Selected quad for the lemma: honour_n
Text snippets containing the quad
|
ID |
Title |
Author |
Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication) |
STC |
Words |
Pages |
|
A44091
|
A letter from Mr. Humphry Hody to a friend concerning a collection of ca[n]ons said to be deceitfully omitted in his edition of the Oxford treatise against schism : in which is likewise contained offer of certain propositions to be prov'd by the advocates for the new separation ...
|
Hody, Humphrey, 1659-1707.
|
1692
(1692)
|
Wing H2342; ESTC R35437
|
30,096
|
47
|
the Communion of an Orthodox Successor Pray look with both Eyes and see if you can possibly find in the Canons any thing truly pertinent to that particular Subject The Argument and Design of them is against private Conventicles without a lawfull Presbyter against a Presbyter or a Deacon's withdrawing from the Communion of his Bishop without a just Cause that a Bishop being condemn'd by the Bishops of the same Province it shall not be in the power of the Bishops of another Province to take the matter into their Cognisance against such Presbyters as shall separate from their Bishops on pretence of some Crimes they can charge 'em with before they be legally convicted against such Bishops as shall pretend to condemn their Metropolitan and to leave his Communion on pretence of his Vices before he is legally condemn'd and lastly against such Metropolitans as shall act in like manner with relation to their Patriarch I shall here translate you these Canons in the same order as they ly in the MS. In Doctor Beveridge's Synodicon you may read 'em all in the Original Can. Apost XXXI If a Presbyter shall in contempt of his Bishop gather a separate Congregation and erect another Altar his Bishop being not condemn'd by him for any Impiety or Injustice let him be depriv'd as Ambitious For he is a Tyrant In like manner others of the Clergy that shall adhere to him But let the Laity that shall make themselves of his Party be excommunicated And let these things be done after three Admonitions given by the Bishop What is this in God's Name to our Treatise How does this prove our Author's Meaning to be of a Synodical Deprivation What is this to the adhering to a Bishop not Synodically Depriv'd in opposition to another put into his Place Can. Concil Gang. VI. If any one in contempt of the Church shall gather a private Congregation and do those things which belong to the Church without a Presbyter appointed by the Bishop let him be Anathema What relation could this Canon have to the design of our Author It was made as Zonaras tells us against the Eustathians who despis'd the Congregations of the Church and set up Conventicles in their private Oratories and here they are forbid to celebrate the Service of the Church even in the private Chappels of their Houses without a Presbyter appointed 'em by the Bishop This our new Recusants would do well to observe Can. Concil Antioch V. If a Presbyter or Deacon shall in contempt of his Bishop separate himself from the Church and set up a Conventicle and erect an Altar and not submit to his Bishop after a second Admonition let him be depos'd and let him be uncapable for ever of being restor'd to his Honour and the Cure of Souls And if he goes on to raise Troubles and Seditions in the Church let him be punisht by the Civil Power as a Rioter How could this Canon be produc'd by the Author of our Treatise as pertinent to the Subject of it What 's this to a Bishop depriv'd by a Lay Power and the leaving his Communion who is put in his place which our Adversaries tell us is warranted by the Author of our Treatise The XVth Canon of the same Council If a Bishop being accus'd of any Crimes shall be condemn'd by all the Bishops of the Province and all shall unanimously agree in the Sentence against him he may not be judg'd again by others but the Sentence past unanimously by the Bishops of the Province shall be valid This Canon was made to prevent Appeals which a Bishop depriv'd by the Bishops of the same Province of which he was might make to some other Bishop or Bishops of another Province Pray tell me how it makes to the Business and Subject of our Treatise What Lynceus so very strong sighted as to see a Thing at that Distance Can. Concil Carthag XI If a Presbyter through Pride shall make a Schism against his Bishop let him be Anathema This is onely an Epitome of the XI Canon of the Council of Carthage What a rare relation it has to the particular Subject of our Treatise What a plain Demonstration it affords that the Author understands a Synodical Deprivation The XIII Canon of the Council call'd the First and Second The Devil scattering Heretical Seeds in the Church of Christ and seeing them cut off at the Root by the Sword of the Spirit has pitcht on another Method and endeavours to divide the Body of Christ by the Madness of Schismaticks The holy Council in order to prevent this Snare as well as the other has decreed That if any Presbyter or Deacon having condemn'd his Bishop for any Crimes shall dare to depart from his Communion and refuse to recite his Name in the Publick Prayers of the Church according to the usual Custom before he be Synodically tryed and perfectly condemn'd that Person shall be depos'd and depriv'd of all his Honour in the Priesthood For any one plac't in the order of a Presbyter if he takes upon him to prevent the Iudgment of the Metropolitan and to condemn and pass Sentence on his Father and Bishop he is not worthy of the Honour or Name of a Presbyter And they that adhere to such as have done so if they are of the Priesthood let them likewise be depriv'd of their Honour if Monks or of the Laity let 'em be Excommunicated till they leave the Schismatical Party and return to their respective Bishop I shall pass a Remark on this and the other two which follow together The XIV Canon of the same Council If a Bishop upon charging his Metropolitan with a Crime shall withdraw from his Communion and refuse to recite his Name in the publick Service of the Church according to Custom before he is Synodically tryed the holy Council decrees he be depos'd upon Proof that he made such a Schism For all Men ought to observe their proper Duties and the Presbyter must not despise his Bishop nor the Bishop his Metropolitan The XV. Canon of the same What has been decreed concerning Presbyters Bishops and Metropolitans the same is yet more reasonable with relation to Patriarchs If therefore any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan shall dare to recede from the Communion of his Patriarch and does not according to Custom recite his Name in the Publick-Service of the Church but makes a Schism before his Patriarch has been Synodically try'd and perfectly condemn'd the holy Synod ordains That upon Proof made of such a Schism he be depos'd And these things are ordained and ratified concerning those who upon pretence of certain Crimes shall separate from their respective Bishops and make a Schism and break the Communion of the Church For they that separate themselves from the Communion of their Bishop for a Heresy condemn'd by the holy Fathers and Councils he publickly professing and preaching the Heresy shall be so far from being obnoxious to any Canonical Punishment on
always profest a great and due regard for the general Practice of the Ancients I must not conclude before I have told you as I promis'd you what Schism thâ—â— was which was rais'd upon the account of Iosephus 〈◊〉 Presbyter which as appears by Cotelerius's Copy was the occasion of the writing our Treatise You must know Sir in short that in the Year 1266. Arsenius the Patr. of CP was depos'd by a Synod whereof the Emp. Michael Palaeologus sat President partly for certain Crimes of which he was accus'd but chiefly for Contumacy in refusing to give his Appearance He knew that the Emperour was his Enemy and therefore he pleaded that 't was contrary to the Canons for Him to sit Judge in the Cause of a Bishop The Synod a very great one both acknowleg'd and asserted the Emperour's Authority and alleg'd it was agreeable both to Reason and the Practice of the Ancients Germanus Bishop of Adrianople who was put into Arsenius's Place resigning after a few Months Iosephus the Emperour's Confessor and an Abbot was advanc'd to that Honour Hence a rose a famous Schism amongst the Monks and the Common-people some adhering to Arsenius as unjustly Depriv'd others being averse to Iosephus because they lookt upon him to have been formerly Excommunicated by 〈…〉 and others pretending other Reasons I said Amongst the Monks and Common people for Pachymeres assures us tho' a Friend and Well-wisher to Arsenius that in all the Church there were but Three Bishops that engag'd in the Schism viz. those of Alexandria Thessalonica and Sâ—ndiâ— Of whom the two last word the especial Friends and Creatures of Arsenius Neither did those Bishops make a Schism because another Bishop was put into Arsenius's Place whilst he was alive for they presently began it as it plainly appears from Pachymeres as soon as Arsenius was depriv'd before his Place was fill'd up that is they withdrew from the Communion not of the Church in general but onely of those Bishops that Depriv'd Him so Pachymeres expresly says of the Bishop of Alexandria Those Persons that refus'd to Communicate with Iosephus upon the Account of Arsenius's Deprivation the Author of our Treatise endeavours to convince by shewing by many Examples of Bishops unjustly Depriv'd part of them by Synods and part by the Emperour alone how contrary it was to the Practice of the Ancients to violate the Peace of the Church on the account of such unjust or uncanonical Deprivations Being now assur'd what Schism that was that occasion'd the writing of our Treatise we cannot any longer be ignorant of the true Age of the Author It cannot reasonably be doubted but that our Treatise was written about the beginning of the Schism and of Iosephus's Patriarchate viz. in the Year 1267 for Iosephus was consecrated Patriarch the First of Ianuary 126â— as may castly be shewn tho' Petrus Possinus would have it to be a Year later This at least is apparent that 〈…〉 which happen'd on the last of Sept. 1273. for it plainly appears from the Treatise that the Patriarch for whose sake the Schism was rais'd was alive when the Treatise was writ It may further be gather'd out of the Sixth Book of Nicephorus Gregoras that this Schism lasted no longer than the Year 1275 for he tells us the manner how it was ended just after he had spoken of Gregorius Georgius Cyprius's being promoted to the Patriarchate and before he speaks of the Patriarch Veccus's Banishment which happen'd both on the foresaid Year Here Sir I must retract what I formerly conjectur'd tho very doubtingly in my Preface to the Gr. and Lat. Edition concerning Nicephorus Callisti his being the Author of our Treatise For from what has been said it is manifest that the Author of our Treatise was older than Nicephorus Callisti For Nicephorus was not full 36. Years old when he publisht his Eccl. History and yet when he publisht it Andronicus the Emperour Son to the abovesaid Michael Pal. who died in the Year 1327. near 70. Years of Age was a very Old Man as he plainly declares in his Dedication There needs no Argument to confirm so clear a Demonstration Yet others may be produc'd as that which we our selves formerly urg'd in the foresaid Preface as an Objection against the Conjecture we had made that the Author of our Treatise ranks the Patriarchs of CP that govern'd in the time of the Emp. Isaacius Angelus in this Order Basilius Nicetas Leontius Dositheus Xiphilinus But Nicephorus in a MS. Catalogue of the Patriarchs of CP thus Basilius Nicetas Dositheus Leontius Dositheus agen Xiphilinus To which may be added that the Predecessor of Macedonius that was depos'd by the Emp. Anastasius is by Nicephorus both in his Catalogue and in his Hist. nam'd Euphemius as the more ancient Writers are wont to call him but by the Author of our Treatise Euthymius I once thought that this was onely an Error of the Librarian tho he be so call'd in Three places but since I have observ'd that by the more Modern Greeks he was usually so nam'd He is so call'd likewise by Cedrenus Metaphrastes Theophanes the Eighth General Council Act VI. and by others I was here Sir about to subscribe a Vale and I thought on nothing but to ease you of your poring on an ill Hand and on sending away these Papers to the Coach But casting my Eyes a Second time on your Letter I found that through Hast I had overlookt your Postscript in which you mention an Empty and Scurrilous Pamphlet call'd The Oxford Antiquity Examin'd and are pleas'd to ask me this Question whether or no I design to Answer it I do not wonder Sir you should so far forget that Pamphlet when you wrote your Letter as to throw it down to a Postscript I rather wonder you should ever mind it at all but above all I wonder how you came to be so far forgetful of the Humour of your old Acquaintance as to ask me that Question How often have you heard me say That I hate to strâ—kâ— on a Thing that is Hollow and Empty which can onely return Noise The Author of that Pamphlet is too much a Felo de se to need the Hand of an Adversary How excellently does he infer from one or two Mistakes which he endeavours to discover in our Treatise that all the rest is nothing but Error and Blunder An incomparable Ergo A rare Logician How pleasant is it to observe to what sorry Shifts our Second-hand-Writer is reduc'd where he speaks of the Authority of St. Chrysostom But I must not say How pleasant It moves Pity in one to see to what Pain he is put by that Weight that lies upon his Head what Turns and Twists he makes how the poor Creature wrigles and tosses his Tail up and down And all to as little purpose as a Bird on a Lime-twig the more it flutters the more it is caught No wonder he is so hugely in Wrath and falls so foul upon