), and was regarded in all respects as the 

second prelate in the assembly. The arrogant assertion of his 

supremacy over the bishop of Antioch, and his claim to take rank next 

after Rome as an apostolical see, provoked no open remonstrance, and 

his pretensions were at least tacitly allowed. At the next council, the 

disgraceful Latrocinium, Juvenal occupied the third place, after 

Dioscorus and the papal legate, having been specially named by 

Theodosius, together with Thalassius of Caesarea (who appears to 

have taken no umbrage at his suffragan being preferred before him), as 

next in authority to Dioscorus (Labbe, Concil. iv. ), and he took a 

leading part in the violent proceedings of that assembly. When the 

council of Chalcedon met, one of the matters which came before it for 

settlement was the dispute as to priority between Juvenal and 

Maximus Bishop of Antioch. The contention was long and severe. It 

ended in a compromise agreed on in the Seventh Action, 

 meta    pollhn   

 filoneikian  . Juvenal surrendered his claim to the two 

Phoenicias and to Arabia, on condition of his being allowed 

metropolitical jurisdiction over the three Palestines (Labbe, Concil. iv. 

). The claim to patriarchal authority over the Bishop of Antioch put 

forward at Ephesus was discreetly dropped. TIle difficulty presented 

by the Nicene canon does not appear to have presented itself to the 

council, nor was any one found to urge the undoubted claims of the 

see of Caesarea. The terms arranged between Maximus and Juvenal 

were regarded as satisfactory, and received the consent of the 

assembled bishops (ibid. ). Maximus, however, was not long in 

repenting of his too ready acquiescence in Juvenal's demands, and 

wrote a letter of complaint to pope Leo, who replied by the letter 

which has been already quoted, dated June ,  A.D., in which he 

upheld the binding authority of the Nicene canons, and commenting in 

the strongest terms on the greediness and ambition of Juvenal, who 

allowed no opportunity of forwarding his ends to be lost, declared that 

as far as he was concerned he would do all he could to maintain the 

ancient dignity of the see of Antioch (Leo Magn. Ep. ad Maximum, 

 []). No further action, however, seems to have been taken either 

by Leo or by Maximus. Juvehal was left master of the situation, and 

the church of Jerusalem has from that epoch peaceably enjoyed the 

patriarchal dignity obtained for it by such base means.