Page:Readings in European History Vol 1.djvu/102

66 Readings in European History The attitude of Cyprian toward the bishop of Rome and the bishops in general has already been shown. 1 There are, however, certain interesting passages in his letters in regard to the matter in hand. For example, certain persons having withdrawn from the unity of the Church and set up a bishop of their own, Cyprian says of them : They dare to appeal to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source. . . . But we have all agreed as is both fair and just that every case should be heard there where the crime has been com- mitted ; and a portion of the flock has been assigned to each individual pastor, which he is to rule and govern, hav- ing to give an account of his deeds to the Lord. It certainly behooves those over whom we are placed not to run about, nor to break up the harmonious agreement of the bishops with their crafty and deceitful rashness, but there to plead their cause, where they may be able to have both accusers and witnesses to their crime. It was almost inevitable that the bishops in the vari- ous great cities of the Empire should be conceded a cer- tain preeminence over the bishops about them. In this way the office of archbishop, or metropolitan, developed. The first distinct, legal recognition of the rights of the archbishops is found in the famous sixth canon of the Council of Nicaea (325). The old custom in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis shall continue to be observed, so that the bishop of Alexandria shall exercise authority over all these regions, for the bishop of Rome enjoys a similar right. Similarly in Antioch and in the other provinces the churches shall retain their preroga- tives. Moreover let it be known that should any one have 1 See above, pp. <)sqq.