CANON VI.

LET the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that 

the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is 

customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the 

other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to 

be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the 

consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a 

man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall 

from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the 

rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, 

then let the choice of the majority prevail.

NOTES.

ANCIENT EPITOME OF CANON VI.

The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, 

and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. 

So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under 

them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, 

let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by 

the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of 

no force.

Many, probably most, commentators have considered this the most 

important and most interesting of all the Nicene canons, and a whole 

library of works has been written upon it, some of the works asserting 

and some denying what are commonly called the Papal claims. If any 

one wishes to see a list of the most famous of these works he will find 

it in Phillips's Kirchenrecht (Bd. ii. S. ). I shall reserve what I have 

to say upon this subject to the notes on a canon which seems really to 

deal with it, confining myself here to an elucidation of the words found 

in the canon before us.

HAMMOND, W. A.

The object and intention of this canon seems clearly to have been, not 

to introduce any new powers or regulations into the Church, but to 

confirm and establish ancient customs already existing. This, indeed, 

is evident from the very first words of it: "Let the ancient customs be 

maintained." It appears to have been made with particular reference to 

the case of the Church of Alexandria, which had been troubled by the 

irregular proceedings of Miletius, and to confirm the ancient privileges 

of that see which he had invaded. The latter part of it, however, applies 

to all Metropolitans, and confirms all their ancient privileges.

FFOULKES.

(Dict. Christ. Antiq. voce Council of Nicaea).

The first half of the canon enacts merely that what had long been 

customary with respect to such persons in every province should 

become law, beginning with the province where this principle had 

been infringed; while the second half declares what was in future to be 

received as law on two points which custom had not as yet expressly 

ruled. ... Nobody disputes the meaning of this last half; nor, in fact, 

would the meaning of the first half have been questioned, had it not 

included Rome. ... Nobody can maintain that the bishops of Antioch 

and Alexandria were called patriarchs then, or that the jurisdiction 

they had then was co-extensive with what they had afterward, when 

they were so called. ... It is on this clause ["since the like is customary 

for the Bishops of Rome also"] standing parenthetically between what 

is decreed for the particular cases of Egypt and Antioch, and in 

consequence of the interpretation given to it by Rufinus, more 

particularly, that so much strife has been raised. Rufinus may rank low 

as a translator, yet, being a native of Aquileia, he cannot have been 

ignorant of Roman ways, nor, on the other hand, had he greatly 

misrepresented them, would his version have waited till the 

seventeenth century to be impeached.

HEFELE.

The sense of the first words of the canon is as follows: "This ancient 

right is assigned to the Bishop of Alexandria which places under his 

jurisdiction the whole diocese of Egypt." It is without any reason, then, 

that the French Protestant Salmasius (Saumaise), the Anglican 

Beveridge, and the Gallican Launoy, try to show that the Council of 

Nice granted to the Bishop of Alexandria only the rights of ordinary 

metropolitans.

BISHOP STILLINGFLEET.

I do confess there was something peculiar in the case of the Bishop of 

Alexandria, for all the provinces of Egypt were under his immediate 

care, which was Patriarchal as to extent, but Metropolical in the 

administration.

 JUSTELLUS.

This authority ( exousia  ) is that of a Metropolitan 

which the Nicene Fathers decreed to be his due over the three 

provinces named in this canon, Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, which 

made up the whole diocese of Egypt, as well in matters civil as 

ecclesiastical.

On this important question Hefele refers to the dissertation of Dupin, 

in his work De Antiqua Ecclesoe Disciplina. Hefele says: "It seems to 

me beyond a doubt that in this canon there is a question about that 

which was afterward calm the patriarchate of the Bishop of 

Alexandria; that is to say that he had a certain recognized 

ecclesiastical authority, not only over several civil provinces, but also 

over several ecclesiastical provinces (which had their own 

metropolitans);" and further on (p. ) he adds: "It is incontestable 

that the civil provinces of Egypt, Libya, Pentapolis and Thebais, which 

were all in subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria, were also 

ecclesiastical provinces with their own metropolitans; and 

consequently it is not the ordinary fights of metropolitans that the 

Sixth Canon of Nice confers on the Bishop of Alexandria, but the 

rights of a superior Metropolitan, that is, of a Patriarch."

There only remains to see what were the bounds of the jurisdiction of 

the Bishop of Antioch. The civil diocese of Oriens is shown by the 

Second Canon of Constantinople to be conterminous with what was 

afterward called the Patriarchate of Antioch. The see of Antioch had, 

as we know, several metropolitans subject to it, among them Caesarea, 

under whose jurisdiction was Palestine. Justellus, however, is of 

opinion that Pope Innocent I. was in error when he asserted that all the 

Metropolitans of Oriens were to be ordained by him by any peculiar 

authority, and goes so far as to stigmatize his words as "contrary to the 

mind of the Nicene Synod."()