on this Canon, that this Judgement of a Bishop by twelve neighbouring Bishops was permitted only when a Synod could not be convened. And he Instances in the Cafe of John Bishop of Amathuft, who having been depofed by John Archbishop of Cyprus was restored again in a Synod by Lucas Patriarch of Conftantinople, because the Archbishop had not more than 12 Bishops to Judge the Caufe, whereof himself was one, and that he did not upon this occafion Summon an Univerfal Synod of the Church of Cyprus when nothing hindred him from doing it. And as to the Cafe of a Presbyter or Deacon, Zonarus upon this Canon tells us that he might be first tried by his own Bishop, but upon an Appeal from his Sentence he might have a Rehearing of his Cause, and a Presbyter should then be tried by fix Bishops, and a Deacon by three. And then they might have yet another Appeal to a Provincial Synod (as appears from the 126 Canon of the African Code), and their determination was final. However the Presbyter or Deacon that was cenfured by his own Bishop, was to continue under the Cenfure laid upon him till his Caufe was heard again, and if he acted any thing contrary to the Judgment had been given against him, his Appeal was void by the fourth Canon of the Council of Antioch. It appears then that all, Trials of Bishops and Appeals of Presbyters and Deacons belonged to the Provincial Synod where the Metropolitan had the augos and gave final Sentence. And from the Metropolitan and his Judgement in Synod there was no Appeal in the primitive Church, as feveral Learned Men have excellently proved against the unreasonable Pretenfions of the Bishop of Rome and and his Adherents, except in fuch Churches as were fubject to a Patriarch. This matter which relates to the Tryal and Condemnation of Bishops, being of the highest nature and greatest Moment, it may be convenient (having fhewed what the ancient Canons decreed concerning it) to give fome Account how the Church has acted according to thefe Canons, and how the Practice has been for Metropolitan's to depofe offending Bishops in (a) Cypr. Epift. Synod and no otherwise. (a) Thus it was St. Cyprian depofed Fortunatus a Pfeudo-Bishop, and Condemned him and his Adherents, in a full (b) Ibid. Epift. Council of the African Bishops. (b) And fo 55. 48. 21, 22. Bafilides and Martialis were depofed by a Council of Spanish Bishops who met together for that purpose, and alfo ordained others in the room of them. Thefe two Cafes happened in the third Century, from which time we begin to have a pretty clear Account of the ancient Difcipline of the Church, and I think are the eldeft Inftances of this kind. In the next Baluz. Nov. Century (c) Peter Archbishop of Alexandria Col. Concil. Col depofed Melitus by the common Sentence of all the Bishops assembled with him in Council, A. D. 306. And in the latter end of this (d) Inter Epift. Century (d) when Application was made to Sinicus the Bishop of Rome in the Cause of Bonofus his Anfwer was, that he ought to be judged by the Bishop of Theffalonica his Metropolitan and the neighbouring Bishops. But nothing can be a more evident Determination of this Right of the Metropolitan to receive Appeals and to determine Caufes of great moment in a Provincial Synod, than the famous Contest between the African Churches and Pope Zofimus, A. D. 417. in the Cafe of Apiarius, where Ambr Lib. I. the the Right of the Metropolitan in his Provincial Synod for the Determination of Causes was fully Canvaffed, and after the ancient received Canons had been fully examined, and thofe of the Council of Nice particularly to fatisfy the Pope that no Appeals ought to be made from the Metropolitan's Sentence to his, they tell his Holiness that Apiarius the Presbyter who had been depofed by his Diocefan Urbanus having upon an Appeal to his Metropolitan had a Rehearing in a Provincial Synod where the Sentence against him was Ratified, had no right to Appeal to Rome, the Church having wifely and justly provided that all Affairs fhall be determined in the very places where they arise. (e) Dr. Cave has already given a large Account (e) p. 224. &c. of this matter in our own Language, in his excellent Difcourfe of ancient Church Government, &c. to which I fhall refer those that require further Satisfaction, and from what has been faid on this occafion conclude that I have fufficiently proved that for the first four or five Centuries after the Establishment of Christianity Metropolitans had an undoubted Right to Judge their Provincial Bishops, to receive Appeals from their Judgements, and finally to determine fuch matters in their Provincial Synods. Only where there was a Patriarch, of whom I shall briefly treat at the Conclufion of this Chapter, there might be yet a Re-hearing before him in a General Synod of the Patriar chal Diocese. And this was the State of the Church in the firft and pureft Ages. But as the Papal power prevailed other Forms of Judicature were introduced, (f) as supr. ch 6. I have fhewed already in fome of the preceed- & ch. 11. ing Chapters. And as Bifhops began to be more more abfolute in their feveral Diocefes, and to act in all matters of Judicature by themfelves or their Chancellors, without the affiftance of their Diocefan Synod or Chapter, fo the Archbishops or Metropolitans received Appeals from them, and determined them either by themselves or their Vicars-general, without any Concurrence of their Provincial Synod. But I do not remember to have read that ever any Metropolitan, or Papal Legate, or even the Pope himself has ever proceeded fo far as to depofe a Bishop otherwife than in (2) Inter. Opera. Synod. (g) For as the Council of Carthage confifting of 87 Bishops declared, No one ought to make himself a Bishop of Bishops, nor to compel his Colleagues to a neceffity of obedience by Tyrannical Power. Which is a Paffage has been often quoted by Proteftant Writers against the pretenfions of the Pope. Confonant to which the (h) 3d Council of Carthage forbids the Metropolitan to allume the Title of Prince, of the Priests, or the Sovereign Prieft, and declares, That no other name ought to be given him but that of Bishop of the first See. Cypriani. b) Can. 26. (a) De Antiq. P. 73. C That I may, fays the Learned (a) Du Pin Eccles. Difciplin. comprehend the Functions of the Metropolitan in a Word. It belongs to him to take care of all things that are for the benefit ' of his Province in general, and to endeavour with all his might to put a stop to every C thing therein that shall be done amifs. But he must take care that he always keep within Rule and Order, and not to intermedle with the Power which each Bishop has in his L own Church. The Administration whereof is fo committed to every Bishop by the Canons, that the Metropolitan can do nothing therein therein directly, either in what relates to the Ordination of Presbyters and Deacons, ८ or in what concerns the particular Govern⚫ment of the Diocefe. Befides the Metropolitan can almost do nothing without the Confent and Counfel of his Comprovincial Bishops, unless perhaps to Admonish or Exhort, or in fuch matters as will admit of . no Delay: In which Cafe the Metropoli. tan ought to proceed according to Ecclefiaftical Rules, and to determine only as it ' were by a fiduciary Decree, which fhall not. be firm till it is Ratified by the confent of the Bishops of the whole Province. Concil. Nic. p. By reafon of thefe Rights and Prerogatives which Metropolitans enjoyed, in process of time, fays Bishop Beveridge, It became Cu-(4) Beveridge" ] ftomary for every Bishop at his Confecration ad Can. 6. to promife either by word or Writing that 9. Col. 2. he would yield all due Reverence and Canonical Obedience to his Metropolitan. Which * from the words of Ivo Carnotenfis, who flou' rished in the eleventh Century, appears to L have been the practice of that Age: (b) who ) Epift. 73. fays, That the rest of the Bishops are examined before their Confecration, and promife to behave themfelves according to the Integrity of ancient Customs, and to yitld due obedience to their Ordainers. Wherefore when this Iuo was called by Hugo Archbishop of Lyons to affist him in the Ordination of the Bishop of Nivers, 'which Ordination of Right belonged to the Archbishop of Sens, who was Ivo's Metropolitan, He answered that he durft not do this, (c) leaft he should violate the promise he (c) Epift. 61. had made to his Metropolitan when he was Ordained. Yet Leo 1. in his Epiftle to Anafta T fins |