copo), ut ecclesia à Domino Jesu et Dominus à Patre suo, ut omnia per unitatem consentiant:" "Blessed people are ye that depend upon your bishop, as the church on Christ, and Christ on God, that all things may consent in unity."

"Neque enim aliundè hæreses obortæ sunt, aut nata sunt schismata, quàm inde quòd sacerdoti Dei non obtemperatur, nec unus in ecclesiâ ad tempus sacerdos, et ad tempus judex vice Christi cogitatur:" "Hence come schisms, hence spring heresies, that the bishop is not obeyed, and admitted alone to be the high-priest, alone to be the judge." The same St. Cyprian repeats again; and by it we may see his meaning clearer: " Qui vos audit, me audit," &c. "Inde enim hæreses et schismata oborta sunt et oriuntur, dum episcopus, qui unus est et ecclesiæ præest, superbâ quorundam præsumptione contemnitur, et homo dignatione Dei honoratus, indignus hominibus judicatur." The pride and peevish haughtiness of some factious people that contemn their bishops, is the cause of all heresy and schism. And, therefore, it was so strictly forbidden by the ancient canons, that any man should have any meetings, or erect an altar, out of the communion of his bishop, that if any man proved delinquent in this particular, he was punished with the highest censures, as appears in the thirty-second canon of the apostles, in the sixth canon of the council of Gangra, the fifth canon of the council of Antioch, and the great council of Chalcedon, all which I have before cited. The sum is this: The bishop is the band and ligature of the church's unity; and separation from the bishop is διχονοίας σύμβολον, as Theodoret's expression is; "a symbol of faction;" and he that separates, is a schismatic.

But how if the bishop himself be a heretic or schismatic? May we not then separate? Yes, if he be judged so by a synod of bishops; but then he is sure to be deposed too; and then in these cases no separation from a bishop. For till he be declared so, his communion is not to be forsaken by the subjects of his diocese, lest they, by so doing, become their judge's judge; and when he is declared so, no need of withdrawing from obedience to the bishop, for the heretic or schismatic must be no longer bishop. But let the case be

St. Cyprian. Ep. 55.

Epist. 69.

• Act. iv.

what it will be, no separation from a bishop, ut sic,' can be lawful; and yet if there were a thousand cases, in which it were lawful to separate from a bishop, yet in no case is it lawful to separate from episcopacy; that is the quintessence and spirit of schism, and a direct overthrow to Christianity, and a confronting of a Divine institution.

SECTION XLVII.

And Heretics.

BUT is it not also heresy? Aerius was condemned for heresy by the catholic church. The heresy from whence the Aerians were denominated was, sermo furiosus magis quàm humanæ conditionis,' et dicebat, 'Quid est episcopus ad presbyterum? nihil differt hic ab illo a:"""A mad and unmanly heresy to say, that a bishop and a priest are all one." So Epiphanius: " Assumpsit autem ecclesia, et in toto mundo assensus factus est, antequam esset Aerius, et qui ab ipso appellantur Aeriani." And the good catholic father is so angry at the heretic Aerius, that he thinks his name was given him by Providence, and he is called Aerius,' aeriis spiritibus pravitatis;' for he was possessed with an unclean spirit he could never have else been the inventor of such heretical pravity. St. Austin, also, reckons him in the accursed roll of heretics, and adds, at the conclusion of his catalogue,' that he is no catholic Christian that assents to any of the foregoing doctrines;' amongst which, this is one of the principal. Philastrius does as much for him.

But against this it will be objected, first, that heresies, in the primitive catalogues, are of a large extent; and every dissent from a public opinion was esteemed heresy. Secondly, Aerius was called heretic, for denying prayer for the dead. And why may he not be as blameless in equalling a bishop and a presbyter, as in that other, for which he also is condemned by Epiphanius and St. Austin. Thirdly, he was never condemned by any council; and how, then, can he be called heretic?

I answer,- That dissent from a public or a received opinion was never called heresy, unless the contrary truth was indeed a part of catholic doctrine. For the fathers, many of them, did so; as St. Austin from the millenary opinion; yet none ever reckoned them in the catalogues of heretics; but such things only set them down there, which were either directly opposite to catholic belief, though in minoribus articulis,' or to a holy life.-Secondly;- It is true that Epiphanius and St. Austin reckon his denying prayer for the dead to be one of his own opinions, and heretical. But I cannot help it, if they did; let him and them agree it; they are able to answer for themselves. But yet they accused him also of Arianism; and shall we therefore say, that Arianism was no heresy, because the fathers called him heretic in one particular, upon one principle? We may as well say this as deny the other.-Thirdly; He was not condemned by any council. No: for his heresy was ridiculous, and a scorn to all wise men, as Epiphanius observes; and it made no long continuance; neither had it any considerable party. But yet this is certain, that Epiphanius, and Philastrius, and St. Austin, called this opinion of Aerius a heresy, and against the catholic belief. And themselves affirm that the church did so; and then it would be considered, that it is but a sad employment to revive old heresies, and make them a piece of the new religion.

And yet after all this, if I mistake not, although Aerius himself was so inconsiderable as not to be worthy noting in a council, yet certainly the one-half of his error is condemned for heresy in one of the four general councils, viz. the first council of Constantinople b. Αἱρετικοὺς δὲ λέγομεν, τούς τε πάλαι τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἀποκηρυχθέντας, καὶ τοὺς μετὰ ταῦτα ὑφ ̓ ὑμῶν åvadeμatiobévtas "We call all them heretics, whom the ancient church hath condemned, and whom we shall anathematize." Will not Aerius come under one of these titles for a condemned heretic? Then see forward. Пęòs de ToÚTois nai Toùs τὴν πίστιν μὲν τὴν ὑγιῆ προσποιουμένους ὁμολογεῖν, ἀποσχίζοντας δὲ καὶ ἀντισυνάγοντας τοῖς κανονικοῖς ἡμῶν ἐπισκόποις. Here is enough for Aerius and all his hyperaspists, new and old; for the holy council condemns them for heretics, who do indeed confess

b Can. 6.

the true faith, but separate from their bishops, and make conventicles apart from his communion.' Now this I the rather urge, because an act of parliament, made tenth of Elizabeth, does make this council, and the other three, of Nice, Ephesus, and Chalcedon, the rule of judging heresies.

I end this particular with the saying of the council of Paris against the Acephali (who were the branch of a crabstock, and something like Aerius), cited by Burchard©: "Nullâ ratione clerici aut sacerdotes habendi sunt, qui sub nullius episcopi disciplinâ et providentiâ gubernantur. Tales enim Acephalos, id est, sine capite, priscæ ecclesiæ consuetudo nuncupavit:" "They are, by no means, to be accounted clergymen, or priests, that will not be governed by a bishop. For such men the primitive church called axepάnous, that is, 'headless,' witless people."

us.

This only. Acephali was the title of a sect, a formal heresy, and condemned by the ancient church, say the fathers of the council of Paris. Now if we can learn exactly what they were, it may, perhaps, be another conviction for the necessity of episcopal regiment. Nicephorus can best inform "Eodem tempore, et Acephali, quorum dux Severus Antiochenus fuit," &c. "Severus of Antioch was the first broacher of this heresy." But why were they called 'Acephali?'" id est, sine capite, quem sequuntur hæretici; nullus enim eorum reperitur auctor, à quo exorti sunt," saith Isidore. But this cannot be, for their head is known; Severus was their heresiarch. But then why are they called 'Acephali?' Nicephorus gives this reason, and, withal, a very particular account of their heresy: Acephali autem ob eam causam dicti sunt, quod sub episcopis non fuerunt:" "They refused to live under bishops." Thence they had their name; what was their heresy? They denied the distinction of natures in Christ. That was one of their heresies; but they had more; for they were "trium capitulorum in Chalcedone impugnatores," saith Isidore f; they opposed three canons of the council of Chalcedon.' One we have heard; what their other heresies were, we do not so well know; but by the canon of the council of Paris, and the intimation of their name, we are

66

d Eccles. Hist. lib. xviii. c. 45.

f Ut suprà.

guided to the knowledge of a second: they refused to live under the government of a bishop. And this also was " impugnatio unius articuli in Chalcedone;" for the eighth canon of the council of Chalcedon commands, that the clergy should be under episcopal government. But these Acephali would not, they were anti-episcopal men; and, therefore, they were condemned heretics; condemned in the councils of Paris, of Seville, and of Chalcedon.

But the more particular account that Nicephorus gives of them, I will now insert, because it is of great use. “Proinde episcopis, et sacerdotibus apud eos defunctis, neque baptismus juxta solennem atque receptum ecclesiæ morem apud eos administratur, neque oblatio, aut res aliqua divina facta, ministeriumve ecclesiasticum, sicuti mos est, celebratum est. Communionem verò illi, à plurimo tempore asservatam habentes, feriis Paschalibus, in minutissimas incisam partes convenientibus ad se hominibus dederunt. Quo tempore quam quisque voluisset placitam sibi sumebat potestatem. Et propterea quod quilibet, quodcunque visum esset, fidei insertum volebat, quamplurima defectorum, atque hæreticorum turba exorta est." It is a story worthy of observation. When any bishop died, they would have no other consecrated in succession; and, therefore, could have no more priests, when any of them died.' But how then did they to baptize their children? Why, they were fain to make shift, and do it without any church-solemnity. But how did they for the holy sacrament? — for that could not be consecrated without a priest, and he not ordained without a bishop. True but therefore they, while they had a bishop, got a great deal of bread consecrated, and kept a long time; and when Easter came, cut it into small bits, or crumbs rather, to make it go the further, and gave it to their people.' And must we do so too? God forbid. But how did they when all that was gone? for crumbs would not last always. The story specifies it not, but yet I suppose they then got a bishop for their necessity, to help them to some more priests, and some more crumbs; for I find, in the council of Seville &, the fathers saying, "Ingressus est ad nos quidam ex hæresi Acephalorum episcopus;" they had then, it seems, got a

Can. 12.