can hardly doubt but that this was indeed the Case that occasioned it That the Author excepts St. Chrysostome's Case as affording matter for a particular consideration seems to imply that this Case was particularly insisted on by the Adversaries with whom he was concerned And indeed the Case of Arsenius was so very like that of St. Chrysostome that it cannot be thought strange that the Arsenians should reason from that Case as a Precedent St. Chrysostome excepted against the Synod ad Quercum that deposed him that his notorious and professed Enemies Theophilus Acacius Severian and Antiochus presided in it So did Arsenius against the Synod that deposed him that the Emperour had convened it and influenced it with whom he had a known Difference on occasion of his late Excommunication The Synod ad Quercum admitted not this Exception of St. Chrysostome but condemned him for Non-appearance without any Examination of the Merits of his Cause and the same way this other Synod also proceeded in the Case of Arsenius that he also had no Hearing concerning the Particulars objected against him In the Case of St. Chrysostome not onely the Eastern Joannites but all the Bishops of the West renounced Communion with those who had proceeded so unjustly in Censuring him without ever hearing his Defence and this not onely while St. Chrysostome himself was living but for many years after his death till an honourable amends was made him as far as was possible that is not to his Person but his Memory That was not onely when his Name was received into the Ecclesiastical Dipâ—ychs thereby owning him to have dyed in Right as Bishop of Constantinople but when his Body was brought back and received into the City by a solemn Procession of the then Bp. Proclus the Emperour himself assisting at the Ceremony This was as Socrates tells us in the 16th Consulship of the younger Theodosius in the year 438. and in the 35th year of the Dishonour done him which seem therefore to be reckoned from the Synod ad Quercum where he was first deposed which was the year before he was banished Constantinople He was not banished till the 30th of Septemb. in the year 404. for they usually allow him onely five Years and some odd Months for his Bishoprick which began Febr. 26. in the year 398. and therefore must end in 403. and the time of that former Synod ad Quercum which probably was the reason why Socrates began his Account from thence No doubt the Arsenians also had this Example before them when they procured the Two Translations of the Body of their Patron the first from the place where he dyed to the Monastery of St. Andrew in the City in the beginning of this Reign of Andronicus then from the Monastery to the Church of St. Sophia in the later Concordate made by the Patriarch Nipho of Cyzicus in the year 1315. For so St Chrysostome's Body also had been interred in the Church of the Apostles built by the Emperour Constantine the Great and where himself was buried also no doubt the principal Church of the City then till this of St. Sophia was afterwards built by the great Justinian so carefull the Arsenians were that their Patriarch Arsenius should not fall short in any Punctilio of the Honour that was done to the memory of St. Chrysostome 5. And from hence we understand the Reason why our Author is so particularly carefull to observe that past Invalidities in Succession did not use to be critically examined but left to God not even by the dividing Persons themselves when they were so long past that they could not be remedied and were withall not injurious to the Rights of any Person living Thus he observes even in the principal Case of St. Chrysostome That Severianus of Gabala and Acacius of Beraea though they were accused to Pope Innocent that is the true Notion of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were notwithstanding not censured by him but permitted to the divine Vengeance when their Fact was now too late to be redressed The like he observes concerning Pope Caelestine's approving of Atticus and his Successors in his Epistle to Nestorius These are Arguments ad homines even from the sense of those who were the principal Separators on Account of the Injustice done to St. Chrysostome for such were the Bishops of Rome And he is frequent in his Observations of this kind a sign that the Schismaticks he had to deal with were rigorous in Retrospection and unraveling what had been done since the injurious Deprivation and this the Arsenians did insist upon Arsenius himself upon his Restitution after his first Expulsion expresly ratified all the Orders that had been conferred by the Intruder Nicephorus of Ephesus And in the Reconciliation made by Niphon of Cyzicus one thing granted them was That the Clergy should submit to a Penance of forty days Suspension no doubt as an Acknowledgment that their whole Ministry was in Right unlawfull as far as it had been received in the Schism And this seems to have been the reason why Gregoras censures the Arsenians as having that design of advancing their own Party to all the Preferments of the Church That was a consequence of their vacating all the Places that had been filled since the Intrusion and invalidating their Orders they thereby left none qualified to fill their Places but themselves 6. But our Author expresly excepts the Case of Heresie as that alone which could justifie a Separation The Heresie then in view in the sense of the Greeks was no doubt the Doctrine of the Latines which they called Heresie and with which they had been allarmed since the pretended Vnion at Lyons This Exception therefore the Author could very truly and prudently admit and urge against both the dividing Parties that neither of them could charge the other with Latinizing or pretend that as a Cause for their Separation Joseph had suffered in that Cause as well as the Arsenians and was forced to retire and Beccus was set up against him because he would not comply with the Emperour in that Matter Yet in the latter end of his Discourse he adds out of the Canons two prudent Limitations of this Case even of Heresie One is that he requires that the Heresie should have been antecedently condemned by the Church lest otherwise private Persons should be left at Liberty to separate for whatever themselves should be pleased to call Heresie Another is that the Heresie so condemned should be openly and in the Face of the Church owned by the pretended Heretick that no publick Separation might ever be permitted without publick Evidence of the Cause on which the Separation was to be made I cannot think these Limitations were made precariously but in prospect of a Cause then in view that might have suffered by the Consequence of this Concession that Heresie at least would justifie Separation if these Limitations had not been interposed And I can think of no
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
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-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
the Party to make one if even that might have been reconcilable with any Rules of Ecclesiastical Discipline And Joseph also was dead at least had expresly abdicated before Georgius Cyprius was set up in whose time we suppose our Author to have written So that neither of the Schismaticks had Bishops to head them And then I shall easily grant and grant upon the Principles of St. Cyprian and the Church of his Time that in a Case of Separation of Subjects from Bishops the Charge of Schism can never lie against the Bishop directly indirectly it may as an Vnion with a rightfull Bishop does make the Accusation of Schism chargeable against another Bishop unjustly pretending to the same Jurisdiction Or as the onely Bishop of a particular District if he cut himself off from the Episcopal Collegium does thereby make it impossible for them to hold Communion with him who would hold Communion with the whole Catholick Church and with the Episcopal College But where there were no Bishops with whom they could maintain Communion whilst divided from the Communion of the Bishop of their particular District there no Charge of Schism could be brought against such a Bishop neither directly nor indirectly And therefore the onely pretence such Dividers can have for defending themselves and laying the blame on the Bishop must be not by charging him with Schism but Heresie Thus our Author may be rightly understood to allow no excuse for Separation in the Persons with whom he had to deal but onely that of their Bishop's being a Heretick 29. And now our Author's Sense being rightly explained we are so far from being concerned in what he says as that indeed we need no other Principles but his to charge our Adversaries with the Schism of the present Separation Whilst we have Bishops and those unexceptionable to head us we can wave the Charge of Heresie and yet insist upon that of Schism against our present Intruders But I cannot for my Life foresee what the Clergy and Laity of the deprived Diocesses can say for themselves for deserting their Bishops whose Title was formerly owned by themselves by this their Author's Principles What is the Heresie they can charge their Bishops with Yet that is the onely Cause here allowed them to excuse their Separation and it is indeed the onely Charge that can be brought by Subjects against their Incumbent directly As for an indirect Charge in favour of other Bishops our Adversaries Case is exactly the same with that of the Studites or Arsenians and they cannot pretend to it They have no other Bishops to whom they can plead an Obligation against their old Incumbents It is plain their antecedent Obligation lies in favour of their deprived Fathers They cannot deny them to have had once a good Right to their Duty and they can give no reason allowable by their Author how they might lose it neither that of notorious Heresie nor the other of Synodical Deprivation They cannot deny but their new Invaders found the Diocesses possessed by just Acknowledgments of Right in their Predecessors and those acknowledgments ratified by Vows of Canonical Obedience in the Clergy and of the Duty incumbent on them as Members of such owned Societies in the Laity also Thus it cannot be difficult to determine where the Duty is still rather obliging that the indirect charge of Schism lies against the Intruders for erecting Altars against Altars already possessed not against the Possessors who were put in vacuam possessionem as the Law calls it by an unquestionable lawful Authority Will they therefore pretend the greater obligation lying on them to own the Episcopal College than to own any particular Bishop This they might have pretended if any Synodical Deprivation of persons Authorized to Act in Synods had gone before That might indeed have cut off the Incumbents from their Vnion with the Episcopal College and continued the Invaders in their Vnion with the same College and so have obliged all as they are bound to prefer their Vnion with the College before their Vnion with any particular Bishop to withdraw from the Communion of the Incumbents Now even this very charge lies in favour of our Brethren and against our Adversaries Our deprived Fathers must still be supposed to retain their Vnion with the College till there be some Act of the College to deprive them And so the Invaders of their jurisdictions must by their doing so not only divide themselves from the Bishops whose Right is invaded by them but from the whole Episcopal College also This would have appeared clearly as to Fact if the old practice of Communicatory Letters had still been observed The Invaders could not have been received to Communion by any other Bishop of the whole World without the Communicatory Letters of the Incumbent not Synodically deprived and if any particular Bishop had done otherwise even that Bishop had by his doing so cut himself off from his Vnion with the whole Episcopal College Thus we see how this Precedent of condemning these Encroachments of the Studite Monks does not in any wise affect Vs but our Adversaries 30. Our Author next observes that for 26 years together during the Reigns of Leo Armenus Michael Traulus and Theophilus till Theodora managed Affairs during her young Son Michâ—el's minority the Patriarchs were all Iconoclasts His account no doubt begins from the year 815. and the second of Leo Armenus wherein Theodotus Melissenus the first Iconaclast Patriarch was brought in upon the expulsion of Nicephorus And it ends with the expulsion of Joannes or Jannes as they call him for his conjuring practices by Theodora in the year 842. in the beginning of her Administration of Affairs That space was not full 27 years for Theodotus Melissenus was brought in April the 1st and John was expelled not long after the 30th of January on which Theophilus died The design of this Observation is only to take notice how it would affect the Constantinopolitane Succession long before the times of Arsenius and Joseph if even such deriving Orders from Hereticks were rigorously enquired into for such the Iconâ—clasts were esteemed by our Author But this is not the Question for which we are concerned at present 31. His next Example is therefore in the Case of Ignatius and Photius But to judge exactly how far either of them had Right our Author should have distinguished the times and the several degrees by which this Dispute proceeded The first Deprivation therefore of Ignatius I take to have been on November 23. 858. precisely And here was indeed no Synod though I know the Synodicon published by Pappus and Justellus pretends one But Pope Nicholas in his 10th Ep. where he gives an account of his Roman Synod owns nothing in the Deprivation of Ignatius but the Violence and Terror of the Emperor plainly therein reflecting on the Vncanonicalness of it Again his words in his Ep. 13. to Ignatius himself are these ab Imperials Potentia absque
But in this whole Dispute the Emperor's Authority is never urged but that of the Synods that appeared on the one side or the other And the Roman Synod was so little regarded by Photius and the Bishops of his Party that they also condemned Pope Nicholas This was in the latter end of the Reign of his Patron Michael after Basilius Macedo was now made Caesar that is after the 26th of May 867. 34. In the latter end of that same Year Sept. 24. Michael was murdered This Photius upbraided Basilius with and excommunicated him for it This makes Basilius immediately dispossess him We are told that he did it the very next day after his Succession However the Emperour himself did not look on his own dispossessing him of the Patriarchal Palace as any Decision of the Question concerning his Right The worst Interpretation we can make of it is that he followed his own Resentment in the Case as several Authors say he did or that he followed the Precedents of Anastasius Dicorus and the great Justinian who as we have seen first deprived their Patriarchs before they judicially condemned them This could hardly have been made a Precedent by him if he himself had not been under a present and a great Resentment if he had not followed them in their Passion as well as in the Fact that proceeded from it It becomes us rather to put the best Interpretation we can on the Facts of those who are deceased whose Lives did otherwise not make them obnoxious to have the worst things presumed concerning them The rather in this case because there was another Reason as consistent with the Design of Basilius and much more agreeable with his Honour Ignatius when he was before the Synod of Photius pleaded that he ought to be restored to his Possession before he could be obliged to answer to a synodical Judgment This Plea therefore being canonical ought to have been admitted by the Synod that deprived him the putting him therefore into a present Possession even before a new synodical Tryall was no more than what ought to have been done by the Synod itself and their proceeding irregularly could not therefore prejudge against the Canons that required it nor hinder the putting it in practice as soon as the violence was over that occasioned the Violation of those Canons Yet it was so to be understood as not to prejudge any thing concerning the Merit of the Cause Otherwise instead of doing Ignatius a Kindness it had done him a Prejudice by the Rules of Discipline then received in the Eastern Church he had thereby made himself really obnoxious to the Apostolical Canon which Photius had no colour to charge him with before That Canon was then received in the Eastern Church and made it a new Cause of Deprivation if any Bishop did forcibly intrude himself into a present Possession by the assistance of the Secular Power So far that Eastern Church whose sense our Adversaries pretend to gather from these instances was from acknowledging the lawfulness of Bishops obtruded by the Secular Power that with them it rather prejudiced a good that advantaged a suspicious Title This by the way it were well our Adversaries would think of how it affects the Case of our present intruders The rather because it does not only deprive them of the benefit of this argument from these Eastern Precedents but may also be urged against them wherever these Canons have been received as these first fifty have been generally in most even of our Western Collections However that the Emperor did not look upon his own actings as decisive in this Case appears from hence that he ordered both Parties to send their Legates to the Pope to inform him throughly of the matter of Fact and that withall he convened a pretended General Council for a final decision of the Dispute I rather suspect that he ascribed more to the determination of Pope Nicholas than either the Doctrines of his own Church or his own Preingagements would fairly allow of and that he might therefore look on his own putting Ignatius in Possession as an executing the Decree of the Roman Council Plainly he did more herein than several of his own Party did like First he preferred the Judgment of a foreign Italian before that of a Domestick Council This was what was opposed not only by his Predecessor Michael but also by his Successors in the Eastern Church to this very day nay what himself after repealed in the Synod of Photius in the year 879. Then he preferred that elder Synod of Nicholas in the year 863. before the later Synod of Photius that third of his against Pope Nicholas and his Synod as the two former had been against Ignatius which had been celebrated in the very year wherein himself succeeded that is in the year 867. between the 26th of May whereon Basile was made Caesar and Septemb. the 24th whereon Michael was murdered He seemed to obviate this by calling this other Synod which now passes for the Eighth General Council with the Latines as if it had been to repeal that later Constantinopolitane Council Synodically This was in the year 869. but no liberty was reserved for a fair hearing of things in this Council Ignatius had before that immediately upon his return into his place done all that ought to have been reserved for the Synod if any fair dealing had been intended he had deposed and excommunicated his Rival Not only so but he had nulled the Orders of those who had been ordained by him and excommunicated those who had communicated with him Nay the Bishops were all obliged before hand to stand to the decisions of the Pope's Council which it appears in the very beginning of this they neither thought consistent with the Honour of their own Church nor were they willing to be concluded by if the Emperor would give them liberty And Photius was immediately before any Conciliary hearing condemned and anathemetized and Ignatius owned before any Repeal of the later Council of Photius Thus this unfair way of promoting even a good Title did rather injure than advantage it The rather because Basile had in all likelihood obliged himself but a little before to maintain that Synod of Photius Photius pretended Basil's Subscription to his own Synod and his Adversaries themselves confess he did so and do not disprove what he pretended And we know it was generally received in those times that what was subscribed by the Augusti was subscribed by the Caesars also Here therefore I doubt we can hardly be able to excuse this Prince from a transport of resentment perhaps not even Ignatius himself that made them do things so little for the Honour of their own Church and in Favour of a foreign Power rather than fail of compassing their ends I doubt it was their consciousness of their weakness at home that put them upon these straits The Cause was within a little while after carried against them by the
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
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
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