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
bring our Author's time within a Century after those times of Isaacius Angelus So the first remarkable Schism that fell within that distance will most probably be the occasion of this Work and the Ecclesiastical Rhetor then in Office the Author of it But of this more hereafter 7. I confess I was once of the mind that Nicephorus Callistus was the Author of it My reason was that which is mentioned by Mr. Hody that his Name is made use of in most of the Works contained in this Volume either in the Titles or in the Tables and that both before and after this of which we are at present discoursing This made me think that the whole Volume was intended for a Collection of Pieces wherein he was some way concerned and that his Name was intended for the Title here if the Illuminator had performed his Office in adding a Title to it But upon more thorough consideration I have I confess altered my Opinion I observe this Tract is in a hand extremely different from the other hands of the whole Volume It is withall contrived within a quire proper to itself and the latter end in a little smaller hand that it might come within that compass Thence it appears that it was written singly not to be connected with a following Vacancy where there might have been room for what remained but to be bound up with other things already written Accordingly what follows begins abruptly as if the former quire had been purposely left out to make room for this insertion These are Tokens that it was not at first designed as a part of this particular Collection Then it begins so near the top of the Page that one would suspect no Title was intended but that the Author's Name was purposely omitted And indeed no Author's Name seems to have been mentioned in the Copies from whence Cotelerius intended to have published it Withall I doubt that Nicephorus Callistus who wrote when Andronicus was now grown old in the Empire might have been somewhat of the latest to have been the Author of it Besides there are considerable Differences between our Author and Nicephorus Mr. Hody has observed one if the Interposition of Leontius between the Inthronings of Dositheus be not rather some Disorder of our Copy of Nicephorus's Catalogue of Patriarchs There are also several other Differences Our Author calls the first of the Patriarchs deposed by Anastasius Dicorus Euthymius and that as often as he mentions him both in the Tract itself and the Summary as several others had done before him Nicephorus calls him rightly Euphemius both in his MS. Catalogue and in his Ecclesiastical History Our Author takes no notice that Timotheus the next Successor but one to Euphemius was a Heretick but Nicephorus does in his Catalogue of Patriarchs if the inserted Censures of the Patriarchs be his There he is called in an interlineary Note 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 However in his History he takes notice of his Fickleness that he sometimes approved and again openly condemned the Synod of Chalcedon This was sufficient to hinder him from arguing that his orthodoxy was the reason why his Communion was owned notwithstanding his Usurpation So also from the remaining Contents of the 23d Book of Nicephorus Callistus it appears that Nicephorus owned that there were Schisms in the time of Leo Sapiens under the Patriarchate of Stephen the Emperor's Brother and of Nicolaus Mysticus and Euthymius though it seems our Authour knew nothing of them 8. Thus much therefore we have gained That in Matters of so great Antiquity as are here debated this Author's Word alone is by no means competent to be depended on as an Authority Hence it will follow farther that we may now very justly put the Stress of our Cause upon examining the Merit of the things themselves without any relation to the Author And if we can shew that his Way of Reasoning is not concluding though the Matters of Fact produced by him were as pertinent to our present Case as our Adversaries are concerned they should be and also that his Matters of Fact are far from being such as they suppose them I cannot foresee what our Adversaries can in reason desire more for shewing how little reason they have to be so confident on account of what is said by this Author 9. First therefore as to the Reasoning itself how much soever it be insisted on by our late Brethren in our present Disputes yet neither is it such as would be thought fit to be regarded by Men of Conscience nor safe to be trusted by Men of Prudence and Skill in the Art of Reasoning They pretend to have amassed 18 Instances of Bishops who did not think fit to insist on their Right or were not seconded by their Subjects if they did so when they were not deprived on account of Heresie out of the History of 900 Years Whether they did well or not in it is not here so much as attempted to be proved only it is presumed to be well done barely because 't was done in so many Instances and no publick opposition made against it But if Matters of Fact so nakedly mentioned must be urged for Precedents it will be impossible to make any thing of this way of Arguing from History What History is there that in a Succession of 900 Years does not afford Examples against Examples And how can it be understood which are rather to be followed as Examples if no more be considered concerning them but barely this that they were Examples How easie were it for an Historian by this Way of Reasoning to justifie as our Brethren do the wickedest things that can be They prove it lawful to break Oaths from the Example of King Stephen which I believe they will hardly find one antient Historian who does excuse it from the Charge of Perjury I am sure they may find several who charge it as expresly as we do with that very Imputation And can we not in the same scope of Time produce 18 Instances of successfull Wickednesses of Murther Adultery Sacrilege c. committed by potent Persons whom it was no way safe to contradict at least where there are no Memorials of Opposition transmitted to Posterity Can any Man of Conscience think it fit that 18 Instances on one side in such a space of Time should be the Rule of his Conscience Or can any wise Man think himself obliged to defend whatever may be patronized by such a number of Instances 10. The Design of this Way of Arguing is no doubt to prove the Sense and Approbation at least of those Churches where these Instances passed without Contradiction but it is manifest that many more things are requisite for proving that besides naked Matter of Fact What if in the Instances here mentioned the Churches did not adhere to unjustly-deprived Bishops when the Intruders were not Hereticks Yet many more things must be requisite to be made
Letters could be hoped for whilst they continued in Communion with him 20. And then 5thly It is also as notorious on the same Principles of St. Cyprian's Age that such Schism from the visible Communion of the Catholick Church was also supposed to deprive the Person so divided of all the invisible Benefits of Church Communion God was supposed obliged to ratifie in Heaven what was done by those whom he authorized to represent him on Earth He avenged the Contempts of his Ministers and would not be a Father to those who would not own his Church for their Mother by paying her a Filial respect They were not to expect any pardon of their Sins They could not hope for the Holy Ghost who dissolved the Vnity of the Spirit They were uncapable of the Crown of Martyrdome whatever they suffered in the state of Separation This is the result of many of St. Cyprian's Discourses on this Argument And indeed it is very agreeable with the Design of God that they who cut themselves off from the Peculium should by their doing so lose all their pretensions to the Rights and Privileges of it Not only so but that they should also incur all the Mischiefs to which they were supposed liable who had lost their Right of being Members of the peculiar People Accordingly as they believed all Persons at their first admission into the Church to be turned from Darkness to Light and from the Power of Satan unto God so upon their leaving the Church or their being cast out of it by the judicial Act of their Superiours they were supposed to return into the state of Heathens to lose the Protection of those good Spirits who minister only to the Heirs of Salvation and again to relapse into their former condition of Darkness and being consequently obnoxious to be infested by the Devil and his Powers of Darkness And that this was so appeared by several ordinary Experiments in those earlier Ages not only of the Apostles but that also of St. Cyprian who has many Examples of it in his Book de Lapsis And this confinement of the Spiritual Privileges of the peculiar People to the External Communion of the Church as it was Fundamental to their Discipline so it was rational consequently to their other Principles God was not thought obliged to confer those Privileges but by the Act of those whom himself had authorized to oblige him But Dividers were supposed not to belong to that Body to which the Promises were made and ambitious Intruders into other Men's Offices could not in any Equity pretend to have their Acts ratified by God from whom they could not be supposed to receive any Authority when they did not receive it by the Rules and Orders of the Society established by him These things were then believed and believed universally Indeed nothing but an universal Belief of them would have maintained that Discipline which was then observed in the Church could have obliged them generally to suffer as they did then the severest Inflictions from the Magistrate rather than incurr the much more feared Displeasure of their Ecclesiastical Superiours When we are also of the same Mind and alike influenced by Principles and Regard to Conscience then indeed and then alone we may pretend to be a Posterity not degenerous from the great Examples of those glorious Ancestors Then it will not be in the Power of Acts of Parliament to drive us from our Principles and bring a Scandal on our Religion Then where our Bishops follow Christ we shall follow them and it will not be in the Power of the Worldly Magistrate or the Gates of Hell it self to prevail against our Church and to dissolve the Vnion between us Then Magistrates themselves will be more wary of involving Consciences on occasion of their little Worldly Politicks at least they will not pretend Religion and the Religion of that very Church which suffers by them for doing so May we live at length to see that happy day However it will hence appear how impossible it will be to excuse our Adversaries present Case from Schism if it be tried by that Antiquity which we do indeed profess to imitate and alledge 21. Now in this Case I am discoursing of I have purposely selected the Instances of St. Cyprian's Age rather than any other not only because they are the ancientest indeed the first we know of of one Bishop's invading another's Chair not vacant but because we have withal in him the most distinct account of the Sense of the Church in his Age of such Facts and of the Principles on which they proceeded in condemning them He had occasion given him to be so distinct by two Schisms one of his own Church in Carthage where Felicissimus was set up against himself another that I have principally insisted on of Novatian set up against Cornelius in Rome On these Occasions he has written one just Discourse besides several Epistles But these Principles were not singular and proper to that Age they descended lower and are insisted on by Optatus and St. Augustine in their Disputes with the Donatists whenever they dispute the Question of their Schism without relation to their particular Opinions 22. And now what can our Adversaries gain though we should grant them all they can ask concerning their Collection till they be able to disarm us of these earlier Authorities neither mentioned nor perhaps so much as thought of by their Author Till they do so we have all the Advantages against them that our Cause does need or we desire They give us a bare Collection of Facts without any other Evidence of the Principles on which they were transacted than the Facts themselves We give them here a contrary Fact of Persons of unquestionable Sincerity to Principles and not only so but the Principles themselves on which they proceeded acknowledged by the Persons themselves They give us Facts of the Greek Church only We give them one wherein the sense of the whole Catholick Church appeared not of the Greeks alone but of the Latines also They give us those of Modern of Barbarous of Divided Ages wherein the great Bodies of the Eastern and Western Churches were divided in Communion the Eastern Churches particularly within which their Instances are confined into Nestorians and several subdivided Sects of Eutychians who yet if they had been more unanimous were otherwise no very competent Witnesses of Apostolical Tradition not only in regard of their Age but their Corruptness their Vnskilfulness their Credulity We here have given them the sense of the Church in an Age wherein her Testimony is every way unexceptionable wherein she had certain means of knowing the Truth and withal valued it as it deserved Even there we find the Principles now mentioned universally received and universally received as the grounds of that universal Catholick Communion which she had received by an uninterrupted Tradition from the Apostles to that very Time Even there I say we
chalenge their Duty from them These things they conceive clear from these Instances that neither unjustly deposed Bishops did chalenge their Rights nor their Clergy and Laity assist them in chalenging them if the Bishops substituted in their Places were of the same Faith with those who were deprived But undoubtedly these Reasonings can never pretend to hold any farther than as the Instances here mentioned were parallel to the Case of our present Bishops If the Cases be different and different in so remarkable a Circumstance as will make a difference of Reason also it will not follow that our Bishops now are obliged to doe as those did then though we had been better assured than we are that what was done in the Cases here instanced was justifiable and on other accounts than bare Matter of Fact argumentative and fit to pass into a Precedent And for my part so far I am from thinking the Case the same that I believe their Author himself never intended it should be so Our Adversaries make application of his Instances to a Case wherein not onely the Deprivation is unjust but the Authority itself is null and disobliging that is of a Lay-Deprivation as to the purely Spiritual Authority of our Bishops But in all likelyhood this neither was noâ— could be the Design of this Author to make a Collection of Precedents for Submission to a lay and invalid Deprivation much less in such Circumstances as ours are wherein Men are so prone to make ill Interpretations of such Submission to the justifying such Invasions for the future and the Ruine of the Church as a Society distinct from and independent on the State 2. To shew that this was not his Design it will be convenient to enquire into the Matter of Fact which gave occasion to their Author to draw up this Collection of Precedents and Canons For from thence it will appear how much he was obliged to prove that he might make his Collection pertinent to the Case undertaken by him and whether the speaking home to that Case that was then before him did by any way of rational Consequence oblige him to say things applicable to our present Case to which what he says is applied by our Adversaries This I shall the rather endeavour both because it will be acceptable to the World to know the Occasion of Writing this new published Discourse and because it is not so much as aâ—tempted by either of the worthy Editors which yet was an omission of very ill consequence as to the Reasoning For how was it possible to judge of the Reasoning of their Author whilest as yet the case was unknown against which the Reasoning was designed by him And in order hereunto we have gained a Point in discovering the Time of the Author and thereby the true Age of this Discourse This will confine our Enquiry within a narrower Compass wherein we are to expect the Case that gave Occasion for it Indeed it is the onely token we have for knowing it the Author having given us no Historical Account of the Persons concerned in the Discourse itself 3. The Original therefore of the Schism which occasioned this Discourse is I believe to be derived from the Reign of Michael Palaeologus the Father of the elder Andronicus under whom our Authour wrote I mention nothing now of that elder Schism wherein Nicephorus of Ephesus was set up against Arsenius mentioned by Pachymeres That Quarrel was ended on Arsenius's Restitution and therefore could have no Influence on the Discourse written afterwards The second Schism therefore is that which is to our purpose and it was thus Theodorus Lascaris had left a young Son behind him called John Of him by that time he came to be ten Years of age Michael began to be jealous and to secure himself puts out his Eyes This the then Patriarch Arsenius was very much displeased at and excommunicated him for it The Emperour bore it for a while and wore a penitential Habit hoping within a while to be restored But finding at length no hopes of it this made a Grudge between him and the Patriarch so that the Emperour was resolved to lay him by What then Does he deprive him by his secular Authority No such matter Gregoras observes that he did not take the course his Power would suggest nor use it openly There was no such Power so much as pretended to by the Lay-Magistrate even in those late and degenerous Ages He pretends indeed a frivolous Cause against the Patriarch yet he makes not himself the Judge of it but a Synod However he gained his Point the Synod did as the Emperour would have them and deposed the Patriarch This being done they translate Germanus from the See of Adrianople to that of Constantinople which revived a Dispute about Translations first started as Georgius Pachymeres tells us by Joseph who succeeded him and occasioned a like Collection of Instances as this is which we have still preserved in the same Baroccian MS. There we have also the Synodical Proceedings concerning the Translation of Germanus which giâ—es us the time of it that it was in May the Year of the World as they then reckoned 6773 that is in the Year of our Lord as we now account 1266. But Germanus not being able to endure the Envy and Odium of coming into Arsenius's Place so injuriously vacated retires after two years Arsenius being yet alive Pachymeres says that the Emperour was also underhand very active in it Upon this Arsenius stirs again but in vain Joseph was by the Emperour's Interest again set up against him Thiâ— was about the time of the Eclipse which Gregoras mentions in May in the year of the World 6775. that was the year of our Lord 1268. Pachymeres is more distinct and tells us that Germanus resigned about September Arsenius upon this acts authoritatively and deprives Joseph for so we find it pleaded elsewhere by the Followers of Arsenius in the same Gregoras This was a Chalenging of his Right upon the Vacancy and had this effect with those who thought him injured that they would no more own the Communion of Joseph so that from that time forward the Schism began This is certain that when Michael afterwards endeavoured an Vnion with the Latines in the Council of Lyons in the year 1274. both Parties opposed it with great Zeal Joseph himself so far that he was deposed for it and Beccus set up in his Place And yet though both Parties united against the common Adversary they would not doe so among themselves They still avoided each others Communion as much as they did that of the Latines Thus things continued in that Reign though both Parties were persecuted by the Emperour who did all he could to force them both to his Vnion of the Council of Lyons At length he dyes and then all things return Beccus retires and the Schismatical Exiles of both parts come home This must have been in the year 1284. if
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
But by the Schism we have reason to believe that the numbers of the Synod that consented were less than of those who had never consented from the beginning otherwise they had been concluded by the Synodical Act. Or else the only reason that could be for excepting against the Synodical Suffrages must have been that the Emperor's Authority was thought too influential on those publick Meetings Every way it appears how little the Secular Power was regarded even in those late times of Isaacius Angelus when his Authority tho' seconded by a Synod for applying the Dispensation to Dositheus was not thought sufficient to oblige an absent Majority dissenting from them even with regard to Conscience when even in such a Case as this the Cause was at last over-ruled by those that separated and carried for them This plainly shews how little these practices of Isaacius were approved of by the generality of the best Judges of his own time when they durst express their thoughts concerning them with any freedom It was in all likelihood the unpopularness of these Invasions of the Liberties of the Church that gave his Brother Alexis a great advantage against him which ended in his Deprivation Even Nicetas himself from whom our Author takes these things does not mention them without a severe Censure How then could our Author reason from them as Precedents How could he pretend the Authority of Nicetas for a reasoning so different from the Sentiments of Nicetas 46. It was therefore no such admirable matter if it had been true if there had been no Separation between these five Patriarchs of this Reign succeeding each other in so short a time It is not true that they were deprived purely at the Emperor's pleasure It is not true that their Places were invalidly vacated All of thâ—m were either deprived Synodically or abdicated There is no need to dispute how unjustly or corruptly the Synods proceeded in depriving them nor how unwilling themselves were in their Abdication Even an unjust Synodical Sentence was by the Canons sufficient to vacate their Places till they could be remedied in another and a greater Synod which none of them ever had And even an involuntary Abdication if Formally and Canonically made was sufficient to cut them off from any pretensions to their former Rights They had therefore in these cases no pretence left to vindicate their Rights by a Separation or to question the validity of the Acts of Successors who were brought into Sees so validly vacated And why should it be thought so admirable that they did not make disturbances where they had by the Canons no tolerable pretence to do so Why should they be thought Precedents for our present Holy Fathers who are neither deprived Conciliarâ—y nor have made any even involuntary Abdication 47. Thus upon the whole it has appeared that our Author's Instances as they were never designed so neither do they make for our Adversaries purpose Our Adversaries pretend that unjustly deprived Bishops never vindicated their Rights by a Separation And we confess we cannot make the contrary Observation that unjust Possessoâ—s were always so modest and so resigned to the Church's Peace as willingly to surrender the Vsurpations Will they therefore make them Precedents in this particular So indeed they may if they can have the Consciences if they can find in their Hearts to do so But are they not in the mean time ashamed to tell us that good Bishops have been willing to part with their Rights rathâ—r than they would break Communion when their own Fathers will rather break Communion than make Restitution It were easie here to retort all Mr. Hody's Exhortations upon his own Intruders I am sure he can give no Arguments why good Men ought to surrender Rights for Peace sake but what will proceed more cogently for surrendering Vsurpations But we have many new Topicks that we can justly use to his Fathers which he cannot pretend to use to ours We have the Right and Duty which was owing from his to ours before the encroachment and which his own reasoning does not pretend not to be owing still We have their Sacred Vows of Canonical Obedience for securing that Right and Duty where no Worldly Power can force them to it which no other Power in the World can dispence with but that for whose Interest they were imposed We have the dreadful imprecations implied in all such Oaths as an obligation for performance Methinks our adversary Bishops should tremble at the consequence if God should no otherwise help them than as they have performed their Duties to their respective Ordinaries and their Metropolitane Their great Plea of the Publick Good we can beter pretend than they if they will allow that the Eternal interests of Souls and of Religion are more to be valued in a Publick Account than Worldly Politicks And this is methinks a concession for which we need not be beholen to any who own themselves Christians And certainly it is more for the publick good of the Church that Subordinations should be preserved than that any particular person should be made a Bishop by offering violence to them It is more for the publick good of Religion that the Glorious Passive Doctrines of the Church should be maintained in opposition to Worldly Interests than that they should seem prostituted to serve them It is more for the publick good of Religion that the Credit of the Clergy should be maintained than that they should enjoy the benefits of Worldly Protection It is more for the publick good of Religion that the Independency of that Sacred Function on the State should be asserted by challenging their Rights than that by yielding them the Lay-Power should be owned to have any Power of depriving us of the comfort of Sacraments in a time of Persecution It were easie also to shew that the Doctrines and Practices in defence of which our Holy Fathers have incurred this Deprivation are more for the Interest even of the State even of the Civil Magistracy than those which are likely to obtain upon their Cession Even the State cannot subsist without Obligations of Conscience and the Sacredness of Oaths and these can signifie nothing for the security of any future Government if they must signifie nothing for the time past It is not for the Interest of the Publick to secure ill Titles in their Possession and thereby to encourage the frequency of ill Titles and frequent Subversions of the Fundamental Constitutions and all the Publick Miseries that must follow on such Changes especially in a Settlement where all the care has been taken that was possible to preserve it by obligations of Conscience And certainly Mr. Hody will not say that our invalidly deprived Fathers are obliged to submit to the wrong that is done them where there are not publick considerations that may make amends for the private injuries But if Mr. Hody will needs live rather by Precedents than Rules yet where will he find
all those violences to Ignatius's person to force him to sign a form of Abdication if he abdicated willingly and thought himself obliged to do so because his Adversary was not a Heretick Why then did Photius in his two Synods deprive and excommunicate and anathematize him Why did he endeavour to reordain the persons ordained by Ignatius And when the Emperor would not endure that why did he use the Art Nicetas tells us of of seeming at least to do it by buying Sacerdotal Habits and sending them already blessed as Presents to the Parties concerned if he were so well satisfied as our Author would perswade us of his Predecessor's Ordinations This Photius did upon his restitution to the See after Ignatius's death when there was no danger from Ignatius that might exasperate him when there was no apparent reason but Principles of Conscience that might induce him to it But the World has been sufficiently inured to believe hard things concerning Photius Perhaps Ignatius the Holy Ignatius behaved himself with more temper and more agreeable to our Author's fancy He would in all likelihood have done so if he had been of our Author's Opinion But if we will chuse rather to learn matter of Fact from History what he did do than from fancy what we may think he ought to have done as no doubt we ought to do how much soever he differed from Photius in other things yet he was perfectly of his mind in this and seems no less to have Rivalled him in his Zeal in it than he did in his Chair His unwillingness to resign as our Author and our Adversaries would have had him done has been already observed Photius indeed pretended he did resign and Hadrian's Eighth General Council seems to speak suspiciously when they tell us that if he had done so he was notwithstanding not oblig'd to stand to it It is certain he did not stand to it and if ever he did yield that it was fear not our Adversaries Opinions of Charity and Conscience that made him do so that made him think himself obliged to do so so far from that that as soon as his Conscience was at liberty to hear sedate reasonings he thought himself obliged to do the contrary This brought upon him those Deprivations Excommunications and Anathematisms in the Synods of Photius And can we still believe that there was no breach of Communion on the part of the Ignatians What needed then those violences which they were freed from as soon as they could be prevailed on to Communicate with Photius Why do the Legates of three Eastern Patriarchs boast that they had never owned nor communicated with him from the beginning if it had not been notorious that the firm Ignatians had from the beginning not owned his Communion Why then did Ignatious immediately upon his restitution excommunicate not only those who had been Ordained by Photius but those also who had ever so much as Communicated with him Is it not plain from hence that Ignatius's Party did separate That he himself exacted it as Duty from them that they should do so and so was accessary to the Separation That he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 use the Summum Jus of enquiring into the Ordinations of Photius And what will then become of our Author 's general Observation that none was ever known to do so Why did the Ignatians still forbear the Communion of Photius even after the Death of Ignatius if they had not been used to do so before when they had more pretence for it If Ignatius had not persisted in that same mind even to his very Death Besides our Author was not aware that the Dispute at length came to that which he thought Heresie at least which he was bound to think so by the Doctrine of his Greek Church in that Age wherein he made his Collection I mean Photius started the Dispute concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son Then he must have thought them obliged by Principles to separate and could never argue from their Actions as Precedents if they were not agreeable to Principles It is very true that Photius's Doctrine was not thought Heretical then This appeared even in the Latine's Eighth General Coumcil Some desired to be excused from anathematizing him on that account that they thought none ought to be anathematized but Hereticks And the Council it self though it obliged them still to anathematizi him yet did not do it upon account of any Heresie wherewith they thought him chargeable However this makes his Case more opposite to our purpose because it is notwithstanding sure that Ignatius did not therefore think himself obliged to yield to him What can be clearer to this purpose than the words of Ignatius as he is personated by Theognostus one who was very well acquainted with his mind Had this Adulterer says he been of the Church I would willingly have yielded to him But how shall I make an alien from Christ a Pastor of the Sheep of Christ Plainly therefore he thought Schism as well as Heresie a sufficient reason of challenging his Right against him And Photius was charged with Schism antecedently to his being set up against Ignatius for joyning with Gregorius Syracusanus who had been Excommunicated by Ignatius So little do these instances make for the design of our Author 37. Nor are they much more pertinent to the design of our Adversaries None of these Deprivations were any farther regarded than as they were Synodical I mean they were not till then thought sufficient to disoblige their charge from their obligations to adhear to them Bardas and Photius did both hope at first to extort an Abdication from Ignatius But when they found they could not succeed that way they never thought themselves secure till they got him deprived Synodically So it was also in the Deprivation of Photius after he had been Synodically confirmed Though it was in favour of one who had a better antecedent Right yet the Emperor Basile excuses himself from having any hand in it otherwise than as he excuted the decree of Pope Nicholas's Synod whereby Photius had before been deprived and excommunicated So he tells us in the Synod that he had done nothing in it by his Imperial Hand or Power For it was not says he the work or contrivance of my Imperial Station that our most Holy Patriarch should return to his own Throne But long before the most Holy and Blessed Pope Nicholas having fully informed himself concerning the Case of Ignatius had decreed Synodically that the Right of his own Throne should be restored to him and with the whole Roman Church had anathematised all such as should resist that Decree and Sentence Here therefore being before informed of these things and dreading the Judgment of the promulgated Anathema we thought it necessary to obey this Synodical Judgment of the Roman Church and for this cause we restored him to the Possession of his own Throne