Nicaea - Canon 4

It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent¹ also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place.  But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

In order to appoint an overseer,² a minimum of three existing overseers were required to assemble receiving input from those unable.  The selection then went to the overseer of the city (i.e., "archbishop" is the modern Western church term for Metropolitan) for final confirmation.  As written the canon recognized the method which had been built up as a safeguard against impropriety and rashness, as well as seeking a consensus amongst the spiritual men as to who was mature and able to lead.  As is evident from the terminology, a hierarchy had been established so that the Metropolitan oversaw the episcopate in his region, which were working in the individual churches and outlying communities.  From a biblical standpoint, this city position is untenable but was evidently allowed for cohesion of the church universal.

What of the congregations they served?  Did they not have input to the process?  Indeed they did as Hefele gives in the following commentary.

The Council of Nicea thought it necessary to define by precise rules the duties of the bishops who took part in these episcopal elections.  It decided (a) that a single bishop of the province was not sufficient for the appointment of another; (b) three at least should meet, and (c) they were not to proceed to election without the written permission of the absent bishops; it was necessary (d) to obtain afterward the approval of the metropolitan.…The Greek Commentators…only followed the example of the Seventh and [so-called] Eighth Ecumenical Councils in affirming that this fourth canon of Nicea takes away from the people the right previously possessed of voting in the choice of bishops and makes the election depend entirely on the decision of the bishops of the province.

The Latin Church acted otherwise.  It is true that with it also the people have been removed from episcopal elections, but this did not happen till later, about the eleventh century; and it was not the people only who were removed, but the bishops of the province as well, and the election was conducted entirely by the clergy of the Cathedral Church.  The Latins then interpreted the canon of Nicea as though it said nothing of the rights of the bishops of the province in the election of their future colleague (and it does not speak of it in a very explicit manner), and as though it determined these two points only; (a) that for the ordination of a bishop three bishops at least are necessary; (b) that the right of confirmation rests with the metropolitan.³

For a time both the Greek and Latin branches of the church had the members be active participants in the appointment of bishops.  This seems to reflect the apostolic pattern begun as Paul and Barnabas appointed those put forth by the local churches (Acts 14:21-23).  The process appeared to be men who appeared to be mature in the faith by the ministry being done.  These were put forth to the overseers who then appointed them with the the final confirmation coming from the metropolitan.


¹ The episcopate unable to attend
² The literal meaning of ἐπίσκοπος translated in the canon, signifying the work done by the individual.
³ Karl Josef von Hefele as noted in The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol 14, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed., (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1899), 12.