Judgment and Opinions of the Persons concerned in these Instances And yet if this Point were gained it would not suffice for our Adversaries purpose For it is farther considerable sixthly That the Instances here collected rise no higher than the Fourth Century and extend no farther than the Greek Church and therefore cannot pretend to argue the Sense of the Catholick Church nor of those Ages which are most to be regarded not onely for their Antiquity but their Integrity also Suppose therefore we should so far gratifie our Adversaries as to give them leave to believe that all was proved that is so much as offered at in this Collection and proved as solidly and as pertinently to their Cause as themselves can either pretend or wish This would certainly be a great Favour indeed the uttermost they can hope for with regard to this Collection yet still they must not pretend by this Collection to one single Instance that may signifie the sense of the Western Church or consequently of the Catholick Church in any one Age Still we are left a liberty for any thing is said here to challenge the Doctrine of the Church as signified by her behaviour at the first and ancientest Instances of Schism as making for us And this we can do with greater Certainty and Evidence than our Adversaries can pretend to in their more Modern Cases 16. We can say that even in the Age of St. Cyprian which is the ancientest we know of that an Antibishop was set up against a Bishop in the same See it is 1st very notorious that they then owned no such Power of the secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely spiritual Power and that the Church as a Society distinct from the State subsisted on their not owning it even as to a Deprivation of their particular Districts and Jurisdictions It is notorious and as notorious as any one Tradirion of the Catholick Church in those Ages not excepting that of the Canon of the New Testament it self that Christians then and not only then but in all the former Persecutions that had been from the times of the Apostles to that very Age did own themselves bound to adhere to their Bishops when it was notorious withal that those Bishops were set up and maintained against the Consent of the Civil Magistrate It is as notorious also that this adherence of theirs was not only Matter of Fact which is all our Adversaries pretend here but a Duty owned by them as obliging in Conscience and as the result of Principles This appears not only by the unquestionable Sincerity of the Christians of those Ages who were generously influenced by no Considerations but those of Conscience not only by their suffering those severe Penances imposed on them in order to their recovering the Bishop's Communion even when the Magistrate was against him which no other Considerations could recommend but only those of Conscience but from the Principles themselves insisted on in the Reasonings of St. Cyprian Such were these That all hopes of pardon of Sin of the Holy Ghost of Eternal Life on performance of Duty were confined to the visible Communion of the Church that their visible Communion with the Church could not appear but by their visible Communion with the Bishop as the Head of that Church and the Principle of its Vnity that who that Bishop was to whom any particular Person owed his Duty was not then any otherwise distinguishable but by the visible Districts in which themselves lived and to which he was therefore supposed to have a Title whether the Magistrate would or no. It is also as notorious that these Reasonings were not then the sense of private Persons but the received sense of Christians in general and indeed Fundamental to that Catholick Communion which was then maintained where-ever there were Christians Not only every particular Christian of a Diocess did thus assure himself of his Right to Ecclesiastical Privileges by his Communion with the Bishop of that particular District but he was intitled also to Communion with all the other Bishops of the World and consequently with the Catholick Church in general by the communicatory Letters of the Bishop of his own particular District For it was by the mutual Obligation all Bishops of the World had to ratifie the Acts of particular Districts that he who was admitted a Member of one Church was intitled to the Communion of all and that he who was excluded from one was excluded from others also because no other Bishop could justifie his reception of a Christian of another Jurisdiction to his own Communion if he had not the communicatory Letters of his own Bishop Thus it appears that the Obligation even of particular Districts without consent of the Magistrate was then Catholick Doctrine Whence it plainly follows that this Lay-deprivation which is all that can be pretended in the case of our present Bishops is in the Principles of the Catholick Church of St. Cyprian's Age a perfect Nullity and consequently that in regard to Conscience at least our present Bishops are still Bishops and Bishops of those particular Districts as much as ever and the Obligations of the Clergy and Laity in those Districts as obliging to them now as ever 17. This therefore being so that our present Bishops are by the Principles of St. Cyprian's Age as obliging Bishops in Conscience to the Clergy and Laity of their respective Jurisdictions it will thence be as notorious 2dly that the Antibishops of those same Jurisdictions are by the same Principles to be taken for no Bishops at all It is plain that Novatian was disowned as soon as ever it appeared that Cornelius was canonically settled in Fabian's Chair before him and disowned universally so universally that whoever did not disown him was for that very reason disowned himself This is as clear as any particular mentioned in our Adversaries Collection But we do not satisfie our selves with that It is also further as notorious that he was disowned by Principles obliging them in Conscience to disown him and those again not private Opinions but Principles also Fundamental to the Correspondence then maintained in the whole Catholick Church as the other were that we mentioned under the former Head It was then a Principle that Secundus was Nullus which will as much invalidate the Consecrations of the present Antibishops as it did that of Novatian This is a Principle so universally acknowledged wherever there can be but one that it needs no Authorities to recommend it No Man can convey the same thing twice and therefore if there be two Bonds for the same thing to several Persons the 2 d can never be thought obliging but by supposing the Invalidity of the 1 st So also in all Monarchichal Districts none can suppose an Antimonarch's Title good till he has shewn that the first Monarch's Title is not so Thus this Principle needed no Authority and yet it had all the Authority of the whole
deprived and consequently that the Sees are vacant in Conscience If it should prove otherwise the Clergy and Laity of those some jurisdictions will still be obliged in Conscience as much as ever to adhere to their Canonical Bishops till they be Canonically deprived and to disown such Intruders as are put over them not only without any Canonical Procedure but without any Authority also that can oblâ—ge in Conscience The only Principle therefore on which they can pretend that their Rival Bishops have lost their Right as to Conscience must be the Power that even the Lay-Magistrate has to deprive Bishops even with regard to Conscience If therefore they will defend their Schism by Principles it will be necessary that they defend this Principle also without which it is not possible that it should ever be defended They have no Ecclesiastical Judicatory Just or Unjust that they can so much as pretend in this Case And the defending this is that which will increase their Guilt and will add to their Charge of Schism the aggravation of Heresie also For in order to the asserting such a Right as this to the Secular Magistrate it will be necessary to assert that the Authority of the Church even as to Spirituals is in Conscience the Right of the Civil Magistrate If it should not be so then the Subjects of the respective Dioceses may still be at liberty in Conscience to adhere to their deprived Bishops And if they may they must because then all their former Obligations in Conscience will still hold as obliging as ever For it is impossible that those anteceâ—ent Obligations in Conscience to adhere to their spiritual Superiors can be dis-annulled or diminished by a Power that can pretend no Right in such Matters with regard to Conscience But if we grant this Power to the Magistrate this will perfectly overthrow the Church as a Society distinct from the State and perfectly disable it to subsist as a Society in a time of Persecution For when the Magistrate persecutes it it cannot then subsist as a Society without a Government and a Government obliging in Conscience and not derived from the persecuting Magistrate But if the Right of that spiritual Government be in Conscience the Magistrate's Right it must be an invading the Magistrate's Right to pretend to it when he expresly forbids it And if so how can spiritual Governors in such a Case pretend to it How can they pretend to a Right that is none of their own consistently with Conscience How can their pretending to it with ill Consciences oblige their Subjects to adhere to them on account of Conscience Nay how can it even excuse them in Conscience for not adhering rather to him whose Right it is supposed to be and that even in Conscience No Necessity whatsoever can excuse a Sin much less lay an Obligation in Conscience on Subjects to abett it least of all lay an Obligation on God to ratifie such Acts of Authority as must be supposed no better than Vsurpations And yet all Acts of Ecclesiastical Authority in a time of Persecution can signifie nothing if they be not such as may oblige in Conscience and such as God as well as Men is obliged to ratifie Thus it had been Sin in the Romans to set up Cornelius as plainly they did not only without the Consent but against the Will of Decius It had been Sin in him and not in him only but in all the Bishops of his Age to pretend to any Districts in the Roman Empire It had been Sin in them to exercise Authority in Districts not belonging to them Thus the Church had been perfectly dissolved as a Society at least within the Roman Empire unless we can suppose a Notion of a Society without Governours without Districts without any lawful Exercises of Authority And yet the Bishops of those Ages never thought themselves obliged in Conscience to go out of the Roman Empire to retrieve the Power which is pretended to belong to them as Bishops of the Catholick Church And very probably it had signified nothing to have done so They could have gone into no civilized inhabited Countreys but they must have expected Magistrates who could pretend to the same Right as well as Deâ—ius and who were as much disposed as he to use their Right to the prejudice of the Christian Religion What therefore would our Adversaries have advised the Christians of those Ages to have preserved themselves in a Society Would they have had them retired into unoccupied wildernesses But how could they make Societies there where there were no numbers of Subjects requisite to make a Society Plainly therefore the Catholick Church had then been dissolved as Societies if these New Principles had been maintained in those earlier Ages And these same Principles do still put it as evidently in the Power of the Civil Magistrate to dissolve the Church as a Society within his own Dominions For how can a Church continue a Society where Bishops are in Conscience deprived of their spiritual Authority and where Subjects are also absolved from their Obligations in Conscience to obey them And this is also a dissolving the Catholick Church as to such as live in such Dominions and as to any Benefits they can derive from the Catholick Church also For Subjects of particular Districts are no otherwise received into the Catholick Church than as they derive a Right to Communion with all Churches in the World by their being admitted Members of the Churches of their particular Districts And they are also deprived of their Right of Catholick Communion when they are Excommunicated by the lawful Authority of their particular Districts I cannot therefore see how our Adversaries can excuse themselves herein from erring Fundamentally if the Church's being a Society be admitted for a Fundamental 29. If there be degrees of Fundamentals I should think the Fundamentals concerning the Church as a Society to be of the greatest consequence and therefore Fundamental in the Highest degree The Church is indeed obliged to keep the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These are the Expressions by which our Adversaries themsâ—lves I believe conceive the Articles themselves call Fundamental to be signified But she is obliged to keep them as a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as a Trust committed to her How so by avoiding Disputings by stopping the mouths of Hereticks by rebuking them with all Authority bâ— rejecting and avoiding not their Doctrines only but their Persons also when they prove incorrigible Now these things plainly suppose Governors investâ—d with spiritual Authority and a Communion from whence incurable Hereticks are to be rejected So that in order to the keeping these oâ—her Fundamentals the Church as a Society is supposed antecedently as a Condition that alonâ— can qualifie her for having such a Trust committed to hâ—r This Noâ—ion therefore as antecedent must be Fundamental to those other Fundamentals and therefore Fundamental in a higher sense than those things
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
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
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
can be whose security is superstructed upon it And accordingly the Damage to the Publick in subverting these Notions of the Church as a Society iâ— proportionably greater than that which follows from the denial of other particular Articles which are commonly taken for Fundamental He that denies one of the other Articles may yet believe all the rest and zealously defend them and that by Principles too â—gainst all other Hereticks But he that denies the Church as a Society invested with a spiritual Authority does as effâ—ctually contribute to the ruine of all the other Fundamentals at once as he does to the ruine of a Hâ—use who subvers the Foundations of it It brings in impunity for Heresie â—n general and suffers Hereticks still to hope as well in their separate Sects as if they were in 〈…〉 Communion Iâ— lâ—aves them destitute of even any Presumptions that might oblige them â—o judge in Favour of the Church's Doctrine as the safest Error if it should prove one It does by this meanâ— reduce the trial of the Cause to the Reasons themselves and their native Evidence and putâ— it in the Power of assuming Men to pretend greater Evidence than either they have or they really believe And thingâ— being reduced to his pass it is more God's Providence than the security of Principles that hinders any Heretick who disputes any one of the other Articles from questioning all the rest 30. I am sorry our Adversaries Case affords Maâ—ter for so heavy Accusations But they may by this time understand how naturally the Cause affords it if we will judge impartially as we must do if we will judge either solidly or justly if we will judge as no doubt the Righteous Judge of all the World will at the Day of the General Judgment And what can our late Brethren either of the Clergy or Laity say for bringing things to this melancholy Prospect Neither is the Chaâ—ge â—light to which they have made themselves obnoxious by this Unhappy Schism nor is the Evidence slight by which this Charge may be â—roved against them And yet they have wholly been the Aggressors in â—his whole Affair We are exactly where we were exactly where they left us So little can they pretend that we have contributed to this Division We hold the same Doctrines that we did that themselves did formerly We adhere to the same Bishops themselves have owned for Bishops till now Nor are we otherwise divided from them than as they have divided themselves by erecting New Altars against the Altars themselves have hitherto acknowledged Lovers of Unity would be as much grieved for Breaches in the Mystical Body as living Members when by any violence they are divided fâ—om the Body Natuâ—al The litâ—le concern the Harlot shewed for the controverted Infant was to Solomon an Argument that she was not the Mother of it And how comes it to pass they can divide themselves from us with so little remorse if ever they were living Members of our common Mystical Body Do they not tempt us to reason as St. John did thaâ— they never were ours by Principles when they can so easily leave us Have they lost all Reverence for their so lately celebrated Fathers Have they lost all Brotherly Love and Compassion to their Brethren And all for no other Crime than Constancy to our Common Principles And can they still pretend a Zeal to our Common Religion for doing so These they will say are our Opinions But Lovers of Unity would be afflicted for Violations of it whoever were the Occasions of it Lovers of Unity would not willingly grieve their Brethren much less would they do that which even in the Opinions of their Brethren might occasion a Breach of Unity if there were otherwise no great Necessity for doing it Least of all would they do it when they knew those Principâ—es to be Principles of Conscience anâ— of a Conscience firm and stedfast to the true Publick Spiritual Interests of the Church So far they must be from accepting Promotions when they must be purchased at so dear a Rate as that of a Publick Schism But I wish these Opinions of ours were no more than Private Opinions I hâ—s now appâ—ared that they were the sense of the whoâ—e Catholick Church in those Agâ—s which all ought to reverence who will pretend to Reformation and which is to be the Standard of Catholick Unity Yet let them regard us as little as they please methinks at least they should have some regard to the Publick Inâ—erests even of their own Church And yet both the Intruders and their Consecrators proceed on those Principles that put it in the Power of a Popish or Schismatical Prince to dissolve it when they please They cannot justifie what they do without supposing a Vacancy in the Sees to which the new Promotions are made nor can they suppose such a Vacancy without allowing the validity of a State deprivaâ—ion even with regard to Conscience Suppose therefore a Popish Prince with a Popish Parliament should turn their Principles against themselves and deprive all our Bishops with one Act of State I cannot see what these Fathers can pretend to secure their Chuâ—ch as a Society and as a Communion in opposition to them They must then no longer pretend to Dioceses in England They must not pretend to any obligation of their Protestant Clergy and Laity to stand by them even in Conscience They must therefore never pretend to Communions â—n those Dioceses which are plainly Exercises of spiritual Authority in them Nor can they then justifie or even excuse any Assemblies for Religion when forbidden by the Civil Magistrate who is only supposed by these Principles to have also the Right to that spiritual Authority by which alone they can be justified And are these the ways to secure our Religion against Popery No open Persecutions whatsoever can ever ruine us so effâ—ctually as these Doctrines will if ever we receive them Doctrines of our own will break our Union among our selves more than any of our Adversaries open Violences 31. Thus I have shewn that our Author 's Reasoning is not concluding for our Adversaries purpose though his Matters of Fact had been as pertinent â—s our Adversaries conceive them to be I now proceed to the Examination of the Matter of Fact themselves and shall endeavour to shew that even they are not pertinent to our Adversaries Case A VINDICATION OF THE Deprived Bishops c. PART II. Shewing That the Instances collected in the Anonymous Baroccian MS. are indeed not pertinent to the Editors Design for vindicating the Validity of the Deprivation of Spiritual Power by a Lay-Authority 1. THE Use that our Adversaries make of this Collection of Instances which they call Precedents is to shew that our present Bishops are obliged to acquiesce in their unjust Deprivation and that their present Clergy and People are not obliged to stand by them if they think fit to insist on their Right and
chalenge their Duty from them These things they conceive clear from these Instances that neither unjustly deposed Bishops did chalenge their Rights nor their Clergy and Laity assist them in chalenging them if the Bishops substituted in their Places were of the same Faith with those who were deprived But undoubtedly these Reasonings can never pretend to hold any farther than as the Instances here mentioned were parallel to the Case of our present Bishops If the Cases be different and different in so remarkable a Circumstance as will make a difference of Reason also it will not follow that our Bishops now are obliged to doe as those did then though we had been better assured than we are that what was done in the Cases here instanced was justifiable and on other accounts than bare Matter of Fact argumentative and fit to pass into a Precedent And for my part so far I am from thinking the Case the same that I believe their Author himself never intended it should be so Our Adversaries make application of his Instances to a Case wherein not onely the Deprivation is unjust but the Authority itself is null and disobliging that is of a Lay-Deprivation as to the purely Spiritual Authority of our Bishops But in all likelyhood this neither was noâ— could be the Design of this Author to make a Collection of Precedents for Submission to a lay and invalid Deprivation much less in such Circumstances as ours are wherein Men are so prone to make ill Interpretations of such Submission to the justifying such Invasions for the future and the Ruine of the Church as a Society distinct from and independent on the State 2. To shew that this was not his Design it will be convenient to enquire into the Matter of Fact which gave occasion to their Author to draw up this Collection of Precedents and Canons For from thence it will appear how much he was obliged to prove that he might make his Collection pertinent to the Case undertaken by him and whether the speaking home to that Case that was then before him did by any way of rational Consequence oblige him to say things applicable to our present Case to which what he says is applied by our Adversaries This I shall the rather endeavour both because it will be acceptable to the World to know the Occasion of Writing this new published Discourse and because it is not so much as aâ—tempted by either of the worthy Editors which yet was an omission of very ill consequence as to the Reasoning For how was it possible to judge of the Reasoning of their Author whilest as yet the case was unknown against which the Reasoning was designed by him And in order hereunto we have gained a Point in discovering the Time of the Author and thereby the true Age of this Discourse This will confine our Enquiry within a narrower Compass wherein we are to expect the Case that gave Occasion for it Indeed it is the onely token we have for knowing it the Author having given us no Historical Account of the Persons concerned in the Discourse itself 3. The Original therefore of the Schism which occasioned this Discourse is I believe to be derived from the Reign of Michael Palaeologus the Father of the elder Andronicus under whom our Authour wrote I mention nothing now of that elder Schism wherein Nicephorus of Ephesus was set up against Arsenius mentioned by Pachymeres That Quarrel was ended on Arsenius's Restitution and therefore could have no Influence on the Discourse written afterwards The second Schism therefore is that which is to our purpose and it was thus Theodorus Lascaris had left a young Son behind him called John Of him by that time he came to be ten Years of age Michael began to be jealous and to secure himself puts out his Eyes This the then Patriarch Arsenius was very much displeased at and excommunicated him for it The Emperour bore it for a while and wore a penitential Habit hoping within a while to be restored But finding at length no hopes of it this made a Grudge between him and the Patriarch so that the Emperour was resolved to lay him by What then Does he deprive him by his secular Authority No such matter Gregoras observes that he did not take the course his Power would suggest nor use it openly There was no such Power so much as pretended to by the Lay-Magistrate even in those late and degenerous Ages He pretends indeed a frivolous Cause against the Patriarch yet he makes not himself the Judge of it but a Synod However he gained his Point the Synod did as the Emperour would have them and deposed the Patriarch This being done they translate Germanus from the See of Adrianople to that of Constantinople which revived a Dispute about Translations first started as Georgius Pachymeres tells us by Joseph who succeeded him and occasioned a like Collection of Instances as this is which we have still preserved in the same Baroccian MS. There we have also the Synodical Proceedings concerning the Translation of Germanus which giâ—es us the time of it that it was in May the Year of the World as they then reckoned 6773 that is in the Year of our Lord as we now account 1266. But Germanus not being able to endure the Envy and Odium of coming into Arsenius's Place so injuriously vacated retires after two years Arsenius being yet alive Pachymeres says that the Emperour was also underhand very active in it Upon this Arsenius stirs again but in vain Joseph was by the Emperour's Interest again set up against him Thiâ— was about the time of the Eclipse which Gregoras mentions in May in the year of the World 6775. that was the year of our Lord 1268. Pachymeres is more distinct and tells us that Germanus resigned about September Arsenius upon this acts authoritatively and deprives Joseph for so we find it pleaded elsewhere by the Followers of Arsenius in the same Gregoras This was a Chalenging of his Right upon the Vacancy and had this effect with those who thought him injured that they would no more own the Communion of Joseph so that from that time forward the Schism began This is certain that when Michael afterwards endeavoured an Vnion with the Latines in the Council of Lyons in the year 1274. both Parties opposed it with great Zeal Joseph himself so far that he was deposed for it and Beccus set up in his Place And yet though both Parties united against the common Adversary they would not doe so among themselves They still avoided each others Communion as much as they did that of the Latines Thus things continued in that Reign though both Parties were persecuted by the Emperour who did all he could to force them both to his Vnion of the Council of Lyons At length he dyes and then all things return Beccus retires and the Schismatical Exiles of both parts come home This must have been in the year 1284. if
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