JERUSALEM
358
JERUSALEM
bishop who had precedence over his metropolitan was
an anomalous one that obviously could not last.
The successors of Macarius were: Maximus II (333-
349); St. Cyril of Jerusalem (350-386); (Eutychius
intruded 357-359; Irenoeus intruded 360-361; Hi-
larion intruded 367-378) ; John II (386-417) ; Praylios
(417-421); Juvenal (421-458). Already in the time
of St. Cyril difficulties arose about his relation to
his metropolitan, ^¥llile he was defending the Faith
against the Arians, Acacius of CiEsarea, an extreme
Arian, summoned a Synod (358) to try Cyril for
various offences, of which the first was that he had
disobeyed or behaved with insubordination towards
Acacius, his superior. It is difficult to be sure exactly
what the accusation was. Sozomen (IV, xxv) says
it was that he had disobeyed and had refused to
acknowledge Csesarea as his metropolis; Theodoret
says it was only about his quite lawful claim to prece-
dence. The case shows how difficult the position
was. Cyril refused to attend the synod and was
deposed in his absence. His refusal again opens a
question as to his position. Did he refuse merely
because he knew that Acacius was a determined
Arian and would certainly condemn him, or was it
because he thought that his exceptional "succession
of honour" exempted him from the jurisdiction of
any but a patriarchal synod? The three usurpers,
Eutychius, Irena?us, Hilarion, were Arians intruded
into his see by their party during his three exiles.
It was Juvenal of Jerusalem (420-458) who at last succeeded in changing the anomalous position of his see into a real patriarchate. From the beginning of his reign he assimied an attitude that was quite incompatible with his canonical position as suffragan of Caesarea. About the year 425 a certain tribe of Arabs was converted to Christianity. These people set up their camp in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem. Jvivenal then proceeded to found a bishopric for them. He ordained one Peter as "Bishop of the Camp" (^7r(<r«:o7ros Trap€fj.fio\{ov). This Peter (apparently the sheikh of the tribe) signed at Ephesus in 431 with that title. Juvenal's action may perhaps be explained as merely the ordination of an Arabic-speaking coadjutor for these people whose language he himself did not know; but Peter's title and presence at Ephesus certainly suggest that he considered himself a dio- cesan bishop. Juvenal had no sort of right to set up a new diocese nor to ordain a suffragan to his own see. The " See of the Parembolai " disappeared again in the sixth century (Vailhe "Le Monastere de S. Theoctiste et I'^veche des Paremboles" in the "Revue de I'Orient chretien", III, 58). From the Acts of Ephesus it appears that Juvenal had ordained other bishops in Palestine and Arabia. A number of bishops of the Antiochene patriarchate wrote a letter to the Emperor Theodosius II in which they appear to have some doubts as to the regularity of their position since, as they say, they have "been ordained formerly by the most pious Juvenal " (Mansi, IV, 1402). Now the right of ordaining a bishop always meant in the East jurisdiction over him. We see an instance of this in the Acts of the C'ouncil. Saidas, Bishop of Phaino in Palestine, describes Juvenal as "our bishop" (o ^tt/o-koitos i7/x(ir' =our metropolitan, apparently. See Vailh^: " L'eree- tion du patriarcat de Jerusalem" in "Rev. de I'Or. chrdt.", IV, 44 sq.). Clearly then even before the council Juvenal had been making tentative efforts to assume at least metropolitical rights. At the council he made a stroke whose boldness is amazing. He tried to get his see recognized not merely as inde- pendent of antl equal to Ca-sarea, but superior to the great Patriarchate of Antioch. Aiitioch, he pre- tended, must submit to the see that canonically (in spite of its honorary position) was the sulTragan of Antioch's suffragan. II is attemi)t failed altogether. He might perhaps hav(^ shaken off the authority of
Ca;sarea; but this was too startling. Nevertheless
the opportunity was a splendid one for him. We
see Juvenal's cleverness in seizing it. At Flphesus
he was the second bishop present. Celestine of Rome
was represented by his legates; Cyril of Alexandria
was president, but was already having trouble with
Candidian the Imperial Commissioner; John of
Antioch arrived late and then set up a rival council
in favour of the heretics, Nestorius of Constantinople
was the accused. Juvenal's own metropolitan (of
Ca?sarea) was not present. The schismatical attitude
of John of Antioch especially gave Juvenal his chance.
Surely Cyril's coimcil would not support John.
Juvenal then, under colour of supporting Cyril and
the pope, tried to get the council to acknowledge
no less than his own jurisdiction over Antioch. In
a speech he explained to the Fathers that John of
Antioch ought to have appeared at the coimcil to
give the oecumenical synod an explanation of what
had happened (his late arrival and the anti-council
he was setting up) and to show obedience and rev-
erence to the Apostolic See of Rome and the Holy
Church of Ciod at Jerusalem. "For it was especially
the custom according to Apostolic order and tra-
dition that the See of Antioch be corrected and
judged by that of Jerusalem. Instead of that John
with his usual insolence had despised the coimcil "
(Mansi, IV, 1312). To mix up his own impudent
claim with the just grievance of the other Fathers
was a master-stroke. But Cyril would have none of
him. The pretence was too wildly absurd. Leo
the Great, writing afterwards to Maximus of Antioch,
says that Juvenal had tried to confirm his insolent
attempt by forged documents; but Cyril had warned
him not to urge such lawless claims (Ep. 119, ad Max.).
So this first attempt did not succeed. For the next
twenty years matters remained as they had been.
Juvenal still went on acting on his claim and behaving
as the chief authority of Palestine. After the Council
he ordained a Bishop of Jamnia (" Vita S. Euthymii ",
P. G., CXIV, c. .57).
When the Monophysite heresy began Juvenal was at first on the side of the heretics. He was present at the Robber Synod of 449, on the side of Dioscurus, and joined in the deposition of Flavian of Constan- tinople. That fact should have ruined his chance of getting any advantage from Chalcedon (451). Yet he was clever enough to turn even this position to his advantage. Chalcedon at last gave him a great part of what he wanted. At first he appeared at the council with the other Monophysites as an accused But he saw at once which way the tide had turned, threw off his former friends, turned completely round and signed Pope Leo's dogmatic letter to Flavian. The orthodox Fathers were delighted. In a general council the titular rank given to Jerusalem by Nica^a would naturally make itself felt. The atlherence of so venerable a see was received with delight, the illus- trious convert deserved some reward. Juvenal then explained that he had at last come to a friendly understanding with Maximus of Antioch, by which the long dispute between their sees should be ended. .\ntioch was of course to keep her precedence over Jerusalem and the greater part of her patriarchate. But she would sacrifice a small territory, Palestine in the strict sense (the three Roman provinces so called), and apparently Arabia, to make up a little pa- triarchate for Jerusalem. The emperor (Theodosius II) had already interfered in the quarrel and had pretended to cut a much larger territory awav from Antioch for the benefit of .Jerusalem. So this ar- rangement appeared as a sort of compromise. The coimcil in the seventh and eighth sessions (Hefele: "Coiioilicngcsch." II, 477 and M'J) accepted Juvenal's proposal (Maximus's coiTespondeiiee with Leo the (irrat slunvs tliat he was still not (|uitc satisfied) and made Jerusalem a iialriarchate with this smull
