by Principles by which they thought they could justifie their Facts at least with regard to their own Consciences It is certainly no breach of Charity to suppose what Histories afford us so many Examples of that as numerous Bodies as were here concerned even of Persons making a great Profession of Religion have notwithstanding been influenced by Motives very different from what themselves professed And it is certain that in this lower Antiquity wherein this Author principally deals the Generality of Christians were both ignorant enough in true Originals of our Religion to be mistaken concerning their Duty and withal wicked enough to be seduced from the Practice of it though they had never so throughly understood it So easie it was for what was done not to have been done by Principles though it had been determined by the greater number of Suffrages Who knows not that in great Bodies the ignorant and the wicked have generally the greatest number of Suffrages who notwithstanding cannot be presumed to doe what they doe by any solid Principles Yet who withall knows not how few are many times concerned in the Motions of whole Bodies and how far what they do is upon that account from being imputable to a Majority of Suffrages I do not now insist on the greater Numbers who are in Duty obliged rather to follow the Conduct of others than to shew their Opinion distinct from that of their Conductors Even Spiritual Guides and those in Spiritual Authority are not for the greatest part the best and wisest and yet the Nature of Societies requires that the fewest able and good Men should be determined by the Majority that is that they who are the most likely to know Principles and to be influenced by them should be concluded by those who are least skilfull in Principles and are withall least presumable to act by Principles And in that case who can presume that the Actings of such Bodies are agreeable to the Principles of the Actors themselves Especially who can presume it then when the Cases of Ignorance and Insincerity are most frequent as they were most certainly in many of the Instances here amassed at a great distance from the Apostles and in great Ignorance of the Originals of Religion and when withall worldly Prosperity had taken them off from regarding Principles or being willing to suffer for them The very least signification of Principles where they are not expresly owned is that good Men are pleased and satisfied with what they doe But as this Reasoning does onely hold in Men who are otherwise known to be good so from Matters of Fact alone none can gather whether the Actors be secretly pleased with what they doe or whether they be not really ashamed of it 14. Thus difficult it is to conclude Principles even where the Matters of Fact attested are Actions But it is yet more difficult fifthly Where they are not Actions but Omissions Such are these we are now discoursing of whether of Bishops not insisting on their Rights or of their Subjects not seconding them when they did insist on them In either Case it is extremely difficult to gather that pure regard to Conscience was the true Reason of such Omissions That is that when any injured Bishops did not insist on their Rights the Reason was that they thought themselves obliged in Conscience not to insist on them as being chargable with the Schism which would follow from the Intruders maintaining their Possession against them And that when Subjects did not second them in the Assertion of their own Rights the true Reason was that such Subjects also did not think themselves obliged to second them even in Conscience Many other Reasons might have been given in both Cases besides this of Conscience which our Adversaries are concerned that it should have been the only Reason Many which will by no means reach our present Case to prove either that our present Bishops are obliged in Conscience by those Precedents not to challenge their Rights or that we are not obliged on their callenging them to maintain them in them One Reason might have been the Vnactiveness of their Temper naturally following from their Monkish Education which might make them willing to be excused from a Life of Labour and Action especially when it might withall seem to have so many commendable Ingredients to a Mind willing to be excused of native Bashfulness of Modesty of Humility of Self-denial to themselves without considering on the other side the publick Interestâ— that might balance them Another might be the great Difficulties to be expected in asserting their Rights and the great Uncertainty of the Event which must depend upon the Concurrence of many others who must all doe their Duty as well as themselves and yet could not be depended on Another might be the great Danger to their Persons as well as the Difficulty of their Design when they had to contest with exasperated as well as potent Adversaries These are the more plausible and more pardonable Inducements to which might be added many more real though corrupt ones which to be sure would never be owned openly It is needless to enumerate them particularly and yet not uncharitable in the general to suppose them possible till something appear particularly in the Lives and Principles of the Persons concerned to believe their Case to have been particular It is certain all the Endeavours of Bishops to assert their own Rights can signifie nothing unless they who owe them Duty will stand by them in it And we know withall upon how ticklish Points the Motions of Multitudes do depend even where they are well disposed to their Duty and are particularly satisfied that the Case proposed is so They also reckon upon the Difficulties and Dangers that must befall each particular if all cannot be persuaded to move together and that is a thing they know not how to reckon on And thus whilst all expect the other should move first and each of them is affraid of moving singly whilst all depend on a few Examples and those few are affraid of not being followed as Examples the Season of Motion is lost and no likelihood of its recovery when their hopes of the concurrence of others is lost and each is to act separately All that Principles can oblige Men to is only to do the thing to which they are obliged by Principles But affirmative Precepts do not as they say oblige ad semper and therefore they are not obliged to put the Duty in Practice till it be prudent or till the Circumstances with which the Action is vested make it a Duty And that Men often resolve on who yet by such Delays find that what was at first resolved on at length becomes unpracticable How unreasonable would it be thence to conclude that they never resolved on it or that they did not think it their Duty to resolve on it 15. Thus very difficult this whole Reasoning is from Instances barely represented to gather the
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
Thus much at least will follow that there is no subverting it as a Society without subverting it also as a Sect because those very Doctrines which make it a Sect do also consequently oblige it to be a Society For my part I believe those Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation which all who believe any Fundamentals proper to the Christian Religion as revealed by God do reckon among Fundamentals not to have been revealed for Speculation only but purposely to oblige Men to unite in it as a Society The Vnity in Trinity which is the principal thing insisted on in the Doctrine of the Trinity as revealed in the Scripture was purposely to let Men see the Extent of the Mystical Vnion to which they were intitled by the External Vnion with the visible Church that by partaking in the Orthodox Communion the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mentioned by St. John they had also a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Father and the Son 1. John 1.3 For it was manifest they must also partake of the Spirit because he who had not the Spirit of Christ was none of his It was therefore supposed that by partaking of the Trinity we are made one Mystically and that by being united visibly to the Church we are intitled to that Mystical Vnion So whoever is united visibly to the Church is thereby if he be not wanting to himself in due Conditions united also Mystically to the Trinity and that whoever is divided externally from the Church is thereby also disâ—united from this Communion and Vnion with the Trinity And what more prevailing Inducements could be thought of to oblige Men to keep in a Society So also the design of the Incarnation was by Christ's taking upon him our Body and our Flesh to make us also one Body and one Flesh with him thereby to entitle our Bodies to a Resurrection but then our being one Body and one Flesh with him depended on our being Members of the Church which is called his Body his Flesh his Bones We were to be baptized into this one Body and become one Body by partaking of one Bread Which plainly shew that all the benefits of the Incarnation are derived to us by our partaking of the Sacraments and therefore by our adhering inseparably to them who alone are authorized by God to administer them Thus plain it is that those very Fundamentals of our revealed Religion as revealed are revealed and designed for this purpose of making the Church a Society How can therefore our Adversaries make these Doctrines Fundamental if this be not Fundamental also that the Church was by God designed to be a Society 27. This at least is certain that we are intituled to all the Benefits of our Religion by our owning the Church not only as a Sect but as a Society also and that though we believe all its Doctrines as it is a Sect yet if we be divided from it as a Society that Belief alone will not secure us a Title to any of the Benefits of our Religion Excommunicates however Orthodox in their Opinions were never suppos'd in the Discipline of the Church to have any actual Title to the Benefits of Religion if they persisted wilfully in that state of Excommunication The same I have already observed concerning the Case of Schismaticks on the Principles of the early Age of St. Cyprian Hence therefore it appears that this Notion of the Church as a Society whatever it be in it self is at least Fundamental as to us in order to our partaking of any of the Benefits of Religion That is indeed it is Fundamental to all intents and purposes that we can think worthy our Enquiry Without this the other Notions if any be will never be beneficial to us So that whatever those other Notions may be in order of Reasoning yet this Notion of the Church as a Society must be Fundamental to them in order to their being beneficial that is as far as we have any reason to concern our selves for them These things ought certainly to be taken for Fundamental as to the Discipline and Censures of the Church She ought certainly to be most concerned for those things that are most influential on the Interests of Souls and those are so whose Belief is most beneficial and their Dis-belief most hurtful to those most valuable Interests I cannot therefore see why she should not think Doctrines of this kind Fundamental and reckon them among those Fundamentals on which she ought to lay out her principal Care If therefore she ought to excommunicate for any Errors at all certainly she ought in the first place to do it for Errors so destructive of all Obligation to her Communion it self and of her Authority of Excommunicating that is indeed so destructive to all that power she has either for the preservation of Truth or the prohibition of Error in general And if she ought not to inflict her Censures at least these highest of them for any Errors but those which are Fundamental it will plainly follow that Errors of this kind must be reckoned for Fundamental ones Our Adversaries would have Errors in Fundamentals punished and punished as a Spiritual Crime by a purely Spiritual Authority but they do not in the mean time seem to be aware how Fundamental this very Notion of the Church as a distinct and spiritual Soceity is to its having any Authority or Power to punish so much as spiritually All they can do as a Sect is only to reason with Hereticks concerning their Errors and all the means to reduce them are those reasons which can no farther prevail with them than as they may seem convictive in the Judgment of the Hereticks themselves But on that account they stand on even Terms with the Hereticks whose Reasons ought likewise to take place with the Ecclesiasticks so far as they also are in Conscience convinced by them A true Authority and a Power of punishing refractory Persons by excluding from Communion do Fundamentally suppose a spiritual Society over which they are to exercise this Authority and from which Delinquents are to be excluded by spiritual Censures and Excommunications How can they therefore avoid reckoning those Errors from being Fundamental ones as punishable by a spiritual Authority which ruine Fundamentally that very Authority by which such Errors are to be punished which destroy the Society on which that Authority is grounded Fundamentally 28. If hâ—râ—fore Errors that destroy the very Being of the Church as a Society be Fundamental I cannot for my part fore-see how our Adversaries can exâ—uâ—e their Anti bishops and all that own them by Principles from erring Fundamentally Their being Bishops supposes such Doctrines as if they be once admitted make it impossible for the Church to subsist as a spiritual Society whenever the State is pleased to persecute it They cannot Possibly be supposed Bishops of those Dioceses to which they are consecrated till it first be supposed that their Predecessors are validly
it in a Synod of Bishops and Abbats when they made their second separation from Nicephorus and driven from their Monasteries and the City as Theophanes tells us though our Author mention nothing it The Bishops therefore forced them to recant all the Invectives they had used against the Patriarchs not that they thereby intended to defend Joseph but to assert their own Authority as the only competent one in Affairs relating to Communion against these Monastical Invasions St. Ambrose told the Great Theodosius that his Purple did not entitle him to the Priesthood which yet was not more true of the Purple than of the Cowl Thither therefore relates what our Author observes from the Patriarch Methodius that if Theodorus had not recanted he had not been received to Communion He observes farther from the Testament of the same Methodius probably in imitation of the Testament of Nazianzene that he prescribed that whenever the Studites were received as Penitents they should only be received to Communion not to their Sacerdotal Dignity So in the Synodicon drawn upon the occasion of these Schisms and ordered as our Author observes thenceforward to be read in Churches those Invectives against the Patriarchs are not only recanted but anathematized Nay Theodorus was therein declared not to have done well in his Separation and that the Schism was on his part whatever was the occasion of it And the reason is given exactly agreeable to the Principles of Ignatius and St. Cyprian that Tarasius and Nicephorus were the Church Whence it plainly followed that Theodorus and his followers cast themselves out of the Church by their being divided from their Patriarchs This very Synodicon is mentioned in some fragments of this Work of Nicon here referred to and in a Discourse of Anastasius Caesareensis both published by Coâ—elerius And Anastasius is very particular in distinguishing it from the Nomocanon He tells us that it consisted only of three Synods two relating to Faith and the third to Marriages probably all of them relating to this case And thus we understand why our Author excepts only the case of Heresie wherein it might be lawfull to separate from the Bishop He speaks of persons subject to Episcopal Jurisdiction acting by themselves without a Bishop to head them for so did Plato and Theodorus with their Monks And so nothing but Heresie could excuse their Separation from their Ordinary by the Principles of the Catholick Church for the guilt of Schism will wholly be imputable to such Subjects who separate from their Ordinary for any other cause but Heresie 28 And to this Case agree exactly the Canons omitted by Mr. Hody They also speak of Monks and Laity separating from their respective Ordinary without any Episcopal Authority So the Synod called AB expresly by which we understand that the Presbyters and Deacons mentioned in the former Canons in reference to the Case here particularly designed were understood of Monks and such persons destitute of Episcopal Authority And very probably these Encroachments of the Monks on the Sacerdotal Authority were the real occasion for the Synod AB to make that Canon The Monks of Constantinople were at that time admitted into most debates where Religion was concerned We have seen that they made a part in the Synodi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 against Eutychius in the time of the Great Justinian and now in the time of Nicephorus against the Schismatical Studites We see they had a part in the electing their Bishop by the opposition Theophanes tells us this same Theodorus with his Studites made in the Election of this same Nicephorus We see they were consulted by Michael Curopolates concerning his War against the Bulgarians and that they over ruled him against his own inclinations on account of the concern Religion was supposed to have in that Affair Nor was it amiss that nothing should be done without the consent at least of so great and so numerous bodies of persons devoted to the service of Religon And this consideration it was that brought the Mitred Abbats also in the West into their Synods and into their Parliaments But then this only gave them in the Original design of it a Power of interposing and interceding like that of the Tribunes among the Romans not of invading the Sacred Sacerdotal Power but among the Romans this Power of interceding being granted first incouraged the Tribunes afterwards to aspire farther to give Laws even to the Senators themselves So it succeeded with these Monks the devotedness of their State made them to be looked on somewhat above the ordinary Laity and some Sacerdotal Acts were indulged them for the Government of their own Members but no doubt at first with the consent of their Ordinaries to whom they were at first all subject Thus they had Power of suspending their own Monks from the Communion Then they challenged the Power of Consignation in the Bishops absence this was done first in Egypt as Hilary the Deacon observes in the Commentaries which go under the Name of St. Ambrose There were the most numerous bodies of Monks most remote from Bishops and therefore the most inclinable to these Sacerdotal Encroachments Thus we see there was occasion for asserting the Sacerdotal Rights against them in the times of the Patriarchs Nicephorus and Methodius For so far the Schism of these Studites continued as appears from the Observations our Author has made from the Writings of Methodius It is also plain that the Monks were the greatest part in the Schism of the Arsenians principally regarded by our Author So it appears from several passages in Georgius Pachymeres He tells us that many of the Monks and Laity divided and kept their separate Assemblies And the Emperor Michael in his Oration against the Schismaticks describes them so as that we cannot doubt but that the Monks were they who were principally intended by him He says they were such as by their course of life had been inured to Corners and Secrecies that they were cloathed in Sackcloth So Joseph in his Oration to Germanus where he perswades him to resign represents the Monks as the principal Adversaries with whom he had to deal on this occasion And the Names mentioned in this Cause are generally either of Monks or Nuns Such were Hiacinthus and Ignatius Rhodius and Martha and Nostogonissa and the Pantepoplene Monks so called from their Monastery were the most violent against Joseph and those who sided with him And now we understand that they were not any Latitudinarian dwindling notions of Schism such as our Adversaries fancy that made our Author allow of no cause but Heresie to justifie a separation These were perfectly unknown even to that lower Antiquity in which our Author lived The Persons he had to deal with were such as had no Bishop to head them Aâ—senius himself was dead now for some years before our Author made this Collection and he hath substituted no Successor nor was there any Bishop of
So far were even Princes in that Age from pretending any Right to intermeddle in such matters without the Leave nay without the Authority of the Church to warrant them in it and so little were they then ashamed to own themselves Executioners of the Church's Canons in Affairs properly relating to the Church's Right None who is in earnest with Religion can in the least doubt but that the interests of Religion are incomparably both Nobler and Greater than the interests of any Worldly Politicks Even the Secular Magistate himself cannot deny but that his Soul which is benefitted by promoting the interests of Religion is of more importance even to him than his Secular Empire And why then should poor Mortals be ashamed to own their obligation to make their Worldly Power subservient to ends so undeniably Nobler and Greater than those of their Worldly Power But so trifling are the Reasonings of those who call this being Priest-ridden when they are examined seriously that it is no wonder they should look upon it as a principal Art of recommending them by Bantering and avoiding Seriousness 38. Our Author's next instance is in the next and last Deprivation of Photius which he tells us was by Leo Sapiens in favour of his own Brother Stephanus substituted in his stead Yet the Successor being also Orthothodox he observed that no Schism followed upon it And indeed we do not find any matter for a Synodical accusation objected to Photius by the Prince himself who is said to have deprived him not any of those immoral practices wherewith he had been formerly upbraided by his exasperated Adversaries Much less does any Synod appear that gave judgment against him upon such allegations nor could he pretend as his Father Basile had done that he only executed a former Synodical Deprivation for fear of the Anathemâ— he might incur if he did not do so Photius had now no Rival who could pretend a better Tittle in favour of whom those Synodical determinations had been made And he had since been restored in a General Synod later than that which had deprived him and wherein all the defects were supplied which had been objected formerly Here he had the Suffrages of the Eastern Patriarchs Not only so but even of the Papal See it self which had before been most implacable against him I know Baronius fancies that there was afterwards a breach between Pope John and him Nor is it unlikely that John did indeed resent the retaining Bulgaria from him the recovering of which was the principal inducement which had brought him to that condescendence This I take to have been the reserved Case when he afterwards disowns his confirming what his Legates had done if they had in any thing gone beyond the Orders he had given them Nor is it unlikely also but that on occasion of that resentment he might use some threats and hard expressions that might have been so interpreted by the Authors that gave Baronius occasion for this conjecture But there is no likelihood at all that those resentments ever proceeded so far as an open rupture otherwise we should certainly have had some mention of it in so many following Epistles written by John himself afterwards Whatever he thought he seems at that time to have thought it seasonable to suppress his resentments as finding himself opposed by a greater interest than that of Photius Photius therefore does not indeed seem to have been deprived Synodically the reason given for it is That Leo resented what Santabarenus had done against him in his Father's time in making a difference between them and thought Photius the principal hindrance that kept him from his designs against Santabarenus This was a reason in State likely enough to have been the occasion why Leo would endeavour to get Photius deprived But it was not a reason likely to have been owned openly and to have been produced before a Judicatory He could hardly for shame have owned a resentment for things so long past much less could he have charged Photius with favouring Santabarenus when Santabarenus himself had not yet received an open Trial. However it is certain that the Emperor himself was the cause that the place was vacated and in this Historians agree only they do not tells whether it were with his own consent though forced to it by the Emperor or whether the Emperor pretended to do it by his own Authority without any consent of Photius But what the Historians have not informed us of that his great Adversary Pope Stephen the Fourth has and that from the Letter of the Emperor himself who is said to have deprived him By that Letter it appears that the Emperor did not so much as pretend Force on his own part but a voluntary Resignation on the part of Photius So that as yet we have not one instance that ever any Lay-Power did ever pretend to a Power of depriving Bishops as to their Spiritual Authority though we could not have known it in this case had it not been for this occasional mention of it by Pope Stephen The Case may therefore have probably been the same in other examples where we read of Depositions by Emperors where we are not so happy to light on a particular account of them Here there are other circumstances that make it probable that this Cession was voluntary Photius was treated very respectfully even after his Deprivation as appears in the Trial of Santabarenus which would not have been if he had stood out to the utmost so it was this willingness of his Cession that hindered Pope Stephen also from proceeding to his designed severities against him Besides Stephanus his Successor had been his Pupil and Educated under him and therefore unlikely to have accepted of his Office without his leave nor do we find that he ever afterwards endeavoured again to get into it though Stephanus did not long enjoy it And therefore going off willingly he had thence-forward no pretence to disturb his Successors the Schism had been his not theirs if he had gone back from his own agreement and either resumed his Throne or withdrawn the Peoples Duty which had been already quitted by him 39. The next Example is in Nicholas deprived by the same Prince Leo Sapiens for opposing his fourth Marriage Against him Euthymius was set up yet so as our Author says that neither Nicholas himself withdrew from his Communion nor taught the People to do so Nay so that when he was restored to his Throne by Alexander the Brother of Leo he did not so much as question the Orders given by Euthymius because the persons ordained were Orthodox and the person who Ordained them was himself also Orthodox So our Author The time of this Ejection of Nicholas is somewhat intricate It could hardly have been where Baronius places it in the year 901. The surest grounds we have for discovering it is from the Age of Constantine Porphyrogennetus It is certain he was born before his
even a Precedent for his own Case Good Men indeed have been willing rather to part with their own Rights than they would violate the Church's Peace So did St. Gregory Nazianzene so St. Chrysostom so the African Fathers But where will he find a Mediator for Peace on any good account who did as he does who only addressed his Exhortations to the injured Persons to part with their Rights not to their Injurers to restore them How can he hope to perswade those Persons against whom he shews himself so manifestly partial His own Instances of Mediation are all against him Clemens Romanus did not perswade the injured Presbyters but the Schismaticks the Invaders of the Rights of the Presbyters to submit and quit their Interests in the Party that sided with them I know Dr. Owen as well as Mr. Hody has fallen into the same mistake to think they were Presbyters who are here exhorted by St. Clement but it is strange such Learned Men should fall into such a mistake if they had considered any thing of the design of the Epistle The persons with whom he had to deal were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 3. which are unlikely Characters of such as were Presbyters by Office They were such as are supposed to oppose the Presbyters in general n. 1.44 47 57. In opposition to them St. Clement insists on the example of Military Subordinations n. 37. Who sees not from hence that they aspired beyond the Rank and Station assigned them in the Church He insists on the Sacredness of the Sacerdotal Function n. 32 40 41 42 43 44 And he warns them particularly that Laicks were to be restrained within the Duty imposed on the Laity n. 40. implying plainly that the Schismaticks were Laicks and had nothing to do with the Sacerdotal Function He makes it such a Rivalling the Priesthood as the Israelites were guilty of when God convinced them of his own Choice of Aaron by the miraculous Blossoming of Aaron's Rod n. 43. This was evidently of persons pretending to the Sacerdotal Office when they had no Right to it He says the Apostles foresaw the same Aemulations for the sacred Office under the Gospel and secured it from being invaded by deriving it in a Succesion out of which it could not be received n 42 44. To what purpose could that Discourse tend but to restrain such Invasions in the Schismaticks he had to deal with supposing withall that they had no pretence to it on account of that Succession It is to the Headâ— of those Schismaticks that this Author speaks in this place n. 5â— Nay in the very words produced by Mr. Hody where the Apostolical Author personates them saying they would do the things enjoyned them by the Multitude so that the Flock of Christ might live in Peace with the Presbyters appointed over them So that in this very place they are opposed to the Presbyters Only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is unhappily translated Plebs which made Dr. Owen fancy he had got a Testimony for his Lay Congregational Authority and perhaps made Mr. Hody think they were not themselves Plebeians who were to receive the Commands of the Plebs But the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies no particular Rank of the Ecclesiasticks but takes in the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters in opposition to the smallness of the number of the Schismaticks who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 47. And as little to his purpose is the other Author produced by Mr. Hody Dionisius Alexandrinus He also addresses his exhortations as became a just Mediator not to Cornelius but Novatian to the Invader not to him who had received the injury If he will therefore be true to his Authorities let him perswade his Vsurpers to do Justice to the persons injured by them They are said to excuse themselves from the odium of the Schism by pretending they were forced into their Chairs But they who had the Spirit of our Ancestors would not have given the occasion for a Schism for any violence St. Cyprian counts it as glorious to die if the Cause should require it for Vnity as for the Faith Nor do our Laws force any to accept of Bishopricks though they indeed force them who are to Elect and Consecrate them and they have had some good Precedents of those who neither would be nor have been forced into Schismatical Thrones God reward then for iâ— Had all followed their examples the Schism at least had been avoided which is that which truly Christian Souls can bear with the least patience But though the first Trial be past Mr. Hody's Dionisius has found an expedient for them yet by whâ—ch they may satisfie the World whether they deal sincerely in pretending unwilliâ—gness That is by now resigning what they tell us they were forced to· 48 May all at length return to a love of Vnity and an abhorrence of carnal Politicks May they doe it whilst God is yet ready to accept it at their hands and before it be too late for securing their own greatest Interest May they doe it whilst they have yet an opportunity of satisfying the World by not graâ—ifying Flesh and Blood in it whilst they may in some measure retrieve the Honour of Religion and prevent the Ruine of innumerable invaluable Souls for which they must otherwise be responsible May they doe it whilst it may be in their power to make some Amends for the Scandals given by them without which their very Repentance cannot be acceptable to God nor beneficial to themselves before they provoke God to farther and severer Inflictions on our beloved Countries and to deprive us of that Religion for which they pretend so great a Zeal When shall we again return to our former Communion and to our former glorious Passive Doctrines and to our much more glorious Practice of them in suffeâ—ing for a good Conscience When shall we on both sides instead of Vpbraidings and Reproaches remove all just occasion of Reproach and return to a noble Emulation who shall doe most for a solid lasting Peace by Principles We have had Principles more contributive to Vnion thaâ— all our new Projects of Comprehension without uniting Principles But what can Principles signifie if we will not be true to them if we will fall from them as often as they pinch us We desire no hard things from them as Conditions on their side for a Reconciliation We onely desire the same Terms from them on which we were united formerly the common Doctrines of not onely ours but the Catholick primitive Church the Preservation of our sacred Ecclesiastical Rights our Duty to our H. Fathers which is not their Invaders Interest to deny before a just conciliary Deprivation and the same innocent Offices in which we formerly communicated And what can they pretend to yield for Peace if they will scruple Concessions so very just and reasonable if they will not