Corfica. Other parts, even of Italy it felf, fuch as were fubject to the Italian Vicar in Temporals, were as to Ecclefiafticals under the Exarch Milan, and owed no manner of subjection to the See of Rome.

(

And thus (c) as this very () lit p. 33. Learned and Reverend Gentleman fays by an orderly Subordination of Deacons and Presbyters to their Bishops, of Bishops to their immediate Metropolitans, of Metropolitans to their respective Primates or Patriarchs, and by a mutual Correspondence beC tween the feveral Primates of every Diocefe,

the Affairs of the Chriftian Church were car<ried on with great Decorum and Regularity. Those who defire a more particular Account of the Original and of the Authority of Patriarchs, I muft refer them to the learned Doctors excellent Difcourfe which I have fo often quoted, concerning the Government of the ancient Church by Bishops, Metropolitans and Pa

triarchs.

I have little more to add upon this fubject but only to fhew, that as the Bishop exercised his Judicial Authority in his Diocefan Synod, and the Metropolitan in his Provincial, fo the Patriarch, Exarch, or Primate, did the like in the great Patriarchal Synod of the larger Diocese which included many Provinces. This appears very evident from the fixth Canon of the fecond Oecumenical Council, the Council of Conftantinople affembled by the Authority of Theodofius the great. Where after they have declared that altho' any Person who has received any Injury from a Bishop, may ac'cufe him for it, and defire fatisfaction may be made him, and that when he does accufe ? him upon any fuch Account he shall not be

I 4

exa

1

• examined concerning his own Faith or Religion: Yet if any one fhall pretend to accuse < a Bishop of an Ecclefiaftical Crime (as of Herefy, falfe Doctrine or the like) it is very convenient and fit that the Accufer should first be examined concerning his own Faith, and that Hereticks fhall not be permitted to accufe Orthodox Bishops in fuch Cafes. They then proceed and decree, That if any who are • neither Hereticks nor Excommunicated Perfons, neither condemned or accused of any Crime themselves fhall fay that they have Ecclefiaftical Crimes to lay to the Charge of any Bifhop, the Holy Synod commands that they first bring their Accufation to the Bifhops of the Province, and before them prove the Crimes objected to the Bishop. And if the Provincial Bifhops cannot determine the matter, let them then make their Applica tion to the greater Synod of the Bishops of that Diocefe which fhall be called together for this Caufe. And if any one contemning this Order fhall apply to the Emperour or any Secular Judgement, or will trouble an Univerfal Synod, neglecting all the Bishops of the Diocefe, he fhall not be admitted to bring in his Accufation.

This Canon is fo very long that I have been forced to abridge it, however I trust that I have faithfully delivered the Senfe of it, and in that part which is material to the purpose for which I cited it. I have endeavoured to deliver the words as near as I could tranflate them. And I conceive it evidently proves that the Subordination in the Church of one Governour to another, viz. of Bifhops to Metropolitans, and of Metropolitans to Patriarchs and

of

of all to the Emperour or Supreme Civil Magiftrate, was not merely the fubjection of one Perfon to another, but of a lefs Synod to a greater. And that all Ecclefiaftical matters were wont to be determined in the feveral Synods or Councils. That is to fay (d) first in the leffer Diocefan Synod or Chapter, where a fingle Bishop judged in Conjunction with his Presbyters: From whence the Appeal was to the Metropolitan who was to hear the Caufe in his Provincial Synod: And from him to the Patriarch, Exarch or Primate, who having determined the matter in his large Diocefan Synod there could be no further Appeal, only if it was a business of fuch great Confequence that the Emperour or Supreme Civil Magistrate thought fit to interpofe, he might order a Rehearing of it in an Univerfal Oecumenical Council, but they could not Appeal to it.

(d) Sup. c. 6.

P. 424.

(e) This was the nature of Appeals (fays (e) Cod. Can. Fustellus) in the ancient Catholick Church, Eccles. Univers that from the Presbytery of one Church or 'Diocese they should Appeal to a Seffion of more Bishops, that is of the neighbouring Bishops: From thence to the Synod of all 'the Bishops of the Province, and from that to the Council of the whole Diocese, from " whence there was no Appeal even to an Oe'cumenical Synod. And this he proves from feveral Authorities, which thofe that require further fatisfaction may examine.

But it is to be observed that this Patriarchal Jurifdiction (which I have fhewed was not fet up till the fourth Century) did not extend all places, there were fome Metropolitans were not subject to any Patriarch, Exar Primate, but were Αυτοκέφαλοι Su

f) A&t. 7.Concil.

within their own Jurifdiction, and were Confecrated by their own Suffragans, and from whofe Provincial Synod there lay no Appeal. Such an Independent Metropolitan (ƒ) the BiEphes. Col. 187. fhop of Cyprus proved himself to be in the Council of Ephefus. And fuch Monfier (g) Du Eccles. Difciplin. Pin fays were all the Churches in thefe Weftern Parts, in France, Spain, Germany, Britain, &c. who had only Bishops and their Metropolitans that were fubject to no Patriarch whatfoever.

Tom 3.

(g) Du Pin. Ant.

p. 63.

After the Bishop of Rome had taken upon him to be Supreme Vicar of Christ and had brought this part of Christendom under his Tyrannical Ufurpation, he took upon him to give a kind of Patriarchal Power to fome Bifhops, not by the name of Patriarchs, but Ibid. p. 34. Primates. (b) So Gregory 7. made the Bishop of Lyons Primate of that Church, and subjected to him four Provinces, Lyons, Roan, Tours and Sens, and the like Privileges he granted to the principal Prelates of every Nation, or howfoever they came by their primacy he generally took care to grant and confirm it by his Bulls that it might appear to come from him, tho' it might, and probably did, arife from the Conftitution of the National Church. Thus by the Original Conftitution of this (i) Antiq Britan, Church, and not by Papal Grants only, (i) our Archbishop of Canterbury had, and I conceive ftill has in fome Refpects, a primacy over all the Metropolitans and Provinces within the Dominions of her Gracious Majefty; but it is different from what the Patriarchs or Exarchs had over their Diocefes. Yet it may be worth confidering whether great Britain and Ireland might not be united in one compleat

p. 22.

Patriarchal Diocese, as a means to procure and preserve an entire Union and Uniformity in matters of Religion.

CHA P. XIV.

Of Provincial Synods.

Having treated of the Original of Arch

bifhops or Metropolitans, I fhall next treat of Provincial Synods, which, as I have fhewed, it belongs to them to Summon. The right which the Church has to its Councils or Synods is plainly Divine. This may be inferred from the words of our Saviour in that place, (a) where he confers a Judicial Power (4) Mat. 15. on his Church. For it is manifeft that by the 17. &c. word Church in this Text is meant fomething more than a Single Perfon or Governor, not only from the natural Signification of the word, but from what our Lord himself afterwards adds by way of promise, saying, where two or three are gathered together in my name there am I in the midst of them. And fince Chrift, as I have already proved, (b) did conftitute and Supr. Ch. appoint an Order of Men to overfee and guide the Flock which fhould be committed to their Charge and to prefide over it, therefore when he orders Application to be made to his Church in the point of Judicature, it appears evident that his meaning fhould be, that this Application ought to be made to thofe he has appointed to Govern, and not to those he has ordered to be Governed. And forafmuch as the Presbyters have a fhare in this Govern

ment