EGYPT
353
EGYPT
ordained by priests, and St. Athanasius is supposed to
have been that archbishop. Now, as it is a well-
known fact that St. Athanasius was consecrated by
bishops, that accusation is considered one of the many
calumnies the Arians used to spread against him. If
this interpretation be true, the Lausiac text proves
nothing for the nature of the early Alexandrian epis-
copate. But it seems highly improbable that the
Arians should have dared to assert what everyone in
Egypt in the least familiar with contemporary events,
must have known to be false. In fact the Lausiac
text is susceptible of a more plausible interpretation,
to wit, that the episcopal character of the Archbishop
of Alexandria was to be traced to simple presbyters,
while in other Churches the Apostolic succession had
been transmitted from the very beginning through an
uninterrupted line of bishops. In this case the Lau-
siac would be the oldest witness of the tradition trans-
mitted by Jerome, Severus, and Eutychius, for Pce-
men flourished in the first half of the fifth century
(Diet. Christ. Biogr., s. v.), or even as early as the
latter half of the fourth century, if Charles Gore is
right in his argument that Rufinus visited that holy
hermit in 375 (Journal of Theological Studies, III,
2S0). Moreover, that the bishops of Alexandria were
originally not only elected, but also appointed, by
presbyters is, indirectly at least, confirmed by an-
other tradition for which Eutychius is authority, to
wit, that, till Demetrius there was no other bishop in
Egypt tlian the Bishop of Alexandria. This was
denied by SoUerius (Hist. Chron. Patr. Alex., 8* =
10*) and others, but we shall see in the following
section that their reasons are not conclusive (cf . Har-
nack, "Miss. u. Ausbreitung", '2d ed., II, 133, n. 3).
The tradition that the early Bishops of Alexandria
were elected and appointed by a college of presbyters,
is therefore, if not certain, at least highly probable.
On the other hand it seems almost certain that that
custom came to an end much earlier than Eutychius,
or even Jerome, would have it. Significant is the fact
that they disagree on the terminus ad quern; still more
significant that vSeverus of Antioch is silent on that
point. Besides, several passages of the works of Ori-
gen and Clement of Alexandria can hardly be under-
stood without supposing that the mode of episcopal
election and ordination was then the same as through-
out the rest of the Christian world (see Cabrol in his
"Diet. d'arch(5ologie chr6t.", s. v. Alexandrje: Elec-
tion du Patriarche).
We may not dismiss the question without recalling the use which Presbyterians, since Selden, have made of that tradition to uphold their views on the early organization of the Church. It suffices to say that their theory rests, after all, on the gratuitous assump- tion (to put it as mildly as possible) that the presby- ters who used to elect the Bishop of Alexandria, were priests as understood in the now current meaning of this word. Such is not the tradition; according to Eutychius himself, Selden's chief authority, the priv- ilege of patriarchal election was vested not in the priests in general, but in a college of twelve priests on whom that power had been conferred by St. Mark. They were in that sense an episcopal college. Later on, when it became necessary to establish resident bishops in the provinces, the appointees may have been selected from the college of presbyters, while still retaining their former quality of members of the epis- copal college. So that, little by little, the power of patriarchal election passed into the hands of regular bishops. The transfer would have been gradual and natural; which would explain the incertitude of the witnesses of the tradition as to the time when the old order of things disappeared. Eutychius may have been influenced in his statement by the fourth Nicene canon. As for St. Jerome, he may have meant Deme- trius and Heraclas, instead of Heraclas and Dionysius, for he may have been aware of the other tradition v.— 23
handed down by Eutychius, to the effect that those
two patriarchs were the first to ordain bishops since St.
Mark (see below).
4. The Episcopate in the Provinces. — Delegated Bishops or Itinerant Bishops. — We have said that according to an ancient tradition handed down by Eutychius, the Bishop of Alexantlria was for a long time the only bishop in Egypt. Eutychius's words are as follows: " From Annianus, who was appointed Pa- triarch of Alexandria by Mark the Evangelist, until Demetrius, Patriarch of Alexandria (and he was the eleventh patriarch of .Alexandria) , there was no bishop in the province [sic — read provinces — see below] of Egypt [Arabic, Misr], and the patriarchs his predecessors had appointed no bishop. And when Demetrius became patriarch he appointed three bishops, and he is the first Patriarch of Alexandria who set the bishops over provinces. And when he died Heraclas was made Patriarch of Alexandria, and he appointed twenty bishops" (translated from the edition of L. Cheikho, in "Corp. Script. Christ. Orient.: Script. Arabici", ser. Ill, tom. VI, I, p. 96). It has been ol> jected against this tradition that the Emperor Ha- drian, writing to Servianus on the religious conditions of Egypt (Vopiscus, "Vita Saturnini", 8), speaks of Christian bishops; but this letter is now generally con- sidered as a forgery of the third century (cf . Harnaek, " Mission u. Ausbreitung des Christentums ", 2d ed., II, 133, n. 3), and even if it were genuine it would be neces- sary to know exactly what Hadrian meant by the word bishop; we shall see that it could be used in a sense rather different from the current meaning. A stronger objection is taken from the " Lives of the Patriarchs of Alexandria " by Severus of Ashmunein, where we read that three of the early patriarchs — Cerdo, Celadion, and Julian — were elected by bishops as well as by the people. It is far from certain, however, that the word bislwp in these three cases has its ordinary meaning. In the case of Cerdo the text reads: " When the priests and the bishops, who were representing the patriarch in the towns, heard of his death they were grieved, and they all went to Alexandria and, having taken counsel with the orthodox people", etc. It seems evident that these "bishops" were nothing but delegated bishops acting in virtue of a special and temporary, not an ordinary and permanent, delegation of powers as ordinary bishops (see below) ; for in this case delega- tion, being a matter of course, would not be men- tioned. They were not bishops in tlie ordinary can- onical sense of the word. In Celailion's case the text says: "The bishops who were in Alexandria in those days " — i. e., probably, w}u) were stationed there, re- sided there, which certainly cannot be understood of ordinary bishops, whose residence would have been in their respective dioceses. There was room for but one such bishop in Alexandria. Still clearer is the passage concerning Julian: "A party of bish- ops from the synod assembled with the people of Alexandria", etc. What was that synod? Evi- dently not a council which happened to be in session, for in that case all certainly would have taken part in the election. Besides, if Celadion's predecessor had called a synod or council, Severus, or the author from whom he borrowed that meagre biography, would not have failed to swell it with this important event. There seems to be no other solution than to see in that synod a body of presbyters or delegated bishops who were habitually in residence in Alexandria, but some of whom, being on the mission, were not able to take part in the election. There was, therefore, under the early Bishops of .Alexandria, a body of men who could be called bishops, and yet had no ordinary jurisdic- tion, as is evidenced, first, by the express statement in Cerdo's case and, secondly, by the fact that they usu- ally resided in Alexandria, as stated or implied in the other two cases. Such a body of men the twelve presbyters of Eutychius must have been; so that
