AN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OUT OF Ecclesiastical History Translated from An Ancient Greek MANUSCRIPT in the Publick Library at Oxford BY HVMFRET HODY B. D. c. And Published under the Title of The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the New BISHOPS TO SHEW That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick To which is added The CANONS in the Baroccian Manuscript Omitted by Mr. HODY LONDON Printed and are to be sold by J. Wells near S. Paul's Church-Yard 1691. THE PREFACE THat a Separation is always unreasonable on one side or the other is without all question but that it is unreasonable to separate from New Bishops that are placed in the Sees of Bishops who are uncanonically deposed for this Cause only that they are in Possession upon what Reason and Justice soever of the said Episcopal Sees is very strange Doctrine and such as was never I think heard of in the Church of England till this Treatise was published For in the Sense of the Catholick Church in her Canons and Constitutions the New Bishop himself in such a Case makes the Separation and to continue Communion with the true Bishop is not to separate from the wrongful Possessor but to keep our former Place and Station to adhere to the Right and not to follow those who have set themselves up in opposition to it But the Doctrin which this Anonymous Greek Author is brought to vouch for to the World is of such a pernicious Nature and if it be allowed must have such destructive Consequences in the Church that I cannot but think that all Men who have a sincere Love for the Church of England whatever their Opinions may be in other Matters will not be ill pleased to see it proved that there is no Example to be found of this in the Practice of the Greek Church till it was reduced to so low and deplorable a Condition as to be no longer a Pattern for Imitation but a Caution rather for us to beware of those things which brought the Greeks into that Distress under which they have so long groaned And if we will but give our selves the least leisure to consider what is then that can bring more certain and speedy Ruine upon a Church than to act by such a Principle as makes all Ecclesiastical Authority have its sole and entire dependance upon external Force and Power and upon the casual Success and Events of things For if when the Civil Magistrate shall displace a Bishop for any frivolous cause or for no Cause at all but with the greatest and most apparent Injustice all Christians shall be obliged in Conscience to submit to the Intruder if he be but Orthodox and not to adhere to their lawful Bishop this utterly destroys all Church Authority and gives it up wholly into the Power of the Magistrate who may set up what Bishop he pleases provided they be no Hereticks and change them as often as he pleases and the Clergy and People shall be bound in Conscience to take no further notice of the dispossessed but to live under the new ones be they never so many and never so bad in all Acts of Communion and Obedience Now unless the Church can be ruined by nothing but Heresie or there be nothing that can render a Bishop unqualified for his Station but Heresie it is evident that this Doctrine leaves it at the Mercy of the Prince whether there shall long be any Church in his Dominions It is manifest that these Principles make all Church Censures ineffectual and expose the Church to all the Mischiefs of Erastianism For if a Prince should prefer an excommunicated Person to the See of the Bishop by whom he stands excommunicated supposing only that he was not excommunicated for Heresie this Person tho never so justly excommunicated must be owned and obeyed instead of the Bishop who excommunicated him which lodges all Church Power in the Prince and makes all Ecclesiastical Censures of no effect for the Benefit and Preservation of the Church whenever he pleases A Schismatical Prince by this Doctrine may set up Schismatical Bishops and the Church will have no Remedy against them For instance if Constantine had been a Novation or Donatist he might have deposed the Rightful Bishops and have set up Novations or Donatists in their stead if those Sects were then only Schisms and they were no more at first But whoever can imagin that the Clergy and People of that Age would have communicated with them and have deserted their true Bishop may indeed believe all that our Author has said Tho the truth is according to his Principles no Prince can be a Schismatick because he may make what Bishops he pleases and so can make what Church he pleases and it will be the Duty of Christians to communicate not with their Bishops but with their Prince or which is the same thing with what Bishops he appoints A Popish Prince might set up Popish Bishops amongst us for he could never want Men who at least upon as good Grounds and from as good Authorities as those upon which this Doctrine is propounded to us would prove that Popery is no Heresie A Prince of a Latitudinarian Faith may by these Principles give us Socinian Bishops For the Disciples of Episcopius and Curcellaeus will undertake to prove that the Points in Controversie are not of necessity to Salvation and do not consequently involve the Assertors of them in Heresie And if a Prince should design never so well for the Glory of God and the Interest of Religion yet how easie it is for Princes to be mistaken and misled in things of this nature we may see in Constantine himself who was deceived by the Arians into a good Opinion of them after the Council of Nice even to the sending St. Athanasius away from his See tho he took care to keep it void from him till his return to prevent a Schism which by the Practice of the Church could not otherwise have been avoided But this is most of all remarkable in the unhappy Reign of Constantius who certainly was a very Devout Prince and had very good intentions in calling so many Synods and therefore the Fathers often mention him with Respect and with great Compassion but was miserably deluded and imposed upon by the Arians and persuaded to banish all the Orthodox Bishops and fill up the Sees with those of their own number But we must observe that tho Constantius believed that the Arians were not Hereticks but Orthodox and died in his errâ—r as S. Athanasius declares tho S. Gregory Nanianzen and Theodorâ—t say the contrary and therefore cannot be supposed to want any inclinations to Depose Athanasius by his own Power and the Arians wanted no Malice against Athanasius nor no Authority with the Emperour to put him upon it yet because according to the Doctrine professed on both sides this could not be done
they were forced to be at all that trouble to get a Synod of their own Party to effect it But if it be left to the Arbitrary Will of the Prince to Depose the Orthodox Bishops at his Pleasure and supply the vacancies with any whom he thinks fit and their Dioceses must be obliged in Conscience to acknowledge them he will be sure in a short time to have such Bishops as shall determine that only to be Heresie which he will have to be so and it is a vain thing to say that Heretical Bishops must not be promoted or that they must not be obeyed for in a little time by this Doctrine there will be nothing reputed Heresie nor Schism but to hold a different Opinion and a different Commanion from that of the Prince But to come nearer home this Doctrine denies the Church a Power which is granted to be in all other Societies own no Head but of their own choosing or who is otherwise regularly set over them according to their Charter or Constitution and it seems if King James had put in new Bishops against the consent of the Chapters the Dioceses would have been obliged to obey them though the Fellows of Magdalen College in Oxford were bound in Conscience not to acknowledge a President who was forced upon them against their Statutes It may perhaps be said that we are secured from all the inconveniences that would follow from this Doctrine inasmuch as by the Laws of the Land no Bishop can be forced upon us by the King but he must be chosen by the Chapter of the Cathedral Church of the Diocese to which he is nominated But first if this Doctrine be calculated only for our own Church and we must be governed by a different Rule from the rest of the Catholick Church why then is the Practice of the Greek Church brought to recommend it to us But if this have been the Doctrine and Practice of all Churches we are not to imagine that the Laws of the Land can make it no sin but a Duty to separate from intruding Bishops when the Laws of God and of his Church enjoyn the contrary For the Laws of our Country must cease to oblige us in Conscience when they are inconsistent with the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages and if these have been always the Principles and this the Practice of the Church as it is now pretended to own the present Bishop whoever he be if he be no Heretick I doubt it will be in vain to alledg the Laws of the Land against an Intruder when he is once in Possession as long as he can keep his Possession but we must have Bishops de Facto and must be bound in Conscience to submit to them by whatever ill means they came in at first But suppose that the Laws of the Land would be a security to us as they have hitherto been and will be still if we retain our old Principles yet how can we be sure that the Laity will be more tender of the Honour and welfare of the Church than the Clergy themselves are And that if the Clergy give up the Ecclesiastical Authority they will not be willing to consent to it and be contented that a Prince should be absolute in Ecclesiastical Affairs if he will but act according to Law in Civil But whatever security there may be from the Secular Power to the Church since it is incorporated into the State yet by these Principles the Church could not have supported it self against the Attempts of Schismaticks before the Emperours became Christians and if the Civil Government should withdraw its Protection it is plain this Scheme leaves the Church no Power to defend it self against the Vsurpation of one Bishop upon another for by this Model of Church-Government if a Bishop get into Possession of anothers Diocese by any way whatsoever whether by the Secular Power or by any other means provided he be no Heretick he is from thence forth to be looked upon as the true Bishop notwithstanding any Canon of the Church against his Vsuâ—pation So that this Notion does effectually dissolve all Church-Government and leaves no Power and Authority in the Church to preserve it self but leaves it at the Mercy not only of the Civil Magistrate but of any Invader who is no Heretick or does not appear to be such Novatian if he could have got into Possession of the Episcopal Throne must by these Principles have been submitted to as Bishop of Rome than which nothing can be more absurd or more contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages And if the Cause of the New Bishops can be defended by none but such Principles it is plain that it is not to be defended at all for we must not contradict the Doctrine of the Church in all Ages to serve a present Turn nor maintain the Church in this Age so as to have no Church left for the next But I shall not here undertake further to shew how dangerous and destructive these Principles are to the Church of England and to Religion in general much less is it my business to state the Case now in Controversie I intend only to pursue the Author of this Treatise through his Discoveries which he pretends to make in Ecclesiastical History and if I can shew that this Greek has put a fallacy upon us I hope we shall not suffer our selves to be cheated by the impertinent and false Stories of an obscure Writer of no Name nor Authority but who appears to have lived in the most decayed and worst State of the Greek Church when their Sermons were nothing but ill digested Rapsodies which both for their Stile and Sense will scarce endure the Reading their Ecclesiastical Histories nothing but Legends of Miracles and all their Histories both Ecclesiastical and Civil full of such idle Stories as most Men are ashamed to tell after them and when by their Vices and Ignorance they had rendred themselves ripe for that Destruction which soon after came upon them It is to those Ages that we owe the loss of so many of the Works of the Fathers of the First Centuries and the Corruption of others to Countenance the Tenets and Practices of their own times and it is no wonder that when their Bishops were so often Deposed at the pleasure of the Emperour upon frivolous or rather upon very unjust pretences some should endeavour to make it believed that such Proceedings must be acquiesced in according to the Practice of former Ages in the like cases when the decay of all sound Knowledge and true Religion and of all good Orders and Discipline both in Church and State was so great and their Divisions so incurable which were principally occasioned or extremely heightened by the frequent changes of the Patriarchs that they at last brought utter ruin upon the Empire and subjected the Church to the Arbitrary Pleasure of the Grand Seignior And it is
Constantius Lucifer Calaritanus coming to Antioch Consecrated Pauâ—inus Bishop of that City which when he saw the Orthodox Bishops and particularly Eusebius of Vercelles disapprove of it gave the first occasion to Lucifer to begin that Sect which from him took its denomination Meletius at his return from Exile under Julian finds Socr. l. 3. c. 9. Sozom. l 5. c. 13. the Church of Antioch divided into three Parties one that followed Euroius the Arian Bishop another that Communicated with Paulinus and a third that adhered still to himself as their lawful Bishop the Arians had possessed themselves of all the Churches within the City but one of the small Churches which they allowed Paulinus so that he was forced to hold his Assemblies without the Gates Meletius suffered a second Banishment under Valens and when he was restored by Gratian Paulinus being then Ancient Socr. l. â— c. 5. those who were of Meletius's Communion endeavoured to have the difference so Composed that both he and Paulinus might together Preside in that See But Paulinus refused to agree to it alledging that Meletius had received his Ordination from Arian Bishops Upon this the People were in a Ferment and caused Meletius to resume the Throne in one of the Churches without the City This bred great contentions between the Parties but at last they came to this agreement That whosoever of these two Bishops should die first the survivour should be the sole Bishop of the See and there being six Men then in Antioch who upon the Death of them might probably make pretensions to the Succession they were all sworn to this Agreement And thus the difference was Composed only the Luciferians would by no means be prevailed with to Communicate with him but set up separate Congregations Thus it was according to the account Socrates gives of this Matter but as Theodorite relates it Sapores whom the Emperor had sent to inspect and regulate this Business seeing the great equity and condescension of Meletius put him into Possession Theod. l. 5. c. 3. of the Bishoprick for he makes no mention of any Agreement between him and Paulinus but only says that Meletius had the See delivered up to him and Paulinuus remained Bishop only of that Party which adhered to him This being the case since Meletius was so eminent a defender of the Orthodox Faith as he is confessed by all to have been and had twice suffered Banishment for it and during his first Banishment had one irregularly placed in his See and did afterwards notwithstanding so great a Provocation use all the Condescension that could be expected in such a Case it could be no just Prejudice against him that he was at first made Bishop by the Arians or rather by the Semi-Arians or Acacians who upon occasion would subscribe Scer l. 3. c. 25. the Nicene Creed and pretended to have no exceptions to the Doctrines contained in it but were for taking away the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as not being found in Scripture as if the difference had been only in Terms contriving in the mean time all the ways possible to undermine the Faith by their own Expositions But it does not appear that Meletius ever was an Arian himself on the contrary the Orthodox Fathers never mention him but with the greatest commendations and he seems to have been imposed upon by the Acacians and Semi-Arians for a while who disguised and dissembled their Opinions For when he was called to give an account of his Faith in the presence of Constantius himself in the Synod Theod. l. 2. c. 31. at Antioch he declared himself to the entire satisfaction of the Orthodox Bishops and it was no more than they expected from him and were before well assured of which made them so desirous to have him advanced to the See of Antioch And tho Socrates Socr. l. 2. c. 44. says that Meletius subscribed the Form of Faith which Acacius produced in the Synod of Selencia yet this seems to be a mistake which perhaps the partiality which he plainly enough discovers for Paulinus might betray him to for Meletius's name is not to be found among the Subscriptions to the Creed of Acacius set down in Epiphanius Epiphan Haer. 73. Now it was determined in this Case in a Council at Alexandria (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Epiâ—t ad Ruhnianum inter ejus op Tom. 2. p. 40. apud Conc. Nicen. 2. Act. 1. Col. 75. that the worst of Hereticks the very Principal and Leading Men among them upon the renouncing their Errors and reconciling themselves to the Church by Repentance should be received to Communion tho not to Officiate as Clergymen but the less culpable who had been abused and misled were likewise to be permitted the Exercise and Administration of their Function Which is no more than was practised in the Council of Nice it self towards the Arian Bishops who renounced their Heresie and signed the Nicene Creed as S. Hierom urges in his Dialogue Adversus Luciferianos where he disputes this point at large This was Conc. Nic. Can. 8. Socr. l. 1. c. 9. Vales de Schism Donatist all along the Practice of the Church towards the Arians and Novations and Donatists and the Meletians who were so denominated from Meletius the African Bishop to admit of their Orders upon their Reconciling themselves to the Church and thus it was confirmed and established in the Council of Nice And to the determinations of this Council of Alexandria Lucifer Calaritanus himself had Socr. l. 3. c. 9. Sozom. l. 5. â— 13. given his assent by his Deacon whom he had sent thither for that purpose and (b) Assensus est huic sententiae Occidens per tam necessarium concilium Satanae faucibus mundus â—reptus est Hieron adv Luciferian all the Western Church approved of this Decree as the only Remedy against the Arian Heresie For the true Reason why the Western Bishops espoused the Cause of Paulinus against Meletius was not for any Objection they had against his Ordination which was made an Objection by none but the Luciferians but because he had been represented in the West as an Heretick as S. Basil complains and Basil Ep. 321. 349. as it appears from S. Hierom's two Epistles to Damasus wherein he desires to know of him with whom he should Communicate at Antioch and Paulinus was thought little better of in the East for receiving to Communion the Associates of Marcellus But Meletius â—d Epist 74. Epiphan Haer. 77. was received as Patriarch of Antioch in the General Council of Constantinople and dying there S. Gregory Nyssen in the presence of that Venerable Assembly celebrated his memory with the highest Praises in his Funeral Oration And upon his death Flavianus was by unanimous consent chosen Epist Synod C. P. apud Theod. l. 5. c. 9. Socr. l. 5. c. 15. Bishop of Antioch and the choice confirmed in that
who had filled the Ep 126. World with Confusions and had brought such divisions into the Church and he writes to the Bishop of Jerusalem to the same purpose and almost in the same words In his Epistle to Cyriacus (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. 143. I have heard says he of * Or that Dotard for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Dotage of old Age. that vain Man Arsacius whom the Empress has placed in the Episcopal Throne that he has afflicted the Brethren and the Virgins who would not Communicate with him and many of them have died in Prison for my sake For he is a Wolf in Sheeps clothing and has the Habit of a Bishop but is an Adulterer for as a Woman is called an Adulteress who is married to another Man whilst her Husband is living so he is not a Carnal but a Spiritual Adulterer for he has usurped my See whilst I am alive It is doubtful I confess whether this Epistle to Cyriacus be genuine for it is rejected both by Mr. Hales and Mr. Boys in their Notes upon it and these expressions concerning Arsacius are alledged by Mr. Hales as one reason why he thinks it cannot be S. Chrysostom's but Mr. Boys says he should the rather be inclined to think it genuine because of these expressions and he answers all the other Objections against it rejecting it himself only upon the account of the Style I shall only say that there are so many Accidents which may make any Authors stile different at different times especially in his familiar Letters and those written in Banishment and perhaps under the disorders of sickness and dangers which S. Chrysostom so often complains of that this Censure from the Stile must be the less certain especially since Photius could not discern but that it was genuine tho he took notice of this very passage concerning Arsacius and defends it But suppose it not to be genuine yet it is very ancient and was written probably by one who lived in S. Chrysostom's time and was not unacquainted with his sense of these things S. Chrysostom having put another Bishop Ep. 148. in mind of the reward which he would certainly receive for his sufferings in another World takes off that Objection which might be made from the smalness of their number and tells him that if they would shew themselves couragious they would be too hard for those who were more in number and boasted themselves in their wickedness that God would be their help and assistance if they would but do their Duty and that they were ingaged in a Cause which concerned all the Churches in the World But that which yet further shews S. Chrysostom's Ep. 13. ad Oâ—â—mp mind in this matter is that the Bishop whom he had Consecrated and sent to the Gothes being dead he takes care to provide another Bishop for them and is very sollicitous that one should not be Ordained and sent thither by Arsacius or Atticus so that he not only looked upon himself as the only rightful Patriarch but acted as such in his Banishment We see that S. Chrysostom was very far from advising or so much as conniving at a compliance with the Usurpation of the Bishop that had possessed himself of his See He commended and encouraged those that would not Communicate with him he comforted them with the expectation of Rewards in Heaven for whatever they could suffer here in a Cause which was so pleasing to God and upon which depended the good of the whole Christian Church he called Arsacius by name a Wolf in Sheeps clothing if the Epistle to Cyriacus be genuine and took upon himself Episcopal Authority even in his Exile he encouraged all every where to stand out against the Usurper by his Epistles which he sent to the Eastern Bishops and to those of the West to the Bishops Priests and Deacons who were imprisoned and to persons of both Sexes and of all Orders and Degrees for the greatest part of his Epistles are upon this Subject and yet there is not one word of submission or compliance but the most earnest and passionate Exhortations to the contrary from all the motives which he could use that concern either this or another life And there is much more to the same purpose in (g) Chrys 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 19. 23. a Discourse which he wrote in his Exile to remove the scandal some took by reason of the Persecution the Church then lay under The Author of the Preface confesses that the Western Churches did a Tâ—eod â— 5. c. 34. long time refuse Communion with some Bishops that had conspired against S. Chrysostom He should have said as Theodorite whom he quotes soon after does that they would not hold Communion with the Bishops of Egypt and of the East nor with those upon the Bosphorus and of Thrace till they had Registered the name of S. Chrysostom among the rest of the Patriarchs deceased But he says that in this case the renouncing Communion was only as it were a breaking off a Correspondence Suppose it were no more yet it cannot be shown that it was ever thought lawful for one Patriarch to break off Correspondence thus with another but upon such Reasoâ—s as would justifie a separation in Bishops from their own Patriach But it was not bâ—rely a not Corresponding with Aâ—sacius and Atticus for the Western Church not only espoused S. Chrysostom's Cause but did approve of the proceedings of those who suffered for it and were not backward to declare that they had done well in not Communicating with the new Patritriarchs Sozom. l. 8. c. 26. Pallad p. 214 c. they denyed that these had any Episcopal Authority or ought to be owned as Patriarchs during the life of S. Chrysostom But most of the Eastern Bishops would not renounce Communion though they would not be accessary to that unjust Deprivation This I confess Theodorit says and it is no wonder that in the East many who declared for the Justice of S. Chrysostom's Cause and against the proceedings of of his Enemies should be wrought upon by Terrors and Punishments whereas those in the West acted unanimously being under no such hard Circumstances to awe them to a compliance And this makes S. Chrysostom in one of his Epistles purposely take off that Objection from the smalness of their number But though the Bishops in the East did not so generally refuse to Communicate with the Deposing Bishops as they did in the West yet that very many did refuse to do it is evident for the Prisons were filled with them and many of these who refused were Bishops of the chiefest Sees for the Bishops of Jerusalem and Thessalonica and in general the Chrys Ep. 26 27. 126. Bishops of all Macedon were of the number besides many others of lesser Note or whose Sees are not mentioned But Atticus at last began to relent Socr. l 7. c. 25. or
was all along such as our Author pretends for when Men would impose any Spurious writing upon the World they cannot hope to make it be received for genuine but by giving it as near a Resemblance to Truth as they can devise and that commonly they do by copying out some of the Customs of their own time for what Men see done in one Age they are the more easily induced to think was done before but it is too impudent a Forgery to invent a writing which contains things plainly contrary to the Practice both of their own and all foregoing Ages a Mâ—n can never expect to be believed in such a Story or that any will venture to repeat it after him So that we must conclude that this Epistle was agreeable to the Practice of the Church in Georgius Alexandrinus's time who lived in the seventh Century and that Glycas in the twelfth and Nicephorus in the fourteenth saw nothing absurd in it but as Blondel has observed that part of it which concerns the Excommunication of Arcadius and Eudoxia is not mentioned by Cedrenus which makes him suspect it was foisted in after his time for all Forgeries as they are designed commonly to serve some turn or other so they seldom fail to be suited to the abuses of the times in which they are made But it is confessed that not only Pope Innocent but the whole Western Church did refuse Communion with the Deposing Bishops and it is further observable that when after the death of Flavianus Bishop of Antiâ—ch who had not consented to the Deposing of S. Chrysostom Porphyrius suceeeded Sozom. l. 8. c. 29. him who agreed to it many of Syria broke off Communion with that Church Our Author next observes that P. 5 6. whereas Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephâ—sus absolved Euâ—yches and Deposed Flavianus and then murthered him and Consecrated Anatolius in his room none of those Bishops who concurred and acted with Dioscorus in the unjust ejectment of Flavianus and the unlawful Ordination of Anatolius in his place were rejected in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon only Eutyches and Dioscorus that persisted in their Heresie For that Holy Synod concerned not it self about the Ordinations of uncanonical and illegal Patriarchs but only required of every one the Profession of the Orthodox Faith By this representation of the Case he would have it believed that no Objection was made against the Bishops who concurred with Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephesus for having concurred with him but that the Profession of the Orthodox Faith was only required of them and so they were forthwith received by the Council Which is so far from being true that tho they had owned their fault in Deposing Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum and were as forward as any to make Profession of the true Faith yet it was moved in the Council of Chalcedon by the Judges or Officers sent by the Emperour to inspect and regulate the Proceedings there that Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra Eustathius Bishop of Berytus and Basil Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Chalced. Act. 1. Col 323. Euagr. lib. 2. c. 18. p. 313. should be put under the same Censure with Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and should according to the Canons be deprived of their See's which was assented to by the Bishops of the East who said it was a just (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. Conc. Châ—â—c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euagr. ib. Sentence they agreed that it was just to reject those Bishops whose names I have now recited and who are the same that onâ— Author by name sets down as not rejected in the fourth General Council only he has left out Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra and inserted Photius Bishop of Isauria in Epirus or as the Publisher has Corrected it Photius Bishop of Tyre If he means they were not finally rejected he says true but then he ought not to have concealed that they were not received in the first Actions of that Council nor upon what grounds they were at last admitted but these are such as will not be at all serviceable to his Cause They took their places indeed among the rest of the Bishops at the opening of the Council but so did Dioscorus himself too tho it was objected against by the Bishop of Rome's Legats who were over-ruled it being thought reasonable that they should retain their Places till their Cause was heard for to displace them before might seem to be a Prejudging them But upon examination it appeared that the case of these Bishops could deserve nothing but commiseration from the Council some of them S. Basil of Seleucia by name had Conc. Chald. Coâ— 137. 229. made profession of the true Faith in the Synod of Ephesus it self wherein Dioscorus presided and at last what they did in concurrence with him was by compulsion for they were surrounded with armed Soldiers who offered violence to them and forced them to Subscribe a Blank Paper which was afterwards filled up (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euagr. ib. p. 311. Conc. Chald. Act. 1. Col 129. 251. as they pleaded for themselves and as Eusebius Bishop of (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dioâ— Euagr. p 314 Con. Chal Act. 3. Col. 382. Dorylaeum likewise testified So that when this affair came again under debate the Council was very compassionate to these offending Bishops in consideration of the hard Circumstances in which the Offence (n) Câ—nc Chaâ—ced Act. â— Col. 509. Eâ—â—â— ib. p. 324. was committed and therefore they desired that they might be suffered to receive tâ—e Five Bishopâ— as Members of the Council and the Emperour being first acquainted with their request by his permission they were restored What then can we conclude from hence more than that the Authority of a General Council may be sufficient upon so reasonable Motives to restore Bishops who by the Canons have forâ—eited their Sees But it is a very wrong account of this matter to say barely that none of those Bishops were reâ—ected in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon for they were rejected at first or else there would have been no debate concerning their Case when once they would Subscribe the Orthodox Faith but tho they profered to do this they had like to have lain under the same condemnation with Dioscorus so far as it concerned his being Deposed from his See and it was upon considerations peculiar to their Case and which in all equity ought to be admitted of in abatement to the Rigour of the Letter of the Canons that they were at last accepted for if there had been no more in their Case than what our Author has thought fit to take notice of they had as it appears been absolutely rejected But he says that Anatolius was uncanonically advanced to the See of Constantinople and
The Force of St Clement's Discourse seems to be this that if Moses was so indulgent and affectionate towards the People who had sinned so heinously against God this ought to be a powerful Motive to those who had been themselves criminal to resign up all particular Interests for the Peace of the Church and if it had been so usual for the most innocent and worthy Persons to sacrifice their own Safety and Honours to the publick it might much rather be expected from such as had themselves given the first occasion to the Divisions in the Church His Design is the same that Dionysius afterwards had in his Letter to Novation and that he might persuade them the more effectually to desist from their Pretensions he tells them that this was no more than the most worthy and heroick Persons had done before them not upbraiding them too severely with their past Miscarriages and presing it upon them as a Duty which in justice they were bound to and which was the least satisfaction they could make to the Church to forbear those Practices which had caused so much Disturbance but proceeding in a more gentle Method and yet in the mean time not failing to let them know that he required them not to resign any Right but to desist from an unjust Claim which was the least that could be expected of them but if it should seem grievous to Men who had been so long puffed up with vain Expectations and high Conceits of themselves to be thus humbled at last he acquaints them that they must consider that the Chastisements of God must be born with patience in much severer instances than this affliction which they had brought upon themselves and that however irksom it might now seem it would bring Peace and Joy to them in the end But if we understand St. Clement as Mr. Hody does to exhort those who were the lawful Presbyters to resign their Right rather than be the occasion through the Wickedness and Injustice of others towards them of Trouble and Disorder to the Church we must necessarily suppose some extraordinary Circumstances which made St. Clement advise them to this Condescension in their particular Case For it is not to be imagined that he should lay it down as a general Rule in all Cases that a Bishop or Presbyter whenever he is molested or dispossessed must give way to the Intruder for Peace sake but we must of necessity understand this Precept and Admonition in some such qualified sense as we do those Commands of our Saviour himself Whosoever shall Mat. 5. 39 40. smite thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also For to oblige all honest Men to suffer themselves to be abused and to give up their Rights of any kind for the sake of Peace and Quietness would be so far from being a means to procure Peace that it would be the readiest and most effectual way to all manner of Confusion in the World So that the utmost that this Quotation from St. Clement can amount to is only thus much that for some special Reasons and in some extraordinary Cases it would be an act of great Charity and worthy of a Christian for a Bishop to condescend so far as to recede from his own Right which affords nothing in proof of that Doctrin that this Greek Author is published to advance That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick The Quotations from St. Irenaeus and from the Apostles Constitutions are excellent Cautions and Persuasions against Schisms in general but do not in the least concern the Cause before us And I heartily pray that either their Authority or any other may have the effect which it ought upon those who are most concerned seriously to take notice of them towards the preventing a Schism which seems to threaten the Destruction of the best Church in the World to the Ruin whereof nothing can more contribute than to teach that a Bishop when once deposed tho never so (e) Ego actus ab episcopatu quantumvis per injuriam summam cesso esse vester Episcopus c. Mr. Hody 's Preface unjustly ceases to be any longer Bishop of his See Which are Words now put into St. Chrysostom's Mouth but how much against all reason and probability has been already shewn In the Book it self where it is said that Meletius was p. 1. translated from Sebastia to Antioch Eustathius being yet in Banishment in the English Edition this Eustathius is supposed to be Eustathius late Bishop of Sebastia But in the Greek and Latin Edition Eustathius late Bishop of Antioch p. 4. and a Note is subjoyn'd to inform us that both Socrates and Sozomen say that Eustathius Bishop of Antioch lived till the Reign o◠Valens and that the Arguments which Baronius and Valesius bring to the contrary are not of weight enough to be set against the Authority of these two Historians Baronius argues that Eustathius of Antioch never lived to be recalled from Banishment by Jovian but died in exile under Constantius For if he had been recalled it cannot be supposed that no mention should be made of him in the Synod of Antioch which was held at that time by the Orthodox and besides neither Meletius nor Paulinus would have been suffered by the People of Antioch to be confecrated and reside there as their Bishop if he had been still living without their dividing into Parties about it since a great part of the Orthodox from their great Zeal and Affection for him were denominated Eustathians And if Eustathius had survived his Banishment there is no question but both Meletius and Paulinus would have resigned the See to him at his return For Meletius was put into that See at the earnest desire of the orthodox Bishops after the Banishment of Eustathius and he who was so condescending to Paulinus would have yielded much more to Eustathius himself For all the pretence that Paulinus could have was to be Bishop over a Party of Men who for the great Veneration they had for Eustathius were called Eustathians and who would not live in communion with Meletius because he had been ordained by Arians And it is absurd to think that Paulinus the chief of the Eustathian Party would retain his Bishoprick if Eustathius himself had been yet living unless perhaps we say that Eustathius had wholly relinquished his See to him and that he lived concealed at Constantinople or in some other place from the time of his first Banishment as Socrates and Sozomen say he did in the Reign of Valens till he was a second time banished But to put this out of all Controversie Theodorite expresly (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. lib. 3. cap. 4. says that Eustathius was dead before Meletius succeeded him in
he was conscious to himself of nothing for which he ought to be Deposed or thrust out of his See Just before his second Banishment he speaks to Olympias the Deaconess with some others saying I see the things concerning me have an end I have finished my Course and probably you will never see my face more this one thing I desire of you that none of you omit your accustomed Good-will and attendance upon the Church and whoever shall be Ordained without his own seeking and (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. p 90. against his desire by a general consent that you would obey him as you would do me for the Church cannot be without a Bishop It is evident both from the Words themselves and from the Circumstances in which he spoke them that S. Chrysostom both times looked upon himself as a dying Man when he used these words in taking his leave of the Bishops and of the Deaconesses and therefore they cannot import that he would have them submit to a Bishop who should succeed him during his life But if we allow the words their utmost Latitude and take them in the greatest extent that they will possibly admit of they can amount to no more than this not that they should submit to any Bishop who should succeed him whilst he was living but to one who should not be desirous or fond of it but should come in against his own inclinations and by an unanimous consent by which we can understand no less than that he means one who was not of the Party against him nor had any hand in thrusting him out and if such an one were chosen unanimously who was a friend to his Cause and lamented the great injustice done him and who unwillingly and upon necessity only could be prevailed upon to fill the See and who therefore must have been as willing to have given way to him as the true Patriarch if ever he should have returned if such an one were chosen and such an one he must he if he were chosen by general consent for never any Bishops departure was more grievous to all but the Faction that Deposed him than S. Chrysostom's was then according to this Sense of his words he advises them not to divide the Church upon his account but to joyn in Communion with such a Bishop since this was the only means to preserve the Churches Peace Which is a conditional Resignation or a Declaration that he would forgoe his own Right upon condition that such a Bishop were chosen as he there mentions But if we suppose this to be S. Chrysostom's meaning the See was disposed of to men who were very far from being such Bishops as he exhorted them to submit to For all his Friends endured great hardships under Arsacius and Atticus had been Pallad p. 95. Soz. lib. 8. ◠27. Phot. Bibli Cod. 277. the chief Incendiary against him And this is the excuse which Photius makes for some Expressions that seemed to him a little too severe which S. Chrysostom used concerning Arsacius in an Epistle to Cyriacus And to be convinced that S. Chrysostom did not design that they should submit to any Bishop that should be set up we need only consider that these very Persons to whom he gave this in charge never would submit either to Arsacius or Atticus at least during his Life but suffered all that they could do to them rather than they would comply and S. Chrysostom wrote many Epistles to these very Bishops and Deaconesses to comfort and support them under the severe afflictions which they endured upon this account And when Palladius himself and so many other Bishops with the rest of the Clergy suffered so much in S. Chrysostom's Cause as is mentioned in his Life it is past all belief that neither any of the rest nor Palladius who is supposed to be the Author of this account of his Life and was one of those Bishops to whom S. Chrysostom gave these directions should call to mind what he had said to them but the Bishops as well as Deaconesses should with one consent act contrary to what S. Chrysostom in his last words required of them and should either mistake him or forget what he had said or should choose to suffer any thing rather than observe his advice and do what he had told them was their Duty But as his Friends could not have so little respect for him or so little care of themselves as to forget so soon what it would have been so much for their own ease and safety to remember so he would not have failed in some one of his Epistles at least to put them in mind of it and would never have let them suffer so much contrary to that Duty which his last words inculcated to them taking no care afterwards to remind them what God and the Church required of them If he had never heard of their condition or had never had an opportunity to write to them about it it is scarce possible they should misunderstand him so as to run themselves into such needless and indeed sinful sufferings but when he held a Correspondence with them in his Banishment and wrote so often upon this very Subject it is incredible that they should suffer for not doing that which he had exhorted them to do and that he among all his Consolations should forget that which would alone have given them effectual and present relief and should omit to tell them that they suffered when they needed not and in a Cause in which they could not suffer with a good Conscience But this is not all S. Chrysostom Chrysost Epist 26. 27. does not only omit to tell them that they needed not and ought not to suffer but applauds them for suffering in so good a Cause and exhorts them to perseverance and applies those Scriptures to them which pronounce blessings upon those who suffer for Righteousness sake He tells them they ought not to value their lives in Ep. 36. 46. 71. 90. such a Cause being certain of a reward in Heaven He (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Ep. 83. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ep. 85. extols the Apostolical Courage and Constancy of the Bishops and Clergy who were in Prison and compares them to S. John Baptist both in their Sufferings and in the justness of their Cause and represents it as a more glorious thing to suffer so much and so long for the Vindication of the Primitive Constitutions and Discipline than it was for him to be beheaded for telling Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his Brother Philip's Wife S. John Baptist suffered but once but he bids them say we are ready to suffer ten thousand Deaths rather than comply with the Vsurper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He exhorts the Ep. 99. Bishop and Clergy of Scythopolis to avoid as to their own Honour and the Benefit of the Church they had already done all those
was forced to relax his Rigour and to Register the name of S. Chrysostom in the Diptycks of the Church endeavouring by this means to bring over the Joannites as they were called who asserted his Cause And when S. Chrysostom had been so long time dead and this Right had been done to his memory it is no wonder that Atticus and Sisinnius should have the Titles of Patriarchs given them and that the Council of Ephesus should take no notice of the Injustice that S. Chrysostom had had done him when both He and those that had done it were dead and their names were read together in the Diptycks when the Joannites had had this satisfaction given them and there was no Man now alive who could pretend any injury done him by the Promotion of the present Patriarch it could not become the Wisdom and the Charity of a General Council to revive the memory of a thing which after so long a time could admit of no Remedy but what might be of worse Consequence and might increase and prolong the Divisions which now were much abated and soon after ceased The Western Churches had long before Theod. l. 5. c. 34. the Council of Ephesus renewed Communion with the Eastern when once S. Chrysostom's name was written among the names of the other Patriarchs deceased For they never took any notice of Arsacius at all and rejected all the Messages that Atticus sent to get himself acknowledged by them till he had made this amends to the Memory of S. Chrysostom But as Theodorite observes these Bishops who were thus injurious to S. Chrysostom were otherwise excellent Men and there was nothing else to be found in them which might deserve the Churches Censure and therefore after the Church had been satisfied as to this matter they were mentioned with those Titles that were due to their Station and to their Vertues For the Titles which Celestine gives to Atticus Conc. Ephes Part 1. col 353. 361. and Sisinnius in his Epistle to Nestorius are only such as suppose their names to be written in the Diptycks among the other Patriarchs and that they were assertors of the Catholick Faith he supposes Atticus at last to have been the Rightful Patriarch and consequently Sisinnius who succeeded him by a Canonical Election to have been so too and he highly commends both of them for their zeal in maintaining the true Faith which Nestorius the next in Succession had so shamefully betrayed Atticus after the death of S. Chrysostom and Sisinnius who succeeded him were in their times the only Patriarchs of Constantinople and tho Arsacius and Atticus had not come in regularly yet it was in the Power of the Church upon due satisfaction made for the sake of Peace and Order to pass by such a defect and dispense with it and when Atticus had Registred S. Chrysostom's name in the Diptycks as Rightful Patriarch this was in effect to acknowledge himself to have been an Usurper during his life which was accepted of by the Church as a sufficient Declaration of his Repentance and as it has been already shewn Hereticks themselves upon their Repentance were to be received not only to Lay Communion but according to their Order and Degree in the Church If our Author could have shewn that Celestine had said as much of Arsacius as he has done of Atticus and Sisinnius that had been to his purpose because S. Chrysostom survived Arsacius but it is acknowledged that after the death of S. Chrysostom Atticus was at last Rightful Patriarch and owned by the Western Church for such What is added of Maximian and Proclus that they were acknowledged as Rightful Patriarchs by the Church needs no other Answer than what has been already given for if Atticus were Rightful the rest who succeeded him were such too if no other exception lay against them than that concerning what had been done to S. Chrysostom But besides Maximian was Conc. Ephâ—s Part 3. col 10â—â— made Patriarch in the room of Nestorius in the General Council of Ephesus and this surely was enough to purge all defects in the Succession of the Patriarchs of Constantinople For where a General Council does not only approve of but appoint the Successor of a Bishop Deposed for Heresie it can no longer be pretended that there remains any defect upon the account of injustice done to a Patriarch who had been so long dead for if the Succession had been interrupted till now from the time that S. Chrysostom was Deposed yet this would put it in its due course again Proclus who is next mentioned and was next in Succession to Maximian had been bred up under S. Chrysostom and could little suspect that he should ever have been reckoned among his uncanonical Successors for as Atticus had inserted his name among the other Patriarchs so Proclus was zealous to make him Socr. l. 7. c. 45. all the further reparation that could be made by causing his Body to be removed to Constantinople and there interr'd with all the Honours of a Funeral solemnity If Severianus Bishop of Gabala Pag. 4. and Acacius Bishop of Berrhea being afterwards discovered to Pope Innocent were neither deposed nor reprehended by him The reason must be that that Pope did not assume to himself so much as his Successors have done but said he would procure a General Council to be called to redress the Grievances of the Greck Church upon this account and at the same time denies all Authority in Arsacius as being an Intruder Nay in an (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Innocentii Epist apud Sozom. lib. 8. c 26. Epistle written to the Emperour Arcadius he Deposed Arsacius after his death or declared him never to have been Patriarch and commanded his name to be razed out of the Diptycks and in the same Epistle Excommunicated Arcadius himself and the Emâ—ress Eudoxia and both Deposed and Anathematized and Excommunicated Theophilus of Alexandria I will not suppose that this Epistle Biondell Pseudo Isid p. 562 Georg. Alex. vit Chrys c. 68 Mich. Glyc An. Part 4 p. 259. Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. Cedren p. 332. Conc. Tom. 2. Col. 1310. to Arcadius deserves much Credit for it is rejected by Blondel because Georgius Alexandrinus is the first that produces it from whom Glycas and Nicephorus had it and before them both Cedrenus made mention of it And whereas Pope Innocent in this Epistle wherein S Chrysostom is mentioned as already dead threatens Eudoxia the Empress with Punishments in this World as well as in the World to come it is noted in the Margin over against this Epistle in Labbe's Edition of the Councils that Eudoxia died before S. Chrysostom which is a plain intimation that the Epistle is Spurious But I produce this Epistle to observe that if it could pass for Authenâ—ick in the several Ages in which these Authors lived it is in vain to endeavour to make it be believed that the Practice of the Greek Church
the See of Antioch and his Authority alone without any concurring Evidence is sufficient to oppose to that of Socrates and Sozomen But if it were not besides what has been already said their Account as Valesius observes disagrees from what St. Hierom * Vales ad Socr. l. 4. c. 15. and Theodorus Lector and Theophanes relate concerning this Eustathius So that we must conclude that Eustathius of Sebastia is meant by the Greek Author or else that this is another of his Mistakes In the Greek it is said p. 5. that Arsacius because of the Jealousie of his Brother Nectarius towards him had formerly sworn that he would never accept of the See of Constantinople But in the English this is omitted in the Text and set down only in the Margin with this Note that p. 2. the Manuscript in this place is written erroneously Mr. Hody in the Greek and Latin Edition takes no notice that this is an Error being more tender now it seems of the Credit of his Author and perhaps of Palladius too from Pallad p. 94. whom he had it I wish Mr. Hody had been as careful of his Author's Reputation and of his own too in all other Respects as in this And after such Protestations of sincere and charitable Intentions in publishing this Manuscript it could hardly be imagined that he had omitted any thing which belonged to this wonderful Treatise which he so much values and so highly magnifies But it is an unlucky thing to be engaged in a Cause which no Author ever yet had enough of the Greek in him to maintain and therefore as I am well assured he has left out a Collection of Canons at the end of the Manuscript written in the same hand and by the same Author which shews that the Author is to be understood of synodical Deprivations For since there were no synodical Proceâ—dings in the present Deprivations that part of the Manuscript must be suppressed lest it should make all the rest impertinent to the Controversie arising from the present state of our Church tho it were all as true as I have shewn it to be false The Canons annexed are a sufficient Answer to the Book as far as we are concerned in it and therefore it was great Prudence to conceal them This looks as if Malela were not only fabulous but infectious too and will be apt to make Men suspect that Malela himself is worse in the Print than in the Manuscript And this is all that I shall say and I think a great deal more than was necessary to be said of a Book which instead of being sent into the World with so much Ostentation and Triumph would have been in danger of a publick Censure at any other time but this since the Reformation excepting only that Interval when we had all our Bishops deposed at once And to endeavour to maintain a Cause by such Arguments and such Auâ—horities as are both notoriously false and of so pernicious consequence that they would have been suffered at no other time and any other Cause would have been ashamed of them and then to be forced too upon such Arts as may be very necessary in an ill Cause but would never surely be used in a good one is no less than a Confession of the badness of a Cause and is so far from being a Defence that it is an evident sign that it cannot be defended The CANONS in the Baroccian Manuscripts omitted by Mr. Hody 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The XXXI Canon of the Holy Apostles by a Mistake for the XXXII IF any Presbyter contemning Can. Ap. 32. his own Bishop shall hold a separate Meeting and erect an opposite Altar having nothing wherewith to charge the Bishop in Matters of ‡ or Faith Piety and Justice let him be deposed as an ambitious Affector of Government for he is an Usurper In like manner as many of the Clergy that shall joyn with him shall be deposed and the Laicks excommunicated But all this ought to be done after the first the second and third Admonition of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The VI. Canon of the Synod of Gangra If any Man hold a private Meeting Synod Gangr Can. 6. out of the Church and despising the Church shall presume to perform the Offices of the Church †Note that in the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the printed Canons have it the officiating Presbyter not being thereunto licensed by the Bishop let him be Anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The V. Canon of the Synod of Antioch If any Presbyter or Deacon despising Syn. Antioch Can. 5. his own Bishop hath withdrawn himself from the Church and set up an Altar in a private Meeting and shall disobey the Admonitions of the Bishop and will not be perswaded by him nor submit to him exhorting him again and again he is absolutely to be deposed and ought no longer to be treated as a curable Person neither as one who can retain his Honour and if he shall persevere to make Tumults and Disturbances in the Church he is to be turned over as a seditious Person to the secular Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The XV. Canon of the same Synod If any Bishop accus'd of any Crimes Eiusd Synodi Can. 15. be condemned by all the Bishops of the Province who have all with one accord denounced the same Sentence against him such a one by no means ought to be judged again by others but the concordant Sentence of the Provincial Bishops ought to remain firm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The X. Canon of the Synod of Carthage If any Presbyter being puffed up Syn. Carth. Can. 10. against his own Bishop shall make a Schism let him be Anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The XIII Can. of the Syn. of Constantinople called the 1st and 2 d. Synod The Devil having sown the Seeds I◠〈…〉 Caâ— 1â— of Heretical Tares in the Church of Christ and seeing them cut up by the roots by the Sword of the Spirit hath betaken himself to a new way and method viz to divide the Church by the madness of Shismaticks But the holy Synod being also willing to obviate this Stratagem of his hath decreed as followeth If any Presbyter or Deacon under the pretence of accusing his own Bishop of any Crimes shall presume to withdraw from his Communion and not mention his Name in the holy Prayers of the Liturgy according to the Tradition of the Church * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Synodical Judgment and Tryal such a one shall be deposed and deprived of all sacerdotal Honour for he that is in the Order of a Priest and shall usurp the Power of Judging belonging to the Metropolitans and as much as in him lies shall condemn his own Father and Bishop before Sentence pronounced by them he is worthy neither of the Honour nor Appellation of a Presbyter and those who are Followers of such a one if they are in holy Orders even any of them shall be degraded from his proper Honour but if they are Monks or Laicks they shall by all means be excommunicated from the Church until abhorring the Conversation of Schismaticks they shall return unto their proper Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The XIV Canon of the same Synod If any Bishop pretending an Accusation 〈◊〉 Synodi 〈◊〉 14. against his Metropolitan †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Synodical Judgment shall withdraw himself from communion with him and shall not recite his Name according to custom in Divine Service the holy Synod hath decreed that such a one shall be deposed if after private ‡ or Conviction Admonition he shall depart from his own Metropolitan and make a Schism For it behoves every one to know his own proper bounds and that neither the Presbyter despise his own proper Bishop nor the Bishop his own Metropolitan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The XV. Canon of the same Synod These Decrees concerning Presbyters 〈◊〉 Synodi 〈…〉 Bishops and Metropolitans agree also to Patriarchs So that if any Bishop or Metropolitan shall presume to depart from Communion with his own Patriarch and shall not mention his Name in the Divine Offices as is decreed and ordered but shall make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Separation * before Synodical Conviction and final Condemnation of him the holy Synod hath decreed that such a one be absolutely deposed from all sacred Orders if he offend in this kind after private ‡ or Conviction Admonition And these things are decreed and enacted concerning those who under pretence of any Accusations revolt from their own Superiors and make a Schism * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the printed Canon and break the Vnity of the Church But if any shall separate themselves from Communion with their Superior for any Heresie condemned by the holy Synods and Fathers he publickly preaching the same Heresie to the People and teaching it bare-faced in the Church such shall not only be free from Canonical Censure for separating themselves from Communion with the Bishop so called * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Synodical Condemnation but they shall be thought worthy of the Honour that is due to the Orthodox because they have not condemned a Bishop but a false Bishop and a false Teacher and have not divided the Unity of the Church by Schism but have studiously endeavoured to preserve the Church from Schisms and Divisions FINIS