Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume XIV/The First Ecumenical Council/Canons/Canon VII

Canon VII.

custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the Bishop of &#198;lia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honoured, let him, saving its due dignity to the Metropolis, have the next place of honour.

Notes.

Let the Bishop of &#198;lia 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 C&#230;sarea.&#160; It must be remembered, however, that only about seventy years after our Lord&#8217;s death the city of Jerusalem was entirely destroyed and ploughed as a field according to the prophet.&#160; 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 &#198;lia Capitolina.&#160; 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 &#8220;at a synod held on the subject of the Easter controversy in the time of Pope Victor, Theophilus of C&#230;sarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem were presidents.&#8221;

It was this feeling of reverence which induced the passing of this seventh canon.&#160; It is very hard to determine just what was the &#8220;precedence&#8221; granted to the Bishop of &#198;lia, nor is it clear which is the metropolis referred to in the last clause.&#160; Most writers, including Hefele, Balsamon, Aristenus and Beveridge consider it to be C&#230;sarea; 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.