deprived and consequently that the Sees are vacant in Conscience If it should prove otherwise the Clergy and Laity of those some jurisdictions will still be obliged in Conscience as much as ever to adhere to their Canonical Bishops till they be Canonically deprived and to disown such Intruders as are put over them not only without any Canonical Procedure but without any Authority also that can oblâ—ge in Conscience The only Principle therefore on which they can pretend that their Rival Bishops have lost their Right as to Conscience must be the Power that even the Lay-Magistrate has to deprive Bishops even with regard to Conscience If therefore they will defend their Schism by Principles it will be necessary that they defend this Principle also without which it is not possible that it should ever be defended They have no Ecclesiastical Judicatory Just or Unjust that they can so much as pretend in this Case And the defending this is that which will increase their Guilt and will add to their Charge of Schism the aggravation of Heresie also For in order to the asserting such a Right as this to the Secular Magistrate it will be necessary to assert that the Authority of the Church even as to Spirituals is in Conscience the Right of the Civil Magistrate If it should not be so then the Subjects of the respective Dioceses may still be at liberty in Conscience to adhere to their deprived Bishops And if they may they must because then all their former Obligations in Conscience will still hold as obliging as ever For it is impossible that those anteceâ—ent Obligations in Conscience to adhere to their spiritual Superiors can be dis-annulled or diminished by a Power that can pretend no Right in such Matters with regard to Conscience But if we grant this Power to the Magistrate this will perfectly overthrow the Church as a Society distinct from the State and perfectly disable it to subsist as a Society in a time of Persecution For when the Magistrate persecutes it it cannot then subsist as a Society without a Government and a Government obliging in Conscience and not derived from the persecuting Magistrate But if the Right of that spiritual Government be in Conscience the Magistrate's Right it must be an invading the Magistrate's Right to pretend to it when he expresly forbids it And if so how can spiritual Governors in such a Case pretend to it How can they pretend to a Right that is none of their own consistently with Conscience How can their pretending to it with ill Consciences oblige their Subjects to adhere to them on account of Conscience Nay how can it even excuse them in Conscience for not adhering rather to him whose Right it is supposed to be and that even in Conscience No Necessity whatsoever can excuse a Sin much less lay an Obligation in Conscience on Subjects to abett it least of all lay an Obligation on God to ratifie such Acts of Authority as must be supposed no better than Vsurpations And yet all Acts of Ecclesiastical Authority in a time of Persecution can signifie nothing if they be not such as may oblige in Conscience and such as God as well as Men is obliged to ratifie Thus it had been Sin in the Romans to set up Cornelius as plainly they did not only without the Consent but against the Will of Decius It had been Sin in him and not in him only but in all the Bishops of his Age to pretend to any Districts in the Roman Empire It had been Sin in them to exercise Authority in Districts not belonging to them Thus the Church had been perfectly dissolved as a Society at least within the Roman Empire unless we can suppose a Notion of a Society without Governours without Districts without any lawful Exercises of Authority And yet the Bishops of those Ages never thought themselves obliged in Conscience to go out of the Roman Empire to retrieve the Power which is pretended to belong to them as Bishops of the Catholick Church And very probably it had signified nothing to have done so They could have gone into no civilized inhabited Countreys but they must have expected Magistrates who could pretend to the same Right as well as Deâ—ius and who were as much disposed as he to use their Right to the prejudice of the Christian Religion What therefore would our Adversaries have advised the Christians of those Ages to have preserved themselves in a Society Would they have had them retired into unoccupied wildernesses But how could they make Societies there where there were no numbers of Subjects requisite to make a Society Plainly therefore the Catholick Church had then been dissolved as Societies if these New Principles had been maintained in those earlier Ages And these same Principles do still put it as evidently in the Power of the Civil Magistrate to dissolve the Church as a Society within his own Dominions For how can a Church continue a Society where Bishops are in Conscience deprived of their spiritual Authority and where Subjects are also absolved from their Obligations in Conscience to obey them And this is also a dissolving the Catholick Church as to such as live in such Dominions and as to any Benefits they can derive from the Catholick Church also For Subjects of particular Districts are no otherwise received into the Catholick Church than as they derive a Right to Communion with all Churches in the World by their being admitted Members of the Churches of their particular Districts And they are also deprived of their Right of Catholick Communion when they are Excommunicated by the lawful Authority of their particular Districts I cannot therefore see how our Adversaries can excuse themselves herein from erring Fundamentally if the Church's being a Society be admitted for a Fundamental 29. If there be degrees of Fundamentals I should think the Fundamentals concerning the Church as a Society to be of the greatest consequence and therefore Fundamental in the Highest degree The Church is indeed obliged to keep the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are the Expressions by which our Adversaries themsâ—lves I believe conceive the Articles themselves call Fundamental to be signified But she is obliged to keep them as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Trust committed to her How so by avoiding Disputings by stopping the mouths of Hereticks by rebuking them with all Authority bâ— rejecting and avoiding not their Doctrines only but their Persons also when they prove incorrigible Now these things plainly suppose Governors investâ—d with spiritual Authority and a Communion from whence incurable Hereticks are to be rejected So that in order to the keeping these oâ—her Fundamentals the Church as a Society is supposed antecedently as a Condition that alonâ— can qualifie her for having such a Trust committed to hâ—r This Noâ—ion therefore as antecedent must be Fundamental to those other Fundamentals and therefore Fundamental in a higher sense than those things
his own And it must have been a wonderfull chance if any Scribbles of a Librarian could have light on so fit a place and so apposite to the precedent design of another Author who thought not of them He that can believe it may next believe the Epicuraean Hypothests That the World was made by such a casual Concurrence of undesigning Atoms All that is pretended to the contraâ—â— is only that this Collection of Canons follows the Summary subjoined to the former Collection But this is too conjectural a Proof to be opposed to the Evidences now mentioned yet How do they know but that this very Summary is the Author 's own It is in as large a Hand as the rest of the Discourse itself it is not in red Letters as the like Summary is in the Fragment of Philippus Sideâ—es in this same MS. where it was added by the Librarian And it is not unusual for Authors to add Arguments and Abstracts of their own Works so did Pliny to his Natural History so did Gellius to his Noctes Attioae so has the Anonymous Chronologer under Alexander Severus so has Gildas and Nennius in the later and more barbarous Ages and What should make the Librarian think that fit to be done in another Man's Work that might not also make the Author himself think so too But for our present purpose I am not concerned whether this Summary was drawn up by the Author or the Librarian if the Librarian thought fit to insert it into the Text as plainly he has done this was the properest Place for it before any other part of the Discourse intervened that was upon another Argument not of Facts but Canons 11. Thus I have shewn that our Author was neither obliged by the Occasion of his Writing nor could consequently to his own Principles design to give us a Collection of Precedents for withdrawing Obedience on a Lay-Deprivation or for a Cession in a Person so invalidly deprived And now methinks this might excuse me from descending to a particular Examination of the Facts produced by him which our Adversaries are pleased to call Precedents For what if in the History of so many Centuries as are here accounted for there might be found some Instances wherein Christian Emperours were partial in favour to themselves and chalenged more Power than did really belong to them And what if Christian Bishops for Peace sake submitted not waving the Right but bearing the Injury What and if the Clergy and Laity did sometimes as they do now fail in their Duty of adhering to them It is yet sufficient for our present purpose that this was no design'd Collection of such pretended Precedents that therefore if any of these Facts should prove so that was beside the Meaning of the Author that his Authority ought not to be concerned for them that neither his Judgment nor the Judgment of the Eastern Churches can ever recommend such Facts for Precedents which were so disagreeable to their Rules and Canons If therefore our Adversaries will make Precedents of those Facts which were condemned by this Author by the Doctrine of those very Churches where they were committed this is plainly reasoning otherwise than they can justifie by any Authority For what Authority can it be that they will insist on for making such Facts pass for Precedents Is it that of the Eastern Church But her Doctrine will not allow our Adversaries to disown our deprived Bishops or to set up Antibishops against them on account of such Lay-Deprivations Is it the Authority of this Collector But he owns these Doctrines for the Doctrines of his own Church which are so inconsistent with our Adversaries Practices Or Is it lastly the Authority of the Princes themselves who were concerned in the Facts here enumerated But it is certain Princes doe many things which they never do so much as pretend to justifie by Principles And yet it is withall certain that no other Facts but such avowed ones ought in reason to pass for Precedents and for knowing what they do avowedly justifie no better Expedient can be found than to appeal to the Doctrine of the Church that was owned and protected by them which they took for the Guide of their Consciences Thus it will come to pass that if any of the Facts here mentioned should prove for our Adversaries purpose yet seeing they could not be well done as to the Consciences of the Persons concerned our Adversaries must not presume them well done but prove them so independently on the Persons before they can make Precedents of them and reason from them as Authorities and then what will they gain by this celebrated Collection when it will leave them to the Tryal of the Merit of their Cause as much as ever 12. However to gratifie them as far as we may let us now descend to Particulars The first is that of Meletius who was set up in the Throne of Antioch while Eustathius his Predecessor was yet living yet he was owned as Bishop of Antioch by St. Basil and St. Chrysostome But Eustathius was deposed by a Synod perhaps of Bishops secretly favouring Arius but not as yet declared an opposite Communion The Synod indeed charged him with Sabellianism but it was no otherwise than as they who favoured Arianism used to charge the Catholicks in general nor did the Catholicks understand it otherwise The chief Pretence of depriving was a Crime of Life False indeed it was but of that the Synod was to judge though they judged corruptly His onely Remedy had been to have appealed to another Synod but that he did not think fit to try Yet till he did so the Throne was fairly vacated and he could pretend no Right in Opposition to Meletius who was also set up by an Ecclesiastical Authority The Canons of Antioch made after his Deprivation but before the Translation of Meletius and urged afterwards against St. Chrysostome and since received into the Codes and Canons of the Vniversal Church allowed him no Remedy but that of another Synod and that a more numerous one than that which had deprived him Had he so much as attempted it otherwise he had been cut off by that same Canon not onely from all hopes of Restitution but from being admitted to a Tryal of the Merits of his Cause I will not now call in question his being alive after Meletius was set up because it is expresly attested by Socrates and Sozomen and among others by Nicephorus in his MS. Catalogue of Patriarchs especially so remarkable Passages in History depending on it that of the Banishment not onely 〈◊〉 â—imself but of Evagrius whom he had consecrated Bishop of 〈…〉 by the Emperour Valens This had been enough for our purpose though the synodical Deprivation had not been chargeable against him that he lay hid even after the liberty he had of returning from his Exile by the Edict of Julian that he did not appear to chalenge his Right that they of Antioch did
time of these Synods or Meetings rather of the same Synod will best appear from the time of the arrival of the Popes Legates The Letters Pope Nicholas sent with his Legates going to Constantinople bear date Septemb. 25. Indict 9. So it must have been the latter end of the year 860. before those Legates could finish their journey And when they had reached Constantinople they were 100 days there before they could be prevailed on to ratifie the Deposition of Ignatius so contrary to the instructions they had received from him that sent them This must necessarily bring it to the beginning of the year 861. before the 18th of March Nicholas had received the news of their prevaricating and wrote again what he thought fit upon that occasion But when the Suffrages of a Council were once gained what Arts soever they were that were used to gain them Photius had then some appearance of Right till Ignatius could relieve himself by Another and a Greater Council That was a lawful way allowed him of recovering it by the very Canons However Photius could in the mean time plead this Canon hence produced by our Author in favour of himself which before he could not that none ought to separate from himself thus Synodically settled nor to joyn with Ignatius thus Synodically condemned till himself were condemned and Ignatius resettled by a greater and more numerous Synod And to add the greater Authority to their own Synod they boasted of the same numbers that was in the Council of Nice as Pope Nicholas observes in his Answer to them This was a plausible Artifice â—o the Superstition of that Age. 33. Pope Nicholas therefore no doubt made all the interest he cou'd to get a Synod that he might oppose to this Synod of Photius He knew his Authority alone would never be admitted for it without a Synod and such a Synod as the Canons required And though he allowed no Superstition for the number yet the Antiochian Canon which by this time obtained in both the Eastern and Western Churches required that the Synod that must restore Ignatius must at least be more numerous than the Synod that deprived him No Synod therefore could serve his purpose but such a one as must have had more than 318 Bishops This I suppose made it some time before he could condemn Photius or restore Ignatius with such a Synod Anastasius tells us it was in the 11th Indiction That must have been either in the end of the year 862. or the beginning of the year 863 Till then at least how good soever his Title was yet the guilt of Schism had been imputable to Ignatius if he had made a Separation or intruded himself into his own Throne before a Synod had restored him Nay by the Antiochian Canon he had forfeited all pretensions of having the Merit of his Cause considered if he had challenged any Duty from his Clergy and People before a Council had restored him But when Pope Nicholâ—s had restored him in the Roman Synod and deprived and anathematized Photius with them who lookâ—d upon that Restitution as an Act of Superiour Authority Ignatius wâ—s then restored to his full Right and Photius was deprived even of that Right â—o which a Canonical settled possession had intitled him And from that time forward if Ignatius had â—â—â—â—enged the Obedience of his Clergy and Laity and withdrawn them from the Obedience of Photius the guilt of the Schism had notwithstanding not been imputable to him but â—hotius But these Principles do not even in that Agâ— seem to have been the sense of any more than the concerned part of the Western Church The Council of Constantinople when they decreed that Constantinople should be next to Rome did never seem to â—nderstand it of pâ—oper jurisdiction but only of Precedency in place Afterwards â—he Council of Chalcedon decreed equal Priviledges to the same Sâ—e because it had an Emperor and a Consul and a Senate which were no more consistent with a subordinate jurisdiction in the Bishops than in the Emperors the Consuls and the â—enates None ever pretended at that time â—hat the Emperors the Consâ—ls and the Senates of new Rome were properly subject to the Emperors Consuls and Senates of old Rome in regaâ—d of jurisdiction And the Canon concerning Appeals made in that same Council oâ— Chalcedon waâ— uttâ—rly inconsistent with any such jurisdiction that allows to recourse for such Appeals beyond the See of Constantinople I know very well Pope Leo's Legates disowned both these Canons and so have the Latine Collectors generally who reckon no more than 27 Canons as made in that Council But the 16th Action of the Council shewed that they were the genuine sense of the Council and at least of the Eastern Empire and the Eastern Churches And so it descended down to the times of Ignatius and Photius of which we are discoursing By the judgment therefore of the Eastern Bishops of those times who were the most competent Judges of that Eastern Dispute and by the other Canons of the Church which required that Judgments concerning matters of Fact such as this was should be decided in the same place where the matter of Fact had happened the Synod by which Ignatius was to be relieved must have been another and that a greater Synod in the same Constantinople and till he could get such a Synod on his side himself had been responsible for the Schism that must have followed on his claiming his Right Nay the Antiochian Canon made him forfeit his Right if he claimed it in such a way as this was And it is plain by the Pope's Letters to the Emperor Michael that the Emperor did not allow the Pope's Authority in this Case nor do we find that Ignatius made any stir upon it till he was restored Conciliarly in the same place where he had been deprived This seems therefore to have been the state of that Dispute if Nicholas proceeded by way of proper Jurisdiction if he had proceeded on the Principles of the Primitive Church on the supposition of Equality then he could no otherwise have obliged the Eastern Bishops than as the Bishops or Provinces that sided with him were more numerous than those that were against them For this is all that had been reasonable in that case that where Peace was absolutely necessary and yet could not be had without Cession on one part there it was also necessary that the smaller part should rather yield to the greatest But whether Empire had more Bishops or Provinces is needless now to determine The rather because it does not seem to have been thought on or insisted on in the Disputes of that Age. It is sufficient for our purposes that in the sense of the Eastern Bishops and by the Rules of the Eastern Discipline which Ignatius was to stand by this Roman Synod was no competent Authority and therefore left both him and Photius in the same condition wherein it found them
out before Application can be made to our present Case which are not yet in the least attempted It must first appear not onely that the Deprivation was indeed unjust but that the Church who deserted them and adhered to the Intruders did also think it so Yet this will hardly be made out particularly in the Case of St. Chrysostome I believe they can give no Instances of any who thought him unjustly deprived but they were Joannites and therefore separated from the Communion of his Deprivers 11. It must appear farther secondly That they thought him invalidly deprived as well as unjustly That they know very well is Our Sense of the present Case on which we lay the Stress of our Cause not onely that our Bishops are deprived for what our Laws in the true sense of the Legislators did never intend should be a Crime but also that they are deprived by a Power that can no way pretend to a Right of Spiritual Deprivation that is purely by a Lay-power without the least pretence of Ecclesiastical Censures This therefore they ought to prove That even in Case of a purely Lay-deprivation those Eastern Churches did not think fit to assert their Spiritual Liberties against the Encroachments of the Secular Magistrate But that seems more than ever their Author undertook I believe than his Cause required I am sure several of his Instances did suppose Synodical Deprivations yet if they cannot shew this all they say is utterly impertinent to our present Dispute For we our selves may say and say agreeably to our own Principles as much as their own Author says and perhaps as much as he intended if he had been living to make Application to our particular Case We do no more say than he that the Injustice of a Sentence does null or invalidate it when otherwise the Authority by which it is pronounced is valid and obliging Nor do we say that Subjects are even in Conscience free to adhere to their Bishop when the Authority by which he is deprived has not onely a Right to conclude them but to conclude him also Yet all this is consistent with the Liberty allowed by this Author of withdrawing Communion from an Heretick The Reason is this because even the Canons of the Church to go no farther now allow Subjects this Liberty to judge of their Bishop's Faith by a private Judgment of Discretion and with reference to their own particular Act of Communicating as has been shewn by their own Author himself in the latter part of his Tract ommitted by Mr. Hody 12. Yet this is not all that had been requisite for their Reasoning in this Case It ought also to appear thirdly That the Church thought her self at Liberty to deny her Adherence to an unjustly deprived Bishop even when he insisted on his own Right and challenged her Duty from her This is the actual Case of our present Bishops and of this also their whole Collection does not afford one single Example Yet this is the onely Case wherein her not adhering to him can by any Art of equal Interpretation be taken to signifie that she did not think such Adherence his due even in regard to Conscience otherwise the Non-payment of Debts alone does by no means imply a belief that they are not due It is certain the Person to whom they are due may remit them if he please and his not challenging them is often taken for an Argument that he does remit them at least that he does not challenge Payment now It is therefore no more an Argument in such a Case that the Church does not think such a Duty of Adherence to such a Bishop really due than that the Bishop himself does not think it so For it is as consistent in them with an acknowledgment of Right to defer the Payment till it be demanded as it is consistent with the Bishop's owning it for his Right that he does not as yet think fit to demand it But our Author pretends that by his Collection of Instances it appears no Bishop ever challenged his Right if the Person substituted in his own place were not an Heretick So indeed he says but thence it does by no means follow that they had no Right because they did not challenge it Nor can it be thence gathered but that it may be prudent as well as just for Successors to insist on their Right though Predecessors who thought it just did yet not think it prudent to insist on theirs The Change of Circumstances may make so great a Variety in the Case it self If it be only a Personal Injury the Mischief the Church may suffer by the Person 's defending his Right may be more than what she may suffer by permitting a single Act of Injustice to go unredressed But in our Case our Adversaries very well know the Injury is more than personal They know the old Doctrines of our Church are involved in the Injustice that is offered them They may also know that this New Doctrine of the Validity of Lay deprivations with regard to Spirituals is of intolerable mischievous consequence as granting to the Laity Principles by which they may ruine us when they please and that this pernicious Doctrine cannot well be opposed in this Case but by our Bishops insisting on their Rights And they cannot shew but when Doctrines of such consequence were concerned the Bishops not onely did but were also commended for insisting on their Rights Indeed where such Doctrines were concerned the Antients would have called the Adversaries Hereticks and in that case this Author himself allows that Bishops may judge it to be for the publick Good of the Church that they challenge their private Rights Yet after all our Author's Pretensions in his Title his Examples give a small account of the Sense of the injured Bishops themselves concerning their own Case but principally pretend to tell us what others thought concerning it How then can our Adversaries pretend to persuade our present Bishops to wave their Right upon account of this Collection of Precedents where St. Chrysostom is expresly excepted in the very Title notwithstanding what is pretended from Palladius and where withall there are so few examples observed in the Discourse it self of any who did so before them 13. Yet to let them see how far this Way of Reasoning is from proving the thing our Adversaries are concerned for we may venture to give not grant what they neither have proved nor can prove from the Instances here alleadged that the Churches had deserted their unjustly and invalidly deprived Bishops and deserted them even whilst they insisted on their Right I yet deny farther That from the naked Matters of Fact they can any way conclude even the Judgments of those Churches whom we may for a while suppose to have done what our Adversaries wish they had done For in order to the proving the Judgment of such Churches it will be farther requisite fourthly That what they did they did
can be whose security is superstructed upon it And accordingly the Damage to the Publick in subverting these Notions of the Church as a Society iâ— proportionably greater than that which follows from the denial of other particular Articles which are commonly taken for Fundamental He that denies one of the other Articles may yet believe all the rest and zealously defend them and that by Principles too â—gainst all other Hereticks But he that denies the Church as a Society invested with a spiritual Authority does as effâ—ctually contribute to the ruine of all the other Fundamentals at once as he does to the ruine of a Hâ—use who subvers the Foundations of it It brings in impunity for Heresie â—n general and suffers Hereticks still to hope as well in their separate Sects as if they were in 〈…〉 Communion Iâ— lâ—aves them destitute of even any Presumptions that might oblige them â—o judge in Favour of the Church's Doctrine as the safest Error if it should prove one It does by this meanâ— reduce the trial of the Cause to the Reasons themselves and their native Evidence and putâ— it in the Power of assuming Men to pretend greater Evidence than either they have or they really believe And thingâ— being reduced to his pass it is more God's Providence than the security of Principles that hinders any Heretick who disputes any one of the other Articles from questioning all the rest 30. I am sorry our Adversaries Case affords Maâ—ter for so heavy Accusations But they may by this time understand how naturally the Cause affords it if we will judge impartially as we must do if we will judge either solidly or justly if we will judge as no doubt the Righteous Judge of all the World will at the Day of the General Judgment And what can our late Brethren either of the Clergy or Laity say for bringing things to this melancholy Prospect Neither is the Chaâ—ge â—light to which they have made themselves obnoxious by this Unhappy Schism nor is the Evidence slight by which this Charge may be â—roved against them And yet they have wholly been the Aggressors in â—his whole Affair We are exactly where we were exactly where they left us So little can they pretend that we have contributed to this Division We hold the same Doctrines that we did that themselves did formerly We adhere to the same Bishops themselves have owned for Bishops till now Nor are we otherwise divided from them than as they have divided themselves by erecting New Altars against the Altars themselves have hitherto acknowledged Lovers of Unity would be as much grieved for Breaches in the Mystical Body as living Members when by any violence they are divided fâ—om the Body Natuâ—al The litâ—le concern the Harlot shewed for the controverted Infant was to Solomon an Argument that she was not the Mother of it And how comes it to pass they can divide themselves from us with so little remorse if ever they were living Members of our common Mystical Body Do they not tempt us to reason as St. John did thaâ— they never were ours by Principles when they can so easily leave us Have they lost all Reverence for their so lately celebrated Fathers Have they lost all Brotherly Love and Compassion to their Brethren And all for no other Crime than Constancy to our Common Principles And can they still pretend a Zeal to our Common Religion for doing so These they will say are our Opinions But Lovers of Unity would be afflicted for Violations of it whoever were the Occasions of it Lovers of Unity would not willingly grieve their Brethren much less would they do that which even in the Opinions of their Brethren might occasion a Breach of Unity if there were otherwise no great Necessity for doing it Least of all would they do it when they knew those Principâ—es to be Principles of Conscience anâ— of a Conscience firm and stedfast to the true Publick Spiritual Interests of the Church So far they must be from accepting Promotions when they must be purchased at so dear a Rate as that of a Publick Schism But I wish these Opinions of ours were no more than Private Opinions I hâ—s now appâ—ared that they were the sense of the whoâ—e Catholick Church in those Agâ—s which all ought to reverence who will pretend to Reformation and which is to be the Standard of Catholick Unity Yet let them regard us as little as they please methinks at least they should have some regard to the Publick Inâ—erests even of their own Church And yet both the Intruders and their Consecrators proceed on those Principles that put it in the Power of a Popish or Schismatical Prince to dissolve it when they please They cannot justifie what they do without supposing a Vacancy in the Sees to which the new Promotions are made nor can they suppose such a Vacancy without allowing the validity of a State deprivaâ—ion even with regard to Conscience Suppose therefore a Popish Prince with a Popish Parliament should turn their Principles against themselves and deprive all our Bishops with one Act of State I cannot see what these Fathers can pretend to secure their Chuâ—ch as a Society and as a Communion in opposition to them They must then no longer pretend to Dioceses in England They must not pretend to any obligation of their Protestant Clergy and Laity to stand by them even in Conscience They must therefore never pretend to Communions â—n those Dioceses which are plainly Exercises of spiritual Authority in them Nor can they then justifie or even excuse any Assemblies for Religion when forbidden by the Civil Magistrate who is only supposed by these Principles to have also the Right to that spiritual Authority by which alone they can be justified And are these the ways to secure our Religion against Popery No open Persecutions whatsoever can ever ruine us so effâ—ctually as these Doctrines will if ever we receive them Doctrines of our own will break our Union among our selves more than any of our Adversaries open Violences 31. Thus I have shewn that our Author 's Reasoning is not concluding for our Adversaries purpose though his Matters of Fact had been as pertinent â—s our Adversaries conceive them to be I now proceed to the Examination of the Matter of Fact themselves and shall endeavour to shew that even they are not pertinent to our Adversaries Case A VINDICATION OF THE Deprived Bishops c. PART II. Shewing That the Instances collected in the Anonymous Baroccian MS. are indeed not pertinent to the Editors Design for vindicating the Validity of the Deprivation of Spiritual Power by a lay-Lay-Authority 1. THE Use that our Adversaries make of this Collection of Instances which they call Precedents is to shew that our present Bishops are obliged to acquiesce in their unjust Deprivation and that their present Clergy and People are not obliged to stand by them if they think fit to insist on their Right and
not know that he was in being to chalenge it This had made the Throne itself a Derelictum this made Meletius a Possessor bonae Fidei and sufficiently excused all who paid Duty to him Undoubtedly Lucifer Calaritanus who set up Paulinus in opposition to Meletius whose return from Exile was then expected would never have done it if he had any thoughts or hopes of the Return of Eustathius Eustathius was not onely as orthodox as Meletiuâ— himself but was free from the Charge brought against Meletius that of an Arian Ordination Meletius therefore being thus secured against the Title of Eustathius nothing could then be pretended against him but his receiving his Power from Arians But their Heresie was 〈◊〉 so manifest when he was broughâ—â—nto Antioch by them all that 〈◊〉 required from him was to subscribe the Creed of Selencia drawn up Sept. 27. 359. the year before he was translated to Antioch and that expresly condemned the Anomaeans and laid aside both Words that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as unscriptural Nor did the Catholicks so much insist on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 where they could otherwise be satisfied that no ill sense was intended in avoiding it This was the onely Reason that could make any orthodox Person join with the Arians in bringing him to Antioch who otherwise owned no Communion with them when they once declared themselves And as soon as they who brought him to Antioch owned themselves Anomaeans as they did soon after Meletius never prevaricated but protested openly against them And why should that be made an Exception against him that he was made Bishop by them who after they had made him so declared themselves Arians This was looked on as a rigour in Lucifer by his Fellow â—onfessor Eusebius Vercellensis and Athanasius and the generality of the Catholick Church And if he was guilty of no incapacitating Heresie at his first coming in if he owned the Catholick Faith publickly before the Consecration of Paulinus and had been a Confessour for it if even those who gave him his Orders had not yet declared themselves Arians nor a distinct Communion when they gave them what Reason could there be to question his Title before Paulinus was set up against him If there was none the other Consecration being into a fâ—ll See must have been schismatical Thus we see how agreeable it was to the Canons and Discipline of the Church that St. Basil and St. Chrysostome should own the Communion of Meletius in opposition to Paulinus It does not appear that ever they did so in opposition to Eustathius Yet even in this Case it is observable that all those Catholicks who never from the beginning communicated with Meletius and who joined with Lucifer and Paulinus 〈◊〉 him owned other Reasons besides Heresie sufficient to justifie theâ—â— â—â—â—paration from him They did not they could not charge him with that after 〈◊〉 had publickly declared for the Nicene Faith they never charged him as we can our present Intruders with Injury to any other Person whom they supposed to have a better Title to his Throne neither to his Predecessor Eustathius nor much less to Paulinus who was consecrated after him The onely thing they charged him with was the Original Invalidity which they supposed in his Consecration by those who afterwards declared themselves for Arianism And could they believe a lawfull Power necessary to confer a Title and not as necessary to take it away Rather Laws are favourable to Possessours and require more to take away an Office than to keep one in Possession whom they find so They therefore who were so difficultly reconciled to Meletius's being Bishop purely on account of the original Want of Authority in them who made him so must by the same parity of Reasoning much more have disliked the Deprivation of our present Bishops on account of 〈◊〉 Want of Authority as to spirituals and to Conscience in them who have deprived them However 〈◊〉 a clear Instance against our Adversaries and against the Collector himself of Catholicks who owned and owned by Principles that Orthodoxy alone without a good Title was not sufficient to excuse communicating with him whose Title was thought deficient For this was their Opinion concerning this Case of Meletius that he was indeed orthodox onely having an original Defect in his Title they thought themselves on this very acccount obliged to forbear his Communion How could they then have thought it safe to communicate with Bishops ordainâ—â— into Seeâ— not otherwise vacated than by an originally invalid Lay-Deprivation of their Predecessors 13. The next Case is 〈◊〉 of St. Chrysostome It is indeed the first in the Summary subjoined to it probably because it was the first in the Church of Constantinople for the use of which this Collection was originally designed Or perhaps rather because that other Case of Meletius was produced onely as another Evidence of the Opinion of the same St. Chrysostome This is the Case which the Author is largest upon as deserving the particular consideration mentioned in the Introduction to it The reason I have now given because it seems to have been most of all insisted on by the Arsenians as most apposite to the Instance for which they were concerned But 1. This Deprivation was synodical and by two different Synods the former that ad Quercum that deprived Saint Chrysostome for not pleading but questioning their Jurisdiction upon an Appeal the other that of the following year which denied him the Liberty of Pleading upon the 〈◊〉 of Antioch for coming in again not without a Synod but by one 〈◊〉 they pretended less numerous than that which had deprived him formerly So far is this from our present Case And 2. Even as to the abetting this holy Person 's Case as to the Inâ—ury done him by an otherwise competent Authority far the greater part of the Church was concerned against the Design of this Collector if to the Eastern Joannites 〈◊〉 the unanimous Consent of all the Western Churches They separâ—â—ed from the Communion of his Deprivers notwithstanding their ackâ—â—wledged Orthodoxy and that not onely while Saint Chrysostome was living but after his Death also till an honourable amends was made to his Memory This how clear soever it was against our Author's general Remark in his Preface and elsewhere yet he neither denies nor pretends to answer aâ— if he were conscious to himself he could not do it Onely he prevents a farther consequence drawn from it by the Arsenians for unravelling all the Orders derived in a Succession from the â—njurious Intruders after the Person was dead who had been injured by the 〈◊〉 This also is none of our 〈◊〉 wherein the injured Bishops are 〈◊〉 yet even concerning that very Case he words his Observation â—o as to own that they might if they pleased have called in Question â—he present Orders derived from the Intruders He says indeed that the Church did
not call in question the Orders given by Arsacius nor Articus thougâ— Atticus besides his Intrusion was guilty also of what this Author himself owns to have been a Persecution against the Joannites so far he is from condemning even their Separation on this account He says that Aâ—ticus and Sisinius were commended by Pope Caelestine though they both of them derived their Succession from that same Intrusion and though the Bishops of Rome were the most zealous Advocates for St. Chrysostome He says the same Flaw descended to Proclus also St. Chrysostome's Disciple and the Friend and Reconciler of the Joannites Nay to Nestorius also the Heretick who gave occasion for assembling the Synod of Ephesus yet the Synod questioned not eve◠〈◊〉 Orders on account of the original Defect if the Persons who had received them did not partake in his Heresie but that they did not do it he imputes to their not being willing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 plainly implying that in rigour of Justice they might have done it He says that even Severianus of Gabala and Acacius of Beraea the principal Architects of the Injustice to St. Chrysostome though accused to Pope Innocent yet suffered no canonical Censure for it not that they deserved none but that the Pope referred them to the Divine Vengeance Still he confesses that the Case deserved Vengeance from God even where none was attempted by Men. And in the end of the Discourse he says that excepting the Case of Heresie the Church never made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If the Case he reasons against be strictly Justice how can he reason from these Precedents universally without regard to Circumstances that even strict Justice is never to be exercised Yet he could make no universal Observaâ—â—â—â— even in his own Cases that Right was never to be defended He does not observe it concerning St. Chrysostome himself though his Editors observe it for him He could not observe it as the sense of the more numerous Joannites who defended his Right whether he would or no and at last caâ—â—ed the Cause against his Adversaries that his Name was at length received into the Diptychs and that he was thereby owned to dye Bishop of Conâ—â—antinople notwithstanding the two conciliary Deprivations The onely Observation therefore that he does or could make truly was That aâ—â—he Successions were not scrupulously inquired into that depended on the Authority of the Intruders Those were left to God on a Presumption grounded on their Possession with at least a disputable Title But that is a Case we are not concerned for at present 14. The third Case is that of Flavianus deposed from the same See of Constantinople by Dioscorus against whom our Author supposes Anatolius to have been set up whose Consecration was notwithstanding never questioned because of his Orthodâ—â—y But this Deposition our Author himself owns to have been conciliary though by a Synod very infamous afterwards stigmatized by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Latrocinial for the Violence used in it Then it appears not that ever Flavianus did in the least submit to that Synod itself He had before appealed and his Appeal was then depending when they murthered him Then for my part I can see no reason to believe that Anatolius was set up against him or placed in the Throne before it was empty by the Death of Flavianus Victor Tununensis makes Anatolius set up under the following Consuls Possibly it might be because the first News of his Promotion came to Africa under those Consuls That second Synod of Ephesus was called the 1st of August under the Consulship of Asterius and Protogenes for the Year of our Lord 449. But their first Meeting was not till the 8th of that same month or the 15th of Mesori in the Language of Dioscorus Certain it is that it was after this time that â—â—â—vianus was deposed and murthered But we have not so distinct an account of the Actions of this Council repeated in the Council of Chalcedon as to be able to ascertain the time particularly Pope Leo's Epistles help us best to judge of it onely we must allow him the time to receive his Information Leo tells us that Flavianus had suffered many things in an Epistle dated Septemb. 29. Perhaps he was before that deposed For the same day the same Leo wrote another Epistle to the Emperour Theodosius for a Council in Italy probably on the account of Flavianus's Appeal upon his Deposition In another Epistle of Octob. 13. he warns Anastasius Thessalonicensis that he should not consent to the Condemnation of Flavianus In another of Octob. 15. he is very earnest that no Successour should be ordained into his Place In another of the same date he has these words concerning Flavianus in quo utique omnium Domini Sacerdotum Reverentia caeditur universa corporis Christi Membra pulsantur These seem to be the Kicks he received as some say from Barsumas the Monk other from â—ioscorus himself probably enough from both of them of which he dyed within three days That he dyed of Kicks the Synodicon owns and that he dyed in their Hands by whom he should have been carried into Exile we have the Testimony of Prosper an Author of that Age so that he could not reach the place of his Banishment as some other less considerable Authors conceive And very probably those Violences to Flavianus's Person and to the other Bishops also to oblige them to subscribe his Condemnation and Deprivation were the Reasons that made Hilarus fly from Ephesus So the Violences must in all likelihood have been offered before he left the place and he might bring News if not of his Death yet that his Bruises were such as would in all probability prove mortal This might be the Reason why among the Letters of this latest date there are none to Flavianus himself Leo might not think it fit to write Letters that were not likely to reach him alive but would be exposed to the danger of falling into the hands of Enemies This I think is the latest date of any Epistle written by Leo that mentions Flavianus as yet alive And very probably the News of his imminent Death stopped him from proceeding any farther So Nicephorus xiv 40 Thus it appears that the last mention of Flavianus supposes that he had as yet no Rival set up against him Plain it is that they did not set up Anatolius at the same time that they deposed Flavianus and it is not likely that there was any long respite between his Deposition and his Death Flavianus certainly was murthered before the breaking up of the Synod whilst Dioscorus had yet his Guards about him And it seems to be the dissolution of the Synod that breaks off the course of Leo's Letters till the following Year As for Anatolius himself we have no Actions of his that give us any reason to suspect that he was in Office before the Year assigned by
Lector and Theophanes tell us expresly It was indeed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Bishops then in Town whose Authority though it was questioned for the greatest Affairs as appears in the 4th Action of the Council of Chalcedon and the Dispute of Maximus with Pyrrhus yet was often made use of in such occasions as these and was by the Canons of the Church sufficient and obliging till a greater number of Bishops could be persuaded to restore him Till he could get such a Number to do it it was the Duty of Euphemius to acquiess in the Deprivation and to communicate with his Successor and it will be our present Bishops Duty also to doe so when this can be proved to be their Case And indeed I know no other Evidence of his communicating with his Successor but that he did not set up a Communion against him 16. In the Case of Macedonius the Emperour's Rage did somewhat precipitate him he had him forcibly seized and sent immediately into Banishment without so much as the Formality of a Tryal The rather so because he feared the People would not endure it such a Zeal they had for Macedonius and the Cause defended by him Afterwards he bethought himself and got an Assembly that did his business for him They took upon them at the same time the Persons of Witnesses and Accusers and deprived him absent and in exile and when they had done so they notifie the Sentence to him by Bishops and a Presbyter of Cyzicus So Theophanes tells the Story No doubt it must have been a Synod that proceeded after the receiv'd way of Synods in notifying their Sentence by ecclesiastical Persons However our Author says that he communicated with his Intruder Timotheus So he might possibly interpret Macedonius's Exile and submitting to it as he seems to have done that of Euphemius in relation to the Case of Macedonius In this case certainly it neither could have been true nor could he have any good Testimony for him to believe it so When the Bishops came to notifie the Sentence to him Macedonius asked them whether they owned the Council of Chalcedon And when they durst not answer him positively he asked again Whether if the Sabbatians and Macedonians had brought him the like Sentence they would think him obliged to acquiesce in it Is not this a plain Exception against their Authority as Hereticks for not receiving that Council and a Protestation against their Sentence as null and invalid and a disowning any Obligation in Conscience to submit to it And what needed Timotheus to fly into that Rage against the Name and Memory of Macedonius if what our Author says had been true that Macedonius owned any Communion with him Why should this same Timotheus refuse to officiate in any sacred Place till he had first defaced the Pictures if he found any of Macedonius Why should he prosecute Julianus only for being his Friend How came it to pass that when the Emperor sent forth his Edict for subscribing the Condemnation of Macedonius together with the Synodical Letters concerning the Consecration of Timotheus the more constant Adherers to the Council of Chalcedon would subscribe neither of them and even the weaker would not subscribe the Deprivation of Macedonius which notwithstanding in consequence subverted the Succession of Timotheus Why should Timotheus bring up the use of the Nicene Creed more frequently than Macedonius had done purposely to draw odium upon Macedonius if there had been Communion between them as our Author would persuade us What needed then all those Persecutions and Violences against the followers of Macedonius but only to force them to the Communion of Timotheus Why did Juliana as an Assertor of the Council of Chalcedon refuse the Communion of Timotheus if it was not manifest that the difference was such as broke Communion Why should the Praefect of the Studite Monks refuse to receive Consecration from him who had condemned the Council of Chalcedon if it had not been notorious that he had condemned the Council and was therefore an Heretick and of another Communion from them who owned that Council in defence of which Macedonius had been banished He did indeed to please them Anathemize those who had Anathematized that Council but when the Emperor expostulated with him concerning it he pretended to mean his Anathematism against those who received the Council So true he was to his Heresie One would admire whence it was that our Author came by that good Opinion he had of this Timotheus as if he also had been a Catholick and the 3d Catholick Bishop of Constantinople who had been deprived by Anastasius Neither of these things were true nor affirmed by I believe any one good Historian Our MS. Catalogue of Patriarchs by Nicephorus Callistus has either Marginal or Interlineal Censures of the Patriarchs whether Orthodox or Heretical in all likelihood according to the received Opinions of the Time and Church where these Observations were made There in an interlineal Note over the place where he speaks of Timotheus we find him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is of no great consequence to our purpose whether this Note was from Nicephorus himself or some Constantinopolitane Librarian either way it will shew the received Opinion of the Modern Constantinopolitanes So also in the Iambicks concerning the Patriarchs published before the I Volume of the Byzantine Historians Timotheus is with some Indignation called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by which we see how unworthily our present Rhetor expressed himself on this occasion even with reference to the sense of his own Church The only occasion of his Mistakes that I can think of is that he injudiciously followed the Authorities of Flavian of Antioch and Elias of Jerusalem as related by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus his Author and a very good one in these Matters That Author says indeed that those two Patriarchs assented to the Synodical Letters for Timotheus though they would not to the other Letters that came with them concerning the deprivation of Macedonius This I suppose gave him occasion for his good Opinion of Timotheus that those great Men afterwards such Sufferers in the same Cause as yet rejected not his synodical Letters Our Author was very well aware that if they owned the Communion of an Heretical Successor their Examples must have been faulty and could not be pleaded as Precedents by his own Principles and it seems he was not aware how notorious it was that this was indeed the Case of Timotheus But their Behaviour herein was exactly the same with the Behaviour of those whom Theophanes censures as weak so far he is from our Author's Opinion in making it exemplary And it is plain Macedonius and Timotheus differed not only as Rivals of the same See but also as Heads of different Communions How then was it reconcilable to any Principles to own Timotheus without disowning Macedonius Only the receiving Timotheus might as for
seems he challenged a Right of filling the See himself and contested it with that Eutychius Bishop of Elutheropolis But that seems to have been after the time of Acacius after his second Restitution His first Contest was with Acacius himself of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis the same persons who are supposed to have been concerned in the Deprivation of Maximus And that the Deprivation of Cyril by Acacius was by some mistake taken for a Deprivation of Maximus in favour of Cyril we have reason to conjecture from The phanes himself He though he follows our Author's Opinion probably on the same Authority of the Life of Athanasius which was elder than Theophanes yet places it as the Truth required he should not at the time of the entrance of Cyril but at the year of his Deprivation and the Succession of Hilarion whom he makes his immediate Successor What can thence be clearer than that it was the Deprivation of Cyril not his Promotion that was here performed by Acacius especially when we are withall asâ—ured that those disputes which occasioned this Deprivation concerning Prerogative were started first in the time of Cyril All that the Adversaries of Maximus and Athanasius did on this restoring of Athanasius by Maximus in the Synod of Jerusalem was as Socrates himself observes only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to jeer Maximus for it that he himself should restore him who had voted against him in the Synod of Tyre How came he here to forget his carrying on his resentment farther afterwards to the Deprivation of Maximus How comes he here not to mention at least the anger of Acacius as well as his jeerinâ— if he had resented this Synod of Maximus and the determination oâ— it as an invation of his Prerogative if this had been the cause why he afterwards deprived him if his ground for saying so had not been rather mistaken conjectures than express and positive Authoritties So little ground he had for believing that Cyril was set up against Maximus Has he therefore any express Testimony for the Communion between Maximus and Cyril as Anti-Bishops of the same See No not so much as in his Celebrated Life of Athanasius it self neither as we have it extant at present nor as we have the Sum of it in Photius He only seems to guess at that as he has done at other things now mentioned from presuming the matter of Fact that they both at once pretended Espiscopal Authority in the same District and yet had both their Names continued in the Ecclesiâ—stical Diptychs 21. In truth the Credit of all our Author says to his own purpose is wholly resolved into that Life of Athanâ—sius which is vouched for it In the Appendix to the Paris Edition we have two Lives of that Great Man one by Metaphrastes the other by an unknown Author elder perhaps than Metaphrastes Both of them own this Tale that Maximus was deposed by Acacius If either of them was the Life read by Photius that of the Anonymous Author was the more likely of the two Metaphrastes was manfestly too late for him otherwise the Excerpta of Photius do better agree with Metaphrastes Photius takes no notice of the Notes of Time which are frequent in the Anonymous Life though he otherwise uses to take particular notice of such things in the Authors on which he makes his Observations But in making two Tyrian Synods wherein the Cause of Athanasius was debated he better agrees with Metaphrastes Perhaps therefore there was a third Life seen by Photius and interpolated after his manner by Metaphrastes which perished after the interpolation which also mentioned this pretended Deprivation of Maximus by Acacius Yet even that Elder Life also by the account of it in Photius seems to have been such a Life of Athanasius as Hierome Savier's Gospel was of our Saviour The several Forgeries and Mistakes of his Predecessors are taken in and his own added to them Here we are told of Athanasius's acting the part of Bishop while he was a Boy and that Alexander the then Bishop ratified what he did in that sportive Personation though he would have it believed that the Children were Serious in what they did But how could they be Serious in taking upon them Exercises of an Authority that did not belong to them This in all likelihood he had from the Greek Translation of Ruffinus's Addition to Eusebius's History by which Socrates confesses he had been seduced in several things concerning Athanasius before he consulted the Works of Athanasius himself Here we also read the Tale of Athanasius's absconding for several years with a young and beautiful Virgin This seems also to have been taken from the truly Monkish Historia Lausiaca of Palladius Here we find also the two Councils of Tyre against Athanasius one the true one on the Tricennalia of Constantine the Great the other in the time of Constantius where the Case of Arsenius was debated which we are certain could be no other than fictitious from the certain accounts Athanasius himself has preserved us of the whole affair But perhaps it was thought more convenient for connecting the actions of Maximus for which this Author would suppose him deprived by Acacius Many other instances might no doubt have been observed if we had leisure to compare this Legend with the undoubted Monuments of Athanasius and his coaeval Authors Photius himself who saw and read that Life gives but a mean account of it I mention not his Censures of the Style of it that we are less concerned for at present He says there were also several things new in the Historical infâ—rmations of it And new indeed they must be which had no antient Historical Monuments to be vouched for them So little reason there is to believe the matters of Fact true from whence our Author reasons in this case For it is manifest that eldest Life mentioned by Photius must have been the Original of this other Life whatever it was that was mentioned by our Collector Yet had they all been aâ— true as they wish they were our Adversaries would gain nothing by them Here are Synods concerned in all the particulars of this account the Synod of Tyre for depriving Athanasius the Synod of Jerusalem for restoring him and a supposed Synod also for the supposed deprivation of Maximus accordingly taken in by the modern Greeks with several other fabulous Synods into their Synodicon first published by Pappus and Justellus then taken by Labbee into his volumes of Councils But what is that to the case of our present Fathers whose deprivation cannot be pretended to have been Synodical 22. Our Author's next instance is in Eutychius deprived of the See of Constantinople by Justinian in the year 564. because he could not assent to the Apthartodocitae who thought our Saviour's Humane Nature incorruptible Yet our Author says he did not separate from the Communion of John who was set up against him But neither is this for our
it in a Synod of Bishops and Abbats when they made their second separation from Nicephorus and driven from their Monasteries and the City as Theophanes tells us though our Author mention nothing it The Bishops therefore forced them to recant all the Invectives they had used against the Patriarchs not that they thereby intended to defend Joseph but to assert their own Authority as the only competent one in Affairs relating to Communion against these Monastical Invasions St. Ambrose told the Great Theodosius that his Purple did not entitle him to the Priesthood which yet was not more true of the Purple than of the Cowl Thither therefore relates what our Author observes from the Patriarch Methodius that if Theodorus had not recanted he had not been received to Communion He observes farther from the Testament of the same Methodius probably in imitation of the Testament of Nazianzene that he prescribed that whenever the Studites were received as Penitents they should only be received to Communion not to their Sacerdotal Dignity So in the Synodicon drawn upon the occasion of these Schisms and ordered as our Author observes thenceforward to be read in Churches those Invectives against the Patriarchs are not only recanted but anathematized Nay Theodorus was therein declared not to have done well in his Separation and that the Schism was on his part whatever was the occasion of it And the reason is given exactly agreeable to the Principles of Ignatius and St. Cyprian that Tarasius and Nicephorus were the Church Whence it plainly followed that Theodorus and his followers cast themselves out of the Church by their being divided from their Patriarchs This very Synodicon is mentioned in some fragments of this Work of Nicon here referred to and in a Discourse of Anastasius Caesareensis both published by Coâ—elerius And Anastasius is very particular in distinguishing it from the Nomocanon He tells us that it consisted only of three Synods two relating to Faith and the third to Marriages probably all of them relating to this case And thus we understand why our Author excepts only the case of Heresie wherein it might be lawfull to separate from the Bishop He speaks of persons subject to Episcopal Jurisdiction acting by themselves without a Bishop to head them for so did Plato and Theodorus with their Monks And so nothing but Heresie could excuse their Separation from their Ordinary by the Principles of the Catholick Church for the guilt of Schism will wholly be imputable to such Subjects who separate from their Ordinary for any other cause but Heresie 28 And to this Case agree exactly the Canons omitted by Mr. Hody They also speak of Monks and Laity separating from their respective Ordinary without any Episcopal Authority So the Synod called AB expresly by which we understand that the Presbyters and Deacons mentioned in the former Canons in reference to the Case here particularly designed were understood of Monks and such persons destitute of Episcopal Authority And very probably these Encroachments of the Monks on the Sacerdotal Authority were the real occasion for the Synod AB to make that Canon The Monks of Constantinople were at that time admitted into most debates where Religion was concerned We have seen that they made a part in the Synodi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Eutychius in the time of the Great Justinian and now in the time of Nicephorus against the Schismatical Studites We see they had a part in the electing their Bishop by the opposition Theophanes tells us this same Theodorus with his Studites made in the Election of this same Nicephorus We see they were consulted by Michael Curopolates concerning his War against the Bulgarians and that they over ruled him against his own inclinations on account of the concern Religion was supposed to have in that Affair Nor was it amiss that nothing should be done without the consent at least of so great and so numerous bodies of persons devoted to the service of Religon And this consideration it was that brought the Mitred Abbats also in the West into their Synods and into their Parliaments But then this only gave them in the Original design of it a Power of interposing and interceding like that of the Tribunes among the Romans not of invading the Sacred Sacerdotal Power but among the Romans this Power of interceding being granted first incouraged the Tribunes afterwards to aspire farther to give Laws even to the Senators themselves So it succeeded with these Monks the devotedness of their State made them to be looked on somewhat above the ordinary Laity and some Sacerdotal Acts were indulged them for the Government of their own Members but no doubt at first with the consent of their Ordinaries to whom they were at first all subject Thus they had Power of suspending their own Monks from the Communion Then they challenged the Power of Consignation in the Bishops absence this was done first in Egypt as Hilary the Deacon observes in the Commentaries which go under the Name of St. Ambrose There were the most numerous bodies of Monks most remote from Bishops and therefore the most inclinable to these Sacerdotal Encroachments Thus we see there was occasion for asserting the Sacerdotal Rights against them in the times of the Patriarchs Nicephorus and Methodius For so far the Schism of these Studites continued as appears from the Observations our Author has made from the Writings of Methodius It is also plain that the Monks were the greatest part in the Schism of the Arsenians principally regarded by our Author So it appears from several passages in Georgius Pachymeres He tells us that many of the Monks and Laity divided and kept their separate Assemblies And the Emperor Michael in his Oration against the Schismaticks describes them so as that we cannot doubt but that the Monks were they who were principally intended by him He says they were such as by their course of life had been inured to Corners and Secrecies that they were cloathed in Sackcloth So Joseph in his Oration to Germanus where he perswades him to resign represents the Monks as the principal Adversaries with whom he had to deal on this occasion And the Names mentioned in this Cause are generally either of Monks or Nuns Such were Hiacinthus and Ignatius Rhodius and Martha and Nostogonissa and the Pantepoplene Monks so called from their Monastery were the most violent against Joseph and those who sided with him And now we understand that they were not any Latitudinarian dwindling notions of Schism such as our Adversaries fancy that made our Author allow of no cause but Heresie to justifie a separation These were perfectly unknown even to that lower Antiquity in which our Author lived The Persons he had to deal with were such as had no Bishop to head them Aâ—senius himself was dead now for some years before our Author made this Collection and he hath substituted no Successor nor was there any Bishop of
So far were even Princes in that Age from pretending any Right to intermeddle in such matters without the Leave nay without the Authority of the Church to warrant them in it and so little were they then ashamed to own themselves Executioners of the Church's Canons in Affairs properly relating to the Church's Right None who is in earnest with Religion can in the least doubt but that the interests of Religion are incomparably both Nobler and Greater than the interests of any Worldly Politicks Even the Secular Magistate himself cannot deny but that his Soul which is benefitted by promoting the interests of Religion is of more importance even to him than his Secular Empire And why then should poor Mortals be ashamed to own their obligation to make their Worldly Power subservient to ends so undeniably Nobler and Greater than those of their Worldly Power But so trifling are the Reasonings of those who call this being Priest-ridden when they are examined seriously that it is no wonder they should look upon it as a principal Art of recommending them by Bantering and avoiding Seriousness 38. Our Author's next instance is in the next and last Deprivation of Photius which he tells us was by Leo Sapiens in favour of his own Brother Stephanus substituted in his stead Yet the Successor being also Orthothodox he observed that no Schism followed upon it And indeed we do not find any matter for a Synodical accusation objected to Photius by the Prince himself who is said to have deprived him not any of those immoral practices wherewith he had been formerly upbraided by his exasperated Adversaries Much less does any Synod appear that gave judgment against him upon such allegations nor could he pretend as his Father Basile had done that he only executed a former Synodical Deprivation for fear of the Anathemâ— he might incur if he did not do so Photius had now no Rival who could pretend a better Tittle in favour of whom those Synodical determinations had been made And he had since been restored in a General Synod later than that which had deprived him and wherein all the defects were supplied which had been objected formerly Here he had the Suffrages of the Eastern Patriarchs Not only so but even of the Papal See it self which had before been most implacable against him I know Baronius fancies that there was afterwards a breach between Pope John and him Nor is it unlikely that John did indeed resent the retaining Bulgaria from him the recovering of which was the principal inducement which had brought him to that condescendence This I take to have been the reserved Case when he afterwards disowns his confirming what his Legates had done if they had in any thing gone beyond the Orders he had given them Nor is it unlikely also but that on occasion of that resentment he might use some threats and hard expressions that might have been so interpreted by the Authors that gave Baronius occasion for this conjecture But there is no likelihood at all that those resentments ever proceeded so far as an open rupture otherwise we should certainly have had some mention of it in so many following Epistles written by John himself afterwards Whatever he thought he seems at that time to have thought it seasonable to suppress his resentments as finding himself opposed by a greater interest than that of Photius Photius therefore does not indeed seem to have been deprived Synodically the reason given for it is That Leo resented what Santabarenus had done against him in his Father's time in making a difference between them and thought Photius the principal hindrance that kept him from his designs against Santabarenus This was a reason in State likely enough to have been the occasion why Leo would endeavour to get Photius deprived But it was not a reason likely to have been owned openly and to have been produced before a Judicatory He could hardly for shame have owned a resentment for things so long past much less could he have charged Photius with favouring Santabarenus when Santabarenus himself had not yet received an open Trial. However it is certain that the Emperor himself was the cause that the place was vacated and in this Historians agree only they do not tells whether it were with his own consent though forced to it by the Emperor or whether the Emperor pretended to do it by his own Authority without any consent of Photius But what the Historians have not informed us of that his great Adversary Pope Stephen the Fourth has and that from the Letter of the Emperor himself who is said to have deprived him By that Letter it appears that the Emperor did not so much as pretend Force on his own part but a voluntary Resignation on the part of Photius So that as yet we have not one instance that ever any Lay-Power did ever pretend to a Power of depriving Bishops as to their Spiritual Authority though we could not have known it in this case had it not been for this occasional mention of it by Pope Stephen The Case may therefore have probably been the same in other examples where we read of Depositions by Emperors where we are not so happy to light on a particular account of them Here there are other circumstances that make it probable that this Cession was voluntary Photius was treated very respectfully even after his Deprivation as appears in the Trial of Santabarenus which would not have been if he had stood out to the utmost so it was this willingness of his Cession that hindered Pope Stephen also from proceeding to his designed severities against him Besides Stephanus his Successor had been his Pupil and Educated under him and therefore unlikely to have accepted of his Office without his leave nor do we find that he ever afterwards endeavoured again to get into it though Stephanus did not long enjoy it And therefore going off willingly he had thence-forward no pretence to disturb his Successors the Schism had been his not theirs if he had gone back from his own agreement and either resumed his Throne or withdrawn the Peoples Duty which had been already quitted by him 39. The next Example is in Nicholas deprived by the same Prince Leo Sapiens for opposing his fourth Marriage Against him Euthymius was set up yet so as our Author says that neither Nicholas himself withdrew from his Communion nor taught the People to do so Nay so that when he was restored to his Throne by Alexander the Brother of Leo he did not so much as question the Orders given by Euthymius because the persons ordained were Orthodox and the person who Ordained them was himself also Orthodox So our Author The time of this Ejection of Nicholas is somewhat intricate It could hardly have been where Baronius places it in the year 901. The surest grounds we have for discovering it is from the Age of Constantine Porphyrogennetus It is certain he was born before his
to the living Their Acclamations to the dead are to wish their Memory everlasting Their Acclamations to the living are to wish them many years This was the old form first taken up in the times of the Heathen Emperors and from thence deduced to the Christians and in this form the Acclamations in this Council run to the living Emperors and Empresses and the other Patriarchs of this Synod and so to our Nicholas among the Patriarchs And to this later Synod belong all the Acclamations subjoyned to the Tomus Vnionis That is clear from hence that even Nichlaus Mysticus in whose time the former Synod was held is here celebrated with the Acclamations of the dead and not only he but all his Successors between him and our present Nicholas Chrysoberges So little reason there is to think strange that the Predecessors of that elder Nicholaus Mysticus should be mentioned in the same form Thus we see how little reason there is for this inference that the heads of these dividing Parties must therefore when living have kept Communion with each other because their differences were at length accommodated so long after their deaths and because the Church which lived as well out of the Memory as the concern of the first heats pleased at length to take up forms grateful to both Parties in honour of those who at first began the differences 44. The next instance is of Cosmas Atticus deposed unjustly from the same See of Constantinople by the Emperor Manuel Comnenus Yet he as our Author tells us neither made nor taught any division of Communion from them who had injured him But it is certain this Deprivation was not made by a Lay-Power but Synodically The Synod is expresly mentioned by those who mention the Case Nicetas Choniates to whom our Author refers us for the Story tells us expresly that the Patriarch excommunicated the Synod that assembled to deprive himself for their frequenting the Palace and their manifest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 accepting of the Emperor's Person in the Judgment they had given against him The like expressions there are also in Cinnamus intimating that this Deprivation was decreed Conciliarly Nay Leo Allatius has preserved and published the Synod it self by which we know the year and day of it Thence it appears that Cosmas was deprived on the 26th of Feb. which fell in the 10th Indiction and the year of our vulgar account 1147. But our Author says that Cosmas himself neither divided nor countenanced any division on his own account But how comes our Author to know that he did not so His Author Nicetas Choniates says no such matter And he has here neither Dyptichs nor Conciliary Acclamations from whence he might either gather or presume it His Author particularly is so far from owning it that he tells us expresly of his excommunicating the Bishops of the Synod that is the constant notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Ecclesiastical Canons as it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as that signifies a Deprivation of an Ecclesiastical Dignity And the Crimes he objects against them were such as had been particularly censured in the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of that Age They had provided against Bishops appearing frequently at Court and against Partiality in the Ecclesiastical Judicatories Thus he avoided their jurisdiction over himself as being themselves Criminals and responsible for their breach of Canons antecedently to their sitting in that Synod And he insisted on his own Right to put the Canons in execution on those who were Subjects of his own Jurisdiction But our Author understands his Author Choniates so as if Cosmas's sealing up the Womb of the Augusta from having any Male Children had been an argument that his resentment proceeded no farther and that he otherwise owned their Authority and submitted to the Deprivation But the word which the Interpreter of Nicetas and from him the Interpreter of our present Author translates by execration the English Interpreter by denunciation is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and signifies the infliction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is the proper Ecclesiastical Term for Ecclesiastical Penences upon the Violaters of the Canons This is exactly agreeable to the person he had acted in the now mentioned Excommunication of the Bishops who deprived him This was as plainly an Exercise of his Patriarchal Authority over the Emperor and Empress as the other was over his Suffragan Bishops How then can it be an argument of any difference to their Censures Of any obligation that he thought lay on him in Conscience not to separate from their Communion Our Adversaries may perhaps fancy that our Author had some other Testimony for Cosmas's not separating than that of Choniates For my part I cannot think he had any other but that he gathered it not from the words of Choniates but his own inferences He says in the Summary that Cosmas was succeeded by Theodosius These could hardly be the words of any other Summist than the Author himself who had not in his Tract so much as mentioned the Name of Theodosius Yet he could not have made Theodosius his immediate Successor had he consulted any other Catalogues of Patriarchs But Nicetas Choniates took no occasion of mentioning any other Patriarchs between Cosmas and Theodosius and Theodosius he does indeed mention towards the end of this same Emperor Manuel Thence our Author had an occasion likely enough to lead him into this mistake that Theodosius was that immediate Successor with whom he supposes that Cosmas still maintained Communion But it is certain that there were many Patriarchs and many years too between them and therefore it must also be as certain that our Author could have no express Testimony that Cosmas did continue in the Communion of The dosius These Answers hold on the supposition that Cosmas was deprived unjustly Yet there is reason to question whether that was indeen his Case It is sufficiently clear that the Synod charged him with the Bogomilian Heâ—esie for favouring Nipho who had been censured for it Synodically in the time of his Predecessor Nor does Nicetas bring any thing in his defenâ—e to prove that he was not guilty of it Nay he owns that he had an excessive favour for the Heretick without the least distinction made between his Person and his Heresie This at least is certain that he was a Heretick in the Opinion of the Synod that deprived him And how then could he continue in their Communion How could our Author justifie his doing so when himself acknowledged that a precondemned Heresie such as this was did oblige to separate from Communion How can he commend them for doing so or reason from their Practice as a Precedent when by his own Principles it was not allowable 45. As to his instances in the Reign of Isaacius Angelus we have a very imperfect account of them in History We have now no other Original Author of those
times that gives any distinct account of that Reign but our Author Nicetas Choniates Thus we do indeed know as much as our Author and no more for Nicetas is slighter in these matters than they deserved In the Deprivation of Basilius Camaterus he tells us the charge laid against him was that he had suffered Women who had been made Nuns against their Wills to resume their Secular Habit and to return to their Secular way of living This was an Ecclesiastical Crime and therefore proper for an Ecclesiastical Tribunal And the next instance of Nicetas Muâ—tanes who was cast out meerly for his Old Age without any Accusaâ—ion and yet against his Will seems to imply that Bazilius had Accusation which Nicetas had not This Accusation if it had any thing peculiar in it from that which was used in the Case of Nicetas must have been such wherein the Emperor did not judge as he did in the Case of Nicetas And what Judicatory then can we suppose it to have been before whom it was brought if not a Council However Nicetas will our Adversaries say was deprived by a Lay Power without any Accusation at least before any other Judge besides the Emperor himself Suppose it was so yet that will not prejudice the Right of his next Successor nor make him Schismatical nor warrant any Separation even by our Principles Before he came in the See was validly vacated if not by the Deprivation yet by the Cession however involuntary that followed upon it That he did at length Surrender we have the express Testimony of the Author of the Catalogue of Patriarchs that is subjoyned to the Jus Graeco-Romanum Thus the third of the Patriarchs under the Emperor was brought in by a good Authority The Question then can only be whether his Place was as fairly vacated for his Successor as his Predecessor's had been for him And indeed it was so and by the same way not of a Conciliary Deprivation but of a voluntary Surrendry So we read in our MS. Catalogue of Patriarchs by Nicephorus Callistus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So the Author of the Catalogue in the Jus Greco-Romanum assures us where we read expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The last Case is that of Dositheus and here the Emperor shewed a piece of Art that did not very much become him Balsamon the famous Canonist was at that time Patriarch of Antioch Him therefore Isaacius consults as a person whose Authority was like to go far in influencing the Bishops and the Question he proposes to him was that which has so frequently been controverted in the Greek Church concerning Translations And to incline Balsamon to be favourable in the Case he makes him believe that his design was to translate the Canonist himself from Antioch to Constantinople whether this influenced him or not is uncertain However the event was such as the Emperor desired that the Patriarch gave his opinion in favour of Translation We plainly see hereby that the Emperor did not pretend absolute Power but only the execution of the Canons When therefore he had thus gained his point he immediately orders the Translation not of Balsamon from Antioch but of his Favourite Dositheus from Jerusalem to Constantinople The Bishops finding how they were imposed on make head against him as a Person for whom they never intended the favour of a Dispensation But he got Possession of the Throne though he held it only for nine days then he was cast out again by the Schism that followed upon it of the Arch-Bishops and Clergy from him So our MS. Nicephorus Callistus in his Catalogue expresly Here we see a withdrawing of Communion from a person who wanted a good Title without any pretence of any Heresie maintained by him But the Emperor was very much bent on having Dositheus in that Employment and at last prevails but not by our modern way of using his force but by the Consent of so many of the Bishops as were sufficient to make a Synod in favour of him This perhaps our Author might not know because his Author Nicephorus had nothing of it However we have as good Authority for it as our Adversaries can pretend from their Author's silence in it Our Author of the Catalogue of the Patriarchs subjoyned to the Jus Graeco-Romanum is very plain and full in it and he was perhaps a little elder than their anonymous for he concludes his Catalogue with the first Patriarchate of Joseph in the Reign of Michael Palaeologus However Dositheus did not enjoy the place long Some few years are mentioned in the Catalogue with the Jus Orientale but the number was not legible there The Greek Catalogue in the first Volume of the Byzantine Historians is something more particular and tells us of two years With the help of this information we may possibly gather a more distinct account out of our Manuscript Catalogue of Nicephorus which had otherwise not been so easily intelligible that it was not two full years for so Nicephorus in his Catalogue has it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the number of the months and days are wanting which must have made up near another year But by that time Nicephorus says the Schism was risen to that height that he was the second time deprived and finding his former Throne of Jerusalem filled he abdicated both Thrones as well that to which as that from which he had been Translated Thus it again appears in an instance so near our Author's Age that there was a Schism in this case where notwithstanding our Author's reasonings does necessarily oblige him to suppose there was none by which we may easily perceive how unaccurate his Informations were even in matters so â—ear his own memory He seems to have known no more of this whole affair than what his still extant Author Nicetas Choniates told him and he did noâ— think fit to take notice of the Schisms that occasioned both these Deprivations of Dositheus Yet even Nicetas mentions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 separate Assemblies Here was plainly a Schism not on the pretence of any objected Heresie but on account of an original defect of Title They reckoned the Emperor's Translation as nothing and the Church's consent to it as nothing because the Question had been proposed insidiously All that Balsamon and the Bishops influenced by him had granted was that in general the Canons of the Church aganst Translations were dispensible where the Church was pleased with the Person so far as to think that he particularly deserved a Dispensation with her general Rules only the Application of the Canon to Dositheus was the Emperor's Act which we see was not allowed him by them who made the Separation Had the Translation been valid and by a sufficiently obliging Power their Duty had necessarily followed upon it and they could not have been at liberty even in Conscience to dispute it after a Synod had consented to it and after a Possession with two years settlement
Unitate Eccl. Ep. 49. Edit Ox. Ep. 52.54.55 †These Doctrines of the Catholick Church in St. Cyprian's Age were also Doctrines of the Catholick Church in the Age of Optatus and St. Augustine * Till our Adversaries can disarm us of the advantage we have from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church signified on occasion of these earliest Instances of Schism in St. Cyprian's Age their Authors Collection of later Instances were it never so pertinent to their purpose can do them no Service 7ly This Author himself allows a Separation in Case of Heresie And with that our Adversaries are chargeable 1st as they do not only separate but justifie their Separation by Principles Separation on account of Opinions is by so much the less excusable if the Opinions be not Fundamental Such Opinions then begin to â—e Heretical when they cause an actual Separation as the Latitudinarian Opinions do now in our Adversaries 2. Even as Heâ—â—sie signâ—fies an error in Fundamentals The Church's being a Society is a fundamental Doctrine It is at least fundamental aâ— to us and as to all Benefit we can pretend to by being Members of the Church The Intruders cannot be defended to be valid Bishops but by Principles fundamentally destructive of the Church as a Sâ—ciety distinct from the State in a time of Persecution This sort of Errors fundamental in the highest degree Our Adversaries are wholly the Cause of this late Breach and have shewn themselves neither kind to us nor careful of themselves in it 1 Joh. 2.19 Transition The Vse out Adversaries make of this Collection is in all likelihood very different from the Design of the Author The Design of the Author of this Discourse is to be known from the Occasion of his writing it The Schism which occasioned this Discourse seems to have been that between the Arsenians and Josephians in the Reign of Michael Palaeologus Niceph. Gregor Lib. 4. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Gregor lib. 4. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor lib. 5. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor lib. 5. Gregor lib. 6. Niceph. Gregor Lib. 7. This Case of Arsenius is very like that of St. Chrysostome which our Author thought principally to deserve Consideration The Arsenians also gave our Author occasion to observe that past Invalidities in Ordinations did not use to be insisted on rigorously * So 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 15. of the Synod under Photius here produced in the later part of this Discourse under the Title of AB 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Accusation to a Synod The Translator does not seem to have understood the Importance of this Phrase neither in his Latine nor English Version nor the Annotatour on the English The Latine Translation seems to imply that Severianus and Acacius personally appeared before Pope Innocent which no History owns them to have done The English that they were called in question by him which if meant juridically could not be true when he after exercised no Censure on them either of Condemnation or Absolution The Annotatour understands it of Discovery but what needed that when the Fact itself was notorious The Notion of Accusation solves all So also in the N. T. Acts 24.1 and 25.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is to accuse or inforâ— against which is a proper Authority for this purpose because most of the Ecclesiastical Terms were designedly taken from the Scriptures * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor lib. 7. p. 183. There was also in this Schism an occasion for the Author to add his Exception of Heresie and his Limitations of that exception * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gregor lib. 5. This Case did not oblige our Author to justifie the Validity of a Lay-Deprivation Nay our Author could not justifie the Validity of a Lay-Deprivation if he would be true to the Canons here produced by himself but omitted by the Editors For Presbyters to disown their Bishop not synodically deprived is by the Doctrine of these Canons Schismatical (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 13. Synod A B. (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. So it is also by the same Canons for Suffragan Bishops to disown their Metropolitane without the like Synodical Deprivation * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Can. 14. ib. This unpublish'd Appendiz asserted to the Author This Collection therefore can be no Authority for our Adversaries neither as to the Sense of the Author nor of the Church he was concerned for The Case of Meletius in Antioch * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Socr. l. 1. c. 24. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Soz. l. 2. c. 19. * See the Creed in Socr. l. 2. c. 40. * So Socrates concerning the Meletians 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lib. 2. c. 44. So elsewhere Paulinus the Rival of Meletius pleads against him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 L. 5. c. 5. Of St. Chrysostome in Constantinople Of Flavianus Ep. 42. in Edit Pasch. Quesnel Ep. 43. Quesnel Ep. 45 Quesnel Ep 47. Quesnel Act. Concil Chalced. Evag. l. 2. c. 11. Nicephor Eccl. Hist. xiv 47 Zonar In the time of Anastasius Dicorus 1. The Instance of Euphemius * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. Lect. L. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theophanes 2. Of Macedonius Theoph. Niceph E. H. xvi 26 Theod. Lect. 2. Niceph. xvi 26 Theoph. Theod. Lect. l. 2. Theoph. Theoph. Theod. Lect. l. 2. Theoph. Theoph. Euphemius Macedonius Flavianus and Elias were so untrue to Principles that it â—s not easie to gather from their Facts what even themselves thought agreeable to Principles Evagr. III. 31 Theoph. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theoph. Vit. Sab. n. 52. Ib. 52. Ib. 56. The Deprivation of Elias Bishop of Jerusalem in the same Reign how Synodical Elias was in reason obliged to yield to John though not on the Account of his Orthodoxy Cyrillus Vit. Sab N. 56. Maximus Bishop of Jerusalem was in all likelihood not deprived by Acacius Bishop of Caesarea Soc. II. 38 Theod. II. 26 in Chron. Euseb. coâ—tin Epiph. Hâ—r LXXIII Phot. Cod. 258. The Life of Athanasius no good Authority The Dâ—privation of Maximus if true had not been for our Adversaries Purpose because Synodical The Case of Eutychius under Justinian Eustath Vit. Eutych ap Sur. Apr. 6. * Episcoporum Principum Eustath * Sed Vir Sanctus Episcopis Principibus qui Consessus mandato nuncium attulerâ—nt Ad quem inquit accediâ—is quem me vocatis Illi veritate coacti responderunt ad Dominum Nostrum Patrem Quibus ipse rursum Quis est inquit iste Dominus Pater vester Venimus inquiunt tanquam occultis quibus dam verberibus vapularent ad Patriarcham Nostrum Dominum Eutychium Patriarcha Ego inquit ille Patriarchâ— Dei Gratiâ sum nec à me quisquam hominum tollet hanc Dignitatem Quis est ille quem meo in loco