EGYPT
355
EGYPT
aries for the transmission to the authorities of the
nome of the orders issued by the prefect (Milne, p. 4-6) .
In each nome there was a metropohs which was the
residence of the strategos and, as such, the pohtical
centre of tlie nome. It was a rehgious centre as well,
as it contained the chief sanctuary of the special god
of the whole nome. The chief priest in charge of that
sanctuary naturally ruled in religious matters over all
the secondary temples scattered throughout the terri-
tory of the nome. There was in Alexandria a "High-
Priest of Alexandria and all Egypt ", appointed by the
emperor, and probably a Roman, like the prefect upon
whom he depended and whose substitute he was in
rehgious matters. He had supreme authority over
the priests and control of the temple treasures all over
Egypt. In course of time, particularly under Diocle-
tian, several changes took place in that organization;
but these changes affected in no way the workings of
the administration of the country, which, through a
chain extending from the prefect to the last and least
subaltern of the smallest village, brought every inhab-
itant under the control of the imperial prefect.
A more striking example of centrahzed power can hardly be imagined: one master, supreme in all branches of administration; between him and the people, intermediaries who transmit his orders, but never act except on his behalf, and refer to him all cases of any importance. Such, also, was the organ- ization of the Coptic Church in the first one hundred and twenty years of its existence: one master only, one seat and source of jurisdiction, one judge — the Bishop of Alexandria. It is, therefore, this fullness of jurisdiction ratherthan the fullness of the priesthood — plenitudo sacerdotii — that is understood by the title of bisliop. The presbyters who elect the Bishop of .A-lex- andria, also have the fullness of the priesthood, but they have no jurisdiction of their own. We found them temporarily in charge in the provinces, but they were acting in behalf of the bishop; and for that rea- son, in the older sources, they are not called bishops. With Demetrius (188-232) a new era opens. The bishops of Alexandria, we have seen, began to leave the city secretly, and ordained bishops, priests, and deacons everywhere, as St. Mark himself had done when he went to the Pentapolis. The word secretly is suggestive of times of persecution (cf. Abraham Ecchellensis, "Eutychius viudicatus", 126; Renaudot, "Hist. Patriarcharum .A.lexandrinorum", I). It would seem that this new departure of Demetrius took place in the very first years of the third century, when the Severian persecution broke out. The dangers then threatening the Christian communities — which by this time had greatly increased in all parts of Egypt — may have been the chief consideration that prompted the bishop to come to the assistance of his flock by giving it permanent pastors (see, however, Harnack, "Mission , II, 137, note 2, quoting Schwartz). Ac- cording to the tradition of Eutychius, Demetrius created three bishops; Heraclas (232-48), as many as twenty. The number of bishops so increased, under Dionysius (248-65), Maximus (265-82), Theonas (282- 300), Peter Martyr (300-11), Achillas (312), and Alex- ander (313-326), that the last of these could, in 320, muster nearly one hundred bishops against Arius (Socrates, Hist. Eccl., I, vi), from Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis. The Egyptian hierarchy was then fully organized (cf. Harnack, op. cit., II, 142), a fact which explains, and is explained by, the wholesale Christian- ization of Egypt during the third century. In spite, however, of that astonishing development of the hierarchy, the old institution of itinerant bishops had not yet entirely disappeared. It happened often dur- ing the persecutions that bishops were incarcerated pending trial, and therefore were unable to hold ordina- tions. Their places were then filled by TrepioSevral, or itinerant bishops ordained for that purpose, and resident in Alexandria when not actively engaged in
their sacred functions. It was for having presumed
to usurp the functions of such -n-epioSevTal, that Mele-
tius. Bishop of Lycopohs (in Upper Egypt) was cen-
sured by the Patriarch Alexander, and finally con-
demned and deprived of his jurisdiction by the Council
of Nicaea (see Hefele-Leclercq, Hist, des Conciles,
Paris, 1907, I, 488-503, where all the sources are in-
dicated).
The existence of metropolitans (in the canonical sense of the wortl) in the Church of Egypt is a matter of considerable doubt (see Harnack, op. cit., II, 150, note 3, where reference is made to Schwartz, " Athana- siana ", I, in " Nachricht. d. K. Gesellschaft d. Wiss. zu Gottingen", 1904, p. ISO, and Liibeck, "Reichsein- theilung u. kirchliche Hierarchie", pp. 109 sq., 116 sqq.). If some bishops (which is very likely; see Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte", I, pp. 391, 392) bore that title, they could not have differed from the ordi- nary Egyptian bishops in their relations to the Bishop of Alexandria. It is a well-known fact that the Bishop of Alexandria was wont to ordain not only his metropolitans, as did the other patriarchs, but also their suffragans, with the sole proviso that their elec- tion should have been sanctioned by their respective metropohtans (Hefele, op. cit., I, p. 393). St. Epi- phanius, writing of Meletius, whom he calls dpx^eT'ta-- KoTTos (Haeres., Ixix, c. iii), by which he means really mdrapoZi'fan (Hefele, ibid.), says: "Ille quidem caeteris ^■Egypti episcopis antecellens, secundum a Petro [Alexandrine] dignitatis locum obtinebat, utpote illius adjutor sed eidem tamen subjectus et ad ipsum de re- bus ecclesiasticis referens" [He indeed, being pre- eminent over all the other bishops of Egypt, held the position next in dignity to that of Peter (of Alexan- dria), as being his helper, yet subject to him and de- pendent on him in ecclesiastical affairs]. In what concerns Meletianism St. Epiphanius is not to be im- plicitly trusted. In this case, however, his testimony is probably correct; his words depict just such a con- dition of affairs as we should naturally expect from the general analogy of the church-organization with the civil government. The existence of the epistrategoi and the nature of their relations to the prefect of Egypt might well have suggested the appointment of metropolitans with just as limited an independ- ence of the Bishop of Alexandria as St. Epiphanius at- tributes to Meletius.
Present State of the Coptic Church. — The Jacobite Clnirch has thirteen dioceses in Egypt: Cairo under the Patriarch of Alexandria, with 23 churches and 35 priests; Alexandria, with a metropolitan, having charge also of the Provinces of Bohaireh and Menufiyeh, 48 churches, 60 priests; the three provin- ces of Dakalieh, Sharkieh, and Gharbieh, 70 churches, 95 priests; Gizeh and the Fayum, 25 churches, 40 priests; Beni-Suef, 24 churches, 70 priests; Minieh, 40 churches, 90 priests; Sanabij, 32 churches, 65 priests; Manfalut, 28 churches, 55 priests; Assifit (metropolitan see), 25 churches, 66 priests; Abutig (metropolitan see), 45 churches, 105 priests; Akhmim and Girgeh (metropolitan see), 50 churches, 101 priests; Keneh, 24 churches, 48 priests; Luxor and Esneh (metropolitan see), 24 chiu-ches, 48 priests. By way of summary it may be said that the Jacobite Coptic Church has 1 patriarch, 6 met- ropolitans, 6 bishops, 856 priests, 449 churches, and about 600,000 souls. There are in addition, out- side of Egypt, a metropolitan in Jerusalem, a bishop for Nubia and Khartum, a metropolitan and two bishops in Abyssinia. Some ten years ago the abbots of the monasteries of Moharrak (province of Assitlt), St. Anthony, St. Paul (both in the Arabian Desert), and Baramfis (in the desert of Nitria) were raised to the dignity of bishops.
There are three categories of schools, (a) Church schools, under the patriarch (conservative) : 1 ecclesias- tical college, 50 pupils; 6 boys' schools, 1100 pupils;
