Conc.

Nic. c. 6.

grand part of the Christian world some one primate, from whose judgment no man living within his territory might appeal, unless it were to a council-general of all bishops. The drift and purport of which order was, that neither any man oppressed by his own particular bishop might be destitute of a remedy, through appeal unto the more indifferent sentence of some other ordinary judge; nor yet every man be left to such liberty, as before, to shift himself out of their hands for whom it was most meet to have the hearing and determining of his cause. The evil, for remedy whereof this order was taken, annoyed, at that present, especially the church of Alexandria in Egypt, where Arianism begun for which cause the state of that church is in the Nicene canons, concerning this matter, mentioned before the rest. The words of their sacred edict are these: "Let those customs remain in force which have been of old the customs of Egypt, and Libya, and Pentapolis; by which customs the bishop of Alexandria hath authority over all these: the rather, for that this hath also been the use of the bishop of Rome; yea, the same hath been kept in Antioch, and in other provinces." Ejusd. Now, because the custom likewise had been, that great ho- Conc. c.7. nour should be done to the bishop of Elia or Jerusalem; therefore, lest their decree concerning the primate of Antioch should any whit prejudice the dignity and honour of that see, special provision is made, that although it were inferior in degree, not only unto Antioch the chief of the east, but even unto Cesaria too; yet such pre-eminence it should retain as belonged to a mother-city, and enjoy whatsoever special prerogative or privilege it had besides. Let men, therefore, hereby judge of what continuance this order, which upholdeth degrees of bishops, must needs have been, when a general council of three hundred and eighteen bishops, living themselves within three hundred years after Christ, doth reverence the same for antiquity's sake, as a thing which had been even then of old observed in the most renowned parts of the Christian world. Wherefore, needless altogether are those vain and wanton demands, No mention of an archbishop in Theophilus bishop of Antioch? None in Ignatius? None in Clemens of Alexandria? None in Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Tertullian, Cyprian? None in all those old historiographers, out of which Eusebius gathereth his story? None till the time of the council of Nice three hundred and twenty

years after Christ? As if the mention, which is thereof made in that very council where so many bishops acknowledge archiepiscopal dignity even then ancient, were not of far more weight and value than if every of those fathers had written large discourses thereof. But what is it which they will blush at who dare so confidently set it down, that in the council of Nice some bishops being termed metropolitans, no more difference is thereby meant to have been between one bishop and another than is shewed between one minister and another, when we say such a one is a minister in the city of London, and such a one a minister in the town of Newington. So that, to be termed a metropolitan bishop did, in their conceit, import no more pre-eminence above other bishops, than we mean, that a girdler hath over others of the same trade, if we term him which doth inhabit some mothercity for difference' sake a metropolitan girdler. But the truth is too manifest to be eluded; a bishop at that time had power in his own diocess over all other ministers there, and a metropolitan bishop sundry pre-eminences above other bishops, one of which pre-eminences was, in the ordination of bishops to have κῦρος τῶν γινομένων, the chief power of ordering all things done. Which pre-eminence that council itself doth mention, as also a greater belonging unto the patriarch or primate of Alexandria, concerning whom it is there likewise said, that to him did belong ovoía, authority and power over all Egypt, Pentapolis, and Lybia: within which compass sundry metropolitan sees to have been, there is no man ignorant, which in those antiquities have any knowledge. Certain prerogatives there are wherein metropolitans excelled other bishops, certain also wherein primates excelled other metropolitans. Archiepiscopal or metropolitan prerogatives are those mentioned in the old imperial constitutions, to con

b

a T. C. lib. i. 92. What! no mention of him in Theophilus bishop of Antioch? none in Clemens Alexandrinus? none in Ignatius? none in Justin Martyr? in Irenæus, in Tertullian, in Origen, in Cyprian? in those old historiographers, out of which Eusebius gathered his story? Was it for his baseness and smallness that he could not be seen amongst the bishops, elders, and deacons, being the chief and principal of them all? Can the cedar of Lebanon be hidden amongst the box-trees? T. C. lib. i. ubi supra. A metropolitan bishop was nothing else but a bishop of that place which it pleased the emperor or magistrate to make the chief of the diocess or shire; and as for this name, it makes no more difference between a bishop and a bishop, than when I say a minister of London, and a minister of Newington.

b Conc. Nicen. c. 6. Illud autem omnino manifestum, quod siquis, absque metropolitani sententia, factus sit episc. hunc magna synodus definivit episc. esse non oportere. Can. 4.

exxiii.

cxxiii.

lxxix.

can. 2.

cxxiii.

сххіії.

vocate the holy bishops under them, within the compass of Novel. their own provinces, when need required their meeting to- can. 10. gether for inquisition and redress of public disorders; to Novel. grant unto bishops under them leave and faculty of absence can. 9. from their own diocesses when it seemed necessary that they Novel. should otherwhere converse for some reasonable while; to give notice unto bishops under them of things commanded Novel. by supreme authority; to have the hearing and first deter- can. 22. mining of such causes as any man had against a bishop; Novel. to receive the appeals of the inferior clergy, in case they can. 23. found themselves overborne by the bishop, their immediate judge. And lest haply it should be imagined that canons ecclesiastical we want to make the selfsame thing manifest; in the council of Antioch it was thus decreed: "The bishop Can. 9. in every province must know, that he which is bishop in the mother-city, hath not only charge of his own parish or diocess, but even of the whole province also." Again: “ It hath seemed good, that other bishops, without him, should do nothing more than only that which concerns each one's parish, and the places underneath it." Farther, by the selfsame Can. 16. council all councils provincial are reckoned void and frustrate, unless the bishop of the mother-city within that province. where such councils should be, were present at them. So that the want of his presence, and, in canons for church-government, want of his approbation also, did disannul them. Not so the want of any others. Finally, concerning election Can. 4. of bishops, the council of Nice hath this general rule, that gov the chief ordering of all things here, is in every province committed to the metropolitan. Touching them, who amongst metropolitans were also primates, and had of sundry united provinces, the chiefest metropolitan see, of such that canon in the council of Carthage was eminent, whereby a bishop is forbidden to go beyond seas without the licence of the highest chair within the same bishop's own country; and of such which beareth the name apostolical, is that ancient canon likewise, which chargeth the bishop of each nation to Can. 23. know him which is first amongst them, and to esteem of him Cau. 34. as a head, and to do no extraordinary thing but with his leave. The chief primates of the Christian world were the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. To whom the Cassiod. bishop of Constantinople, being afterward added, St. Chry- in Vita Chrysost. sostom the bishop of that see is in that respect said to have

τὸ

γινομένων.

ep. 9.

had the care and charge, not only of the city of Constantinople," sed etiam totius Thraciæ, quæ sex præfecturis est divisa, et Asiæ totius, quæ ab undecim præsidibus regitur." The rest of the east was under Antioch, the south under Alexandria, and the west under Rome. Whereas, therefore, John the bishop of Jerusalem being noted of heresy, had written an apology for himself unto the bishop of Alexandria, named Hieron. Theophilus; St. Jerome reproveth his breach of the order of the church herein, saying, " Tu qui regulas quæris ecclesiasticas, et Niceni concilii canonibus uteris, responde mihi, ad Alexandrinum episcopum Palæstina quid pertinet? Ni fallor, hoc ibi decernitur, ut Palæstinæ metropolis Cæsarea sit, et totius orientis Antiochia. Aut igitur ad Cæsariensem episcopum referre debueras, aut si procul expetendum judicium erat, Antiochiam potius literæ dirigendæ." Thus much concerning that local compass which was anciently set out to bishops; within the bounds and limits whereof we find, that they did accordingly exercise that episcopal authority and power which they had over the church of Christ.

In what re

spects episcopal regiment hath

said of old

hær. ad

quod vult deum.

IX. The first whom we read to have bent themselves against the superiority of bishops were Aerius and his followers. Aerius seeking to be made a bishop, could not brook been gain- that Eustathius was thereunto preferred before him. Whereby Aerius. as therefore he saw himself unable to rise to that greatness Aug. de which his ambitious pride did affect, his way of revenge was to try what wit, being sharpened with envy and malice, could do in raising a new seditious opinion, that the superiority which bishops had, was a thing which they should not have; that a bishop might not ordain; and that a bishop ought not any way to be distinguished from a presbyter. For so doth St. Augustine deliver the opinion of Aerius: Epiphanius not so plainly, nor so directly, but after a more rhetorical sort. His speech was rather furious than convenient for man to use: "What is (saith he) a bishop more than a presbyter? The one doth differ from the other nothing. For their order is one, their honour one, one their dignity. A bishop imposeth his hands, so doth a presbyter. A bishop baptizeth, the like doth a presbyter. The bishop is a minister of Divine service, a presbyter the same. The bishop

a Aeriani ab Aerio quodam sunt nominati; qui quum esset presbyter, docuisse fertur, quod episcopus non potest ordinare. Decebat episcopum a presbytero nulla ratione debere discerni. Aug. de hær.

sitteth as a judge in a throne, even the presbyter sitteth also." A presbyter therefore doing thus far the selfsame thing which a bishop did, it was by Aerius enforced, that they ought not in any thing to differ. Are we to think Aerius had wrong in being judged a heretic for holding this opinion? Surely if heresy be an error falsely fathered upon scriptures, but indeed repugnant to the truth of the word of God, and by the consent of the universal church in the councils, or in her contrary uniform practice throughout the whole world, declared to be such; and the opinion of Aerius in this point be a plain error of that nature, there is no remedy, but Aerius so schismatically and stiffly maintaining it, must even stand where Epiphanius and Augustine have placed him. An error repugnant unto the truth of the word of God is held by them, whosoever they be, that stand in defence of any conclusion drawn erroneously out of Scripture, and untruly thereon fathered. The opinion of Aerius. therefore being falsely collected out of Scripture, must needs be acknowledged an error repugnant unto the truth of the word of God. His opinion was, that there ought not to be any difference between a bishop and a presbyter. His grounds and reasons for his opinion were sentences of Scripture. Under pretence of which sentences, whereby it seemed that bishops and presbyters at the first did not differ, it was concluded by Aerius, that the church did ill in permitting any difference to be made. The answer which Epiphanius maketh unto some part of the proofs by Aerius alleged, was not greatly studied or laboured; for through a contempt of so base an error (for this himself did perceive and profess) yieldeth he thereof expressly this reason; men that have wit do evidently see that all this is mere foolishness. But how vain and ridiculous soever his opinion seemed unto wise men; with it Aerius deceived many,a for which cause somewhat was convenient to be said against it. And in that very extemporal slightness which Epiphanius there useth, albeit the answer made to Aerius be in part but raw, yet ought

2 Εν τούτω πολλοὺς ἐπάτησε.

b As in that he saith, the apostle doth name sometimes presbyters and not bishops, 1 Tim. iv. 14. sometimes bishops and not presbyters, Phil. i. 1. because all churches had not both, for want of able and sufficient men. In such churches, therefore, as had but the one, the apostle could not mention the other. Which answer is nothing to the latter place abovementioned for that the church of Philippi should have more bishops than one, and want a few able men to be presbyters under the regiment of one bishop, how shall we think it probable or likely?