not stand to his promise the reason was manifest he feared that if he had done so that his Clergy and his People would not stand by him Still it does not seem to have been his Conscience that kept him right but his Ambition That very soon appeared when afterwards he was imprisoned for this Violation of his former promise He then as easily repeats the promise as he had formerly broken it only he pretended that he might not seem to perform it unwillingly it was fit he should first be set at liberty When he had thus wheedled the Praefect and got his Guard of Monks about him that he no longer feared him he then does as the Monks not as the Praefect would have him and anathematizes Severus and Sotericus and all who would not receive the Council of Chalcedon Then he frightens away the Emperor 's Prefect and the fam'd Sabas and Theodosius with their ten thousand Monks were as active as any in it If these Mens actions were counted exemplary then yet I am sure they would not have been thought so in the first and purest Ages of our Christian Religion Well might Cyrillus call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But Christianity was too far degenerated when these were counted Titles of Honour in such pretenders to Mortification and Renouncers of the World Our present Holy Fathers have more of the Primitive Spirit of Christianity than to think themselves oblig'd to follow such Examples 20. Our Author now directs from the Throne of Constantinople to that of Jerusalem and from the time of Anastasius to that of Great Athanasius so it should seem this Example occured to his memory He tells us therefore that when Athanasius was Condemned in the Synod of Tyre he fled to Maximus of Jerusalem and was by him restored by a Synod conven'd by him where he Decreed for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and repealed the Synod of Tyre This the Author says provoked the Bishop of Caesarea against him He must mean Acacius the Ring-leader of the Arian Faction in those parts Acacius then he says gathers a Synod against Maximus and deprives him and sets up Cyril against him who at that time professed Arianism Afterwards Cyril declares for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and then Maximus and he was reconciled and owned the same Communion So our Author But very little of this story is true even as to matter of Fact and yet if it had been all so it is nothing to our Adversaries purpose Very little of it is true as to matter of Fact First at the Synod of Tyre it is certain Athanasius did not fly to Jerusalem but to Constantinople to make his Case known to the Emperor himself It had been at that time in vain to have had recourse to Maximus who in that very Synod of Tyre had given his Suffrage against him He did indeed see his Error afterwards but it was many years first Athanasius was condemned in the Synod of Tyre in the year 335. But the time when Maximus convened his Synod and declared for Athanasius was in the year 350. when at the Interposition of the Emperor Constans Athanasius was released from his Banishment Then Maximus did indeed declare for him and that Synodically But all that we can find Acacius did against him was to upbraid him with his inconsistency and by his contrary Vote in the Synod of Tyre Socrates indeed does elsewhere imply That when Cyril was brought to the Throne of Jerusalem Maximus was driven from it and he is I believe the only ancient Author near those times that does so much as imply it Theodoret is very express in making Cyril's Succession after the death of Maximus so also is St. Jerome who lived nearer the remembrance of that Fact than Socrates himself He tells us That before the Arians would admit Cyril to the place they obliged him first to renounce his Orders of Presbyter which he had received from Maximus and that when he was in Heraclius also who had been taken by Maximus himself for his Successor was by Cyril also obliged to degrade himself to the Order of Presbyter We have in the same See of Jerusalem a very ancient instance of a Bishop who brought in his Successor So Eusebius tells us Narcissus did Alexander a Bishop of Cappadocia who also adds that that Election was ratified by a Divine Testimony But who can believe that Maximus would have brought in a Successor if himself had been deposed and dispossessed Who can think he would have actually have made him Bishop if himself had not been so actually The whole occasion of the mistake seems to have been not that Maximus himself was removed to make way for Cyril but rather Heraclius who had been substituted by Maximus For this was indeed a case sometimes questioned in the Discipline of the Church whether a Bishop might be allowed to Substitute his own Successor The Records of the Church of Jerusalem are in these times very intricate and difficult When Cyril himself was banished by the Arians we have the Names of three persons who filled his See in the interval before he was restored Among them there is one Heraclius possibly this very person who took the advantage of Cyril's Deprivation for recovering his Right which was conferred on him by Maximus And as to the dispute concerning the Priviledges of their Sees Theodoret who gives us the most distinct account of this matter tells us it was started in the time of Cyril who was deprived after by Acacius among other causes for this also of maintaining the Priviledges of his own See It is very true Jerusalem though it had the Title of a Patriarchal See yet had no Patriarchal Jurisdiction till the Council of Chalcedon but was subject to the Metropolitane of Caesarea Even the Council of Nice which owned it for Patriarchal did notwithstanding reserve to Caesarea the Priviledge of being the Metrapolitane But the Honour of Maximus's Age and of his having been a Confessor in the Persecution which in that Age was very great made no doubt the Adversaries of his Cause have notwithstanding a great veneration for his Person These reasons ceased in Cyril who was at first set up by Arian Interest and with him his Competitors of the same Faction did therefore think they might be more bold Accordingly then it was that those Controversies fell among the Arians concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which broke them in pieces among themselves as Epiphanius assures us who lived in the nearest memory of them of any Author now extant that mentions them And Eutychius one of the principal Rivals of Cyril in these disputes had been a Disciple of Maximonas so Epiphâ—nius calls Maximus the Predecessor of Cyril and therefore seems to have had a great veneration for his Memory and was therefore unlikely to have started this dispute in his time In that dispute Cyril was so far from acknowledging any Superiority in the Bishop of Caesarea that it
A VINDICATION OF THE Deprived Bishops c. PART I. Shewing That though the Instances collected in the Baroccian MS had been pertinent to the Editors Design yet that would not have been sufficient for Obtaining their Cause 1. THat the Laity should be favourable to Mistakes derogatory to the sacred Power cannot be thought strange in an Age wherein they generally use so little diligence to inform themselve or to receive Information from those who are qualified to inform them concerning the Rights of the Clergy Their own Interests are alone sufficient to make them partial in affairs of this nature though they were more sincerely influenced by Considerations of Religion than we generally find them but that Clergymen should also â—avour them in Encroachments on their own Function that they should professedly patronise Doctrines tending to lessen the Esteem of that greatest and most valuable of all Authorities wherewith God has honoured and instrusted none but them that they should make it depend on the pleasure of the Magistrate which was designed for greater and more noble Ends than the Magistracy it self that they should put it in his power to destroy the very being of the Church as a Society by a secular Deprivation that they should not onely own but teach That none are obliged to adhere to themselves in such a Case wherein the Magistrate is against them no not so much as in regard of Conscience that they should by this means make the greatest and most momentous Concerns for Souls subordinate to worldly carnal Politicks and the far less weighty Interests of worldly Prosperity and of particular Societies that they should hereby make it least capable of subsisting under a Persecution which was the Case most obvious in the view of our B. Saviour and his Apostles and therefore most particularly provided for if they took care for any thing beyond their own time These things I say would not be very credible if they were not very notorious One would think none who valued the general good of Religion and the Catholick Church and the Souls of Mankind before the temporal Prosperity of any particular State and it is hard to conceive how any good Man can doe otherwise could even wish such Opinions true though his Wish alone were sufficient to make them so How then is it agreeable that Clergymen of all Men should be the most favourable and zealous Advocates for such Opinions so manifestly destructive of those greatest Interests which they of all men ought best to understand and to be most zealously concerned for How is it agreeable that they of all men cannot be content to let the Memory of ill Precedents dye but that they must allarm us with future Fears of having them acted again by not only abetting but also justifying them How is it agreeable that they should do this in a Prospect such as ours is of a Laity so little concerned for the good of Religion and the Church when even they who have any Principles have such lax ones and so very little obliging them even in Conscience to venture any thing for any particular Communion That their preferring their worldly Concerns depending on the Pleasure of the Magistrate before the greater Concerns of Souls and Eternity is the true Cause of it is not to be believed while there are any Reasons that might induce them to it Yet little Reasons cannot in Equity excuse when the Consequences ought to be so very valuable on that very account of Mens being either good or religious But this advantage our Adversaries have that their Cause is like to suffer nothing by ill Management when it is in the hands of such able Advocates Let us therefore see whether all they say will amount to Reason and to Reason sufficient to excuse them 2. They pretend and pretend with great Confidence That nothing can justifie our Adherence to even unjustly deprived Bishops if the Successors be not Hereticks That this is so they appeal to an antient Greek MS. of Instances collected to their hands before any prospect of our present Case They pretend from this Collection that neither the Bishops themselves who were unjustly deprived made any Separation nor any Subjects of such Bishops on account of any obligation of Conscience to adhere to them Hence they collect that these things being the sense of the antient Church as often as any such Instances appeared ought also to be our sense who profess a Veneration for Antiquity And were these things so as they pretend they would perhaps be considerable to excuse the Practice of our present Adversaries But all these things are justly questionable and far from that Evidence which their Cause requires and themselves pretend to All they say is resolved into this MS. and this will do nothing for their purpose The Author whoever he was is much too young to be admitted as a Witness of most of the Facts enumerated by him especially considering we have Authours of the earlier times to speak for themselves Nay he has not pretended to be a Witness on his own Credit He has been particularly carefull to tell us his Authors most of which are extant to this very day As therefore his Credit is nothing for things so much earlier than his own Age so neither is there any need we should depend on his Credit when we can have immediate recourse to his original Authors themselves It is called an antient MS. and yet pretended no elder than the 13th Century But sure the ingenious English Prefacer cannot think Antiquity of so low a date as that is to be that Antiquity which we profess to imitate or pretend to alleadge Yet neither can he prove his Author a competent Witness even for that low Antiquity All that appears from his quoting Nicetas Choniates is onely this That he could not be elder than that Century in which the Author lived who was quoted by him But neither doth it thence follow that he lived in the same Age nor can it thence be determined how long he lived after him This mention of Nicetas will bring him down below the Year 1205. where Nicetas ends his History Nicetas himself lived some while after But our Author refers to his History as an Authority as being elder than the Traditions of the Age he lived in He neither pretends to remember the things for which he quotes him nor to have received any Informations concerning them from the relation of any old Men who could remember them But where Nicetas fails him he shews himself perfectly ignorant of the Affairs of that Age which was concerned in the History written by Nicetas Nicetas mentions no Successor in the See of Constantinople between Cosmas Atticus and Theodosius Our Author therefore takes Theodosius for Cosmas's immediate Successor Nicetas does not mention the Synods nor the Abdications that were in the Cases of the Patriarchs deposed in the time of Isaacius Angelus therefore our Author supposes there were none Nicetas
Judgment and Opinions of the Persons concerned in these Instances And yet if this Point were gained it would not suffice for our Adversaries purpose For it is farther considerable sixthly That the Instances here collected rise no higher than the Fourth Century and extend no farther than the Greek Church and therefore cannot pretend to argue the Sense of the Catholick Church nor of those Ages which are most to be regarded not onely for their Antiquity but their Integrity also Suppose therefore we should so far gratifie our Adversaries as to give them leave to believe that all was proved that is so much as offered at in this Collection and proved as solidly and as pertinently to their Cause as themselves can either pretend or wish This would certainly be a great Favour indeed the uttermost they can hope for with regard to this Collection yet still they must not pretend by this Collection to one single Instance that may signifie the sense of the Western Church or consequently of the Catholick Church in any one Age Still we are left a liberty for any thing is said here to challenge the Doctrine of the Church as signified by her behaviour at the first and ancientest Instances of Schism as making for us And this we can do with greater Certainty and Evidence than our Adversaries can pretend to in their more Modern Cases 16. We can say that even in the Age of St. Cyprian which is the ancientest we know of that an Antibishop was set up against a Bishop in the same See it is 1st very notorious that they then owned no such Power of the secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely spiritual Power and that the Church as a Society distinct from the State subsisted on their not owning it even as to a Deprivation of their particular Districts and Jurisdictions It is notorious and as notorious as any one Tradirion of the Catholick Church in those Ages not excepting that of the Canon of the New Testament it self that Christians then and not only then but in all the former Persecutions that had been from the times of the Apostles to that very Age did own themselves bound to adhere to their Bishops when it was notorious withal that those Bishops were set up and maintained against the Consent of the Civil Magistrate It is as notorious also that this adherence of theirs was not only Matter of Fact which is all our Adversaries pretend here but a Duty owned by them as obliging in Conscience and as the result of Principles This appears not only by the unquestionable Sincerity of the Christians of those Ages who were generously influenced by no Considerations but those of Conscience not only by their suffering those severe Penances imposed on them in order to their recovering the Bishop's Communion even when the Magistrate was against him which no other Considerations could recommend but only those of Conscience but from the Principles themselves insisted on in the Reasonings of St. Cyprian Such were these That all hopes of pardon of Sin of the Holy Ghost of Eternal Life on performance of Duty were confined to the visible Communion of the Church that their visible Communion with the Church could not appear but by their visible Communion with the Bishop as the Head of that Church and the Principle of its Vnity that who that Bishop was to whom any particular Person owed his Duty was not then any otherwise distinguishable but by the visible Districts in which themselves lived and to which he was therefore supposed to have a Title whether the Magistrate would or no. It is also as notorious that these Reasonings were not then the sense of private Persons but the received sense of Christians in general and indeed Fundamental to that Catholick Communion which was then maintained where-ever there were Christians Not only every particular Christian of a Diocess did thus assure himself of his Right to Ecclesiastical Privileges by his Communion with the Bishop of that particular District but he was intitled also to Communion with all the other Bishops of the World and consequently with the Catholick Church in general by the communicatory Letters of the Bishop of his own particular District For it was by the mutual Obligation all Bishops of the World had to ratifie the Acts of particular Districts that he who was admitted a Member of one Church was intitled to the Communion of all and that he who was excluded from one was excluded from others also because no other Bishop could justifie his reception of a Christian of another Jurisdiction to his own Communion if he had not the communicatory Letters of his own Bishop Thus it appears that the Obligation even of particular Districts without consent of the Magistrate was then Catholick Doctrine Whence it plainly follows that this Lay-deprivation which is all that can be pretended in the case of our present Bishops is in the Principles of the Catholick Church of St. Cyprian's Age a perfect Nullity and consequently that in regard to Conscience at least our present Bishops are still Bishops and Bishops of those particular Districts as much as ever and the Obligations of the Clergy and Laity in those Districts as obliging to them now as ever 17. This therefore being so that our present Bishops are by the Principles of St. Cyprian's Age as obliging Bishops in Conscience to the Clergy and Laity of their respective Jurisdictions it will thence be as notorious 2dly that the Antibishops of those same Jurisdictions are by the same Principles to be taken for no Bishops at all It is plain that Novatian was disowned as soon as ever it appeared that Cornelius was canonically settled in Fabian's Chair before him and disowned universally so universally that whoever did not disown him was for that very reason disowned himself This is as clear as any particular mentioned in our Adversaries Collection But we do not satisfie our selves with that It is also further as notorious that he was disowned by Principles obliging them in Conscience to disown him and those again not private Opinions but Principles also Fundamental to the Correspondence then maintained in the whole Catholick Church as the other were that we mentioned under the former Head It was then a Principle that Secundus was Nullus which will as much invalidate the Consecrations of the present Antibishops as it did that of Novatian This is a Principle so universally acknowledged wherever there can be but one that it needs no Authorities to recommend it No Man can convey the same thing twice and therefore if there be two Bonds for the same thing to several Persons the 2 d can never be thought obliging but by supposing the Invalidity of the 1 st So also in all Monarchichal Districts none can suppose an Antimonarch's Title good till he has shewn that the first Monarch's Title is not so Thus this Principle needed no Authority and yet it had all the Authority of the whole
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-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
him He intimates the contrary when he calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Shifts and Artifices of Evasion to serve a present Turn so little Reasoning there is from such Men's Facts as these where there is nothing more than the bare Facts themselves to recommend them for Precedents No Facts can certainly be allowed for Precedents that are not agreeable to Principles and how can we presume Facts to be agreeable to Principles meerly because they are theirs who are known so frequently and so easily to vary from the Principles themselves profess and own for Principles We see they corresponded with so notorious a Heretick as Timotheus which is more than ever our Author 's own Principles would have allowed them rather than hazard their Places Why should we then wonder if they had corresponded with Schismaticks even such as themselves took for such Why should our Author presume such correspondence allowable because allowed by them who did so many things not allowable even by their own Principles I do not willingly detract from the Merits of these Excellent Persons for what they did afterwards but there is no reason that their Repentance at last should commend the Prevarications they were guilty of before and make them pass for Precedents 18. Besides these our Author produces another Example in the same Reign that of Elias himself He also was at length deprived and John was set up against him yet both of them were owned by Theodosius and Sabas They owned John for their Bishop and yet the compassion they had for Elias's Case appear'd by the visit they made him in his Exile Accordingly our Author appeals to the Dyptichs of the Church which mention both of them with Honour and Respect The Expulsion of Elias from his See to his place of Exile was managed immediately with that violence which was ordinarily used by the Empâ—ror Anastasius in most of his undertakings Olympus did it with a Guard of Soldiers yet certainly the Emperor's sending a Copy of Elias's Dissembling Letter to be shewn at the doing of it was not without a particular design Had he thought his own Authority sufficient for it his own satisfaction alone had been sufficient and so Assuming and Imperious a Temper as his was would not have condescended to give others an account of his proceedings especially where withal there was no form of a Judicial Process where these Letters might have been produced as Legal Evidence I need not produce the many Testimonies of that Age as well as others concerning the Incompetency of his Secular Power for a Spiritual Deprivation The actings of this Emperour himself do sufficiently shew that himself was sensible how little his Lay-Authority would signifie in such a case as this was without a Synod What made him else take that pains to assemble the Synod of Sidon purposely with a design of Deposing Flavianus and Elias What made him in such a Rage when by their prevaricating Letters they had eluded that Synod What made him after he had driven away Macedonius from Constantinople by plain force afterwards to order a Synodical Judgment and Censure of his Case but that himself did not before that second Judgment as Theophanes observes look upon him as Deprived even when he was in his Exile But by this sending the Letter of Elias he seem'd only to execute the Synod's Judgment concerning him which had certainly Deprived him if he had not eluded them by that Letter His Exposing therefore that Letter seems to have been to shew that he was not now the person whom the Synod continued in their Communion but that person rather whom they had designed to Condemn and Deprive Thus he might very well believe this present Act to be only an Execution of that Synod's design and so not chargeable with any Invasion on the Sacred Authority I am not now concerned to justifie this reasoning as Solid and Concluding it is sufficent at present to observe how probable it is that it was at least the reasoning of Anastasius That alone will sufficiently overthrow the Consequences from it as a Precedent to invade the Sacred Power It thence appears that without this Interpretative Application of the Synod's design the Fact had not been justifiable even by the sentiments of him that did it How then can it be pleaded as a Precedent It shews withal that with this Interpretative Application here was a Synodical Deprivation which might validly deprive Elias of his Right in the Opinion of those who judged the Interpretation reasonable 19. But whether the Deprivation was valid or not no doubt Elias by his own Cession might ratifie that Ordination of John which otherwise had been invalid and unobliging And this Cession might be known by his not-challenging his Right and by his not-taking it ill at their hands who owned his Rival for their Patriarch and by the Friendly behaviour of his Rival to him in continuing his Name in the Ecclesiastical Dyptichs if he was not afterwards restored but then continued as our Author supposes Otherwise this form in the Jerusalem Dyptichs mentioned by our Author of wishing the Memory of Elias and John perpetual like that in the Tomus Vnionis in Constantinople seems rather as if it were brought in after their deaths to accommodate some differences that might have been formerly between Parties that had been made on their Accounts Indeed I know no mention of any express Cession in any Good Author unless we may be allowed to conjecture it from some such Reasonings as those now mentioned But what if we should grant them that he yielded his Right to John This single instance will not suffice to justifie the Author's Vniversal Observation that it never was insisted on by any where the Successor was not an Heretick it will not suffice to shew that he thought himself oblig'd to it by Principles who in many other things acted so disagreeable to Principles It will not thence appear that he did do it out of fear when by challenging his Right and by perswading his People to withdraw from the Communion of his Successor intruded by the Emperor he must have provoked him who was so easily provoked to new Severities against him Indeed he could not expect Duty from his own Subjects who had countenanced so many Intruders even Timotheus the Heretick and approved so many Revoltings of Subjects in the injurious deprivations of his Brethren And can our Adversaries with any reason make these Actions pass for Precedents to which he was necessitated by the consequence of his own past Behaviour and the Exigency of his Cause I am sure he had no great reason to think his Flock secure under the Conduct of so Fickle a Successor John had departed from his Principle when it was not his fear but only his Ambition that could induce him to it in order to his getting into the place had promised both to anathâ—matize the Council of Chalcedon and to Communicate with Severus And that he did
Photians and so continues to this very day This Council was repealed in the time of this very Emperor The Doctrine and Creed of Photius concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone was also restored And this advanced the Dispute from a charge of Schism alone to a charge of Heresie also in the opinion of this Author Those servile notions also of allowing even pretended General Councils a Power only of ratifying not of debating the Predecisions of the Pope have been generally disowned and looked upon as very odious in all the Emperors who have endeavoured to restore them This the two Palaeologi Michael and John found to their cost the one in the Council of Lyons in the year 1275. the other in the Council of Florence in the year 1437. nor do the numbers of those who are mentioned in this Latinizing Synod either of those who had still sided with Ignatius or of those who were here received upon their revolting from Photius seem sufficient to have carried the Cause on that side by equal management especially considering that the later would in that Case have given their Suffrages against them And who could look upon this as a fair Decision with regard to Conscience that was so manifestly contrary to the sense of the greater numbers of their own Church which ought alone to have been owned for the competent Judge in Causes between her own Members 35 Here therefore Ignatius injured his good Cause by this way of defending it and gave Photius new advantages against him However he found no farther opposition from him during his own Life Ignatius died Octob. 23. 878. and then Photius was restored by the same Emperor that had before excluded him Yet with no such inconsistency as our Author fancies He that was an adulterer and an invader whilst the true Husband was living might now be a Husband and just Possessor after the true Husband was deceased Probably the Emperor himself when his Passion was over might think himself obliged in Conscience and Honour to make him this honourable Amends for his past irregular and unequal proceedings against him though I know Nicetas who was an Ignatian pretends other Arts whereby he regained the Emperor's favour And indeed we have Photius's Cause conveyed to us with no small disadvantage His Adversaries at that very time suppressed his principal Writings on that Subject they seized and burnt his Original Papers before any Copies could be transcribed they have afterwards had it in their Power to suppress many of his other Works whilst the Empire of Constantinople was in the hands of Latines or Latinizing Greeks and they have since had it in their Power to hinder the Printing of as many of them as have not fallen into the hands of Protestants This no doubt must needs have proved very prejudicial to a right understanding of his Cause that we have very few assistances for understanding it but from his professed and very inveterate Enemies However it was Photius on this restitution had now no longer any Rival that could pretend a better Title So that now they had nothing plausible to pretend for themselves that they would not own him However it appears from this Nicetas that the Ignatian Party still retained their old resentments when even Ignatius himself if he had been living had less to say for himself than formerly and his followers had yet much less to say for themselves now than he had The next year therefore after hiâ— new restitution that is in the year 879. Photius calls a General Council wherein he is confirmed by Pope John's consent his Legates bâ—ing present and the Eighth General Council in the Latine account expresly repealed this being received in stead of it by the modern Greeks to this day wherein the second Nicene is received among the General Councils as the Greeks do still receive it wherein the Creed of Constantinople is received without any mention of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son nay with Censures against Innovators of it and wherein lastly Censures are threatned against all who would not submit and own Photius for their lawfull Patriarch These are the principal particulars here decreed as appears from the fragments of this Council first published by Dr. Beveridge from Oxford MSS. most of them from Beccus a zealous Latinizer though Baronius is willing to call them in question for not being mentioned by later Men than Beccus And the Pope's Legates assent to all and as to that particular of obliging all to submit to Photius the Pope had given them particular and express Orders in his Letters and Instructions still extant So that now the Ignatians could no longer pretend any Patronage of the Roman Church to countenance them in their Schism And to sweeten them the more it was also here expresly stipulated that there should be no indecent reflections on the Memory of Ignatius The Pope was gained by his finding the Emperor bent on it and by the beneficial agreements made with Photius in order to it He obliged Photius to quit his Right in the Bulgarians a grant which his Predecessor could not gain even from Ignatius who had been so much obliged by him He obliged him also to quit the Communion of some of his own Excommunicates as himself also disowned the Schismaticks from Photius And this probably went far towards the uniting the Ignatians when the exasperating severities were laid aside and there was now no Rival nor considerable Authority to head them And this in all likelihood was the reason why notwithstanding their former heats they are nevertheless both of them mentioned honourably in the Synodicon It was in course to be expected concerning Photius because he was the last in Possession and because his Disputes with the Latines started on that occasion obtained afterwards so Universally that his sense is the sense of the Greek Church to this very day And though Ignatius's sense be now as generally deserted yet the union of the Ignatians did necessarily require a decent behaviour to his Memory which was now no longer difficult to be granted when he was now no longer capable of being a Rival Thence forward therefore Photius seemed to have enjoyed more quietness till the year 886. and the Succession of Leo Sapiens which is the last time we find him mentioned in History 36. And now in this whole History thus represented there is nothing that if fairly understood will make for the purpose either of our Author or of our Adversaries Our Author pretends that they neither of them separated from each other's Communion as thinking each other Orthodox and that they did not scrupulously enquire into each other's Ordinations But it is very strange he should so much as pretend it when the contrary is so very notorious What account then can they give of all those Severities and Persecutions which are mentioned of Photius against the Ignatians if not to force them to his Communion What needed