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
Letters could be hoped for whilst they continued in Communion with him 20. And then 5thly It is also as notorious on the same Principles of St. Cyprian's Age that such Schism from the visible Communion of the Catholick Church was also supposed to deprive the Person so divided of all the invisible Benefits of Church Communion God was supposed obliged to ratifie in Heaven what was done by those whom he authorized to represent him on Earth He avenged the Contempts of his Ministers and would not be a Father to those who would not own his Church for their Mother by paying her a Filial respect They were not to expect any pardon of their Sins They could not hope for the Holy Ghost who dissolved the Vnity of the Spirit They were uncapable of the Crown of Martyrdome whatever they suffered in the state of Separation This is the result of many of St. Cyprian's Discourses on this Argument And indeed it is very agreeable with the Design of God that they who cut themselves off from the Peculium should by their doing so lose all their pretensions to the Rights and Privileges of it Not only so but that they should also incur all the Mischiefs to which they were supposed liable who had lost their Right of being Members of the peculiar People Accordingly as they believed all Persons at their first admission into the Church to be turned from Darkness to Light and from the Power of Satan unto God so upon their leaving the Church or their being cast out of it by the judicial Act of their Superiours they were supposed to return into the state of Heathens to lose the Protection of those good Spirits who minister only to the Heirs of Salvation and again to relapse into their former condition of Darkness and being consequently obnoxious to be infested by the Devil and his Powers of Darkness And that this was so appeared by several ordinary Experiments in those earlier Ages not only of the Apostles but that also of St. Cyprian who has many Examples of it in his Book de Lapsis And this confinement of the Spiritual Privileges of the peculiar People to the External Communion of the Church as it was Fundamental to their Discipline so it was rational consequently to their other Principles God was not thought obliged to confer those Privileges but by the Act of those whom himself had authorized to oblige him But Dividers were supposed not to belong to that Body to which the Promises were made and ambitious Intruders into other Men's Offices could not in any Equity pretend to have their Acts ratified by God from whom they could not be supposed to receive any Authority when they did not receive it by the Rules and Orders of the Society established by him These things were then believed and believed universally Indeed nothing but an universal Belief of them would have maintained that Discipline which was then observed in the Church could have obliged them generally to suffer as they did then the severest Inflictions from the Magistrate rather than incurr the much more feared Displeasure of their Ecclesiastical Superiours When we are also of the same Mind and alike influenced by Principles and Regard to Conscience then indeed and then alone we may pretend to be a Posterity not degenerous from the great Examples of those glorious Ancestors Then it will not be in the Power of Acts of Parliament to drive us from our Principles and bring a Scandal on our Religion Then where our Bishops follow Christ we shall follow them and it will not be in the Power of the Worldly Magistrate or the Gates of Hell it self to prevail against our Church and to dissolve the Vnion between us Then Magistrates themselves will be more wary of involving Consciences on occasion of their little Worldly Politicks at least they will not pretend Religion and the Religion of that very Church which suffers by them for doing so May we live at length to see that happy day However it will hence appear how impossible it will be to excuse our Adversaries present Case from Schism if it be tried by that Antiquity which we do indeed profess to imitate and alledge 21. Now in this Case I am discoursing of I have purposely selected the Instances of St. Cyprian's Age rather than any other not only because they are the ancientest indeed the first we know of of one Bishop's invading another's Chair not vacant but because we have withal in him the most distinct account of the Sense of the Church in his Age of such Facts and of the Principles on which they proceeded in condemning them He had occasion given him to be so distinct by two Schisms one of his own Church in Carthage where Felicissimus was set up against himself another that I have principally insisted on of Novatian set up against Cornelius in Rome On these Occasions he has written one just Discourse besides several Epistles But these Principles were not singular and proper to that Age they descended lower and are insisted on by Optatus and St. Augustine in their Disputes with the Donatists whenever they dispute the Question of their Schism without relation to their particular Opinions 22. And now what can our Adversaries gain though we should grant them all they can ask concerning their Collection till they be able to disarm us of these earlier Authorities neither mentioned nor perhaps so much as thought of by their Author Till they do so we have all the Advantages against them that our Cause does need or we desire They give us a bare Collection of Facts without any other Evidence of the Principles on which they were transacted than the Facts themselves We give them here a contrary Fact of Persons of unquestionable Sincerity to Principles and not only so but the Principles themselves on which they proceeded acknowledged by the Persons themselves They give us Facts of the Greek Church only We give them one wherein the sense of the whole Catholick Church appeared not of the Greeks alone but of the Latines also They give us those of Modern of Barbarous of Divided Ages wherein the great Bodies of the Eastern and Western Churches were divided in Communion the Eastern Churches particularly within which their Instances are confined into Nestorians and several subdivided Sects of Eutychians who yet if they had been more unanimous were otherwise no very competent Witnesses of Apostolical Tradition not only in regard of their Age but their Corruptness their Vnskilfulness their Credulity We here have given them the sense of the Church in an Age wherein her Testimony is every way unexceptionable wherein she had certain means of knowing the Truth and withal valued it as it deserved Even there we find the Principles now mentioned universally received and universally received as the grounds of that universal Catholick Communion which she had received by an uninterrupted Tradition from the Apostles to that very Time Even there I say we
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
find them received where nothing could have been received universally that had been an Innovation In so short a time it was hard to bring in Variations from the Primitive Rule and harder yet that all the Churches could have been unanimous in them if they had been Variations as Tertullian reasons in his Prescriptions especially when there was no Vniversal Authority received over the whole Catholick Church that could induce them to it From the Time of Trajan the Succession of our Saviour's Family failed in the Church of Jerusalem to which all particular Churches paid a deference From the Time of Hadrian there could be no pretence for that Church above others when it consisted not of Jews but Greeks and Romans What was there therefore that could make them unanimous in Variations and Variations of such Importance as this had been They had then no General Councils And the absolute Supremacy of particular Bishops in their proper Districts is by none maintained more expresly and more zealously than by St. Cyprian with particular regard to all other Powers that in later times have pretended to oblige Bishops that is to Councils and the Bishop of Rome This Catholick Communion grounded on the common Interest of all the Bishops to have all their Acts of Discipline in their particular Dictricts ratified over the whole World might have brought in other things that were consequential to these common Interests But there was nothing antecedent that can be imagined that could have brought in this Catholick Communion of those times among such a multitude of absolute and independent Societies as the Churches were then if it had not been brought in from their very first Originals And yet these Notions we were speaking of were Fundamental to that Catholick Communion it self as managed in those earlier Ages Let them therefore make their uttermost advantage of those Instances which our Adversaries call Precedents in later Ages This is however plain If they be not found inconsistent with these earlier Instances they can make nothing for their purpose If they be yet none can doubt but that later Deviations how numerous soever are to be over-ruled and concluded by the Precedents of these first and earliest Instances not so much as mentioned by their Author 23. Yet after all though we should admit that this Author had been successfull in all that he has attempted we may yet justifie our adherence to the deprived Bishops and our Separation from their opposite Altars and justifie it too by the Doctrine of their own Author For 7thly Even he permits a Separation where Orthodoxy is concerned and expresly excepts this Case from the number of those which he pretends to confute An Heretical Bishop he calls a false Bishop a false Teacher and tells us that they who separate from such do not divide the Vnity of the Church by Schism but endeavour to free the Church from Schisms and Divisions These are his own Words in the Conclusion of his Discourse I easily foresee this Charge will seem new and surprizing to our Adversaries and yet I cannot see how they can secure themselves against it St. Augustine observes that Schisms generally end in Heresie That is the natural consequence of defending it as our Adversaries do by Principles A single Act of Vndutifulness to Superiors will in course pass away with those who are guilty of it so that Posterity will not be concerned in it But when it is defended by Principles it turns into false Doctrine and Doctrine of that pernicious Consequence that the Church is obliged to take notice of it as she will be faithful to her Trust in securing her Body from the like Divisions for the future Thus the Donatists took the first occasion for their Schism from the pretended personal Faults of Caecilian and his Ordainers This whilst it was a particular Case went no farther than that particular Schism But when it turned into a general Doctrine that personal Faults were sufficient to justifie Separation then it laid a Foundation of frequent Schisms as often as any Criminals got into Places of Trust and either Evidence was wanting or themselves too powerful to be contested with Then it concerned Ecclesiastical Governours to condemn this Doctrine that encouraged even Men of Conscience to divide designedly and frequently And when that Doctrine was thus condemned by the Church and was notwithstanding maintained by the Donatists as a Principle on which they subsisted as an opposite Communion it then became a Character of a Party to maintain it and from that time forward the Donatists were reckoned among Hereticks as well as Schismaticks For this was the true Notion of Heresie in those Ages as contradistinct from Schism Both of them supposed a Division of Communion or tended to it But that Division was called Schism which only broke the Political Vnion of the Society without any difference of Principles as when Thieves or Robbers transgress their Duties without any pretence of Principles authorizing them to do so So whilst Resentment alone was the reason that made Subjects separate from the Communion of their Ecclesiastical Governours or whilst Ambition alone made any to invade the Office of his Bishop and to erect an opposite Communion this was Schism properly so called as contradistinct from Heresie But when the Schism is patronized by Doctrines and justified as well done and consistently with Conscience such Divisions besides their being Schismatical were Heretical also in the sense of the Ancients and such Doctrines as Characteristical of a distinct Communion were properly called Heresies On this account the same Doctrine of the Original Identity of Bishops and Presbyters was no Heresie in St. Hierome who notwithstanding kept Communion with the Bishops of the Jurisdictions he lived in and yet was Heresie in Aâ—erius when upon account of that pretended Identity he presumed to pay no more Duty to the Bishops of the respective Jurisdictions than he would have done to single Presbyters This is the most agreeable account of the Heresies not only in Philastrius but in other more judicious Collectors of Catalogues of Heresies And it is very agreeable with the Notion of that Term among the Philosophers from whom the Christians derived it All Notions that were proper and characteristical to particular Schools among them made Heresies not those which were received in Common among them Answerably whereunto those Differences only of Opinion made Heresies in the Church which were the Notes of different Communions not those which went no farther than Speculation 24. I am very well aware how surprizing this will be to those who upon Popular Opinions have been used to believe no Opinion Heresie that was not against Fundamentals But if they will for a while lay aside their Prejudices they will possibly find this as slightly grounded as many other Popular Opinions are The very distinction between Fundamentals and Non-Fundamentals is not that I know of ever taken notice of by the Primitive Christians either in the same
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
time of these Synods or Meetings rather of the same Synod will best appear from the time of the arrival of the Popes Legates The Letters Pope Nicholas sent with his Legates going to Constantinople bear date Septemb. 25. Indict 9. So it must have been the latter end of the year 860. before those Legates could finish their journey And when they had reached Constantinople they were 100 days there before they could be prevailed on to ratifie the Deposition of Ignatius so contrary to the instructions they had received from him that sent them This must necessarily bring it to the beginning of the year 861. before the 18th of March Nicholas had received the news of their prevaricating and wrote again what he thought fit upon that occasion But when the Suffrages of a Council were once gained what Arts soever they were that were used to gain them Photius had then some appearance of Right till Ignatius could relieve himself by Another and a Greater Council That was a lawful way allowed him of recovering it by the very Canons However Photius could in the mean time plead this Canon hence produced by our Author in favour of himself which before he could not that none ought to separate from himself thus Synodically settled nor to joyn with Ignatius thus Synodically condemned till himself were condemned and Ignatius resettled by a greater and more numerous Synod And to add the greater Authority to their own Synod they boasted of the same numbers that was in the Council of Nice as Pope Nicholas observes in his Answer to them This was a plausible Artifice â—o the Superstition of that Age. 33. Pope Nicholas therefore no doubt made all the interest he cou'd to get a Synod that he might oppose to this Synod of Photius He knew his Authority alone would never be admitted for it without a Synod and such a Synod as the Canons required And though he allowed no Superstition for the number yet the Antiochian Canon which by this time obtained in both the Eastern and Western Churches required that the Synod that must restore Ignatius must at least be more numerous than the Synod that deprived him No Synod therefore could serve his purpose but such a one as must have had more than 318 Bishops This I suppose made it some time before he could condemn Photius or restore Ignatius with such a Synod Anastasius tells us it was in the 11th Indiction That must have been either in the end of the year 862. or the beginning of the year 863 Till then at least how good soever his Title was yet the guilt of Schism had been imputable to Ignatius if he had made a Separation or intruded himself into his own Throne before a Synod had restored him Nay by the Antiochian Canon he had forfeited all pretensions of having the Merit of his Cause considered if he had challenged any Duty from his Clergy and People before a Council had restored him But when Pope Nicholâ—s had restored him in the Roman Synod and deprived and anathematized Photius with them who lookâ—d upon that Restitution as an Act of Superiour Authority Ignatius wâ—s then restored to his full Right and Photius was deprived even of that Right â—o which a Canonical settled possession had intitled him And from that time forward if Ignatius had â—â—â—â—enged the Obedience of his Clergy and Laity and withdrawn them from the Obedience of Photius the guilt of the Schism had notwithstanding not been imputable to him but â—hotius But these Principles do not even in that Agâ— seem to have been the sense of any more than the concerned part of the Western Church The Council of Constantinople when they decreed that Constantinople should be next to Rome did never seem to â—nderstand it of pâ—oper jurisdiction but only of Precedency in place Afterwards â—he Council of Chalcedon decreed equal Priviledges to the same Sâ—e because it had an Emperor and a Consul and a Senate which were no more consistent with a subordinate jurisdiction in the Bishops than in the Emperors the Consuls and the â—enates None ever pretended at that time â—hat the Emperors the Consâ—ls and the Senates of new Rome were properly subject to the Emperors Consuls and Senates of old Rome in regaâ—d of jurisdiction And the Canon concerning Appeals made in that same Council oâ— Chalcedon waâ— uttâ—rly inconsistent with any such jurisdiction that allows to recourse for such Appeals beyond the See of Constantinople I know very well Pope Leo's Legates disowned both these Canons and so have the Latine Collectors generally who reckon no more than 27 Canons as made in that Council But the 16th Action of the Council shewed that they were the genuine sense of the Council and at least of the Eastern Empire and the Eastern Churches And so it descended down to the times of Ignatius and Photius of which we are discoursing By the judgment therefore of the Eastern Bishops of those times who were the most competent Judges of that Eastern Dispute and by the other Canons of the Church which required that Judgments concerning matters of Fact such as this was should be decided in the same place where the matter of Fact had happened the Synod by which Ignatius was to be relieved must have been another and that a greater Synod in the same Constantinople and till he could get such a Synod on his side himself had been responsible for the Schism that must have followed on his claiming his Right Nay the Antiochian Canon made him forfeit his Right if he claimed it in such a way as this was And it is plain by the Pope's Letters to the Emperor Michael that the Emperor did not allow the Pope's Authority in this Case nor do we find that Ignatius made any stir upon it till he was restored Conciliarly in the same place where he had been deprived This seems therefore to have been the state of that Dispute if Nicholas proceeded by way of proper Jurisdiction if he had proceeded on the Principles of the Primitive Church on the supposition of Equality then he could no otherwise have obliged the Eastern Bishops than as the Bishops or Provinces that sided with him were more numerous than those that were against them For this is all that had been reasonable in that case that where Peace was absolutely necessary and yet could not be had without Cession on one part there it was also necessary that the smaller part should rather yield to the greatest But whether Empire had more Bishops or Provinces is needless now to determine The rather because it does not seem to have been thought on or insisted on in the Disputes of that Age. It is sufficient for our purposes that in the sense of the Eastern Bishops and by the Rules of the Eastern Discipline which Ignatius was to stand by this Roman Synod was no competent Authority and therefore left both him and Photius in the same condition wherein it found them
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
Mothers Marriage which made immediately the breach between his Father and the Patriarch Not only so Nicholas also Christened him so that as yet he was in Possession of the Patriarchal Throne This it seems he condescended to on condition the Marriage should not go on However within three days after Thomas a Presbyter performed the Solemnity and was thereupon Excommunicated by the Patriarch Constantine was Christened on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Epiphany Jan. 6. So his Mother Zoes Marriage was on the 9th of the same January That immediately caused the breach and from that time forward the Emperor formed his Party for depriving the Patriarch And Cedrenus tells us that they did it on the beginning of February The anonymous Continuator of Theophanes and Leo Grammaticus are more particular yet in fixing it to the first day of that Month. These are more to be regarded than Baronius's Author Joannes Curopalates who would have it to have been on the beginning of January Constantine was Crowned on Pentecost and then Euthymius officiated thence is appears that Nicholas was dispossessed before Pentecost But Constantine could not have been Baptized nor Crowned before the year 906. At his Uncle Alexander's death he was seven years old as we are assured by the Continuator of Theophanes and by Leo Grammaticus the best Authors of those times Alexander died on June the 6th the first day of the week and the first Indiction as the same Authors tell us These Notes shew it could not have been the year 912. as Baronius would have it but that it must have been on the year following 913. So also it is agreed that he was thirteen years old when his Father-in-Law Romanus Lacapenus got to be joyned in the Government with him This appears by Leo Grammaticus to have been in that year wherein the Feast of the Annunciation March the 25th fell on the 5th day of the week which must have been on the year 919. The same appears from the death of Constantine in the year of the World 6468. Indict 3. Novemb. 9. All these Notes concur in the year 959. not in the year 960. wherein it is placed by Baronius This was in the 54th year of his Reign or Life for there is no great difference between them And this number is made up of the three several Periods of his Reign 13 wherein he Reigned with his Father and Vncle and Mother 26 wherein Romanus was joyned with him and 15 more after the Deposition of Romanus These numbers reckoned backward from the year now mentioned can go no farther than the year 906. wherein therefore Nicholas must have been deprived Nicholas himself tells us that it was in the Pontificate of Sergius which is not by any means reconcilable with the Chronology of Baronius This by the way for the time of this Example 40. However it does not appear that Leo acted herein only by his Secular Authority If there be any heed to be given to Eutychius he tells us of something like a Synod that sided with the Emperor against the Patriarch He says the Emperor had with him Legates from the Patriarchal Sees to whom were joyned several of the Bishops then in Constantinople who were for his Marriage These were somewhat more than the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And whether they were enough or no to secure the Emperor and his Priest from the Censure of the Patriarch and for continuing them in Communion yet certainly they had been sufficient according to the Customs of those Ages for the Deprivation of a Patriarch if there had not been particular reasons to suspect whether in a Question so much disputed among the Bishops as that was the Majority would think themselves obliged to be concluded by them And it was upon their joyning with the Emperor that as Eutychius tells us the Deprivation followed though Eutychius be not indeed express in telling us whether they were particularly concerned in the Deprivation But neither have we reason to doubt but that the Emperor would rather choose to deprive him Synodically than otherwise if for no other reason at least for this that he might therefore clear himself from the odium of making himself a Judge in his own Cause The rather so because we know he endeavoured to transact the Dispute amicably and with due deference to the Ecclesiastical Authority which shews him unwilling to use his Power if he could have avoided it and because withall he had a Synod ready convened who were likely enough to second him in it For why should we suspect them unwilling to concur in the Deprivation when they had concurred in allowing the Marriage that had occasioned it And there are circumstances which confirm the likelihood of a Synodical Deprivation independently on the Authority of Eutychius Nicholas himself owns the concurrence of Pope Sergius's Legates against him who were for dispencing with the Marriage It seems therefore that Leo had sent for them before the Marriage and the breach occasioned by it otherwise they could not have reached Constantinople before the Deprivation of Nicholas Thus therefore it is certain that at that time there were present the Legates of at least one of the Patriarchal Sees And why should we suspect but that in a Controversy of so great importance when he sent for the Legates of one of the Patriarchal Sees he sent for all the rest But so it was those Legates could only undertake for the sense of those Patriarchal Jurisdictions that were represented by them It is by no means likely that he would neglect the fifth Patriarchal Church to which himself was particularly related In all probability the same time that he sent for the Legates of the Foreign Patriarchs he ordered matters so that upon their arrival they should be met by a Synod of Bishops of his own Dominions that so he might have the sense if not of his own Patriarch at least of his own Patriarchal Church This made an appearance of the Whole Church and of a General Council when he could pretend to the sense of all the Patriarchates and is withall certain that he endeavoured to draw the Bishops of his own Dominions to his Party and that his endeavours were successfull with many of them And this difference of Opinion that was between them was that which occasioned the following Schism Then withall we know that he charged the Patriarch with a Crime as the ground of the Deprivation that was of Lying and Perjury Probably in the agreements made between them before the breach to which it is probable that the Parties concerned had Sworn that the preteâ—ded Violation of those Oaths was that which the Emperor charged with Perjury Thus as there was a Judicatory so we see likely materials to ground a judicial Process And why should we doubt but that as he made this Synod Judge of the Marriage it self so that he also allowed them to pass their judgment on this Canonical Accusation So little
restore the old Terms which may be done without any thing that can properly be called Concession These things if they will grant us we shall all return into their Communion with Joy and they vvill also have reason to partake in our Joy for our having vindicated their sacred Rights against future Encroachments But the least we can ask or they can grant is to gratifie us in the matter of our present Dispute That they vvill not invade nor maintain injurious Possessions that they vvill not by doing so cut themselves off by their ovvn Act from Communion with us The End of the Second PART The CANONS in the Baroccian Manuscript omitted by Mr. Hody 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 31 Canon of the holy Apostles instead of the 32. If any Presbyter contemning his own Bishop shall hold a separate Meeting and erect an opposite Altar having nothing wherewith to charge the Bp. in Matters of Piety and Justice let him be deposed as an ambitious Affector of Government for he is an Vsurper So also as many of the Clergy as shalt join with him shall be deposed and the Laicks excommunicated but all this after the 1st 2d and 3d Admonition of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 6 th Canon of the Synod of Gangra If any Man hold a private Meeting out of the Church and despising the Church shall presume to perform the Offices of the Church the officiating Presbyter not being thereunto licensed by the Bishop let him be anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 5 th Canon of the Synod of Antioch If any Presbyter or Deacon despising his own Bp. hath withdrawn himself from the Church and set up an Altar in a private Meeting and shall disobey the Admonitions of the Bp. and will not be persuaded by him nor submit to him exhorting him again and again he is absolutely to be deposed and ought no longer to he treated as a curable Person neither as one who can retain his Honor and if he shall persevere to make Tumults and Disturbances in the Church he is to be turned over as a seditious Person to the secular Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 15 th Canon of the same Synod If any Bishop accused of any Crimes be condemned by all the Bishops of the Province who have all with one accord denounced the same Sentence against him such a one by no means ought to be judged again by others but the concordâ—nt Sentence of the Provincial Bishops ought to remain firm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 10 th Canon of the Synod of Carthage If any Presbyter being puffed up against his own Bp. shall make a Schism let him be anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The 13 th Can. of the Synod of Constantinople The Devil having sown the Seeds of heretical Tares in the Church of Christ and seeing them cut up by the Sword of the Spirit hath betaken to himself a new way and method viz. to divide the Church by the Madness of Schismaticks But the holy Synod being also willing to obviate this Strategem of his has decreed as follows If any Presbyter or Deacon under pretence of accusing his own Bp. of any Crimes shall presume to withdraw from his Communion and not mention 〈…〉 in the holy Prayers of the Liturgy Clergymen not excusable for appearing in a Cause so destructive of the Interest of Religion in general and of their own Function in particular without Reasons very evident and convincing The Author of this Manuscript too low to pass for an Evidence of the Facts mentioned by him He knew nothing of the later part of the History of Nicetas Choniates relating to Constantinople Which yet he must have known as a publick Officer of the Church of Cp. if he had liv'd near him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 25. Anastas de Jejux Deipar p. 435. Tom. 3. Coteler Mon. Gr. Eccl. fol. 243. fol. 212 225 230. The use of the publick Ecclesiastical Rhâ—tor This Office very antient in the Church of Cp. perhaps from the first Foundation of it by Constantine the Great L. V. c. 22. Vid. etiam Sozom. l. 7. c. 19. L. VII c. 36. L. VII c. 37. This Discourse seems to have been written by the Ecclesiastical Rhetor of the Church of Cp. then in Office when the Schism happened that occasioned it Not by Nicephorus Callisius Coteler Nâ—t ad 3 Vol. Mon. Gr. Eccl. p. 645. Niceph. H. E. xvi 19 20 25 26 32. Ibid. 35. Ad finèm Cap. 1. L. 1. Nicephorâ— This Author no competent Witness of the Matters mentioned by him Our Adversaries way of Reasoning in this Case is neither conscientious not prudent See the instances produced by the Author of the Vnreasonableness of a New Separation upon the Account of the Oaths 1. Non-adherence to unjustly deprived Bishops will signify nothing to our present Case unless the Persons who did not adhere to them did believe them unjustly depriv'd 2. Nor unless they did believe them invalidly deprived that is by an incompetent Judicatory as well as unjustly 3. Nor unless the Bishops so deprived did insist on their Right and challenge Duty as ours do 4. Nor unless such Non-adherence was thought justifiable by Principles and with regard to Conscience 5. Nor is it easie to gather Principles from Non-actions Such are not chalenging Right on the Bishops part or not adhering to them on the Subjects part 6. Nor do the Instances here produced prove the Sense of the Catholick Church but of the Greek especially of the Constantinopolitane Church Nor even of that Church in the first and earliest Ages The Doctrine of the Catholick Church in the earliest Ages may for what appears from this Collection be on our side and indeed is so 1st The whole Church then owned noâ— Power in the secular Magistrate for depriving Bishops as to Spirituals not even as to their particular Districts Thence it follows 2dly that Antibiâ—hops consecrated in Districts no other way 〈◊〉 than by the Power of the secular Magistrate are by the Principles of that earliest Catholick Church no Bishops at all but divided from the Church * Epist. 57. ad Antonianum in the Oxon Edition of St. Cyprian And 3dly that all who profess themselves one with Antibishops so divided from the Church were in consequence to the same Principles themselves divided also St. Cypr. Epist. 43 Edit Oxon. And 4thly that all who were United with Novatian and by consequence divided from the Church of the Roman District were in the Discipline of that early Age looked upon as themselves divided also from the Catholick Church And 5ly that all who were on these Principles thought divided from the visible communion of the Catholick Church were also on the same Principles thought deprived of all the Invisible benefits of Church Communion Vid. St. Cyp. de
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