A vindication of the deprived Bishops, asserting their spiritual rights against a lay-deprivation, against the charge of schism, as managed by the late editors of an anonymous Baroccian ms in two parts ... to which is subjoined the latter end of the said ms. omitted by the editors, making against them and the cause espoused by them, in Greek and English. Dodwell, Henry, 1641-1711. 1692 Approx. 412 KB of XML-encoded text transcribed from 52 1-bit group-IV TIFF page images. Text Creation Partnership, Ann Arbor, MI ; Oxford (UK) : 2005-12 (EEBO-TCP Phase 1). A36263 Wing D1827 ESTC R10150 11817102 ocm 11817102 49536 This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Early English Books Online Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal . The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission. Early English books online. (EEBO-TCP ; phase 1, no. A36263) Transcribed from: (Early English Books Online ; image set 49536) Images scanned from microfilm: (Early English books, 1641-1700 ; 529:11) A vindication of the deprived Bishops, asserting their spiritual rights against a lay-deprivation, against the charge of schism, as managed by the late editors of an anonymous Baroccian ms in two parts ... to which is subjoined the latter end of the said ms. omitted by the editors, making against them and the cause espoused by them, in Greek and English. Dodwell, Henry, 1641-1711. 104, [2] p. [s.n.], London : 1692. Attributed to Henry Dodwell. Cf. DNB. A reply to Humphry Hody's translation of a Baroccian manuscript in the Bodleian library, which was published under title: The unreasonableness of a separation from the new bishops. Cf. DNB, v. 27, p. 77. Imperfect: page 2 of "The canons in the Baroccian manuscript" is lacking on film. Reproduction of original in Cambridge University Library. I. Shewing, that through the instances collected in the said ms. had been pertinent to the editors design, yet that would not have been sufficient for obtaining their cause -- II. Shewing, that the instances there collected are indeed not pertinent to the editors design, for vindicating the validity of the deprivation of spiritual power by a lay-authority. Created by converting TCP files to TEI P5 using tcp2tei.xsl, TEI @ Oxford. Re-processed by University of Nebraska-Lincoln and Northwestern, with changes to facilitate morpho-syntactic tagging. Gap elements of known extent have been transformed into placeholder characters or elements to simplify the filling in of gaps by user contributors. EEBO-TCP is a partnership between the Universities of Michigan and Oxford and the publisher ProQuest to create accurately transcribed and encoded texts based on the image sets published by ProQuest via their Early English Books Online (EEBO) database (http://eebo.chadwyck.com). The general aim of EEBO-TCP is to encode one copy (usually the first edition) of every monographic English-language title published between 1473 and 1700 available in EEBO. EEBO-TCP aimed to produce large quantities of textual data within the usual project restraints of time and funding, and therefore chose to create diplomatic transcriptions (as opposed to critical editions) with light-touch, mainly structural encoding based on the Text Encoding Initiative (http://www.tei-c.org). The EEBO-TCP project was divided into two phases. The 25,363 texts created during Phase 1 of the project have been released into the public domain as of 1 January 2015. Anyone can now take and use these texts for their own purposes, but we respectfully request that due credit and attribution is given to their original source. Users should be aware of the process of creating the TCP texts, and therefore of any assumptions that can be made about the data. Text selection was based on the New Cambridge Bibliography of English Literature (NCBEL). If an author (or for an anonymous work, the title) appears in NCBEL, then their works are eligible for inclusion. Selection was intended to range over a wide variety of subject areas, to reflect the true nature of the print record of the period. In general, first editions of a works in English were prioritized, although there are a number of works in other languages, notably Latin and Welsh, included and sometimes a second or later edition of a work was chosen if there was a compelling reason to do so. Image sets were sent to external keying companies for transcription and basic encoding. Quality assurance was then carried out by editorial teams in Oxford and Michigan. 5% (or 5 pages, whichever is the greater) of each text was proofread for accuracy and those which did not meet QA standards were returned to the keyers to be redone. After proofreading, the encoding was enhanced and/or corrected and characters marked as illegible were corrected where possible up to a limit of 100 instances per text. Any remaining illegibles were encoded as s. Understanding these processes should make clear that, while the overall quality of TCP data is very good, some errors will remain and some readable characters will be marked as illegible. Users should bear in mind that in all likelihood such instances will never have been looked at by a TCP editor. The texts were encoded and linked to page images in accordance with level 4 of the TEI in Libraries guidelines. Copies of the texts have been issued variously as SGML (TCP schema; ASCII text with mnemonic sdata character entities); displayable XML (TCP schema; characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or text strings within braces); or lossless XML (TEI P5, characters represented either as UTF-8 Unicode or TEI g elements). Keying and markup guidelines are available at the Text Creation Partnership web site . eng Hody, Humphrey, 1659-1707. -- Unreasonableness of a separation from the new bishops. Church of England -- Bishops -- Early works to 1800. Nonjurors -- Early works to 1800. Bishops -- England -- Early works to 1800. 2005-04 TCP Assigned for keying and markup 2005-06 SPi Global Keyed and coded from ProQuest page images 2005-07 Emma (Leeson) Huber Sampled and proofread 2005-07 Emma (Leeson) Huber Text and markup reviewed and edited 2005-10 pfs Batch review (QC) and XML conversion 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 ●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 mentions the Opposition , but not the Schisms , that fell out in the two Settlements of Dositheus ; therefore our Author takes it for granted that there were none , and reasons accordingly upon that Supposition . These things plainly shew , that our Author did not write within any near Memory of the History written by Nicetas ; and therefore must be considerably later than the beginning even of the XIIIth Century . 3. It will farther add to the Probability of this Observation , if it be considered , that our Author was a Constantinopolitane , and in such a Station in the Church of Constantinople , as that he could not have needed the Information of written Monuments for the Affairs of the Church of Constantinople , that had been within the reach of a near Tradition . This has already been observed by the English Prefacer , Mr. B. and observed from hence , that our Author derives the Orders of the Church he was concerned for from former Bishops of Constantinople : But for this perhaps it might have been sufficient , that he had been of any part of the Constantinopolitane Jurisdiction , at least of a Church which owned the Patriarch of Constantinople for their more immediate Metropolitane ; I therefore add another Argument that will not be so easily evaded . Our Author speaking of the Synodicon , says it was read in the Church , as every body knew . This was particularly true of the particular Church of Constantinople : There it was that the Tomus Vnionis , that part of the Synodicon to which our Author refers , was made , as Anastasius Caesareensis assures us . And therefore there it was that it was ordered to be read every July annually . The Union it self particularly concerned breaches , which had been before between Constantinopolitane Patriarchs , and was therefore most proper to be read in the Patriarchal Church . I add farther , that the Author seems to have a constant fixed relation to that particular Church , as an Officer of it , and such and Officer as that it was his particular Duty to be conversant in the Histories belonging to it . The subject Matter of this Discourse is Historical : And the address of is not to Readers , but Auditors . This plainly shews that it was spoken : And of these spoken Historical Discourses we have many Instances in this very same Baroccian MS. We have here the larger Epitome of the Ecclesiastical History of the Arian Philostorgius , which is here said to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . We have also several Collections of History ascribed to Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopulus in the same form of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , out of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius , of Theodoret , of Theodorus Lector . This form therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 seems to have been opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as the address to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is also to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Both together seem to imply that it was rather a Speech designed for Auditors , than a Writing for Readers : That is , that it was not committed to writing by the Author himself , but by the Author only spoken ; it was taken from his Mouth , and committed to writing by the Auditors . I think there can be little reason to doubt , but that the address of this Discourse to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , is exactly answerable to this other form in the Works inscribed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . If so , then we may reasonably judge , that our Author , whoever he was , was in the same Office in the Church of Constantinople wherein Photius and Nicephorus were , when they also pronounced and dictated the Works which are so inscribed to them ; and that his Office was , as theirs was , particularly to enquire into Ecclesiastical History , and to instruct his Auditors in it . As for what Mr. B — collects from this address , That the Tract it self was a Homily , methinks the whole nature of the Subject might have sufficed to convince him . He might as well have conjectured all the Collections out of Eusebius , Socrates , Sozomen , &c. to have been Homilies , because they are also 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . But this I believe that worthy Person was not aware of , who does not seem himself to have perused the MS. 4. Perhaps these Expressions may afford us some , not improbable Conjectures concerning the Nature and Design of all these Historical Collections ; particularly Mr. Hody may be pleased to remember what himself has very well observed in his Premonition to Malela . He has there observed a multitude of Historians called Rhetors and Sophists , whence he well infers , that those very Titles seem to have had some relation to their very Faculty of being Historians . He observes farther , that there was a Rhetor appropriated to the service of particular Churches . Such was the Rhetor of Aenus , joyned with the Ecdicus or Defensor of the same Church . And it is indeed probable that all those Historians , who are called Rhetors and Sophists , were called so from their bearing that Office in some particular Church . He has observed farther , That in the Service of these Churches there were Bodies of these Rhetors , and among them one who presided over the rest , as Samuel over the Prophets , called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Magister , ( as that Name was in those Ages applied to Presidents of the Palatine Offices also , ) and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , answerable also to the Secular Campidoctores in Vegetius , and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . These Ecclesiastical Rhetors seem to have been one part of the Clergy , that were maintained by the Revenues of the Foundation , mentioned frequently in the Imperial Constitutions , particularly designed for this purpose of studying Ecclesiastical History . The young Men therefore designed for this study , were obliged to be Auditors of the Principal Rhetor , who was a kind of a publick Professor of Ecclesiastical History . The use of this study for the Service of the Church , was to search into Precedents when any Act of publick Discipline required it , and very probably into Canons also , when the Case was resolvible by written Canons . Both are made use of in this Discourse , though the Editor has omitted all the Canons . Thus this Ecclesiastical History was consulted for both Laws , both the written ones and the unwritten ones , which were nothing else but allowed Practice . This Profession therefore being found so useful for the Service of the Church , care was taken that there might always be an Ecclesiastical Nursery , that might continually afford Candidates qualified to supply the Chair , as often as a vacancy should fall . That was by obliging the Master to a constant Duty in his Function , for the Instruction of his young Students . And the Duty was either to take a received Historian , and to abbreviate him , or to collect a multitude of Instances in a particular Case when he was consulted , thereby to let the young Students understand the design of their Historical Studies . But all was by word of Mouth and by way of Dictates , to be committed to writing by the Auditors themselves . This was the easiest way for multiplying Copies before Printing was invented : And withal it exercised the Abilities of the Writer , in teaching him to write truly . And indeed it seems to have been the general way of teaching . Thus the Authors taught in the ordinary Schools , are called Centum cirratorum dictata . And hence it is , that we have so many Homilies of the Fathers preserved in writing by their Pupils , when only spoken by themselves , under the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . 5. This therefore is an easie and obvious Account of the Words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and the address to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nor is it easier in it self , than fit to the Persons of those whose Dictates we have in this same MS. Nicephorus tells us himself , in his Preface to his History , That he had been bred up from a Boy in the Church of St. Sophia . This is the exact Character of those young Students , who were educated at the Charges of the Church for these Ecclesiastical Services , and who were withal the fairest Candidates for these Masterships , whenever they fell vacant , either by the Death , or the farther Promotion of those who possessed them . Then it was probably to be expected , that after many years Profession , they should draw up their Dictates into the form of a continued History , as it is most likely all those Historians did , who are still known by the Names of Rhetors and Sophists . And it is very probable that Nicephorus's History was the last thing performed by him : He says himself he was in the 36 th year of his Age when he began it , and yet that he was then but young , implying plainly , that he was old when he finished it , and wrote the Dedicatory Epistle to Andronicus . It is also probable that Photius , who was afterwards Patriarch , had been also his Predecessor in this same Office , because his Excerpta out of Philostorgius , contained in this same MS. are said also to have been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . That may , perhaps , give an account how these Excerpta of Photius came to be inserted among the Dictates of Nicephorus . It is not unlikely those larger Excerpta of Photius dictated from Philostorgius , had occasioned the loss of Philostorgius himself , and that Nicephorus was therefore necessitated to use those Excerpta for his own Text , which he was to dictate to his Pupils . The Office it self seems to have been far antienter than the time of Photius , as appears from the multitude of Rhetors and Sophists before him , that were Historians : For my part , I am apt to think it near as old as the Foundation of the Church of Constantinople by Constantine the Great . Socrates the Historian himself has two Collections of Historical Precedents ; one concerning the different Customs of different Churches , to satisfie , as it should seem , the Scrupulosity of some who scrupled the Lawfulness of Things themselves had not been used to ; the other of the Translations of Bishops from one See to another , occasioned by a Translation , made in the 5th Century , of Proclus from Cyzicus to Constantinople . Hence one might conjecture , that as he might have the Materials for his History from the Dictates of his Master Troilus , the Sophist ; so he might have these Collections of Precedents , so like to ours , from some Cases proposed and resolved by the same Troilus , and by him communicated in Dictates to his Pupils . This is the rather to be conjectured , because Digressions of that kind are not so usual in Histories antienter than this Custom . Withall Socrates assures us that Troilus had the Office of Rhetor , and that he was not the first , but succeeded Silvanus in it . This was in the same Church we are mentioning , of Constantinople . And Valesius has elsewhere observed the Habit proper to that Rhetor , answerable to those of our Academical Professors : See his Notes on Socr. L.VII. c. 12. It is certain , long before that time there were Grammarians , Orators , Physicians , Philosophers , maintained on the Publick for the use of Cities , and frequently mentioned in the Pandects , at least from the time of Marcus. Why should it therefore be thought strange , that even Constantine himself should make the like provision for Studies necessary for the Church , out of the Revenues himself was pleased to settle upon Churches ? And the like provision we find in the Ecclesiastical Foundations . We have several Writers called Grammatici , no doubt because they were the Instructers of the Ecclesiastical Grammarians : Others we have , called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as presiding also over the Ecclesiastical Philosophers . It is perhaps a little more difficult to give an account of the use of this Phrase in this MS. upon occasion of producing a Passage of Hegesippus out of Eusebius , which is said to be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . But it is not probable that that Custome of the Ecclesiastical Rhetor was near so old as the time of Hegesippus . I am sure Eusebius , from whom Nicephorus took all he pretends concerning Hegesippus , gives him not the least occasion to think so . It is particularly certain , that Eusebius himself had that Passage , not from the Voice , but the Writings of Hegesippus . I therefore rather believe , that this Passage also of Hegesippus , was from the Voice of Nicephorus , delivered by him in Dictates to his Pupils , as many other things in this same MS. are , out of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History ; only perhaps there might be some particular occasion for dictating this Passage of Hegesippus out of the ordinary course and method of his Readings . 6. I am apt therefore to think , that the Author of this MS. was the Ecclesiastical Rhetor then in Office when the Schism happened that occasioned it . Who that was , it is hard now to judge , because we have no Catalogues extant of the Successors in that Office : And if we had any , it could hardly be guessed at till we can first gain some prospect of the time wherein it was written , which is the thing into which we are at present enquiring . And in order hereunto all that we can infer from this Office of the Author , is that he could not live within memory of the latter part of the History of Nicetas Choniates . I now add farther , that it seems also probable , that he did not live at any great distance from the memory of it . This I gather , because he ascribes the generality of the Orders of his own Time to these five Successors in the time of Isaacius Angelus . He does not say so of the Ignatians and Photians , nor of the Nicolaitans and Euthymians , nor of any of those more distant Patriarchal Factions . That therefore he says it of these latest of his Examples , the Reason seems to be to let his Auditors thereby understand , that he had now brought down his Succession of Precedents so near his own time , that the old Clergymen then living , though they could not remember those Patriarchs of the time of Isaacius themselves ; yet they could at least remember , that the old Men ▪ from whom themselves received their Orders , did remember them , and did withall profess , that they had received their Orders from them . This will bring our Author's time within a Century after those times of Isaacius Angelus . So the first remarkable Schism that fell within that distance , will most probably be the occasion of this Work , and the Ecclesiastical Rhetor then in Office the Author of it : But of this more hereafter . 7. I confess , I was once of the mind that Nicephorus Callistus was the Author of it : My reason was , that which is mentioned by Mr. Hody , that his Name is made use of in most of the Works contained in this Volume , either in the Titles , or in the Tables ; and that both before and after this of which we are at present discoursing . This made me think , that the whole Volume was intended for a Collection of Pieces wherein he was some way concerned , and that his Name was intended for the Title here , if the Illuminator had performed his Office , in adding a Title to it : But upon more thorough consideration I have , I confess , altered my Opinion . I observe this Tract is in a hand extremely different from the other hands of the whole Volume : It is withall contrived within a quire proper to itself , and the latter end in a little smaller hand , that it might come within that compass . Thence it appears , that it was written singly , not to be connected with a following Vacancy , where there might have been room for what remained ; but to be bound up with other things already written . Accordingly what follows begins abruptly , as if the former quire had been purposely left out , to make room for this insertion : These are Tokens , that it was not at first designed as a part of this particular Collection . Then it begins so near the top of the Page , that one would suspect no Title was intended , but that the Author's Name was purposely omitted . And indeed no Author's Name seems to have been mentioned in the Copies from whence Cotelerius intended to have published it . Withall I doubt , that Nicephorus Callistus , who wrote when Andronicus was now grown old in the Empire , might have been somewhat of the latest to have been the Author of it . Besides , there are considerable Differences between our Author and Nicephorus : Mr. Hody has observed one , if the Interposition of Leontius between the Inthronings of Dositheus be not rather some Disorder of our Copy of Nicephorus's Catalogue of Patriarchs . There are also several other Differences : Our Author calls the first of the Patriarchs deposed by Anastasius Dicorus Euthymius , and that as often as he mentions him , both in the Tract itself , and the Summary , as several others had done before him . Nicephorus calls him rightly Euphemius , both in his MS. Catalogue , and in his Ecclesiastical History . Our Author takes no notice that Timotheus , the next Successor but one to Euphemius , was a Heretick ; but Nicephorus does in his Catalogue of Patriarchs , if the inserted Censures of the Patriarchs be his : There he is called , in an interlineary Note , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . However in his History he takes notice of his Fickleness , that he sometimes approved , and again openly condemned the Synod of Chalcedon . This was sufficient to hinder him from arguing , that his orthodoxy was the reason why his Communion was owned , notwithstanding his Usurpation . So also from the remaining Contents of the 23d Book of Nicephorus Callistus , it appears that Nicephorus owned that there were Schisms in the time of Leo Sapiens , under the Patriarchate of Stephen , the Emperor's Brother , and of Nicolaus Mysticus and Euthymius , though it seems our Authour knew nothing of them . 8. Thus much therefore we have gained , That in Matters of so great Antiquity as are here debated , this Author's Word alone is by no means competent to be depended on as an Authority . Hence it will follow farther , that we may now very justly put the Stress of our Cause upon examining the Merit of the things themselves , without any relation to the Author : And if we can shew , that his Way of Reasoning is not concluding , though the Matters of Fact produced by him were as pertinent to our present Case as our Adversaries are concerned they should be ; and also that his Matters of Fact are far from being such as they suppose them ; I cannot foresee what our Adversaries can in reason desire more , for shewing how little reason they have to be so confident , on account of what is said by this Author . 9. First therefore , as to the Reasoning itself , how much soever it be insisted on by our late Brethren in our present Disputes ; yet neither is it such as would be thought fit to be regarded by Men of Conscience , nor safe to be trusted by Men of Prudence and Skill in the Art of Reasoning . They pretend to have amassed 18 Instances , ( of Bishops who did not think fit to insist on their Right , or were not seconded by their Subjects if they did so , when they were not deprived on account of Heresie , ) out of the History of 900 Years . Whether they did well or not in it , is not here so much as attempted to be proved ; only it is presumed to be well done , barely because 't was done in so many Instances , and no publick opposition made against it . But if Matters of Fact so nakedly mentioned must be urged for Precedents , it will be impossible to make any thing of this way of Arguing from History . What History is there , that in a Succession of 900 Years , does not afford Examples against Examples ? And how can it be understood which are rather to be followed as Examples , if no more be considered concerning them but barely this , that they were Examples ? How easie were it for an Historian , by this Way of Reasoning , to justifie , as our Brethren do , the wickedest things that can be ! They prove it lawful to break Oaths , from the Example of King Stephen , which I believe they will hardly find one antient Historian who does excuse it from the Charge of Perjury : I am sure they may find several , who charge it as expresly as we do , with that very Imputation . And can we not , in the same scope of Time , produce 18 Instances of successfull Wickednesses , of Murther , Adultery , Sacrilege , &c. committed by potent Persons , whom it was no way safe to contradict , at least where there are no Memorials of Opposition transmitted to Posterity ? Can any Man of Conscience think it fit , that 18 Instances on one side , in such a space of Time , should be the Rule of his Conscience ? Or can any wise Man think himself obliged to defend whatever may be patronized by such a number of Instances ? 10. The Design of this Way of Arguing is , no doubt , to prove the Sense and Approbation , at least , of those Churches where these Instances passed without Contradiction ; but it is manifest , that many more things are requisite for proving that , besides naked Matter of Fact. What if in the Instances here mentioned , the Churches did not adhere to unjustly-deprived Bishops , when the Intruders were not Hereticks ? Yet many more things must be requisite to be made 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 by Principles by which they thought they could justifie their Facts , at least with regard to their own Consciences . It is certainly no breach of Charity to suppose , ( what Histories afford us so many Examples of , ) that as numerous Bodies as were here concerned , even of Persons making a great Profession of Religion , have notwithstanding been influenced by Motives very different from what themselves professed . And it is certain , that in this lower Antiquity , wherein this Author principally deals , the Generality of Christians were both ignorant enough in true Originals of our Religion , to be mistaken concerning their Duty ; and withal wicked enough to be seduced from the Practice of it , though they had never so throughly understood it . So easie it was for what was done , not to have been done by Principles , though it had been determined by the greater number of Suffrages . Who knows not that in great Bodies the ignorant and the wicked have generally the greatest number of Suffrages , who notwithstanding cannot be presumed to doe what they doe by any solid Principles ? Yet who withall knows not how few are many times concerned in the Motions of whole Bodies ; and how far what they do is , upon that account , from being imputable to a Majority of Suffrages ? I do not now insist on the greater Numbers , who are in Duty obliged rather to follow the Conduct of others , than to shew their Opinion distinct from that of their Conductors : Even Spiritual Guides , and those in Spiritual Authority , are not for the greatest part the best and wisest ; and yet the Nature of Societies requires , that the fewest able and good Men should be determined by the Majority ; that is , that they who are the most likely to know Principles , and to be influenced by them , should be concluded by those who are least skilfull in Principles , and are withall least presumable to act by Principles . And in that case who can presume , that the Actings of such Bodies are agreeable to the Principles of the Actors themselves ? Especially who can presume it then , when the Cases of Ignorance and Insincerity are most frequent , as they were most certainly in many of the Instances here amassed at a great distance from the Apostles , and in great Ignorance of the Originals of Religion ; and when withall worldly Prosperity had taken them off from regarding Principles , or being willing to suffer for them . The very least signification of Principles , where they are not expresly owned , is that good Men are pleased and satisfied with what they doe . But as this Reasoning does onely hold in Men who are otherwise known to be good , so from Matters of Fact alone none can gather , whether the Actors be secretly pleased with what they doe , or whether they be not really ashamed of it . 14. Thus difficult it is to conclude Principles , even where the Matters of Fact attested are Actions : But it is yet more difficult , fifthly , Where they are not Actions but Omissions . Such are these we are now discoursing of , whether of Bishops not insisting on their Rights , or of their Subjects not seconding them when they did insist on them . In either Case it is extremely difficult to gather , that pure regard to Conscience was the true Reason of such Omissions : That is , that when any injured Bishops did not insist on their Rights , the Reason was , that they thought themselves obliged in Conscience not to insist on them , as being chargable with the Schism , which would follow from the Intruders maintaining their Possession against them . And that when Subjects did not second them in the Assertion of their own Rights , the true Reason was , that such Subjects also did not think themselves obliged to second them , even in Conscience . Many other Reasons might have been given in both Cases , besides this of Conscience , which our Adversaries are concerned that it should have been the only Reason : Many , which will by no means reach our present Case , to prove either that our present Bishops are obliged in Conscience by those Precedents not to challenge their Rights ; or that we are not obliged , on their callenging them , to maintain them in them . One Reason might have been the Vnactiveness of their Temper naturally following from their Monkish Education , which might make them willing to be excused from a Life of Labour and Action ; especially when it might withall seem to have so many commendable Ingredients to a Mind willing to be excused , of native Bashfulness , of Modesty , of Humility , of Self-denial to themselves , without considering on the other side the publick Interest● that might balance them . Another might be the great Difficulties to be expected in asserting their Rights , and the great Uncertainty of the Event which must depend upon the Concurrence of many others , who must all doe their Duty , as well as themselves , and yet could not be depended on . Another might be the great Danger to their Persons , as well as the Difficulty of their Design , when they had to contest with exasperated as well as potent Adversaries . These are the more plausible , and more pardonable Inducements , to which might be added many more real though corrupt ones , which , to be sure , would never be owned openly . It is needless to enumerate them particularly , and yet not uncharitable in the general to suppose them possible , till something appear particularly in the Lives and Principles of the Persons concerned , to believe their Case to have been particular . It is certain all the Endeavours of Bishops to assert their own Rights can signifie nothing , unless they who owe them Duty will stand by them in it . And we know withall upon how ticklish Points the Motions of Multitudes do depend , even where they are well disposed to their Duty , and are particularly satisfied that the Case proposed is so . They also reckon upon the Difficulties and Dangers that must befall each particular , if all cannot be persuaded to move together ; and that is a thing they know not how to reckon on . And thus whilst all expect the other should move first , and each of them is affraid of moving singly ; whilst all depend on a few Examples , and those few are affraid of not being followed as Examples , the Season of Motion is lost , and no likelihood of its recovery , when their hopes of the concurrence of others is lost , and each is to act separately . All that Principles can oblige Men to , is only to do the thing to which they are obliged by Principles : But affirmative Precepts do not , as they say , oblige ad semper ; and therefore they are not obliged to put the Duty in Practice , till it be prudent , or till the Circumstances with which the Action is vested make it a Duty : And that Men often resolve on , who yet by such Delays find that what was at first resolved on , at length becomes unpracticable . How unreasonable would it be thence to conclude , that they never resolved on it , or that they did not think it their Duty to resolve on it ! 15. Thus very difficult this whole Reasoning is , from Instances barely represented , to gather the 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 Catholick Church of that Age. The whole Collegium of Catholick Bishops ( that is St. Cyprian's Term ) gave their Communicatory Letters , not to Novatian , but Cornelius ; and received none to their own Communion on the Communicatory Letters of Novatian , but only on those of Cornelius . And that upon this same common Principle , that Cornelius being once validly Bishop of Rome , Novatian could never be a Bishop of that same District without the Death , or Cession , or Deprivation of Cornelius ; and that supposing him no Bishop of that place to which he was consecrated , he could be no Bishop at all . So far they were then from our late Fancy of a Bishop of the Catholick Church without a particular District . Had they thought so , they might have ratified Novatian's Acts as a Bishop , because he had received his Power from Bishops , though not as Bishop of Rome . Comparing the Catholick Church to a Fanum or Temple , he was Profanus , as not being in the Temple , nor having a Right to enter into it . Comparing it to the House in which the Passover was to be eaten by the Jews , he was Foris , not in that House , in which alone the Passover was to be eaten . These were the Notions of St. Cyprian , and were by him and his Colleagues understood of the Catholick Church in general , when they all supposed Novatian out of the Catholick in general , by being out of that particular Church of Rome , of which he had formerly been a Member . Just as in ordinary Excommunications , they also always supposed , that he who was by any Act of obliging Authority deprived of his Right to his own particular Church , had also lost his Right thereby to all the particular Churches in the World. And they also supposed Novatian to have cast himself out of his own Body , by assuming to himself the name of a Head of that Body , which already had a Head , and could have no more than one . And these Notions , and this Language of St. Cyprian , were supposed and owned universally by the whole Body of the Catholick Bishops of his Time , when they acted consequently to them , and took them for the Measures , by which they either granted , or refused their own Communion . Nor is it to be thought strange , that these Notions should be received , and received universally , not as the Opinions of private Persons , but as the publick Doctrine , and Fundamental to the Catholick Communion , as practiced , not only in that early Age of St. Cyprian , but as derived from the Apostles themselves , and the very first Originals of Christianity : For these were not , as private Opinions usually were , only the result of private Reasonings ; they were received as the Fundamentals of Christianity , which were not as new Revelations generally were from the like Notions received among the Jews , and among them received not as private Opinions , but as publick Doctrines , and Fundamental to the then practised Sacrifical Communion of the then peculiar People , and only thence deduced ( as other things also are , in the Reasonings of the New Testament ) to the Case of the new Mystical Peculium , and their new Mystical Sacrifices . The Language of erecting Altar against Altar in St. Cyprian , is derived from the like earlier Language received among the Jews , concerning the Samaritan Altar of Manasses , against the Jerusalem Altar of Jaddus , that is of a High Priest against a High Priest , when God had appointed but one High Priest in the whole World , and Him only at Jerusalem . And it is also plain , that the Body of the Jews did look on such Schismatical High Priests , and all their Communicants , as cut off from the Body of their Peculium , and consequently from all their publick Sacrifices , and all the Privileges consequent to them . Why should we therefore think it strange , that the Apostolical Christians should have the like Opinion of them , who set up themselves as opposite Heads of their Mystical Sacrifices ? 18. But this is not all . It is further as notorious , 3dly , that all who any way professed themselves one with Novatian , were for that very reason of their doing so , taken for divided from the Catholick Church , as well as he was with whom they were united . Here also the reason was very evident , that he who professed , and , by publick Profession , made himself one with a Person divided , must , by the same Analogy of Interpretation , profess himself divided , and by that very profession , actually divide himself also , by making himself one with the Person suppos'd to be divided . Nor was this reason more evident , than universally aknowledged in the Discipline of that Age. All such Vniters with the Schismatick , were refused to be admitted to Communion , not by particular Bishops only ( as the Case would have been if the Opinion had been singular ) but by all the Bishops of one Communion in the World. 19. Not only so : But it is also as notorious , 4thly , from the Practice and Discipline of that Age , that all whom they looked upon as united with Novatian , they consequently looked on as divided from themselves . To be sure in the first place , those who had any hand in his pretended Consecration , which were principally and particularly reflected on by Cornelius in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch . Nor would his People be receiv'd to Communion by any Catholick Bishop on the Communicatory Letters of Novatian , and they could expect none from Cornelius whilst they were divided from him . Thus all his Subjects came to be involved , as well as himself . But that which was highest of all , was , that even Bishops were supposed to have divided themselves from their Brethren , if they communicated with him ; that is , if , according to the custom of that Age , they either gave communicatory Letters to him , or receiv'd any to their own Communion on the like Communicatory Letters received from him . This appear'd plainly in the Case of Martian of Arles , who was , on this very account , denied the Communicatory Letters of his Brethren ; and would , no doubt , have appeared also in the Case of Fabius of Antioch , if he had proceeded so far . And this does plainly suppose , that such Bishops also had cut themselves off from Catholick Communion by their own Act. Especially according to St. Cyprian's Principles , who makes every Bishop in his own District , supreme and accountable to none but God ; and therefore obnoxious to no superiour Jurisdiction . And by this means it also appeared , to have been more than a private Opinion in that Age , when even no Bishop could be permitted in the Communion of his Brethren , if he dissented from them in this particular . Thus , to make application to our present Case , all the Bishops will be involved , who Communicate either with the Principal Schismaticks , or the Schismatical Consecrators . And this will also take in , by the same Principles , all Communicants with such Bishops . For when the Bishop was refused Communion , the effect of such refusal was , that none should thence forwards expect to be received to the Communion of those who had refused him , on his Communicatory Letters ; and no other Communicatory 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 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 A●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 or in equivalent Terms . And if a Person will needs make a breach on account of an Opinion , it rather aggravates , than diminishes his Guilt , that the Opinion is of little consequence : His own Will is more concerned in it ; that is , his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ; and he is therefore more a Heretick , and as Hereticks were , more self-condemned , Tit. 3.2 if , even in his own Opinion , the Matter for which he separates , be not of any considerable Importance . Even a Truth , and a Truth that has great Evidenct of its being so , may make a Heresie , if it be no way conducive nor disadvantageous to the good of Souls ; and yet the Person who maintains it , will by no means endure Communion with those who are of another Mind . He might have more pretence of Zeal , though mistaken , if the Mistake on the Church's side did indeed concern Souls , and seemed , at least , of dangerous consequence to them . When he has not even that to pretend for himself , who can impute his breaking on such accounts to any other Original than an assuming Imperiousness of Temper , and a love of Contention , which we generally acknowledge to be the principal Ingredients of Heresie ? Certain it is , that such a breach for Opinions , though true , yet of no consequence , is highly culpable , and destructive to that Vnity , which Christ designed for his Church , and the more culpable for that very reason , that the Opinion is of little consequence . Yet it cannot properly be called Schism , which is only a breach like those which fall out frequently in secular Affairs , when Men fall into Parties , on account of a Temper ungovernable , or ambitious , without any proper difference of Opinion and Doctrine . And it being no Schism , what can we call it in the Discipline of the Church , if it be not Heresie ? 25. These Opinions therefore which are not otherwise Heretical on account of the Nature of the Opinions themselves , do then begin to be Heretical , when they begin to be characteristical of distinct Communions . And that they do , not only when Men designedly separate from others on that very account because they are not of the same Opinions ; but also when they venture on such Practices on account of their singular Opinions , wherein others cannot communicate with them , for that very reason because they cannot join with them in those their singular Opinions . Then plainly the differing in such Opinions , makes a difference of Communion unavoidable ; and therefore the Opinions themselves , in such a Case as this is , are Signals of different Communions , which will come under the charge of Heresie , as contradistinct from Schism , in the Notion now described of the Primitive Church . Thus ; had St. Hierome proceeded as far as Aerius in the Practice of his Opinion concerning the Original Identity of Bishops and Presbyters , and had thereupon broken himself off from his Duty to the Bishop of the Diocese , and by that means either made or countenanced a Schism , which he had never countenanced but on account of this Doctrine of his which he held in Common with the Aërians , that Doctrine had then been Heresie in him , as well as the Aërians . So also Opinions do then begin to be Treasonable , when they are actually productive of Treasonable Actions : Thus Latitudinarian Opinions in the Church , do always weaken or dissolve the Obligation in Conscience to maintain the Church as a Society in a time of Persecution from the Civil Magistrate ; yet till that Case fall out , and when Interest lyes on the Church's side , they often still keep one Communion who are for such Opinions , and may continue in it while there are any other Inducements to keep them in it besides those of Conscience Only it may perhaps be fit to be considered whether it be prudent to trust such Persons with the Management of the Government of the Church , who have no Obligation of Principles or Conscience to maintain it as an independent Society , or to suffer for it , that is , indeed who are never likely to maintain it in that very Case which was most in our Saviour's and the Apostles v●ew ; that is , of a Persecution . But when they actually divide that Communion which they were never obliged in Conscience to maintain , if they took the utmost liberty their Latitudinarian Principles would afford them ; and when their lax Principles are the very grounds of their dividing the Communion without any remorse of Conscience for doing so ; when they are hereby emboldned to do those things which inevitably cause a breach from those who cannot follow them in these very Principles : This is the Case wherein these Principles are Characters of a distinct Communion ; and therefore , by the Reasoning now mentioned , become Heretical : Especially the Principles being withal false , not only in the Opinion of those from whom they have divided themselves ; but also of our earliest purest Ancestors , even those of the Apostolical Age it self . 26. Yet I deny not but that in this Case of Heresie , there is also regard to be had to the momentousness of the Opinion it self . Whoever sets up or abets a Communion opposite to that of the Church , on account of Opinions , is , as I have shewn , in the Judgment of the Primitive Church , an Heretick ; and is the more , not the less so , if the Opinions be also frivolous . But for such Opinions the Church would never have driven him out of her own Communion , if himself had been pleased to have continued in it . Her Judiciary Censures ought , no●doubt , to be confined to Opinions Fundamental and of great Importance ; especially , if an internal Assent be required , and that under pain of Excommunication . Yet let not our Adversaries flatter themselves as if they were secure from the charge even of this Notion of Heresie , as it signifies an erring , even in Fundamentals also . I know very well , Men have hitherto considered the Church rather as a Sect , than as a Society ; and have therefore usually had no regard to the Doctrines Fundamental to it as a Society , if they did not withal concern it as a Sect , and Antecedently to its being a Society . But there seems very little Reason for their doing so , if they will be pleased impartially to reflect on it . It is very true , its Notion as a Sect is antecedent to its being a Society , because it is a Society into which Men find themselves obliged to enter by the Doctrines they must be supposed to believe , if they own it as a Sect. But even thence it appears , that the Doctrines which concern it as a Sect , do withal make it necessary it should be a Society . These two Considerations therefore are by no means to be separated . Nay it hence appears , that the Doctrines constituting it as a Sect , do also by a near , and unavoidable , and evident Consequence , make it a Society . Thus therefore the Fundamentals of its being a Society , will be included in that System of Doctrines which concern it as a Sect. And then what Matter is it that one of these Notions is antecedent and the other consequent ? 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 dis●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 h●r●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 ex●u●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 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 obl●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 antece●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 De●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 thems●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 , b● rejecting and avoiding , not their Doctrines only , but their Persons also , when they prove incorrigible . Now these things plainly suppose Governors invest●d with spiritual Authority , and a Communion , from whence incurable Hereticks are to be rejected . So that in order to the keeping these o●her Fundamentals , the Church as a Society is supposed antecedently as a Condition that alon● can qualifie her for having such a Trust committed to h●r . This No●ion therefore as antecedent must be Fundamental to those other Fundamentals , and therefore Fundamental in a higher sense than those things 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 ▪ i● 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 ●gainst all other Hereticks . But he that denies the Church as a Society invested with a spiritual Authority , does as eff●ctually contribute to the ruine of all the other Fundamentals at once , as he does to the ruine of a H●use who subvers the Foundations of it . It brings in impunity for Heresie ●n general and suffers Hereticks still to hope as well in their separate Sects , as if they were in 〈…〉 Communion I● l●aves them destitute of even any Presumptions that might oblige them ●o judge in Favour of the Church's Doctrine , as the safest Error , if it should prove one It does by this mean● reduce the trial of the Cause to the Reasons themselves , and their native Evidence , and put● it in the Power of assuming Men to pretend greater Evidence than either they have , or they really believe . And thing● 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 Ma●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 Cha●ge ●light , to which they have made themselves obnoxious by this Unhappy Schism ; nor is the Evidence slight , by which this Charge may be ●roved against them : And yet they have wholly been the Aggressors in ●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 f●om the Body Natu●al . The lit●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 , tha● 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 Princip●es to be Principles of Conscience , an● 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 h●s now app●ared that they were the sense of the who●e Catholick Church , in those Ag●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 In●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 depriva●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 Chu●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 ●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 eff●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 ●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 no● 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 a●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 gi●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 . Thi● 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 Gregoras date it right , in the year of the World 6791. Phrantzes and Pachymeres agree with him ; onely Puchymeres adds , that it was the 11th of Scirrophorion . This Possinus misunderstands , when he thinks it was December ; but Scirrophorion in the Table of Hesychius , where he describes the Signification of those old names of Months , in the use of the modern Greeks is August : And so the Matter is clear , and the other Note given by Pachymeres , that it was the Parasceve agrees exactly . In that year the 5th Cycle of the Sun the Dominical Letters BA , the 13th of August is dominical exactly . And so the number of his Years of Reign answer exactly . P●●chymeres says , that he began his Reign the 1st of Hecatombaeon ; that is , in Hesychius , September ; not January , as Possinus would have it : According to which beginning his Reign from Septemb. 1. 1260. he must have reigned 24 years , except 20 days , as Pachymeres says he did . Then Joseph returns , and enjoys the Patriarchal Throne for a time , and they who had owned him before , own him still , and communicate with him : But the Arseniate ( so they were called , and opposed to the Josephiat● , ) return with their old Animosities , and would not own him upon account of his former Deposition by Arsenius , who was by this time some while dead , and could not head them ; yet they would not communicate with Joseph , though he had now no Rival to be opposed to him . The Death of Arsenius was the next year after the Vnion of the Council of Lyons , on the 30th of Gamelion , in the Language of Pachymeres ; i. e. on the 30th of March , 1275. On the other side the Josephiatae pleaded , That Arsenius had been canonically deprived in a Synod , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . There was also a third Party , which charged both these , no doubt , Joseph then living , with new Canonical Accusations . This obliged Joseph again to recede , both for Peace sake , and because indeed he was by this time superannuated for his Charge : Thus he left the two Parties engaged , and soon after dyes himself . The new Emperour Andronicus did not think fit to let the Throne lie vacant at so dangerous a time as the beginning of a new Reign ; he therefore pitches on Georgius Cyprius , an eloquent and learned Man , and fit for the Place , and immediately invests him with what he could give him , the Crosier , or Pastoral Staff , according to the Custome then generally received for some Ages , both in the East and West . This enabled him to perform those Patriarchal Offices onely which required not Priesthood , as Gregoras expresly observes ; so carefull they were then of avoiding these present Invasions on that sacred Function . The Reason he deferred his Consecration for a time , was purposely that he might get him consecrated by Persons no way concerned in the Schism between the Arsenians and Josephians , nor in the Vnion attempted by his Father in the Council of Lyons , as wisely foreseeing that it would make the whole Consecration questionable , in a Time when that whole Design was so unpopular and abominated ; and a short time afforded him Persons fit for his purpose . Within a while the Bishop of Mozula came on an Embassy from his Master the Despote of Aetolia , and a little after him another Bishop of Debra in Macedon , upon another occasion . These , I suppose , were therefore free from any Contagion of Latine Communion , or of the Schism , because they had not been liable to his Father's Jurisdiction : But he pitched rather on the Bishop of Mozula , as being a Suffragan of Constantinople ; for Mozula was subject to Naupactus , Naupactus to Constantinople ; whereas Debra was under Justiniana prima , exempted by Justinian : Him therefore Andronicus prevails on , first to consecrate a Monk , called Germanus , Bishop of Heraclia , whose antient Right it was to preside in the Consecration of the Patriarch ; then with the Bishop of Debra to assist the so consecrated Bishop of Heraclia in the following Office , when there should be need of them . This being done , they then proceed to the Consecration of Georgius or Gregorius , for the modern Greeks especially do often confound those two Names ; and being onely a Reader before , they first ordain him Deacon , then Presbyter , before they all joined in making him Patriarch . Thus all the Caution was used that could be , to prevent the Schism that might follow , if his Consecration had been exceptionable in the Opinions then received ; and all was no more than necessary , as did afterwards appear . This did not hinder but that his former Familiarity with Becus , and Metochita , and Meliteniota , was objected to him ; and even that inferior Order of Reader , which he did not receive then , he was said to have received from Latinizers . How true these Objections were is not material to our present Design : This at least appears , how prone they were then to make them , and how little occasions served for those who were so predisposed to receive them . The Patriarch thus made , Endeavours then were used to reconcile the Arseniatae and the Josephiatae : Accordingly an Expedient was thought of suitable to the Superstition of the Age , and the Tales formerly invented by the Legendaries . On the great Sabbath , that is the Saturday before Easter , two Libels were received , each containing the Sense of the Party that deliver'd it ; one of the Followers of Arsenius , the other of those of Joseph . These they cast into a Fire prepared for the purpose , expecting ( according to the Fancies of our Saxon Ancestors concerning their fiery Ordeal ) that the Libel which was more pleasing to God should escape untouch'd : But the Event was , that the Fire destroyed them both , and the Controversie still remained unresolved , whether was in the right . However it was thus interpreted , that the making Parties was generally displeasing . This sufficed at present to unite them among themselves , and with their present Patriarch . And to sweeten the Arseniatae the more , it was granted them , that the Body of Arsenius should be honourably received into the City with a solemn Procession . The Easter that this Vnion was transacted in could hardly be sooner than that of the year 1285. And the great Sabbath was April 13. according to the Computation of Isaac , a Monk near this time , that we may not suspect any alteration in the Paschal Account between this time and his . But the Vnion then made does not seem to have held long , possibly no longer than the time of this George of Cyprus . In the time of Nipho of Cyzicus we find the Arseniatae out again , ( how long before we know not ) and by him reconciled on very honourable Terms , and then apostatizing again : This was about the year 1315. Thus fickle they were , for so many years together after the Death and honourable Amends made to the Memory of their Arsenius . However the prospect of Things in our Author's View when he wrote this Discourse , I take to have been that of the year 1285. which I have been now describing . 4. It gives indeed so clear an Account of the whole Design of this Discourse , that we can hardly doubt but that this was indeed the Case that occasioned it . That the Author excepts St. Chrysostome's Case , as affording matter for a particular consideration , seems to imply that this Case was particularly insisted on by the Adversaries with whom he was concerned . And indeed the Case of Arsenius was so very like that of St. Chrysostome , that it cannot be thought strange that the Arsenians should reason from that Case as a Precedent . St. Chrysostome excepted against the Synod ad Quercum that deposed him , that his notorious and professed Enemies , Theophilus , Acacius , Severian , and Antiochus , presided in it : So did Arsenius against the Synod that deposed him , that the Emperour had convened it , and influenced it , with whom he had a known Difference on occasion of his late Excommunication . The Synod ad Quercum admitted not this Exception of St. Chrysostome , but condemned him for Non-appearance , without any Examination of the Merits of his Cause ; and the same way this other Synod also proceeded in the Case of Arsenius , that he also had no Hearing concerning the Particulars objected against him . In the Case of St. Chrysostome , not onely the Eastern Joannites , but all the Bishops of the West renounced Communion with those who had proceeded so unjustly in Censuring him without ever hearing his Defence ; and this not onely while St. Chrysostome himself was living , but for many years after his death , till an honourable amends was made him , as far as was possible ; that is , not to his Person , but his Memory . That was , not onely when his Name was received into the Ecclesiastical Dip●ychs , thereby owning him to have dyed , in Right , as Bishop of Constantinople ; but when his Body was brought back , and received into the City by a solemn Procession of the then Bp. Proclus , the Emperour himself assisting at the Ceremony . This was , as Socrates tells us , in the 16th Consulship of the younger Theodosius , ( in the year 438. ) and in the 35th year of the Dishonour done him , which seem therefore to be reckoned from the Synod ad Quercum , where he was first deposed , which was the year before he was banished Constantinople . He was not banished till the 30th of Septemb. in the year 404. for they usually allow him onely five Years and some odd Months for his Bishoprick , which began Febr. 26. in the year 398. and therefore must end in 403. and the time of that former Synod ad Quercum , which probably was the reason why Socrates began his Account from thence . No doubt the Arsenians also had this Example before them , when they procured the Two Translations of the Body of their Patron ; the first from the place where he dyed to the Monastery of St. Andrew in the City , in the beginning of this Reign of Andronicus ; then from the Monastery to the Church of St. Sophia , in the later Concordate made by the Patriarch Nipho of Cyzicus , in the year 1315. For so St Chrysostome's Body also had been interred in the Church of the Apostles , built by the Emperour Constantine the Great , and where himself was buried also , no doubt the principal Church of the City then , till this of St. Sophia was afterwards built by the great Justinian ; so carefull the Arsenians were , that their Patriarch Arsenius should not fall short in any Punctilio of the Honour that was done to the memory of St. Chrysostome . 5. And from hence we understand the Reason why our Author is so particularly carefull to observe , that past Invalidities in Succession , did not use to be critically examined , but left to God , not even by the dividing Persons themselves , when they were so long past that they could not be remedied , and were withall not injurious to the Rights of any Person living . Thus he observes , even in the principal Case of St. Chrysostome , That Severianus of Gabala , and Acacius of Beraea , though they were accused to Pope Innocent , ( that is the true Notion of * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ) were notwithstanding not censured by him , but permitted to the divine Vengeance , when their Fact was now too late to be redressed . The like he observes concerning Pope Caelestine's approving of Atticus and his Successors , in his Epistle to Nestorius . These are Arguments ad homines , even from the sense of those who were the principal Separators , on Account of the Injustice done to St. Chrysostome ; for such were the Bishops of Rome : And he is frequent in his Observations of this kind ; a sign that the Schismaticks he had to deal with were rigorous in Retrospection , and unraveling what had been done since the injurious Deprivation ; and this the Arsenians did insist upon . Arsenius himself , upon his Restitution after his first Expulsion , expresly ratified all the Orders that had been conferred by the Intruder , Nicephorus of Ephesus : And in the Reconciliation made by Niphon of Cyzicus , one thing granted them was , * That the Clergy should submit to a Penance of forty days Suspension ; no doubt as an Acknowledgment that their whole Ministry was in Right unlawfull as far as it had been received in the Schism . And this seems to have been the reason why Gregoras censures the Arsenians , as having that design of advancing their own Party to all the Preferments of the Church . That was a consequence of their vacating all the Places that had been filled since the Intrusion , and invalidating their Orders ; they thereby left none qualified to fill their Places but themselves . 6. But our Author expresly excepts the Case of Heresie , as that alone which could justifie a Separation . The Heresie then in view , in the sense of the Greeks , was no doubt the Doctrine of the Latines , which they called Heresie , and with which they had been allarmed since the pretended Vnion at Lyons . This Exception therefore the Author could very truly and prudently admit , and urge against both the dividing Parties , that neither of them could charge the other with Latinizing , or pretend that as a Cause for their Separation . Joseph had suffered in that Cause as well as the Arsenians , and was forced to retire , and Beccus was set up against him , because he would not comply with the Emperour in that Matter : Yet in the latter end of his Discourse he adds out of the Canons two prudent Limitations of this Case , even of Heresie : One is , that he requires that the Heresie should have been antecedently condemned by the Church , lest otherwise private Persons should be left at Liberty to separate for whatever themselves should be pleased to call Heresie : Another is , that the Heresie so condemned should be openly , and in the Face of the Church owned by the pretended Heretick , that no publick Separation might ever be permitted , without publick Evidence of the Cause on which the Separation was to be made . I cannot think these Limitations were made precariously , but in prospect of a Cause then in view , that might have suffered by the Consequence of this Concession , that Heresie at least would justifie Separation , if these Limitations had not been interposed : And I can think of no Cause so likely as that of George of Cyprus , who was now made Patriarch . We find by Gregoras , that notwithstanding the Care that was used that his Consecration might have no Ingredient of any Authority derived either from Latines , or Latinizing Greeks , yet he lay under some suspition of that very Charge , which was then so very odious . His former Familiarity with Beccus , and Metochita , and Meliteniota , in the time when the Vnion was rigorously urged by the Emperour , made him suspected of having imbibed their Doctrine . At least his inferior Order of Readership , which was now not given him , but supposed , they did not know but it might have been derived from Latinizers . But these Limitations secured his Case from justifying any Separation that might follow from these Jealousies . He might hold some Opinions in Common with the Latines , if they were not condemned as Heresies by his own Church . And particularly Gregoras observes , That in that Vnion of Lyons the * Faith was not meddled with ; I believe he means the Article concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. And this being free , there were not many of those which they called Errours of the Latines , which they could pretend had been condemned as erroneous in the Faith. This even Beccus himself might have pleaded , as well as George , that he had not expresly professed that Doctrine of the Latines which the Greek Church condemned for Heretical ; but he could not excuse himself as George could doe , from at least Communion with those whom they called Hereticks : At least the other Limitation would bring George off , that they onely suspected him to maint●in the Doctrine of those with whom he had been so familiar , not that even his Adversaries could pretend that he had owned them openly , or taught them in the publick Ecclesiastical Assemblies . If this was the Occasion , this Collection could hardly have been made before the Synod of A●ramittium , which being about the time of Easter , could not have been sooner than the next Year to that wherein Andronicus succeeded ; that is , the Year 1285. Nor is it likely to have been sooner , if this Author wrote it when himself was Rhetor. Georgius Logothetes Acropolita , whose Chronicle we have , was Rhetor in the time of Arsenius . Germanus , who was set up against Arsenius , put Manuel Holobolus in that same Office ▪ perhaps the same whose Notes are extant in MS. on the Ar● Dosiadis . Holobolus was very hardly used by Michael the Emperour for his Aversion to the Latines , as Pachymeres tells us : Nor was he , that we know of , then put out of his Place . But whether it was he that was continued , or that was restored at the beginning of Andronicus , we cannot judge till we have more light from History . This at least seems probable , that this was the time of Writing this Discourse : Before this time there was not such Occasion for this Exception , and these Limitations of this Exception of Heresie , as there was now . It is certain the Author was a Constantinopolitane , and wrote on occasion of a Constantinopolitane Schism , and wrote withall about this time , and could hardly have avoided mentioning this Schism , on one side or other , if he had written after it ; and there is neither any Schism , nor any time of this Schism , so fit for it as this . Withall we know that an Union did follow upon it ; who knows how much this Discourse of the Publick Rhetor might have contributed to it ? 7. If therefore I have guessed right at the true occasion of Writing this Discourse , the Author , whoever he was , had no Occasion from his Design to speak to our present Case , of an invalid Deprivation , as to Spirituals , by a Lay-Authority . The Case of Arsenius was plainly managed by a Synod ; so also was that of St. Chrysostome , so much insisted on by them , and pleaded as a Precedent of a parallel Case . The Secular Power , in both Cases , concerned themselves no farther than in executing the Synodical Decrees : Particularly Michael Pal●ologus was so far from encroaching on the Church's Power , that Gregoras observes expresly , that he would not use the Power he had in his hands to right himself ; so far , that he owned the validity of Arsenius's Censure against him , that he submitted to it , and wore a penitential Habit , and profered any satisfaction that the Patriarch would impose upon him , and that nothing seems to have hindred the Reconciliation , but that Arsenius did not yet think fit to come to Particulars ; so far , that he was once minded to have surrendred his Imperial Sword to the Patriarch , till finding Arsenius willing to accept of it , he suddenly snatched it back ▪ and refused to stand to it ; so far , that even after Arsenius was deposed , he never was at ease in his own Conscience , till he was absolved from those Censures by another Patriarch ; that he scrupled the Validity of an Absolution from Germanus , because of his Translation from another See , and was thereupon very desirous underhand , as Pachymeres informs us , to oblige him to resign ; that when that Resignation was made , he then rested not till he had the Absolution solemnly pronounced by the Patriarch Joseph , after a publick and solemn Acknowledgment of the Crimes by which he had incurred those Censures , in the Face of the Church . What Occasion therefore could this Author have to justifie the Validity , or the Obligation in Conscience to submit to a Lay-Deprivation ? The Case before him not requiring it , he could have no Temptation to undertake it , but to gratifie the Emperours ; but even that cannot be pretended here : The Emperour principally concerned never chalenged such Power to himself , no not in Conscience , though he was under such Temptations to enlarge his Pretensions to the uttermost . And the Emperour Andronicus , under whom the Discourse was written , was not so much as under any Temptation to chalenge more than what was , in the Opinions of that Age , believed his due , and shewed himself displeased with the Proceeding of his Father's Reign . 8. There was therefore on this account no occasion that might oblige our Author to speak to our present Case of a Lay-Deprivation . That is not all : I add farther , That our Author could not justifie this Case , if he would be true to the Principles advanced by himself in this very Discourse . The Canons that are omitted would have made this Matter very clear , if the Editor had thought fit to have taken them in . They plainly mention no other Case of a Bishop's being deposed , but that of his being deposed by a Synod : But this negative Testimony will not , perhaps , satisfie our Adversaries ; they farther say , such Things as are utterly inconsistent with their owning any Deprivation to be valid that is not Synodical . The Canons of the First-second Synod , here produced , ( so it was called , because it was twice convened , like the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Quinisext , which made the Canons ascribed to the 5th General Council , though the Bishops who made them were convened some while after the 5th Council : ) These , I say , are very home and decisive to our purpose , and such as our Adversaries can by no means stand by . It is there decreed , that if any Presbyter or Deacon shall dare to fall away from his Bishop , before a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Conciliary Judgment of his Case ; nay , before a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( the Judgment alone was not sufficient , unless it proceeded to a definitive Sentence . ) If , I say , such a Person either leave his Bishop's Communion , or leave his Name out of the Diptychs , and do not mention it in the Ecclesiastical Offices ; he is to be deprived of all his sacerdotal Office. Not onely so , but all that follow him , if they have any sacerdotal Office , are to be deprived as well as he ; if they be Laymen , they are to be exmunicated , till they quit the Communion of the Schismaticks , and return to that of their own Bishop . No other Sentence or Deprivation is here allowed of to excuse a Separation , but a Synodical one ; till that be had , the Fathers who made this Canon , look on all the Separation that is made as no better than Schism . And is not this exactly our deprived Father's Case ? What Synod can our Adversaries pretend that has , I do not say sentenced , but so much as judicially heard them ? What then can they say that , by the Doctrine of this Canon , may excuse their present Separation from being schismatical ? Will they say they are guilty of no Separation ? But erecting another Altar opposite to the Altar of their own Bishop is Separation , not onely by the Doctrine of the Cath. Church of St. Cyprian's Age , but even of their own Author himself . So it appears from the Canons of the Apostles , and of the Council of Antioch here produced by him , which use this very Expression of Erecting Altar against Altar . And it is notorious , that all who have used this Phrase , have ever included this Case of setting up a Bishop against a Bishop within the same Jurisdiction : The very first occasion of using it was taken from a Case exactly parallel among the Jews , that of setting up a High Priest against another High Priest , within the same Peculium . So also by the Doctrine of the same Canons produced here , it is schismatical to omit mentioning the Bishop's Name in the Ecclesiastical Diptychs : The Design of those Commemorations in the Diptychs , was plainly to own them as Bishops of those particular Districts . Thus Cyril of Alexandria argues against Atticus , that the receiving St. Chrysostome's Name again into the Diptychs , would be an owning him a Bishop , who had been deprived of his Bishoprick , and consequently a reversing the Sentence of Deprivation that had been pronounced against him . Thus it appears , that it was the same thing to receive a Bishop's Name into the Diptychs of a particular Diocese , as to own him for a Bishop of that Diocese ; and to leave his Name out of the Diptychs of a particular Diocese , was also the same thing as thence-forward to disown his Episcopal Relation to that particular Diocese . And accordingly with us , who have not now that Custome of Ecclesiastical Diptychs , owning Men for Bishops of such Dioceses , is the same thing as receiving their Names into the Diptychs , and disowning them for Bishops of those Dioceses , will also be the same as excluding them out of the Diocesan Diptychs . Particularly the Case of those Clergy in the deprived Dioceses will fall under the purview of that Canon , who omit the deprived Bishops , and mention the Intruders , in those Prayers where it is customary to mention their diocesane Ordinary . And now what can our Titulars say for themselves , upon the Principles of this their so celebrated Author ? Do they own the deprived Bishops to have still a Title in Conscience to their Dioceses ? How can they then at the same time pretend themselves to have a Title also , and that in Conscience ? How can they in Conscience justifie their Invasion of those Thrones , to which others are acknowledg'd to have a Right in Conscience ? Do they therefore , to make way for their own Right , deny that of their Predecessors ? But their very doing so forfeits all the Rights they can pretend , not only to the Dioceses , but their other (a) sacerdotal Offices , by the Doctrine of this Canon , till they can prove what in our Case they cannot so much as pretend , that their Predecessors have had a (b) compleat Conciliary Hearing , and a Conciliary Deprivation . This Canon therefore reaches the Titulars themselves ; and not onely them , but the (c) Clergy also of the respective Dioceses who shall own or follow them , they are also liable to the very same Sentence of Deprivation . The (d) Laity also of the same Dioceses that shall own them are to be excommunicated , and not received again till they disown all Communion with our Titulars , who are here called Schismaticks . This will take in all their whole Bodies , at least in the deprived Dioceses . 9. The next Canon of that same Synod here produced goes farther yet , and takes in the Case of all the other Bishops , who shall be guilty of the like Undutifulness to their Metropolitane , in leaving his Communion , or not mentioning his Name out of the Diptychs in the Li●urgical Offices . And this Canon also is as express as the former , in assigning the Case wherein such Omissions and Defections are allowed as justifiable . No other Judgment is allowed as competent in this matter , but that of a Synod , the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as here again the Fathers express it , If any Bishop do fail in his Duty to his Metropolitane before it , he is by this Canon to be * deprived . And what can our late Fathers say for themselves , if they were to be tried by this Canon ; they can as yet no more pretend a synodical Deprivation of their Metropolitane , than of their other Brethren ; yet they have taken upon them to disown him , as well as their otherwise equal Brethren : They have taken upon them to meet in a Convocation , without his Presidency or Permission ; and would , no doubt , have acted in Matters of great Importance to the Church , if they could have agreed among themselves . This was a direct Invasion of his Right by the Nicen● Canon , which makes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , the Ratification of what is to be done in such Assemblies , to be the Prerogative of the Metropolitane ; yet this they did , before they could pretend so much as a Lay-Deprivation . They have since proceeded farther , and made new schismatical Bishops , not onely without his Leave , but against his Will : This is also expresly against the Nicene Canon , which allows not even a Majority of the Provincial Synod to doe it , without the Metropolitane's Consent for one , though the Bishop so made had not been schismatical . Yet they have not stopped here ; they have presumed to set up his own Dean against him , they who have sacredly promised Subjection to him as his Suffragans ; him who was under the same canonical Obligations and Promises too , as an immediate Member of his Diocese . And I need not tell him how scandalous this Case of breaking Faith was in the antient Cases of Arsacius of Constantinople , and Flavianus of Antioch , not onely to discredit their Persons , but to justifie a Separation from them ; though I do not think that Case alone sufficient to justifie it where the Scandal was not injurious to a better Right , than that of him who was in possession : But in the Case before us I cannot imagine what they can pretend to avoid this Canon . I do not urge these Canons , as Laws particularly obliging us , by whom they were never particularly and explicitly received : Yet if I did urge them as obliging without explicite Reception , perhaps the particular Reasonableness of the Canons themselves would bear me out in it . The Law of Nations obliges all particular civil Nations , though it be not taken into their Codes of written Laws , and therefore not ratified by express Reception . The Reasonableness of the Things themselves , and their Necessity for Maintaining Correspondence , are alone sufficient to oblige all Nations who will correspond with others , and correspond justly . So the Case is here : The securing Subordinations already received and settled , are so much the Interests of all Churches , and these Expedients are so manifestly necessary for maintaining those Subordinations , that they do as little need explicite reception to make them obligatory in particular Churches , as the Laws of Nations do to make them also obligatory to particular Nations . For my present Design it 's sufficient that these Canons do at least express the Sense of the Eastern Church , and of this Collector , who produces and owns them as Authorities . Hence at least it follows , that that Church and this Collector owned no Validity in Deprivations of Bishops that were not synodical , when without this they account all refusals of Duty schismatical , whatever other Deprivations could be pretended in favour of such Refusals . How was it then possible for this Collector to plead Precedents for even excusing Duty on such Deprivations , which he did not think sufficient to excuse them ? How could he call Facts of this kind Precedents , and reason from them to a Church which had by her Rules and Canons so expresly condemned them ? 10. But Mr. Hody did not think this latter part , where the Canons are , to belong to the Discourse published by him : Nor will I charge him with any designed Disingenuity in suppressing them , though they make so manifestly against the Cause espoused by him . I onely desire that his Omission may not prejudice them who shall be pleased again to consult the MS. The Thing it self gives no occasion that I can see for suspecting it to belong to any other Author . The Hand is manifestly the same with that of the Part already published ; and this Hand is manifestly different from those which are either before or after : It follows also without any new Title , without any Footsteps of any that had once been legible , but now defaced , and grown illegible ; without any the least convenient distance left for a Title , if the Author had intended one . But these things are not unusual with the unskilfull Librarians , where notwithstanding the Works themselves so injudicially connected are very different . I grant it , nor would I insist on these things , if there were any great Evidence in the Matter itself to the contrary ; but unless we will allow our selves a liberty of breaking off arbitrarily and unaccountably , and leaving out whatever displeases us in Manuscripts , we must at least allow these things to pass for Presumptions , where there is no contrary Evidence : And that is all that need be granted us in this matter . The subject Matter of this Appendix is so far from affording Arguments for suspecting it as part of another Work , that it adds rather farther Evidence , that it was really from the same Author , and with the same Design . The Canons are to the same purpose of opposing the Schisms now mentioned , as well as the Historical Precedents : Both of them together do clear the sense of the Church , as well from her written Laws in Words , as from her unwritten ones of Custome and matter of Fact. And what could be more proper than to join these two together ? Indeed the Facts alone would not be so argumentative , without the Canons ; for they are not bare Facts , but approved Facts , that are fit to be admitted as Precedents . And what Facts are approved by the Church , we can most securely judge by their conformity to her written Laws . Besides , this was the Custome of the Ecclesiastical Rhetors , to give in their Evidences of both kinds concerning the Questions wherein they were consulted : So Troilus the Sophist mentions a Canon as well as Examples , relating to the Case of Translations , if he were the Author of that Collection , made use of by his Disciple Socrates , as I believe he was . So here in the same MS. in the Collection fitted to the Case of Germanus of Adrianople , intruded into the Throne of Arsenius , besides the Collection of Troilus , there are added many more Instances , and express Testimonies , out of the Decretals of the Popes , Callistus and Anteros , which in the Discipline of that Age were equivalent to Canons . It should seem that , during the time the Latines possessed Constantinople , some Latinizing Greek translated Isidore Mercator's Forgeries , which from that time were taken for Law in the Greek Church , as they had formerly been in the Latine . This is , I think , the first time we find them mentioned by the Greeks : We do not find that their Canonists , who wrote a little before , ever take any notice of them ; not Zonaras , nor Alexius Aristenus , nor Balsamon ; yet Balsamon does mention the Donation of Constantine , which I believe was translated from the same Collection of Isidore's Forgeries , a sign that even then the Greeks began to look into them . But methinks the latter end of the Canons of our Appendix should put this Matter out of doubt : There it is explained and limited what had been so often inculcated in the former Discourse , concerning the Liberty which had been allowed of Separating in the excepted Case of Heresie . Our Author here produced his Authority for what he had said as to that Case , that his Auditors might understand , that ( in a Case of so great importance ) he did not presume to give them any singular Opinions of his own , but that he instructed them in the received and allowed Doctrine of the Church of Constantinople , to which they were all related . Withall he thereby warned them of the Cautions necessary in the Practice of that Doctrine , that they might not break the Peace of their Church in the Case then proposed . Who sees not how naturally this coheres with the former part of his Discourse ? It is indeed so natural , that I once thought them to be the Author 's own Words , till I was convinced of my Mistake , by comparing them with the Canon itself , from whence he took them . But it was somewhat better for his purpose , that he should express his Sense in this matter rather in his Church's Words than his own . And it must have been a wonderfull chance , if any Scribbles of a Librarian could have light on so fit a place , and so apposite to the precedent design of another Author , who thought not of them . He that can believe it , may next believe the Epicuraean Hypothests , That the World was made by such a casual Concurrence of undesigning Atoms . All that is pretended to the contra●● ▪ is only that this Collection of Canons follows the Summary subjoined to the former Collection . But this is too conjectural a Proof to be opposed to the Evidences now mentioned : yet How do they know but that this very Summary is the Author 's own ? It is in as large a Hand as the rest of the Discourse itself ; it is not in red Letters , as the like Summary is in the Fragment of Philippus Side●es , in this same MS. where it was added by the Librarian : And it is not unusual for Authors to add Arguments and Abstracts of their own Works ; so did Pliny to his Natural History ; so did Gellius to his Noctes Attioae ; so has the Anonymous Chronologer under Alexander Severus ; so has Gildas and Nennius in the later and more barbarous Ages ; and What should make the Librarian think that fit to be done in another Man's Work , that might not also make the Author himself think so too ? But for our present purpose I am not concerned , whether this Summary was drawn up by the Author , or the Librarian ; if the Librarian thought fit to insert it into the Text , ( as plainly he has done , ) this was the properest Place for it , before any other part of the Discourse intervened that was upon another Argument , not of Facts but Canons . 11. Thus I have shewn that our Author was neither obliged by the Occasion ▪ of his Writing , nor could consequently to his own Principles , design to give us a Collection of Precedents for withdrawing Obedience on a Lay-Deprivation , or for a Cession in a Person so invalidly deprived . And now methinks this might excuse me from descending to a particular Examination of the Facts produced by him , which our Adversaries are pleased to call Precedents : For what if in the History of so many Centuries as are here accounted for , there might be found some Instances wherein Christian Emperours were partial in favour to themselves , and chalenged more Power than did really belong to them ? And what if Christian Bishops for Peace sake submitted , not waving the Right , but bearing the Injury ? What and if the Clergy and Laity did sometimes , as they do now , fail in their Duty of adhering to them ? It is yet sufficient for our present purpose , that this was no design'd Collection of such pretended Precedents ; that therefore if any of these Facts should prove so , that was beside the Meaning of the Author ; that his Authority ought not to be concerned for them ; that neither his Judgment , nor the Judgment of the Eastern Churches , can ever recommend such Facts for Precedents , which were so disagreeable to their Rules and Canons . If therefore our Adversaries will make Precedents of those Facts which were condemned by this Author , by the Doctrine of those very Churches where they were committed , this is plainly reasoning otherwise than they can justifie by any Authority : For what Authority can it be that they will insist on for making such Facts pass for Precedents ? Is it that of the Eastern Church ? But her Doctrine will not allow our Adversaries to disown our deprived Bishops , or to set up Antibishops against them , on account of such Lay-Deprivations . Is it the Authority of this Collector ? But he owns these Doctrines for the Doctrines of his own Church , which are so inconsistent with our Adversaries Practices . Or , Is it , lastly , the Authority of the Princes themselves , who were concerned in the Facts here enumerated ? But it is certain Princes doe many things which they never do so much as pretend to justifie by Principles : And yet it is withall certain , that no other Facts but such avowed ones ought in reason to pass for Precedents ; and for knowing what they do avowedly justifie , no better Expedient can be found , than to appeal to the Doctrine of the Church that was owned and protected by them , which they took for the Guide of their Consciences . Thus it will come to pass , that if any of the Facts here mentioned should prove for our Adversaries purpose , yet seeing they could not be well done , as to the Consciences of the Persons concerned , our Adversaries must not presume them well done , but prove them so independently on the Persons , before they can make Precedents of them , and reason from them as Authorities ; and then what will they gain by this celebrated Collection , when it will leave them to the Tryal of the Merit of their Cause as much as ever ? 12. However to gratifie them as far as we may , let us now descend to Particulars . The first is that of Meletius , who was set up in the Throne of Antioch , while Eustathius his Predecessor was yet living ; yet he was owned as Bishop of Antioch by St. Basil , and St. Chrysostome . But Eustathius was deposed by a * Synod , perhaps of Bishops secretly favouring Arius , but not as yet declared an opposite Communion . The Synod indeed charged him with Sabellianism ; but it was no otherwise than as they who favoured Arianism used to charge the Catholicks in general ; nor did the Catholicks understand it otherwise . The chief Pretence of depriving was a Crime of Life . False indeed it was , but of that the Synod was to judge , though they judged corruptly . His onely Remedy had been to have appealed to another Synod ; but that he did not think fit to try : Yet till he did so , the Throne was fairly vacated , and he could pretend no Right in Opposition to Meletius , who was also set up by an Ecclesiastical Authority . The Canons of Antioch made after his Deprivation , but before the Translation of Meletius , and urged afterwards against St. Chrysostome , and since received into the Codes and Canons of the Vniversal Church , allowed him no Remedy but that of another Synod , and that a more numerous one than that which had deprived him . Had he so much as attempted it otherwise , he had been cut off by that same Canon , not onely from all hopes of Restitution , but from being admitted to a Tryal of the Merits of his Cause . I will not now call in question his being alive after Meletius was set up , because it is expresly attested by Socrates and Sozomen , and among others by Nicephorus in his MS. Catalogue of Patriarchs ; especially so remarkable Passages in History depending on it , that of the Banishment , not onely 〈◊〉 ●imself , but of Evagrius ( whom he had consecrated Bishop of 〈…〉 by the Emperour Valens . This had been enough for our purpose , though the synodical Deprivation had not been chargeable against him , that he lay hid , even after the liberty he had of returning from his Exile by the Edict of Julian ; that he did not appear to chalenge his Right ; that they of Antioch did not know that he was in being to chalenge it . This had made the Throne itself a Derelictum ; this made Meletius a Possessor bonae Fidei , and sufficiently excused all who paid Duty to him . Undoubtedly Lucifer Calaritanus , who set up Paulinus in opposition to Meletius , whose return from Exile was then expected , would never have done it , if he had any thoughts or hopes of the Return of Eustathius . Eustathius was not onely as orthodox as Meletiu● himself , but was free from the Charge brought against Meletius , that of an Arian Ordination . Meletius therefore being thus secured against the Title of Eustathius , nothing could then be pretended against him , but his receiving his Power from Arians . But their Heresie was 〈◊〉 so manifest , when he was brough●●nto Antioch by them ; all that 〈◊〉 required from him was to subscribe the Creed of Selencia , drawn up Sept. 27. 359. the year before he was translated to Antioch ▪ and that expresly condemned the * Anomaeans , and laid aside both Words , that of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as well as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as unscriptural : Nor did the Catholicks so much insist on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , where they could otherwise be satisfied , that no ill sense was intended in avoiding it . This was the onely Reason that could make any orthodox Person join with the Arians in bringing him to Antioch , who otherwise owned no Communion with them , when they once declared themselves . And as soon as they who brought him to Antioch owned themselves Anomaeans , as they did soon after , Meletius never prevaricated , but protested openly against them . And why should that be made an Exception against him , that he was made Bishop by them who , after they had made him so , declared themselves Arians ? This was looked on as a rigour in Lucifer , by his Fellow ●onfessor , Eusebius Vercellensis , and Athanasius , and the generality of the Catholick Church : And if he was guilty of no incapacitating Heresie at his first coming in ; if he owned the Catholick Faith publickly before the Consecration of Paulinus , and had been a Confessour for it ; if even those who gave him his Orders had not yet declared themselves Arians , nor a distinct Communion , when they gave them ; what Reason could there be to question his Title before Paulinus was set up against him ? If there was none ▪ the other Consecration being into a f●ll See , must have been schismatical . Thus we see how agreeable it was to the Canons and Discipline of the Church , that St. Basil and St. Chrysostome should own the Communion of Meletius in opposition to Paulinus . It does not appear that ever they did so in opposition to Eustathius : Yet even in this Case it is observable , that all those Catholicks who never from the beginning communicated with Meletius , and who joined with Lucifer and Paulinus 〈◊〉 him , owned other Reasons besides Heresie sufficient to justifie the●● ●●●paration from him . They did not , they could not charge him with that after 〈◊〉 had publickly declared for the Nicene Faith ; they never charged him , as we can our present Intruders , with Injury to any other Person , whom they supposed to have a better Title to his Throne , neither to his Predecessor Eustathius , nor much less to Paulinus , who was consecrated after him ▪ The onely thing they charged him with , was the Original Invalidity which they supposed in his Consecration by those who afterwards declared themselves for * Arianism . And could they believe a lawfull Power necessary to confer a Title , and not as necessary to take it away ? Rather Laws are favourable to Possessours , and require more to take away an Office , than to keep one in Possession whom they find so . They therefore who were so difficultly reconciled to Meletius's being Bishop , purely on account of the original Want of Authority in them who made him so , must by the same parity of Reasoning much more have disliked the Deprivation of our present Bishops , on account of 〈◊〉 Want of Authority as to spirituals , and to Conscience , in them who have deprived them . However 〈◊〉 a clear Instance against our Adversaries , and against the Collector himself , of Catholicks who owned , and owned by Principles , that Orthodoxy alone , without a good Title , was not sufficient to excuse communicating with him whose Title was thought deficient : For this was their Opinion concerning this Case of Meletius , that he was indeed orthodox , onely having an original Defect in his Title , they thought themselves on this very acccount obliged to forbear his Communion . How could they then have thought it safe to communicate with Bishops ordain●● into See● not otherwise vacated than by an originally invalid Lay-Deprivation of their Predecessors ? 13. The next Case is 〈◊〉 of St. Chrysostome . It is indeed the first in the Summary subjoined to it ; probably because it was the first in the Church of Constantinople , for the use of which this Collection was originally designed : Or , perhaps rather because that other Case of Meletius was produced onely as another Evidence of the Opinion of the same St. Chrysostome . This is the Case which the Author is largest upon , as deserving the particular consideration mentioned in the Introduction to it : The reason I have now given , because it seems to have been most of all insisted on by the Arsenians , as most apposite to the Instance for which they were concerned . But , 1. This Deprivation was synodical , and by two different Synods , the former that ad Quercum , that deprived Saint Chrysostome for not pleading , but questioning their Jurisdiction upon an Appeal ; the other that of the following year , which denied him the Liberty of Pleading upon the 〈◊〉 of Antioch , for coming in again , not without a Synod , but by one 〈◊〉 they pretended less numerous than that which had deprived him formerly ▪ So far is this from our present Case . And , 2. Even as to the abetting this holy Person 's Case , as to the In●ury done him by an otherwise competent Authority , far the greater part of the Church was concerned against the Design of this Collector , if to the Eastern Joannites 〈◊〉 the unanimous Consent of all the Western Churches : They separ●●ed from the Communion of his Deprivers notwithstanding their ack●●wledged Orthodoxy ; and that not onely while Saint Chrysostome was living , but after his Death also , till an honourable amends was made to his Memory . This , how clear soever it was against our Author's general Remark in his Preface , and elsewhere ; yet he neither denies nor pretends to answer , a● if he were conscious to himself he could not do it : Onely he prevents a farther consequence drawn from it by the Arsenians , for unravelling all the Orders derived in a Succession from the ●njurious Intruders , after the Person was dead who had been injured by the 〈◊〉 . This also is none of our 〈◊〉 wherein the injured Bishops are 〈◊〉 ▪ yet even concerning that very Case , he words his Observation ●o as to own that they might ▪ if they pleased , have called in Question ●he present Orders derived from the Intruders . He says indeed that the Church did not call in question the Orders given by Arsacius nor Articus , thoug● Atticus , besides his Intrusion , was guilty also of what this Author himself owns to have been a Persecution against the Joannites ; so far he is from condemning even their Separation on this account . He says that A●ticus and Sisinius were commended by Pope Caelestine , though they both of them derived their Succession from that same Intrusion ; and though the Bishops of Rome were the most zealous Advocates for St. Chrysostome . He says the same Flaw descended to Proclus also , St. Chrysostome's Disciple , and the Friend and Reconciler of the Joannites : Nay , to Nestorius also , the Heretick , who gave occasion for assembling the Synod of Ephesus ; yet the Synod questioned not eve● 〈◊〉 Orders , on account of the original Defect , if the Persons who had received them did not partake in his Heresie ; but that they did not do it he imputes to their not being willing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , plainly implying , that in rigour of Justice they might have done it . He says , that even Severianus of Gabala and Acacius of Beraea , the principal Architects of the Injustice to St. Chrysostome , though accused to Pope Innocent , yet suffered no canonical Censure for it ; not that they deserved none , but that the Pope referred them to the Divine Vengeance . Still he confesses that the Case deserved Vengeance from God , even where none was attempted by Men. And in the end of the Discourse he says , that , excepting the Case of Heresie , the Church never made 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . If the Case he reasons against be strictly Justice , how can he reason from these Precedents universally , without regard to Circumstances , that even strict Justice is never to be exercised ? Yet he could make no universal Observa●●●● , even in his own Cases , that Right was never to be defended . He does not observe it concerning St. Chrysostome himself , though his Editors observe it for him : He could not observe it as the sense of the more numerous Joannites , who defended his Right whether he would or no , and at last ca●●ed the Cause against his Adversaries , that his Name was at length received into the Diptychs , and that he was thereby owned to dye Bishop of Con●●antinople , notwithstanding the two conciliary Deprivations . The onely Observation therefore that he does or could make truly , was , That a●●he Successions were not scrupulously inquired into , that depended on the Authority of the Intruders . Those were left to God , on a Presumption grounded on their Possession with at least a disputable Title . But that is a Case we are not concerned for at present . 14. The third Case is that of Flavianus , deposed from the same See of Constantinople by Dioscorus , against whom our Author supposes Anatolius to have been set up , whose Consecration was notwithstanding never questioned , because of his Orthod●●y . But this Deposition our Author himself owns to have been conciliary , though by a Synod very infamous , afterwards stigmatized by the name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , or Latrocinial , for the Violence used in it . Then it appears not , that ever Flavianus did in the least submit to that Synod itself : He had before appealed , and his Appeal was then depending when they murthered him . Then for my part I can see no reason to believe that Anatolius was set up against him , or placed in the Throne before it was empty by the Death of Flavianus . Victor Tununensis makes Anatolius set up under the following Consuls . Possibly it might be because the first News of his Promotion came to Africa under those Consuls . That second Synod of Ephesus was called the 1st of August , under the Consulship of Asterius and Protogenes , for the Year of our Lord 449. But their first Meeting was not till the 8th of that same month , or the 15th of Mesori , in the Language of Dioscorus . Certain it is , that it was after this time that ●●●vianus was deposed and murthered : But we have not so distinct an account of the Actions of this Council , repeated in the Council of Chalcedon , as to be able to ascertain the time particularly . Pope Leo's Epistles help us best to judge of it ; onely we must allow him the time to receive his Information . Leo tells us that Flavianus had suffered many things in an Epistle dated Septemb. 29. Perhaps he was before that deposed : For the same day the same Leo wrote another Epistle to the Emperour Theodosius , for a Council in Italy , probably on the account of Flavianus's Appeal upon his Deposition . In another Epistle of Octob. 13. he warns Anastasius Thessalonicensis , that he should not consent to the Condemnation of Flavianus . In another of Octob. 15. he is very earnest that no Successour should be ordained into his Place . In another of the same date he has these words concerning Flavianus , in quo utique omnium Domini Sacerdotum Reverentia caeditur , & universa corporis Christi Membra pulsantur . These seem to be the Kicks he received , as some say , from Barsumas the Monk , other from ●ioscorus himself ; probably enough from both of them , of which he dyed within three days . That he dyed of Kicks the Synodicon owns ; and that he dyed in their Hands by whom he should have been carried into Exile , we have the Testimony of Prosper , an Author of that Age ; so that he could not reach the place of his Banishment , as some other less considerable Authors conceive : And very probably those Violences to Flavianus's Person , and to the other Bishops also , to oblige them to subscribe his Condemnation and Deprivation , were the Reasons that made Hilarus fly from Ephesus : So the Violences must , in all likelihood , have been offered before he left the place ; and he might bring News , if not of his Death , yet that his Bruises were such as would in all probability prove mortal . This might be the Reason why , among the Letters of this latest date there are none to Flavianus himself . Leo might not think it fit to write Letters that were not likely to reach him alive , but would be exposed to the danger of falling into the hands of Enemies . This I think is the latest date of any Epistle written by Leo that mentions Flavianus as yet alive . And very probably the News of his imminent Death stopped him from proceeding any farther : So Nicephorus xiv . 40 . Thus it appears that the last mention of Flavianus supposes that he had , as yet , no Rival set up against him . Plain it is , that they did not set up Anatolius at the same time that they deposed Flavianus ; and it is not likely that there was any long respite between his Deposition and his Death . Flavianus certainly was murthered before the breaking up of the Synod , whilst Dioscorus had yet his Guards about him : And it seems to be the dissolution of the Synod that breaks off the course of Leo's Letters , till the following Year . As for Anatolius himself , we have no Actions of his that give us any reason to suspect that he was in Office before the Year assigned by Victor . The first thing it concerned him to take care of for settling his Communion with the West , was to put out a Confession of his Faith , according to the Custome of tha●●ge : The rather , because of the late suspicion on account of Eutyches , who had lately been cleared by Anatolius's Friends . This he indeed delayed ; possibly to see what effect the Letters of Valentinian and Placidia would have with his Emperour Theodosius . Nor did Leo receive his Confession till about Easter , of the year 451. Before that time it is probable Theodosius had put Chrysaphius to death , which obliged Anatolius to take this course when he found the Eutychian Interest declining , and that it would be no longer able to support him . Yet the first Complaint against him for not doing it is in an Epistle of Leo to Pulcheria , bearing date July 20. 450. We should in all likelihood have had earlier ones , if Anatolius had succeeded , as our Author fancies , whilst Flavianus was yet living , in the year 449. The best Testimony we have that assures us that Anatolius was preferred under the Consuls of the year 449. is a Fragment of Theodorus Lector , preserved in the 2d Nicene Council , which Baronius did not think of . And particularly it is observed by Zonaras , that Dioscorus concerned himself in that which did not belong to him , the making of a Bishop of Constantinople : But the Reason Zonaras gives why he did so , and why he recommended his own Apocrisiarius to the place , shews that it must have been after the Death of Flavianus . That Author tells us , that it was the Fear Dioscorus was in that put him upon it : He therefore suggests to Chrysaphius , the Author of all these Mischiefs , that he would persuade the Emperour to name Anatolius to the Throne of Flavianus hoping thereby to gain two Points , ( as the same Author observes , ) very necessary to his ill Designs : One was , that Eutyches might be continued in the Constantinopolitane Communion , to which he had been restored ; another was , that he might thereby prevent any accurate Enquiry into the Matter of Flavianus . Plainly it appears by this Account of the Affair , that the Fear Dioscorus was in was that of being called to Account for this Murther ▪ which being the Cause , must therefore be antecedent to his Interposition for a Successor . This is certain ▪ it was not proper to interpose for ● Successor , till they had first deprived Flavianus : And those Bruises being given him at the very time of his Appeal , which was immediately upon his Deprivation , it thence appears , that there were onely three days respite between his deprivation and his death ; which is by much too short a time to write from Ephesus to Constantinople , and to receive a Return ; so impossible it is that Anatolius could have been set up before the death of Flavianus , or that he could have made any Cession to Anatolius , as our Collectour fansies . He did not withall consider how unlikely it was that Flavianus should pay any Deference to Anatolius at that time ▪ on that very account which himself excepts from any Obligation to such deference , that of Heresie . Anatolius himself was at that time j●stly suspicious of it , as coming in by Eutychian Interest ; nor did he , till some time after , doe any thing to purge himself from that Suspicion . Nay , we are told , that at the very time Dioscorus designed him for the Place , he communicated with Eutyches . Nay more , that Dioscorus recommended him for that very reason , that he might thereby continue Eutyches in the Communion to which he had restored him : How therefore could Flavianus yield to Anatolius ? How could our Author , if he had done it , commend him for it , and plead his Fact as a Precedent , so contrary to his own Principles ? Yet if our Author's Observation prove mistaken , and Anatolius did not succeed till after Flavianus's Death ; his whole Reasoning will fail him , will at least fail our present Adversaries , for obliging wrongfully deprived Bishops to a Cession of their Title to schismatical Usurpers . All the ground he has to think Flavianus was then alive when Anatolius was possessed of his Throne , is onely Guess , not any competent historical Testimony . He refers us , in the end , after this manner , to the Acts of that second Ephesine Synod ; I suppose as we find them still extant in the Council of Chalcedon . But there we find nothing concerning the Consecration of Anatolius ; not so much as whether Dioscorus and the Synod were any ways concerned in it , or whether it was done before the Synod was dissolved : So far we are from learning thence that he was set up before the death of Flavianus . He might think it more to his purpose what he has observed out of the Epistle of Pope Leo to the Emperour Marcianus , where that Pope pretends , that it was the Orthodoxy of Anatolius , ( no doubt as signified by his Confession of Faith , which he had at length received from him ▪ ) that hindred him from enquiring too scrupulously into his Ordination : But the delays he used before he sent that Confession , made him justly liable to Suspicion ▪ together with his Personal Interest in the Eutychians , though he had otherwise received no Consecration from them . And the uttermost that can be conjectured from hence was , that he had received his Orders from their hands , not that he received them whilst Flavianus was yet alive , much less that Flavianus himself had made any Cession to him on account of his Orthodoxy . Thus the Case had not been like ours , of a schismatical Invasion of a Right , to which another had a better Title , but of a Title defective indeed , ( in regard of the Authority from whence it had been derived , ) but not injurious : That is , it had been a Case like that of Meletius , and Catholicks would have been here as much as there divided in their Opinions concerning it . If the Council of Chalcedon did not enquire concerning it , yet Leo certainly thought he might lawfully have done , it when he upbraids his not doing it as a Kindness to Anatolius , in his Disputes with him concerning the Canon made in that Council of Chalcedon equalling the See of Constantinople to that of Rome . 15. I come now to the Time of Anastasius Dicorus . And here our Author has several Examples ; the first is of Euphemius , whom he calls constantly Euthimius , both here , and in the Summary , as also Eutychius , and Cedrenus , and Metaphrastes do , such other Authors as himself ; and not only they , but also the Fathers of the VII●●● General Council , Act. 6. Nicephorus Callistus does constantly call him ●●phemius , both in his extant History , and in his MS. Catalogue of Patriarchs . But as little as Anastasius loved this Euphemius upon old accounts , yet he durst not depri●e him without a Synod ; no , though his immediate Charge against him was a secular Crime , that of his being pretended to have favoured the Emperour's Enemies the Isaurians . This is like what is now pretended against our present H. Fathers ; yet it is certain he had a synodical Deprivation : So * Theodorus Lector and Theophanes tell us expresly . It was indeed by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , of the Bishops then in Town , whose Authority though it was questioned for the greatest Affairs ( as appears in the 4th Action of the Council of Chalcedon , and the Dispute of Maximus with Pyrrhus , ) yet was often made use of in such occasions as these , and was by the Canons of the Church sufficient and obliging , till a greater number of Bishops could be persuaded to restore him . Till he could get such a Number to do it , it was the Duty of Euphemius to acquiess in the Deprivation , and to communicate with his Successor ; and it will be our present Bishops Duty also to doe so , when this can be proved to be their Case . And indeed I know no other Evidence of his communicating with his Successor , but that he did not set up a Communion against him . 16. In the Case of Macedonius the Emperour's Rage did somewhat precipitate him ; he had him forcibly seized , and sent immediately into Banishment , without so much as the Formality of a Tryal : The rather so , because he feared the People would not endure it , such a Zeal they had for Macedonius , and the Cause defended by him . Afterwards he bethought himself , and got an Assembly that did his business for him : They took upon them at the same time the Persons of Witnesses and Accusers , and deprived him absent and in exile ; and when they had done so , they notifie the Sentence to him by Bishops and a Presbyter of Cyzicus : So Theophanes tells the Story . No doubt it must have been a Synod that proceeded after the receiv'd way of Synods , in notifying their Sentence by ecclesiastical Persons . However our Author says , that he communicated with his Intruder Timotheus : So he might possibly interpret Macedonius's Exile and submitting to it , as he seems to have done that of Euphemius , in relation to the Case of Macedonius . In this case , certainly it neither could have been true , nor could he have any good Testimony for him to believe it so . When the Bishops came to notifie the Sentence to him Macedonius , asked them , whether they owned the Council of Chalcedon ? And when they durst not answer him positively , he asked again , Whether if the Sabbatians and Macedonians had brought him the like Sentence , they would think him obliged to acquiesce in it ? Is not this a plain Exception against their Authority as Hereticks , for not receiving that Council , and a Protestation against their Sentence as null and invalid , and a disowning any Obligation in Conscience to submit to it ? And what needed Timotheus to fly into that Rage against the Name and Memory of Macedonius , if what our Author says had been true , that Macedonius owned any Communion with him ? Why should this same Timotheus refuse to officiate in any sacred Place , till he had first defaced the Pictures , if he found any , of Macedonius ? Why should he prosecute Julianus only for being his Friend ? How came it to pass that when the Emperor sent forth his Edict , for subscribing the Condemnation of Macedonius , together with the Synodical Letters concerning the Consecration of Timotheus ; the more constant Adherers to the Council of Chalcedon would subscribe neither of them , and even the weaker would not subscribe the Deprivation of Macedonius , which notwithstanding in consequence subverted the Succession of Timotheus ? Why should Timotheus bring up the use of the Nicene Creed more frequently than Macedonius had done , purposely to draw odium upon Macedonius , if there had been Communion between them as our Author would persuade us ? What needed then all those Persecutions and Violences against the followers of Macedonius , but only to force them to the Communion of Timotheus ? Why did Juliana , as an Assertor of the Council of Chalcedon , refuse the Communion of Timotheus , if it was not manifest that the difference was such as broke Communion ? Why should the Praefect of the Studite Monks refuse to receive Consecration from him who had condemned the Council of Chalcedon , if it had not been notorious that he had condemned the Council , and was therefore an Heretick , and of another Communion from them who owned that Council , in defence of which Macedonius had been banished ? He did indeed , to please them , Anathemize those who had Anathematized that Council ; but when the Emperor expostulated with him concerning it , he pretended to mean his Anathematism against those who received the Council : So true he was to his Heresie . One would admire whence it was that our Author came by that good Opinion he had of this Timotheus , as if he also had been a Catholick ; and the 3d Catholick Bishop of Constantinople , who had been deprived by Anastasius . Neither of these things were true , nor affirmed by , I believe , any one good Historian . Our MS. Catalogue of Patriarchs , by Nicephorus Callistus , has either Marginal or Interlineal Censures of the Patriarchs , whether Orthodox or Heretical ; in all likelihood , according to the received Opinions of the Time and Church where these Observations were made . There in an interlineal Note , over the place where he speaks of Timotheus , we find him called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . It is of no great consequence to our purpose , whether this Note was from Nicephorus himself , or some Constantinopolitane Librarian ; either way it will shew the received Opinion of the Modern Constantinopolitanes . So also in the Iambicks concerning the Patriarchs published before the I Volume of the Byzantine Historians , Timotheus is with some Indignation called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by which we see how unworthily our present Rhetor expressed himself on this occasion , even with reference to the sense of his own Church . The only occasion of his Mistakes , that I can think of , is that he injudiciously followed the Authorities of Flavian of Antioch , and Elias of Jerusalem , as related by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus his Author , and a very good one in these Matters . That Author says indeed , that those two Patriarchs assented to the Synodical Letters for Timotheus , though they would not to the other Letters that came with them concerning the deprivation of Macedonius . This , I suppose , gave him occasion for his good Opinion of Timotheus , that those great Men , afterwards such Sufferers in the same Cause , as yet rejected not his synodical Letters . Our Author was very well aware , that if they owned the Communion of an Heretical Successor , their Examples must have been faulty , and could not be pleaded as Precedents by his own Principles ; and it seems he was not aware how notorious it was , that this was indeed the Case of Timotheus . But their Behaviour herein was exactly the same with the Behaviour of those whom Theophanes censures as weak ; so far he is from our Author's Opinion , in making it exemplary : And it is plain Macedonius and Timotheus differed not only as Rivals of the same See , but also as Heads of different Communions : How then was it reconcilable to any Principles , to own Timotheus without disowning Macedonius ? Only the receiving Timotheus might , as for a while it did , keep them in their Thrones . 17. The Truth is , these Men were all so fickle and untrue to Principles for a long time , that it is impossible to gather from their bare Facts what they did consequently even to their own Principles . Euphemius himself , though he afterwards declared himself Synodically for the Council of Chalcedon , yet came in at first upon the Henoticon of Zeno : So also was his Successor Macedonius at first brought in on the same Condition of owning the same Henoticon : So Theodorus and Theophanes . Accordingly the Emperor's Instruments got from him a Confession of Faith , mentioning neither the 3d nor 4th Councils ; upon which his People of Constantinople deserted him till he returned to own the Council of Chalcedon : so we are told by a Coaeval Monument of that Age , an Epistle of the Palestine Monks to Alcyso in Evagrius . How could Euphemius then own his Communion , even by our Author's Principles , as of an Orthodox Successor ? This was about the end of the Year 495. Cedrenus tells us , he again relapsed to his Henoticon in the 8th Year of the same Emperor Anastasius , that was about the Year 499. After he again declared for the Synod of Chalcedon , with that Zeal , as that he Anathematized Flavianus and his Legates for declaring against it . This was the 19th Year of Anastasius , if we may trust Theophanes concerning it ; that is , about the Year 510. Not only so , but a little before his Expulsion ; that is , in the 21st Year of the same Prince ; that is , after the beginning of April , 511. Celer again prevails on him to receive the Henoticon , aad to omit the 3d and 4th Council as he had done formerly , though he presently retracted it , and was therefore immediately banished : Nor was Flavianus of Antioch more constant than he . Immediately on his coming into the See , no doubt the bigotted Emperor made him speak home to his Cause , before he would permit him ; and accordingly Victor Tununensis tells us , that in a Synod of Constantinople , under the Consuls of the Year 499 , ( if he be more to be trusted here , than usually he is , in assigning Years , ) he condemned the Tome of Leo , and the Council of Chalcedon . After this Cyrillus Scythopolitanus says , he joined with Macedonius and Elias in defending the same Council . Again in the 18th Year of the same Reign , that is in the Year 509 , he declares as high for the Eutychians as themselves could wish : He condemns the Council of Chalcedon ; He condemns the Confession of two Natures in our Blessed Saviour ; He condemns all the Persons concerned in the Disputes concerning the tria Capitula , who had been absolved in the Council of Chalcedon , and the Council that absolved them . And the next Year he was condemned himself for condemning them , as we have seen , by his old Friend Macedonius . But he recovered himself again , and again provoked the Emperor , who therefore assembles the Council of Sidon , purposely to overthrow the Council of Chalcedon , and to depose Flavianus and Elias from their Sees : This affrightens them both , and they send Saba to intercede for them to the Emperor , with flattering and trimming Letters . Thus Flavianus escaped that Storm , and the Council of Sidon was dismissed without doing any thing against him : This was in the Year 512. Immediately he returns to his old Orthodoxy , which puts the Emperor out of all Patience , when he received the News from Sotericus and Philoxenus , that by these pretended Submissions he had made him dismiss the Synod so fruitlesly . Cyril tells us the hard * words the Emperor used concerning it , which I am loath to translate . Hereupon he orders his Informers to use what means they thought fit to get him out of his place ; they then repair to Antioch , and with some Bribes set the Rabble upon the Bishop , and force him once more to Anathematize the Synod of Chalcedon , and then send him into Exile . These are the express words of Cyrillus , which Baronius is willing to understand of an Endeavour to force him , but without Success . So I would also have been willing to understand him , if he had not frequently been guilty of such Apostasies . But here particularly it appears , that the Endeavours were successful , from the express * Testimony , and the very Reason Theophanes gives why they banished him notwithstanding his Compliance ; that is , because he anathematized that Council with his Mouth only , not with his Heart : But perhaps Elias , the great , the blessed Elias , as our Author styles him , was more true to Principles . He was as frail as the rest , and as little resolute in resisting any force that the Exigence of his Affairs brought him under . No doubt he came in first , as all must have done who were preferred by that Emperor , by Promises for opposing the Chalcedon Council ; but he soon recovered , and joined first with Euphemius , then with Macedonius and Flavianus , in defence of it . After he relapsed again , and condemns it again before the banishment of Macedonius , and went so far , that his Example was made use of by the Emperor to persuade Macedonius to follow him in it : So Theod. Lector and Theoph. But when Macedonius was banished , he received the communicatory Letters of Timotheus , but would not those concerning the Deprivation of Macedonius . This again provokes the Emperor against him : Accordingly the Synod of Sydon was called with full design of condemning the Council of Chalcedon , and banishing him . Then he wrote the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , mentioned by Cyrillus . Baronius indeed endeavours to bring him off , by observing from the Letter of the Palestine Monks to Alcyso , that Elias pretended something to have been added to his Letters in relation to his condemning the Doctrine of two Natures in Christ : And to prove this Elias produced a Copy of his own Letter he had kept by him , wherein there were no such Words . Cyrillus has nothing of this : But be that as it will , it seems however clear , that he was very express in condemning the Council of Chalcedon , and that his Expressness in that particular , with the Intercession of Saba , was that which secured him against the Council of Sidon . As Flavianus then owned only three Councils , taking no notice of the Council of Chalcedon ; so Elias did indeed mention it ; but so as withal to signifie that he did not receive it . So Theophanes ; and not only he , but his great Admirer Cyrillus explains what he meant by the flattering and trimming Words , made use of by him in his Letter to the Emperor : He tells us the very Words of his Letter , as the Emperor himself signified them to Sabas , that he did not approve of what was done in Chalcedon , for the Scandals that followed thereupon : And when he refused to receive Severus to his Communion , he tells us again , that the Emperor sent his trimming Epistle from Sidon as an Evidence against him , professing that he did not own the Council of Chalcedon ; nor does he in the least signifie that Elias had any thing to say to it that could satisfie him : He intimates the contrary , when he calls them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , Shifts and Artifices of Evasion , to serve a present Turn ; so little Reasoning there is from such Men's Facts as these , where there is nothing more than the bare Facts themselves to recommend them for Precedents . No Facts can certainly be allowed for Precedents , that are not agreeable to Principles , and how can we presume Facts to be agreeable to Principles , meerly because they are theirs , who are known so frequently and so easily to vary from the Principles themselves profess , and own for Principles ? We see they corresponded with so notorious a Heretick as Timotheus , which is more than ever our Author 's own Principles would have allowed them , rather than hazard their Places : Why should we then wonder if they had corresponded with Schismaticks , even such as themselves took for such ? Why should our Author presume such correspondence allowable , because allowed by them , who did so many things not allowable even by their own Principles ? I do not willingly detract from the Merits of these Excellent Persons for what they did afterwards ; but there is no reason , that their Repentance at last should commend the Prevarications they were guilty of before , and make them pass for Precedents . 18. Besides these , our Author produces another Example in the same Reign , that of Elias himself : He also was at length deprived , and John was set up against him ; yet both of them were owned by Theodosius , and Sabas . They owned John for their Bishop , and yet the compassion they had for Elias's Case appear'd by the visit they made him in his Exile . Accordingly our Author appeals to the Dyptichs of the Church , which mention both of them with Honour and Respect . The Expulsion of Elias from his See to his place of Exile was managed immediately with that violence which was ordinarily used by the Emp●ror Anastasius in most of his undertakings : Olympus did it with a Guard of Soldiers ; yet certainly the Emperor's sending a Copy of Elias's Dissembling Letter to be shewn at the doing of it , was not without a particular design . Had he thought his own Authority sufficient for it , his own satisfaction alone had been sufficient ; and so Assuming and Imperious a Temper as his was , would not have condescended to give others an account of his proceedings ; especially where withal there was no form of a Judicial Process , where these Letters might have been produced as Legal Evidence . I need not produce the many Testimonies of that Age , as well as others , concerning the Incompetency of his Secular Power for a Spiritual Deprivation : The actings of this Emperour himself do sufficiently shew , that himself was sensible , how little his Lay-Authority would signifie in such a case as this was , without a Synod . What made him else take that pains to assemble the Synod of Sidon , purposely with a design of Deposing Flavianus and Elias ? What made him in such a Rage , when by their prevaricating Letters they had eluded that Synod ? What made him after he had driven away Macedonius from Constantinople by plain force , afterwards to order a Synodical Judgment and Censure of his Case , but that himself did not , before that second Judgment , as Theophanes observes , look upon him as Deprived even when he was in his Exile ? But by this sending the Letter of Elias , he seem'd only to execute the Synod's Judgment concerning him , which had certainly Deprived him , if he had not eluded them by that Letter . His Exposing therefore that Letter seems to have been to shew , that he was not now the person whom the Synod continued in their Communion , but that person rather , whom they had designed to Condemn , and Deprive . Thus he might very well believe this present Act to be only an Execution of that Synod's design , and so not chargeable with any Invasion on the Sacred Authority . I am not now concerned to justifie this reasoning , as Solid , and Concluding ; it is sufficent at present to observe , how probable it is , that it was at least the reasoning of Anastasius ; That alone will sufficiently overthrow the Consequences from it , as a Precedent to invade the Sacred Power . It thence appears , that without this Interpretative Application of the Synod's design , the Fact had not been justifiable , even by the sentiments of him that did it : How then can it be pleaded as a Precedent ? It shews withal , that with this Interpretative Application here was a Synodical Deprivation , which might validly deprive Elias of his Right , in the Opinion of those who judged the Interpretation reasonable . 19. But whether the Deprivation was valid or not , no doubt Elias , by his own Cession , might ratifie that Ordination of John , which otherwise had been invalid and unobliging : And this Cession might be known by his not-challenging his Right , and by his not-taking it ill at their hands , who owned his Rival for their Patriarch , and by the Friendly behaviour of his Rival to him in continuing his Name in the Ecclesiastical Dyptichs , if he was not afterwards restored , but then continued , as our Author supposes : Otherwise this form in the Jerusalem Dyptichs , mentioned by our Author , of wishing the Memory of Elias and John perpetual ; like that in the Tomus Vnionis in Constantinople , seems rather as if it were brought in after their deaths , to accommodate some differences , that might have been formerly between Parties , that had been made on their Accounts . Indeed I know no mention of any express Cession in any Good Author , unless we may be allowed to conjecture it from some such Reasonings as those now mentioned . But what if we should grant them that he yielded his Right to John ? This single instance will not suffice to justifie the Author's Vniversal Observation , that it never was insisted on by any , where the Successor was not an Heretick ; it will not suffice to shew , that he thought himself oblig'd to it by Principles , who in many other things acted so disagreeable to Principles : It will not thence appear , that he did do it out of fear , when by challenging his Right and by perswading his People to withdraw from the Communion of his Successor , intruded by the Emperor , he must have provoked him who was so easily provoked , to new Severities against him . Indeed he could not expect Duty from his own Subjects , who had countenanced so many Intruders , even Timotheus the Heretick , and approved so many Revoltings of Subjects in the injurious deprivations of his Brethren . And can our Adversaries with any reason make these Actions pass for Precedents , to which he was necessitated by the consequence of his own past Behaviour , and the Exigency of his Cause ? I am sure , he had no great reason to think his Flock secure under the Conduct of so Fickle a Successor . John had departed from his Principle , when it was not his fear , but only his Ambition , that could induce him to it ; in order to his getting into the place , had promised both to anath●matize the Council of Chalcedon , and to Communicate with Severus . And that he did not stand to his promise the reason was manifest ; he feared that if he had done so , that his Clergy and his People would not stand by him : Still it does not seem to have been his Conscience that kept him right , but his Ambition . That very soon appeared when afterwards he was imprisoned for this Violation of his former promise : He then as easily repeats the promise , as he had formerly broken it ; only he pretended , that he might not seem to perform it unwillingly , it was fit he should first be set at liberty . When he had thus wheedled the Praefect , and got his Guard of Monks about him , that he no longer feared him ; he then does as the Monks , not as the Praefect would have him , and anathematizes Severus and Sotericus , and all who would not receive the Council of Chalcedon . Then he frightens away the Emperor 's Prefect ; and the fam'd Sabas , and Theodosius , with their ten thousand Monks , were as active as any in it . If these Mens actions were counted exemplary then , yet I am sure , they would not have been thought so in the first , and purest ▪ Ages of our Christian Religion . Well might Cyrillus call them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . But Christianity was too far degenerated , when these were counted Titles of Honour in such pretenders to Mortification , and Renouncers of the World. Our present Holy Fathers have more of the Primitive Spirit of Christianity , than to think themselves oblig'd to follow such Examples . 20. Our Author now directs from the Throne of Constantinople to that of Jerusalem : and from the time of Anastasius to that of Great Athanasius : so it should seem this Example occured to his memory . He tells us therefore ; that when Athanasius was Condemned in the Synod of Tyre ▪ he fled to Maximus of Jerusalem , and was by him restored by a Synod conven'd by him , where he Decreed for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and repealed the Synod of Tyre ▪ This , the Author says , provoked the Bishop of Caesarea against him : He must mean Acacius , the Ring-leader of the Arian Faction in those parts . Acacius then , he says , gathers a Synod against Maximus , and deprives him , and sets up Cyril against him , who at that time professed Arianism . Afterwards Cyril declares for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and then Maximus and he was reconciled , and owned the same Communion : So our Author . But very little of this story is true , even as to matter of Fact ; and yet if it had been all so , it is nothing to our Adversaries purpose . Very little of it is true , as to matter of Fact. First , at the Synod of Tyre , it is certain Athanasius did not fly to Jerusalem , but to Constantinople to make his Case known to the Emperor himself . It had been at that time in vain to have had recourse to Maximus , who in that very Synod of Tyre had given his Suffrage against him . He did indeed see his Error afterwards , but it was many years first : Athanasius was condemned in the Synod of Tyre , in the year 335. But the time when Maximus convened his Synod , and declared for Athanasius , was in the year 350. when at the Interposition of the Emperor Constans , Athanasius was released from his Banishment . Then Maximus did indeed declare for him , and that Synodically . But all that we can find Acacius did against him , was to upbraid him with his inconsistency , and by his contrary Vote in the Synod of Tyre . Socrates indeed does elsewhere imply , That when Cyril was brought to the Throne of Jerusalem , Maximus was driven from it ; and he is , I believe , the only ancient Author near those times that does so much as imply it . Theodoret is very express in making Cyril's Succession after the death of Maximus : so also is St. Jerome , who lived nearer the remembrance of that Fact than Socrates himself . He tells us , That before the Arians would admit Cyril to the place , they obliged him first to renounce his Orders of Presbyter , which he had received from Maximus ; and that , when he was in , Heraclius also , who had been taken by Maximus himself for his Successor , was by Cyril also obliged to degrade himself to the Order of Presbyter . We have in the same See of Jerusalem a very ancient instance of a Bishop who brought in his Successor . So Eusebius tells us , Narcissus did Alexander , a Bishop of Cappadocia ; — who also adds , that that Election was ratified by a Divine Testimony . But who can believe that Maximus would have brought in a Successor , if himself had been deposed and dispossessed ? Who can think he would have actually have made him Bishop , if himself had not been so actually ? The whole occasion of the mistake seems to have been , not that Maximus himself was removed to make way for Cyril , but rather Heraclius who had been substituted by Maximus . For this was indeed a case sometimes questioned in the Discipline of the Church , whether a Bishop might be allowed to Substitute his own Successor : The Records of the Church of Jerusalem are in these times very intricate and difficult . When Cyril himself was banished by the Arians , we have the Names of three persons who filled his See in the interval before he was restored . Among them there is one Heraclius , possibly this very person who took the advantage of Cyril's Deprivation for recovering his Right which was conferred on him by Maximus . And as to the dispute concerning the Priviledges of their Sees ▪ Theodoret , who gives us the most distinct account of this matter , tells us it was started in the time of Cyril , who was deprived after by Acacius , among other causes , for this also of maintaining the Priviledges of his own See. It is very true , Jerusalem , though it had the Title of a Patriarchal See , yet had no Patriarchal Jurisdiction till the Council of Chalcedon , but was subject to the Metropolitane of Caesarea . Even the Council of Nice which owned it for Patriarchal , did notwithstanding reserve to Caesarea the Priviledge of being the Metrapolitane . But the Honour of Maximus's Age , and of his having been a Confessor in the Persecution ( which in that Age was very great ) made no doubt the Adversaries of his Cause have notwithstanding a great veneration for his Person . These reasons ceased in Cyril , who was at first set up by Arian Interest , and with him his Competitors of the same Faction did therefore think they might be more bold . Accordingly then it was that those Controversies fell among the Arians concerning 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , which broke them in pieces among themselves , as Epiphanius assures us , who lived in the nearest memory of them of any Author now extant that mentions them . And Eutychius one of the principal Rivals of Cyril in these disputes , had been a Disciple of Maximonas , ( so Epiph●nius calls Maximus the Predecessor of Cyril ; ) and therefore seems to have had a great veneration for his Memory , and was therefore unlikely to have started this dispute in his time . In that dispute Cyril was so far from acknowledging any Superiority in the Bishop of Caesarea , that it seems he challenged a Right of filling the See himself , and contested it with that Eutychius , Bishop of Elutheropolis : But that seems to have been after the time of Acacius , after his second Restitution . His first Contest was with Acacius himself of Caesarea , and Patrophilus of Scythopolis , the same persons who are supposed to have been concerned in the Deprivation of Maximus : And that the Deprivation of Cyril by Acacius , was by some mistake taken for a Deprivation of Maximus in favour of Cyril , we have reason to conjecture from The phanes himself : He , though he follows our Author's Opinion , ( probably on the same Authority of the Life of Athanasius , which was elder than Theophanes , ) yet places it as the Truth required he should , not at the time of the entrance of Cyril , but at the year of his Deprivation , and the Succession of Hilarion , whom he makes his immediate Successor . What can thence be clearer than that it was the Deprivation of Cyril , not his Promotion , that was here performed by Acacius ; especially when we are withall as●ured that those disputes , which occasioned this Deprivation , concerning Prerogative , were started first in the time of Cyril ? All that the Adversaries of Maximus and Athanasius did , on this restoring of Athanasius by Maximus in the Synod of Jerusalem , was ( as Socrates himself observes ) only 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , to jeer Maximus for it , that he himself should restore him who had voted against him in the Synod of Tyre . How came he here to forget his carrying on his resentment farther afterwards to the Deprivation of Maximus ? How comes he here not to mention at least the anger of Acacius as well as his jeerin● if he had resented this Synod of Maximus , and the determination o● it , as an invation of his Prerogative ; if this had been the cause why he afterwards deprived him , if his ground for saying so had not been rather mistaken conjectures , than express and positive Authoritties ? So little ground he had for believing that Cyril was set up against Maximus . Has he therefore any express Testimony for the Communion between Maximus and Cyril , as Anti-Bishops of the same See ? No , not so much as in his Celebrated Life of Athanasius it self ; neither as we have it extant at present , nor as we have the Sum of it in Photius . He only seems to guess at that , as he has done at other things now mentioned , from presuming the matter of Fact , that they both at once pretended Espiscopal Authority in the same District , and yet had both their Names continued in the Ecclesi●stical Diptychs . 21. In truth , the Credit of all our Author says to his own purpose , is wholly resolved into that Life of Athan●sius , which is vouched for it . In the Appendix to the Paris Edition we have two Lives of that Great Man , one by Metaphrastes , the other by an unknown Author , elder perhaps than Metaphrastes : Both of them own this Tale , that Maximus was deposed by Acacius . If either of them was the Life read by Photius , that of the Anonymous Author was the more likely of the two . Metaphrastes was manfestly too late for him ; otherwise the Excerpta of Photius do better agree with Metaphrastes . Photius takes no notice of the Notes of Time which are frequent in the Anonymous Life , though he otherwise uses to take particular notice of such things in the Authors on which he makes his Observations . But in making two Tyrian Synods , wherein the Cause of Athanasius was debated , he better agrees with Metaphrastes . Perhaps therefore there was a third Life seen by Photius , and interpolated , after his manner , by Metaphrastes , which perished after the interpolation , which also mentioned this pretended Deprivation of Maximus by Acacius . Yet even that Elder Life also , by the account of it in Photius , seems to have been such a Life of Athanasius as Hierome Savier's Gospel was of our Saviour : The several Forgeries and Mistakes of his Predecessors are taken in , and his own added to them . Here we are told of Athanasius's acting the part of Bishop while he was a Boy , and that Alexander the then Bishop ratified what he did in that sportive Personation , though he would have it believed that the Children were Serious in what they did . But how could they be Serious in taking upon them Exercises of an Authority that did not belong to them ? This in all likelihood he had from the Greek Translation of Ruffinus's Addition to Eusebius's History , by which Socrates confesses he had been seduced in several things concerning Athanasius , before he consulted the Works of Athanasius himself . Here we also read the Tale of Athanasius's absconding for several years with a young and beautiful Virgin : This seems also to have been taken from the truly Monkish Historia Lausiaca of Palladius . Here we find also the two Councils of Tyre against Athanasius ; one the true one , on the Tricennalia of Constantine the Great ; the other in the time of Constantius , where the Case of Arsenius was debated , which we are certain could be no other than fictitious from the certain accounts Athanasius himself has preserved us of the whole affair : But perhaps it was thought more convenient for connecting the actions of Maximus , for which this Author would suppose him deprived by Acacius . Many other instances might , no doubt , have been observed , if we had leisure to compare this Legend with the undoubted Monuments of Athanasius and his coaeval Authors . Photius himself who saw and read that Life , gives but a mean account of it . I mention not his Censures of the Style of it ; that we are less concerned for at present . He says , there were also several things new in the Historical inf●rmations of it . And new indeed they must be which had no antient Historical Monuments to be vouched for them . So little reason there is to believe the matters of Fact true from whence our Author reasons in this case : For it is manifest that eldest Life mentioned by Photius , must have been the Original of this other Life , whatever it was that was mentioned by our Collector . Yet had they all been a● true as they wish they were , our Adversaries would gain nothing by them : Here are Synods concerned in all the particulars of this account , the Synod of Tyre for depriving Athanasius , the Synod of Jerusalem for restoring him and a supposed Synod also for the supposed deprivation of Maximus , accordingly taken in by the modern Greeks , with several other fabulous Synods , into their Synodicon , first published by Pappus and Justellus , then taken by Labbee into his volumes of Councils . But what is that to the case of our present Fathers , whose deprivation cannot be pretended to have been Synodical ? 22. Our Author's next instance is in Eutychius , deprived of the See of Constantinople by Justinian , in the year 564. because he could not assent to the Apthartodocitae , who thought our Saviour's Humane Nature incorruptible . Yet our Author says , he did not separate from the Communion of John , who was set up against him . But neither is this for our Adversaries purpose . Justinian did indeed here behave himself with as much transport on this occasion as his Predecessor Anastasius had done in the Case of Macedonius . He first sends Eutychius into Exile ; then he tries him by an Assembly of * Bishops and Princes . What the Greek word was here we know not ; nor therefore can we determine whether the Princes were Corepiscopi , or Prefects of Monasteries , who by this time began to take upon them in affairs relating to Ecclesiastical Cognizance , as having very considerable Ecclesiastical Bodies under them , who would be concluded by their suffrages . Certainly they were Ecclesiasticks : For in the Synods of those times , though there were present Secular Persons to represent the Emperor ; yet they never used to vote : Only they took care that all things should be fairly managed , and made their reports to the Emperor accordingly . And indeed the Secular part of the deprivation had already been performed , in sending the Patriarch into Exile . Nor was it requisite by the Lex Regia ( as it was called ) in those times , that the Emperor should have any concurrence of Council for affairs of this nature . It was therefore undoubtedly a Synod , and is owned for such in the Greek Syn●dicon . And accordingly they send their Summons to Eutychius by persons of their own rank , Bishops and Princes , which was the way of Synods , not of Imperial Councils . Yet * Eutychius received them so as still to own himself for their Patriarch ; which , as yet , even the Legates themselves could not deny . Only he pleaded , that if they would proceed judicially with him , he ought first to be restored to his full Patriarchal Power , and then he promised , that he would make his defence . This was so fair , that even the Legates themselves had nothing to except against it . It was thus supposed on all sides , That the Emperor's deprivation was perfectly invalid , and could not make him cease to be Patriarch , as to Conscience . And it is withall supposed , that however the Assembly now convened had Power to do it , if they would proceed judicially . But how fair soever the Patriarch's proposal was , the Synod could not rescind the Emperor's Act without his own consent ; and yet being resolved to gratifie the Emperor , they summon the Patriarch thrice , and then depose him for non-appearance . Herein consisted the Injustice of their proceedings against him , without hearing , and in Exile . Hereupon he disowns their whole proceeding as not judicial , by inflicting Censures on his Deprivers . Where then is his not disowning John , on which our Author's , on which our Adversaries Argument is founded ? Our Author 's general Argument for it , from his finding both their Names in the Patriarchal Dyptichs of his own time , seems to be all he has to say ▪ for his frequent confident assertions in matters of this kind ; yet that is very fallacious : Many Names were afterwards restored , which had been formerly excluded from the Dyptichs ; and Successors generally were obliged to ratifie the past acts of their Predecessors , how questionable soever the Authority was by which they acted , unless they would unravel things as the Arsenians did , for whom we are not concerned And this indeed was all that could be gathered from their continuing their Names in the Dyptichs , that they did not question all they did for the time past . This is certain , that their being barely continued in the Dyptichs , is no Argument that even their Successors , who continued them in the Dyptichs , did therefore think them fit to be Communicated with , because we find many there who were Hereticks , at least , in the opinion of their Successors ▪ especially if they ever renounced their Heresie , though they were never solemnly received again into the Church from which their open profession of Heresie had divided them . And particularly , this must in all likelihood have been the case in the subject matter of which we are at present discoursing : For did Justinian drive out Eutychius for not consenting to his Heresie concerning the Incorruptibleness of CHRIST's Humane Nature ? And can we doubt but that he took care , at the same time , that his Successor should consent to it ? Would he not endure one in Possession , whom he found so , that would not gratifie him in his new opinion ? And could he admit another into possession that would not doe it ? If therefore John , his Successor , complied with the Emperor , ( as there is very little reason to doubt but that he did , ) this instance can by no means be serviceable to our Author's design : He ought not then to presume that Eutychius did communicate with his Successor , if he will not ( as certainly in Charity he ought not ) presume any thing concerning him but what became him : Or if the matter of Fact appeared true beyond Presumption , he ought not to argue from it as a Precedent . The case of Communicating with Hereticks is not commendable , nay , is expresly excepted by our Author himself from the Rule wherein he thinks it obligatory to continue Communion ; and therefore ( with him at least ) can never make a Precedent . 23. The following instance in the beginning of the same Reign of the Great Justinian , of Anthimus deposed for Heresie by Pope Agapetus , in the year 536. was not designed by our Collector for any thing wherein our Adversaries are concerned ; our Author supposes him a Heretick , and deposed therefore justly : Nor does he pretend any Cession , but what was forcible . He therefore neither did , nor could reason from his Example for persons deposed unjustly , to oblige them to yield their just Right to an Orthodox Successor . It was wholly designed for the other Question , wherein we are not concerned , to shew that even his Orthodox Successor , Menas , did not unravel the Ordinations performed by Anthimus before he was deposed . Only thus much is observable for our purpose , that the Lay Power had not the least hand in it , any otherwise than as they executed the Decree of the Ecclesiasticks in it , and thought themselves obliged in Conscience to do so in affairs of this nature . Theodora , who was joyned with Justinian in all publick forms , was Anthimus's Patroness , and did all she could to keep him in the Office to which she had promoted him : And Justinian himself , who was sufficiently uxorious , was very unwillingly brought to comply with that which was so vehemently opposed by her . That which determined him , was only the Authority of Agapetus and his Synod : And they determined him in a time when his affairs were very prosperous ; when therefore they had no other inducement that could bring him to it , but a conviction of their Right for dealing in such matters , and of his own obligation , even in Conscience , to be determined and concluded by them . 24. As little also to their purpose are the four following examples of the Monothelite Bishops of Constantinople , Sergius , Pyrrhus , Paulus , and Petrus : And as little did our Collector intend them to serve the purpose of our present Adversaries . None of these were deprived : Even Pyrrhus himself needed no deprivation : He left his Omophorion behind him , though at the same time he protested not to abdicate ; but only to give way to the fury of the Rabble . But his leaving the Omophorion behind him , not out of forgetfulness , but design , was in truth , as much an Interpretative abdication of his Office , in the Sense and Practice of that Age , as it was a deprivation of any Palatine Office , when the Emperor sent for the Zona or Cingulum , which was then the Ensign of such Offices . And so it was plain Pyrrhus foresaw it would be understood , when he thought to elude that Interpretation of it by this Declaration of his design in it . So it was understood in the case of Eutychius , when his Omophorion was not taken from him , that his Right was providentially contintued to him . So that it was a Protestation against Fact , and therefore null in it self , when he made use of this Symbol of Surrendry , notwithstanding to pretend that he did not surrender . In all likelihood he designed to be understood to have surrendered when he did it to gratifie them who were for having him deprived of his Office , and who were therefore inclinable thus to understand what should be done to gratifie themselves . And thus in all probability he hoped to avoid too severe a scrutiny into the Murder of the Emperor then charged upon him , when he thus prevented a Synodical Trial by a seeming voluntary Surrendry : And with what ingenuity could he disown what he knew would , and what he desired should be understood to be his meaning ? At least this was sufficient for them to presume his Place vacant , and to fill it up without a formal Sentence against him . However when the Heresie is once condemned , and it is withal notorious that the persons own the Heresie , our Author himself requires no act of Authority to justifie a Separation : Nor could he think Hereticks unjustly dealt with , in having Canonical Censures pronounced against them ; nor to be qualified for Communion with their Successors , without renouncing their Heresies ; which none of these did but Pyrrhus , who notwithstanding returned to his Vomit : Nor would he ever make the Actions of Hereticks argumentative as Precedents . The Action therefore that he reasons from here , is only that of their Catholick Successor George , and the sixth General Synod of Constantinople , who did not scruple the Orders of so many of his Heretical Predecessors : But this is , as I said , a question wherein we are not concerned . 25. The next Example is of Callinicus deprived ( or rather driven from his Throne ) by Justinian Rhinotmetus , who set up Cyrus the Recluse in his stead : Yet neither did Callinicus , as our Author reports , separate from the Communion of Cyrus , nor did the Church ever question the Ordinations that were made in the time of the supposed Usurper . Here I confess no Synod appears , by which Callinicus was deprived : But what need was there of a Synod to deprive a Rebel Bishop , who had forfeited his Life to his Master for assisting his Enemies , Leontius and his Fautor , and exciting the People to dethrone him ? The Emperor took away his sight , and sent him to Rome , as King Solomon did Abiathar to Anatoth , when he might justly have taken away his Life ; nor can it be imagined that such a Bishop would stand upon his Right to his See , who had none to his Life , and whose ignominious blindness justly incurred , did in a great measure disable him from the exercise of his Office , and render him base and con●emptible to his Flock . If we never read that any of the Greek Emperors , who were so served by their Enemies , ever off●red to resume the Throne ▪ but acquiesced under their misfortune ; we have reason to presume that a guilty Bishop so served by his Sovereign , would never after pretend to his Chair , but quit all manner of claim to it by Cession , or Resignation ; and then it is no wonder , if ha●ing divested himself , he did not refuse to communicate with his Successor Cyrus ▪ and that the Church did not question Cyrus's Ordinations , when they had no reason for it . But whether Callinicus did , or did not refuse Communion with Cyrus , is uncertain ; none of the Historians say any thing of it , and I have shewed that our Author asserts things precariously , and often speaks more than he can prove . 26. The next Collection is of a Succession of Iconoclast Patriarchs , whom this Author takes for Hereticks , from the time of Germanus to the second Nicene Council ; that is , for the space of fifty six years , according to his computation . He begins his account from the expulsion of Germanus in the year 730. and the second Nicene Coun●il was in the year 787. So his account will hold , reckoning only the interval , but leaving out the extreams . In this space he obser●es , that the Orders must generally have been derived from Iconoclasts : So that even the Orders of Tarasius and his Brethren , who acted in that Council , must generally have been affected by them . Yet so far was that Council from scrupling such Orders ▪ that they admitted the Orders even of those who were to be Iconoclasts , when they could pevail with them to renounce what they called their Heresie . This also plainly concerns not us , but the Question disputed by this Author with the Arsenians ; nor are we concerned for the Deprivation of Germanus though it was not Synodical . There was no need it should have been so ; for he expresly † abdicated ; perhaps unwillingly : But that cannot prejudice the validity of the thing when done . Multitudes of such Resignations there have been , both of Princes and Bishops , the validity whereof was never questioned by Men of the severest Principles ; especially where the unwillingness was not total , but such as was consistent with conditional willingness . Such a willingness I mean as Men rather chose , than they would abide the Consequences which were otherwise to be expected , in case they should prove refractory . This none , that I know of , allows to be sufficient in Conscience to absolve a Man from an obligation he has brought upon himself in such a case of unwilling , if I might call it , voluntariness . And this was manifestly the case of our Germanus : He thereby freed himself from any farther trouble from the Emperor . 27. The next Case concerning Theodorus and Plato , with their Monks , withdrawing from the Communion of two Patriarchs , has no relation to our case , though it was very opposite to that of the Arsenians which occasioned the Discourse . No doubt the Author's design herein was to let the Monks see that they medled with what did not belong to them , when they took upon them for matters of Discipline to separate from the Diocesane Communion to which they were related . This Pla●o and Theodorus , with their Saccudiote and Studite Disciples , were guilty of , when they presumed to separate from their two Patriarchs , Tarasius and Nicephorus , for keeping Joseph in their Communion , who had married Constantine the Emperor to the Nun Theodote , when he had forced his Empress Mary into a Nunnery . Accordingly they were condemned for it in a Synod of Bishops and Abbats , when they made their second separation from Nicephorus , and driven from their Monasteries and the City , as Theophanes tells us , though our Author mention nothing it . The Bishops therefore forced them to recant all the Invectives they had used against the Patriarchs , not that they thereby intended to defend Joseph , but to assert their own Authority , as the only competent one in Affairs relating to Communion , against these Monastical Invasions . St. Ambrose told the Great Theodosius , that his Purple did not entitle him to the Priesthood , which yet was not more true of the Purple than of the Cowl . Thither therefore relates what our Author observes from the Patriarch Methodius , that if Theodorus had not recanted , he had not been received to Communion . He observes farther , from the Testament of the same Methodius , ( probably in imitation of the Testament of Nazianzene , ) that he prescribed , that whenever the Studites were received as Penitents , they should only be received to Communion , not to their Sacerdotal Dignity . So in the Synodicon drawn upon the occasion of these Schisms , and ordered ( as our Author observes ) thenceforward to be read in Churches , those Invectives against the Patriarchs are not only recanted , but anathematized . Nay , Theodorus was therein declared not to have done well in his Separation , and that the Schism was on his part , whatever was the occasion of it . And the reason is given exactly agreeable to the Principles of Ignatius , and St. Cyprian , that Tarasius and Nicephorus were the Church . Whence it plainly followed , that Theodorus and his followers cast themselves out of the Church , by their being divided from their Patriarchs . This very Synodicon is mentioned in some fragments of this Work of Nicon here referred to , and in a Discourse of Anastasius Caesareensis , both published by Co●elerius . And Anastasius is very particular in distinguishing it from the Nomocanon : He tells us that it consisted only of three Synods , two relating to Faith , and the third to Marriages ; probably all of them relating to this case . And thus we understand why our Author excepts only the case of Heresie , wherein it might be lawfull to separate from the Bishop . He speaks of persons subject to Episcopal Jurisdiction , acting by themselves without a Bishop to head them ; for so did Plato and Theodorus , with their Monks : And so nothing but Heresie could excuse their Separation from their Ordinary , by the Principles of the Catholick Church ; for the guilt of Schism will wholly be imputable to such Subjects who separate from their Ordinary for any other cause but Heresie . 28 And to this Case agree exactly the Canons omitted by Mr. Hody . They also speak of Monks and Laity separating from their respective Ordinary , without any Episcopal Authority . So the Synod called AB expresly ; by which we understand that the Presbyters and Deacons mentioned in the former Canons , in reference to the Case here particularly designed , were understood of Monks , and such persons , destitute of Episcopal Authority : And very probably these Encroachments of the Monks on the Sacerdotal Authority , were the real occasion for the Synod AB to make that Canon . The Monks of Constantinople were , at that time , admitted into most debates where Religion was concerned . We have seen that they made a part in the Synodi 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , against Eutychius in the time of the Great Justinian , and now in the time of Nicephorus against the Schismatical Studites . We see they had a part in the electing their Bishop , by the opposition Theophanes tells us this same Theodorus with his Studites made in the Election of this same Nicephorus . We see they were consulted by Michael Curopolates concerning his War against the Bulgarians , and that they over ruled him against his own inclinations ▪ on account of the concern Religion was supposed to have in that Affair : Nor was it amiss that nothing should be done without the consent , at least , of so great and so numerous bodies of persons devoted to the service of Religon . And this consideration it was that brought the Mitred Abbats also in the West into their Synods , and into their Parliaments : But then this only gave them , in the Original design of it , a Power of interposing and interceding , like that of the Tribunes among the Romans , not of invading the Sacred Sacerdotal Power ; but among the Romans this Power of interceding being granted first , incouraged the Tribunes afterwards to aspire farther to give Laws even to the Senators themselves . So it succeeded with these Monks : the devotedness of their State made them to be looked on somewhat above the ordinary Laity ; and some Sacerdotal Acts were indulged them for the Government of their own Members , but no doubt at first with the consent of their Ordinaries , to whom they were at first all subject . Thus they had Power of suspending their own Monks from the Communion : Then they challenged the Power of Consignation in the Bishops absence ; this was done first in Egypt , as Hilary the Deacon observes in the Commentaries which go under the Name of St. Ambrose . There were the most numerous bodies of Monks , most remote from Bishops , and therefore the most inclinable to these Sacerdotal Encroachments . Thus we see there was occasion for asserting the Sacerdotal Rights against them in the times of the Patriarchs , Nicephorus and Methodius : For so far the Schism of these Studites continued , as appears from the Observations our Author has made from the Writings of Methodius . It is also plain that the Monks were the greatest part in the Schism of the Arsenians , principally regarded by our Author : So it appears from several passages in Georgius Pachymeres . He tells us , that many of the (a) Monks and Laity divided and kept their separate Assemblies : And the Emperor Michael in his Oration against the Schismaticks describes them so , as that we cannot doubt but that the Monks were they who were principally intended by him . He says , they were such as by their course of life had been inured to (b) Corners and Secrecies , that they were cloathed in (c) Sackcloth . So Joseph in his Oration to Germanus , where he perswades him to resign , represents the (d) Monks as the principal Adversaries with whom he had to deal on this occasion . And the Names (e) mentioned in this Cause are generally either of Monks or Nuns : Such were Hiacinthus and Ignatius Rhodius , and Martha and Nostogonissa ; and the * Pantepoplene Monks ( so called from their Monastery ) were the most violent against Joseph and those who sided with him . And now we understand that they were not any Latitudinarian dwindling notions of Schism ( such as our Adversaries fancy ) that made our Author allow of no cause but Heresie to justifie a separation : These were perfectly unknown , even to that lower Antiquity in which our Author lived . The Persons he had to deal with were such as had no Bishop to head them : A●senius himself was dead now for some years before our Author made this Collection , and he hath substituted no Successor , nor was there any Bishop of 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 Mich●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 Icon●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 ulla Canonica Auctoritate tua pulsus Ecclesia , &c. which he insists on as an Argument for invalidating their whole proceedings against him . So also Anastasius Bibliothecarius in his Preface to the Eighth General Council , speaking of the same Ignatius , says , that he was praejudicialiter expoliatus . By which , in all likelihood , he means , that he was robbed of his Throne antecedently to any form of judicial Proceeding . The Author therefore of the Synodicon himself , owns that he was driven away 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , meaning , I suppose , the Secular 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as distinguished by that word from the Ecclesiasticks . He therefore calls it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , a simple Synod ; probably because they were only a few Bishops and Monks that concerned themselves in this matter , without any Synodical Formalities , not even those of the Synodus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ Bardas therefore the Caesar , who was the Author of it , did now all he could by hard usage to force him to abdicate . It plainly hence appears , that even he did not think the Emperor's Power sufficient for it : Yet he was wicked enough , and prejudiced enough on that side to have believed it , if the Casuistry of that Age would have afforded him any countenance in it . But they had not then the confidence to allow actions of that nature to pass for Precedents : Yet all the rigours they could use to him , could not prevail with Ignatius to quit his Right . How is it therefore that our Author can have the confidence to say , that he did not divide from Photius , nor perswade the People to divide from him ? How could he possibly claim his Right , but that he must at the same time challenge the Clergies and Peoples Duty , as obliged in Conscience to adhere to him , and to own him as their onely lawfull Pastor ? How could he do that without obliging them to leave and disown Photius ? We have therefore here one of our Author 's own Precedents so far from making for his Cause , that it makes directly against him . Ignatius thought it lawfull to challenge his Right against a Successor whom even him●elf could not charge with Heresie . And this invasion of Ignatius's Throne , was censured as Schismatical in Photius , by the generality of the disinteressed Judges of that Age. Pope Nicholas the First , in the Name of the Western Church , charges it directly with that very imputation of Schism . And even the Eastern Bishops themselves † threatned Bardas , that they would never own another Bishop , and that they would break themselves off from the publick Assemblies , till they were partly wheedled , and partly terrified from what they had resolved on . And whatever their Practice was , this very threatning is an argument of their Judgment in the Case , that Photius and his party had been the Schismatick● , though themselves had made the Separation . Our Author himself observes , how ordinary it was in those Ages to call Photius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , an Adulterer and Invader of the Throne ; and those Phrases do at once signifie his want of Right , and the violences used by him in coming in against the consent of Ignatius : Nor has he any thing that I can find ▪ to prove that Ignatius kept Communion with Photius , but only his old argument from the pretended Dyptichs of his own time , which has already been answered . Thus the Case was , at least , till the Synod wherein Ignatius was deposed , and Photius confirmed . But what needed a Deposition , if Ignatius had already yielded his Right , as our Author would perswade us ? What needed a Synodical Deposition , if that by the Imperial Authority had been thought sufficient ? 32. The Friends of Photius discovered their Consciousness of his want of Right ; First , by the violence used to the person of Ignatius to force him to surrender ; then by diligence used by them , when they found their endeavours with Ignatius unsuccessfull , to get a Synod that might deprive him of his Right , whether he would or no : Yet the difficulties and delays they met with in procuring a Synod , and corrupting the Suffrages of it , are also arguments of the opposition they met with in their main Cause , even in the East , even among the Greeks themselves , where the Authority of Bardas was most significant ; for it was some years before chey could effect their purposes that way , not till the latter end of the year 860. The Auhor of the Synodicon , besides his former Synod makes two more , the former in Blachernis , the latter in the Church of the Apostles . This I take to be the A B Synodus , wherein Ignatius was Deposed , as the Commentators expresly tell us . And the two Sessions of that same Synod in different places , as it gave occasion for them to give the Title of A B to their Synod it self ; so it also seems to have been the occasion why this injudicious Collector of the Synodicon should make two Synods of it . The latter of the two was that wherein the Pope's Legates were either forced or bribed to sign the Condemnation of Ignatius . I am apt to think that the true occasion of convening a second time the same Bishops before they were departed to their several Homes , was the unexpected arrival of the Legates , that they also might conciliarly confirm what had been done in the Council before their arrival . If I guess right , their former sitting must have been immediately before the arrival of the Legates : and indeed it seems to have been so . The Pope was surprized at the proceeding against Ignatius , and charges Photius with breach of promise , in medling farther in that matter than he had pretended he would do . And he says , he sent his Legates not to determine any thing concerning the Cause of Ignatius , but only to enquire into it , and to make report to him of the success of their enquiry : And if we may believe his Adversaries account of this Affair , Photius had pretended that Ignatius had resigned , and this , it should seem , they reckoned on ; which could not have been , if this decision of Ignatius's Case had been long before : Even that pretence argued his Consciousness that what had been done before against Ignatius , would never be thought sufficient to deprive him of his Right in Conscience , as soon as the falshood of this pretence should be discovered . This therefore put him upon a Conciliary Trial of Ignatius , in that former meeting wherein Ignatius was personly present : But Ignatius pleaded what Pope Nicholas also pleaded in his behalf , that he ought to be restored to his Possession , before they could , by the Canons , bring him to a Trial. This Photius's Council would by no means admit of , but proceeded their own way , pretending to give him a fair thorough hearing , and deprived him . However , knowing that his Plea was indeed allowable by the Canons , they thought their Cause would require all the confirmation that could be got by the Legates , and the reputation they would gain by having the Western Communion on their side . If this therefore were so , the 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 ●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 Nichol●s had restored him in the Roman Synod , and deprived and anathematized Photius , with them who look●d upon that Restitution as an Act of Superiour Authority , Ignatius w●s then restored to his full Right , and Photius was deprived even of that Right ●o which a Canonical settled possession had intitled him ▪ And from that time forward , if Ignatius had ●●●●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 ●hotius . But these Principles do not even in that Ag● ▪ 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 ●nderstand it of p●oper jurisdiction , but only of Precedency in place : Afterwards ●he Council of Chalcedon decreed equal Priviledges to the same S●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 ●enates . None ever pretended at that time ●hat the Emperors , the Cons●ls , and the Senates of new Rome were properly subject to the Emperors , Consuls , and Senates of old Rome , in rega●d of jurisdiction : And the Canon concerning Appeals made in that same Council o● Chalcedon wa● utt●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 Photians , and so continues to this very day . This Council was repealed in the time of this very Emperor . The Doctrine and Creed of Photius concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone , was also restored . And this advanced the Dispute from a charge of Schism alone , to a charge of Heresie also , in the opinion of this Author : Those servile notions also of allowing even pretended General Councils a Power only of ratifying , not of debating the Predecisions of the Pope , have been generally disowned , and looked upon as very odious in all the Emperors who have endeavoured to restore them . This the two Palaeologi , Michael and John found to their cost ; the one in the Council of Lyons , in the year 1275. the other in the Council of Florence , in the year 1437. nor do the numbers of those who are mentioned in this Latinizing Synod , either of those who had still sided with Ignatius , or of those who were here received upon their revolting from Photius , seem sufficient to have carried the Cause on that side by equal management ; especially considering that the later would , in that Case , have given their Suffrages against them . And who could look upon this as a fair Decision , with regard to Conscience , that was so manifestly contrary to the sense of the greater numbers of their own Church , which ought alone to have been owned for the competent Judge in Causes between her own Members ? 35 Here therefore Ignatius injured his good Cause by this way of defending it , and gave Photius new advantages against him : However he found no farther opposition from him , during his own Life . Ignatius died Octob. 23. 878. and then Photius was restored by the same Emperor that had before excluded him : Yet with no such inconsistency as our Author fancies . He that was an adulterer and an invader whilst the true Husband was living , might now be a Husband and just Possessor after the true Husband was deceased . Probably the Emperor himself , when his Passion was over , might think himself obliged in Conscience and Honour to make him this honourable Amends for his past irregular and unequal proceedings against him ; though I know Nicetas , who was an Ignatian , pretends other Arts whereby he regained the Emperor's favour : And indeed we have Photius's Cause conveyed to us with no small disadvantage : His Adversaries at that very time suppressed his principal Writings on that Subject ; they seized and burnt his Original Papers , before any Copies could be transcribed ; they have afterwards had it in their Power to suppress many of his other Works , whilst the Empire of Constantinople was in the hands of Latines or Latinizing Greeks ; and they have since had it in their Power to hinder the Printing of as many of them as have not fallen into the hands of Protestants . This , no doubt , must needs have proved very prejudicial to a right understanding of his Cause , that we have very few assistances for understanding it , but from his professed and very inveterate Enemies . However it was , Photius , on this restitution , had now no longer any Rival that could pretend a better Title : So that now they had nothing plausible to pretend for themselves that they would not own him . However it appears from this Nicetas , that the Ignatian Party still retained their old resentments , when even Ignatius himself , if he had been living , had less to say for himself than formerly , and his followers had yet much less to say for themselves now than he had . The next year therefore after hi● new restitution , that is , in the year 879. Photius calls a General Council wherein he is confirmed by Pope John's consent , his Legates b●ing present , and the Eighth General Council in the Latine account expresly repealed , this being received in stead of it by the modern Greeks to this day ; wherein the second Nicene is received among the General Councils as the Greeks do still receive it ; wherein the Creed of Constantinople is received without any mention of the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son , nay , with Censures against Innovators of it ; and wherein , lastly , Censures are threatned against all who would not submit , and own Photius for their lawfull Patriarch . These are the principal particulars here decreed , as appears from the fragments of this Council first published by Dr. Beveridge from Oxford MSS. most of them from Beccus , a zealous Latinizer , though Baronius is willing to call them in question , for not being mentioned by later Men than Beccus . And the Pope's Legates assent to all , and as to that particular of obliging all to submit to Photius , the Pope had given them particular and express Orders , in his Letters and Instructions still extant : So that now the Ignatians could no longer pretend any Patronage of the Roman Church to countenance them in their Schism And to sweeten them the more , it was also here expresly stipulated , that there should be no indecent reflections on the Memory of Ignatius . The Pope was gained by his finding the Emperor bent on it , and by the beneficial agreements made with Photius in order to it : He obliged Photius to quit his Right in the Bulgarians , a grant which his Predecessor could not gain even from Ignatius , who had been so much obliged by him . He obliged him also to quit the Communion of some of his own Excommunicates ▪ as himself also disowned the Schismaticks from Photius . And this probably went far towards the uniting the Ignatians , when the exasperating severities were laid aside , and there was now no Rival , nor considerable Authority to head them . And this , in all likelihood , was the reason , why , notwithstanding their former heats , they are nevertheless both of them mentioned honourably in the Synodicon . It was in course to be expected concerning Photius , because he was the last in Possession , and because his Disputes with the Latines started on that occasion , obtained afterwards so Universally , that his sense is the sense of the Greek Church to this very day . And though Ignatius's sense be now as generally deserted , yet the union of the Ignatians did necessarily require a decent behaviour to his Memory , which was now no longer difficult to be granted , when he was now no longer capable of being a Rival . Thence forward therefore Photius seemed to have enjoyed more quietness till the year 886. and the Succession of Leo Sapiens , which is the last time we find him mentioned in History . 36. And now in this whole History thus represented , there is nothing that , if fairly understood , will make for the purpose , either of our Author , or of our Adversaries . Our Author pretends that they neither of them separated from each other's Communion , as thinking each other Orthodox , and that they did not scrupulously enquire into each other's Ordinations : But it is very strange he should so much as pretend it , when the contrary is so very notorious . What account then can they give of all those Severities and Persecutions which are mentioned of Photius against the Ignatians , if not to force them to his Communion ? What needed all those violences to Ignatius's person , to force him to sign a form of Abdication , if he abdicated willingly , and thought himself obliged to do so , because his Adversary was not a Heretick ? Why then did Photius in his two Synods deprive and excommunicate and anathematize him ? Why did he endeavour to reordain the persons ordained by Ignatius ? And when the Emperor would not endure that , why did he use the (a) Art Nicetas tells us of , of seeming at least to do it , by buying Sacerdotal Habits , and sending them , already blessed , as Presents to the Parties concerned , if he were so well satisfied , as our Author would perswade us , of his Predecessor's Ordinations ? This Photius did upon his restitution to the See , after Ignatius's death , when there was no danger from Ignatius that might exasperate him , when there was no apparent reason but Principles of Conscience that might induce him to it . But the World has been sufficiently inured to believe hard things concerning Photius : Perhaps Ignatius , the Holy Ignatius , behaved himself with more temper , and more agreeable to our Author's fancy : He would , in all likelihood , have done so , if he had been of our Author's Opinion . But if we will chuse rather to learn matter of Fact from History what he did do , than from fancy , what we may think he ought to have done , as , no doubt , we ought to do , how much soever he differed from Photius in other things , yet he was perfectly of his mind in this , and seems no less to have Rivalled him in his Zeal in it , than he did in his Chair . His unwillingness to resign as our Author and our Adversaries would have had him done , has been already observed : Photius indeed pretended he did resign ; and Hadrian's Eighth General Council seems to speak suspiciously , when they tell us that , if he had done so , he was notwithstanding not oblig'd to stand to it . It is certain he did not stand to it , and if ever he did yield , that it was fear , not our Adversaries Opinions of Charity and Conscience , that made him do so , that made him think himself obliged to do so ; so far from that , that as soon as his Conscience was at liberty to hear sedate reasonings , he thought himself obliged to do the contrary . This brought upon him those Deprivations , Excommunications , and Anathematisms , in the Synods of Photius . And can we still believe that there was no breach of Communion on the part of the Ignatians ? What needed then those violences which they were freed from as soon as they could be prevailed on to Communicate with Photius ? Why do the (b) Legates of three Eastern Patriarchs , boast that they had never owned nor communicated with him from the beginning , if it had not been notorious that the firm Ignatians had , from the beginning , not owned his Communion ? Why then did (c) Ignatious , immediately , upon his restitution , excommunicate not only those who had been Ordained by Photius , but those also who had ever so much as Communicated with him ? Is it not plain from hence , that Ignatius's Party did separate ? That he himself exacted it as Duty from them that they should do so , and so was accessary to the Separation ? That he did 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , use the Summum Jus of enquiring into the Ordinations of Photius ? And what will then become of our Author 's general Observation , that none was ever known to do so ? Why did the Ignatians still forbear the Communion of Photius , even after the (d) Death of Ignatius , if they had not been used to do so before , when they had more pretence for it ? If Ignatius had not persisted in that same mind , even to his very Death ? Besides , our Author was not aware that the Dispute at length came to that which he thought Heresie , at least which he was bound to think so by the Doctrine of his Greek Church in that Age wherein he made his Collection ; I mean , Photius started the Dispute concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son. Then he must have thought them obliged by Principles to separate , and could never argue from their Actions as Precedents , if they were not agreeable to Principles . It is very true that Photius's Doctrine was not thought Heretical then . This appeared even in the Latine's Eighth - General Coumcil . Some desired to be excused from anathematizing him on that account , that they thought none ought to be anathematized but Hereticks . And the Council it self , though it obliged them still to anathematizi him , yet did not do it upon account of any Heresie wherewith they thought him chargeable . However this makes his Case more opposite to our purpose , because it is notwithstanding sure that Ignatius did not therefore think himself obliged to yield to him . What can be clearer to this purpose than the words of Ignatius , as he is personated by Theognostus , one who was very well acquainted with his mind ? (e) Had this Adulterer , says he , been of the Church , I would willingly have yielded to him . But how shall I make an alien from Christ a Pastor of the Sheep of Christ ? Plainly therefore he thought Schism as well as Heresie a sufficient reason of challenging his Right against him . And Photius was charged with Schism antecedently to his being set up against Ignatius , for joyning with (f) Gregorius Syracusanus , who had been Excommunicated by Ignatius . So little do these instances make for the design of our Author . 37. Nor are they much more pertinent to the design of our Adversaries . None of these Deprivations were any farther regarded than as they were Synodical : I mean , they were not till then thought sufficient to disoblige their charge from their obligations to adhear to them . Bardas and Photius did both hope at first , to extort an Abdication from Ignatius : But when they found they could not succeed that way , they never thought themselves secure , till they got him deprived Synodically . So it was also in the Deprivation of Photius , after he had been Synodically confirmed : Though it was in favour of one who had a better antecedent Right ; yet the Emperor Basile excuses himself from having any hand in it , otherwise than as he excuted the decree of Pope Nicholas's Synod , whereby Photius had before been deprived and excommunicated . So he tells us in the Synod , that he had done nothing in it by his † Imperial Hand or Power . For it was not , says he , the work or contrivance of my Imperial Station , that our most Holy Patriarch should return to his own Throne . But long before , the most Holy and Blessed Pope Nicholas , having fully informed himself concerning the Case of Ignatius , had decreed Synodically , that the Right of his own Throne should be restored to him , and with the whole Roman Church had anathematised all such as should resist that Decree and Sentence . Here therefore being before informed of these things , and dreading the Judgment of the promulgated Anathema , we thought it necessary to obey this Synodical Judgment of the Roman Church , and for this cause we restored him to the Possession of his own Throne . So far were even Princes , in that Age , from pretending any Right to intermeddle in such matters without the Leave , nay without the Authority of the Church to warrant them in it : and so little were they then ashamed to own themselves Executioners of the Church's Canons in Affairs properly relating to the Church's Right . None who is in earnest with Religion , can in the least doubt , but that the interests of Religion are incomparably both Nobler and Greater than the interests of any Worldly Politicks : Even the Secular Magistate himself cannot deny but that his Soul , which is benefitted by promoting the interests of Religion , is of more importance , even to him , than his Secular Empire . And why then should poor Mortals be ashamed to own their obligation to make their Worldly Power subservient to ends so undeniably Nobler and Greater than those of their Worldly Power ? But so trifling are the Reasonings of those who call this being Priest-ridden , when they are examined seriously , that it is no wonder they should look upon it as a principal Art of recommending them by Bantering , and avoiding Seriousness . 38. Our Author's next instance is in the next and last Deprivation of Photius which he tells us was by Leo Sapiens , in favour of his own Brother Stephanus substituted in his stead : Yet the Successor being also Orthothodox , he observed that no Schism followed upon it . And indeed we do not find any matter for a Synodical accusation objected to Photius by the Prince himself , who is said to have deprived him , not any of those immoral practices wherewith he had been formerly upbraided by his exasperated Adversaries : Much less does any Synod appear that gave judgment against him upon such allegations ; nor could he pretend , as his Father Basile had done , that he only executed a former Synodical Deprivation for fear of the Anathem● he might incur if he did not do so . Photius had now no Rival who could pretend a better Tittle , in favour of whom those Synodical determinations had been made : And he had since been restored in a General Synod , later than that which had deprived him , and wherein all the defects were supplied which had been objected formerly . Here he had the Suffrages of the Eastern Patriarchs : Not only so , but even of the Papal See it self , which had before been most implacable against him . I know Baronius fancies that there was afterwards a breach between Pope John and him : Nor is it unlikely , that John did indeed resent the retaining Bulgaria from him ▪ the recovering of which was the principal inducement which had brought him to that condescendence . This I take to have been the reserved Case , when he afterwards disowns his confirming what his Legates had done , if they had in any thing gone beyond the Orders he had given them . Nor is it unlikely also but that , on occasion of that resentment , he might use some threats and hard expressions , that might have been so interpreted by the Authors that gave Baronius occasion for this conjecture : But there is no likelihood at all that those resentments ever proceeded so far as an open rupture ; otherwise we should certainly have had some mention of it in so many following Epistles written by John himself afterwards . Whatever he thought , he seems , at that time , to have thought it seasonable to suppress his resentments , as finding himself opposed by a greater interest than that of Photius . Photius therefore does not indeed seem to have been deprived Synodically ; the reason given for it is , That Leo resented what Santabarenus had done against him in his Father's time , in making a difference between them , and thought Photius the principal hindrance that kept him from his designs against Santabarenus . This was a reason in State likely enough to have been the occasion why Leo would endeavour to get Photius deprived : But it was not a reason likely to have been owned openly , and to have been produced before a Judicatory . He could hardly for shame have owned a resentment for things so long past ; much less could he have charged Photius with favouring Santabarenus , when Santabarenus himself had not yet received an open Trial. However , it is certain that the Emperor himself was the cause that the place was vacated ; and in this Historians agree : only they do not tells , whether it were with his own consent , though forced to it by the Emperor , or whether the Emperor pretended to do it by his own Authority , without any consent of Photius . But what the Historians have not informed us of , that his great Adversary Pope * Stephen the Fourth has , and that from the Letter of the Emperor himself who is said to have deprived him . By that Letter it appears , that the Emperor did not so much as pretend Force on his own part , but a voluntary Resignation on the part of Photius : So that as yet we have not one instance , that ever any Lay-Power did ever pretend to a Power of depriving Bishops as to their Spiritual Authority , though we could not have known it in this case , had it not been for this occasional mention of it by Pope Stephen . The Case may therefore have probably been the same in other examples , where we read of Depositions by Emperors , where we are not so happy to light on a particular account of them . Here there are other circumstances that make it probable that this Cession was voluntary : Photius was treated very respectfully even after his Deprivation , as appears in the Trial of Santabarenus , which would not have been , if he had stood out to the utmost ; so it was this willingness of his Cession that hindered Pope Stephen also from proceeding to his designed severities against him : Besides , Stephanus his Successor had been his Pupil , and Educated under him , and therefore unlikely to have accepted of his Office without his leave ; nor do we find that he ever afterwards endeavoured again to get into it , though Stephanus did not long enjoy it : And therefore going off willingly , he had thence-forward no pretence to disturb his Successors ; the Schism had been his , not theirs , if he had gone back from his own agreement , and either resumed his Throne , or withdrawn the Peoples Duty , which had been already quitted by him . 39. The next Example is in Nicholas , deprived by the same Prince Leo Sapiens , for opposing his fourth Marriage . Against him Euthymius was set up ; yet so , as our Author says , that neither Nicholas himself withdrew from his Communion , nor taught the People to do so . Nay , so , that when he was restored to his Throne by Alexander the Brother of Leo , he did not so much as question the Orders given by Euthymius , because the persons ordained were Orthodox , and the person who Ordained them was himself also Orthodox . So our Author . The time of this Ejection of Nicholas is somewhat intricate : It could hardly have been where Baronius places it , in the year 901. The surest grounds we have for discovering it , is from the Age of Constantine Porphyrogennetus : It is certain he was born before his 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 prete●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 likelihood there is that this Case can serve the purpose of our present Adversaries , concerning a Lay-Deprivation . 41. However our Author says that Nicholas did not thereupon separate from the Communion of his Rival-intruder . Nay , farther , that when he was afterwards restorded in the time of Alexander the Brother of Leo , in the year 912. he did not disanull the Orders given by him . B●t that a division of Communions followed on this injurious Deprivation is certainly evident in the History of that Age , if any thing be so . The words of the Collector of Jus Graeco-Romanum are very express , that there were Schisms among them , and much disturbance . I need not mention the like Testimonies of the Historians in a Case so undeniable . These were the Schisms which occasioned the famous Tome of Vnion , which made the third part of the Synodicon here referred to , and which is still preserved in the now mentioned Collection . So the Continuator of Theophanes and Joannes Curopalates say , that it was here that the Metropolitanes were united who had been divided by Nicholas and Euthymius . But perhaps this breach of Communion was rather from the Followers of Nicholas , than from Nicholas himself . So our Adversaries might possibly pretend ▪ if we had not still extant an Epistle of Nicholas himself to the Bishops who were out of Communion . This makes it plain , that they were out of his Communion also when he was again resettled in his Patriarchate . So unhappy our Author is in his design , that even in his own Collection he has given us another instance of that which he would needs perswade u● , and perswade us from this very Collection , that it never happened . For here we have another Case , when a separaration of Communion was made for vindicating a Personal Right in one who had been injuriously deprived , even against an Orthodox Successor : For Euhymius was so far from being gui●ty of any other properly-called Heresie , that he was Orthodox even in the point here disputed of , which in that Age was called Heresie , even in preserving the Canon , which Nicholas had been so zealou● for , against fourth Marriages . Leo the Emperor , when he had gained his point , was not contented with the liberty himself had taken , but wou●d have carried the matter farther : He endeavoured also to set forth a Constitution whereby fourth Marriages should have been permitted to others of the Lai●y also ▪ so hi● Predecessors Valentinian the elder ▪ and the Great Justinian , had done in like Cases of doubtful Marriages practiced by themselves . No doubt they looked upon it as a thing discreditable , if themselves should take a liberty that might not be allowed to others of the Laity . But this Euthymius also opposed , as Nicholas had done before ; and with such success that it did not pass . This he did by his interest in the Ecclesiastical Council requisite by the customs of those times for passing Constitutions that were Ecclesiastical ; as there were Lay Councils requisite for the Constitutions that were purely Temporal . All therefore that Euthymius had done to gratifie the Emperor , was the same which had been granted by the Legates of Pope Sergius at the expulsion of Nicholas , not to justifie the matter of fourth Marriages in general , but only to dispense with the Emperor 's particular Case . 42. Nor has our Author any express Testimony for denying the Schism which here fell out so contrary to his own Principles , at least as to matter of Fact. Zonaras is his Author from whence he took his Case , and to whom he refers us for it , but he has nothing to countenance our Author's Observations upon it . He neither tells us that Nicholas did communicate with Euthymius , nor that he did approve his Ordinations . These things are our Author's Inferences , not from him , nor from the Dyptichs , ( as our Editors fancy , ) but from the Acclamations at the passing the Tomus Vnionis . : These Acclamations he therefore takes for the sense of the Church , because in his time they were read every year , on the month of July , in the Ecclesiastical Desk . We do not otherwise find any intire publick Catalogues of the Patriarchs preserved in any Ecclesiastical Dyptichs in our Author's Age ; and our Author mentions none but those who were mentioned in that Tomus Vnionis , as we have it now extant : There we find all the Names of those whom our Author reckons as still Honourable in the esteem of the Church of his own time , and that in the forms alluded to by our Author . Our Author says an Anathema was pronounced against all things that had been written or spoken against Tarasius and Nicephorus : He means by Plato and Theodorus , and their Saccudiote and Studite Monks . And this very form he expresly quotes , not from the Dyptichs , but the Synodicon , as it is also quoted from the same Synodicon in the fragments of Photius's Eighth General Council , first published by Dr. Beveridge ; and accordingly we find it in the Tomus Vnionis as still extant in the Collection of Jus Graeco-Romanum : For this Tomus Vnionis concerning Marriages made a third part of the Synodicon , as we are assured by Anastasius Caesareensis , published by Cotelerius . This Synodicon our Author supposes every Man to know , that is in his own Church of Constantinople . For it was read publickly in the Desk in the Patriarchal Church , as Nico tells us , one of our Author's witnesses , in a fragment of his , preserved by the same Cotelerius . Nay , it was read annually , not on the first Sunday of Lent , as our Editors fancy , but in the month of July , as we are assured by Balsamon . Our Author again proves the Honour the Church had for Photius , and Ignatius , and Stephanus , and Antonius Cauleos , from those words which he therefore supposes to be the publick words of the Church , May the Memory of Ignatius , Photius , Stephanus , and Antonius , the most holy Patriarchs , be everlasting ; and whatsoever has been spoken against Ignatius , and Photius , and Stephanus , and Antonius , the most holy Patriarchs , let it be Anathema . These words are also produced from the same Synodicon in the fragments of Dr. Beveridge , and are also the very words of the Tomus Vnionis . Thus therefore our Author reasons , that because all these persons are honourably mentioned by the Church , therefore they all died in her Communion , and therefore could not have been out of Communion with each other . And as from that mention of Ignatius and Photius in the Tomus Vnionis , and the Synodicon , our Author gathered , that they were not out of Communion with each other , against the express Testimonies of coaeval Historians to the contrary ; so , in all likelihood , it was the same reasoning that made him presume the same concerning Nicholas Mysticus and Euthymius ; they were as expresly mentioned in the Synodicon as the others , though our Author is not himself so express in taking notice of it . And why should he otherwise refer us for their story to Zonaras , who mentions nothing of their keeping in each other's Communion , if he had not presumed this as notorious as the other , from the so often formerly mentioned Synodicon ? The reason was obvious why he did not repeat this , because he says every body knew it , and he had mentioned it so often before . We must remember , he spoke these things to his Pupils in the Patriarchal Church , in the very Place where it used to be read annually ; but this Reason would not have held for his concealing any other Evidence , that had neither been so evident to his Auditors , nor so expresly and so frequently mentioned by himself on other occasions . 43 But neither our Author , nor our Adversaries , have hitherto considered how incompetent this Testimony of the Synodicon was for proving what they design to prove by it . Dyptichs indeed might have been presumed from the Times of the Persons mentioned in them , if nothing had appeared to the contrary , because the Names conveyed by them were in course entred into those Dyptichs whilst the Persons were living , and in Office , if it had then been the custome to continue Names in them after the Death of the Persons concerned in them : This had been at least a Presumption that they had dyed in Communion with the Church , and with each other ; and that whatever Differences might have risen between them whilst they were living , that might have occasioned an Expunging them ; yet that those Differences were reconciled before their Death , when both Parties were thus communicated to Posterity , without any Blemish on their Reputation ; but the Case was quite otherwise in the Tomus Vnionis , and the Synodicon : The Tomus Vnionis was made on a particular occasion of a Difference , and that a difference in Communion , which might have proceeded to the uttermost Extremities before the Vnion was at last agreed on . Thus it can by no means be taken for an Argument that the Persons concerned in it had not been formerly divided , but rather the contrary : For if there had been no d●vision in Communion before , what need had there been of their Vniting , which was agreed on by both Parties in the Tomus Vnionis ? Not onely so , but this Tomus Vnionis was agreed on at some time after the Persons principally concerned on both sides were dead ; and at that distance that can give it no security from being mistaken , as to Matter of Fact. Thus all that can be gathered from it is , that the Church at that distance was in Communion with both , as far as the dead are capable of Communion with the living ; that is , by an honourable Commemoration : But it cannot thence be gathered , that the Persons , when living , were ever in Communion with each other ; the contrary may rather be presumed , where their mutual Communicating cannot be made out by express and positive Testimony . Thence it appeared , that the Differences in Communion proceeded farther than the lives of the Persons who begun them : Whence it will rather follow , that those Beginners of the Divisions persisted in them to their Deaths , unless Evidence may be produced to the contrary , that may over balance this Presumption . Our Editors tell us , that this Synodicon was first agreed on in the Year 842. in the beginning of the Reign of Michael and Theodor● . Had it been so , that had been some while after the Deaths of Tarasius and Nicephorus ; but they give us no Authority for it : Nay , it was impossible it could have been so . The Tomus Vnionis , and that part of the Synodicon we are speaking of , do wholly concern fourth Marriages . And how could that Vnion be made before the Divisions that occasioned it ? That Question was not started till the Time of Leo Sapiens , and the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus ; that is , as we have already shewn , not before the Year 905. accordingly the first passing of this Bill of Vnion was not before the Year 920. in July , the 8 th Indiction , in the Year of the World , as they reckon , 6428. in the time of Constantine Porphyrogennetus , and Romanus Lacapenus ; some make it the year following : And from this former time of passing it in the Month of July , the custome of reading it annually seems to have been derived , and that was appointed for the Month of Reading it . But it seems the Differences revived again , and there was a new Synod for restoring the same Vnion ; that was in the Reign of Basile and Constantine . The Basile who had a Constantine for his Collegue , could be no other than he who for distinction sake was called Bulgaroctonos , from his Victories against the Bulg●rians . To his Time belong the Patriarc●s , who are said to have presided in this second Synod : Johannes Curopalates makes it to have been Sisinnius ; but the Words of the Synod it self , as we have them extant in the Jus Graeco Romanum , shew that it was his Predecessor Nicholas , not Mysticus , but Chrysoberges : They are both of of them Patriarchs of this Reign , and probably both of them presided in this Synod , Nicholas in the beginning , and Sisinnius in the end of it . If this Conjecture be right , we shall thereby gain the Year of it exactly : It must have been the year wherein Nicholas dyed , and Sisinnius succeeded him . This will conveniently enough suit with the Insertion at the end of that Tome , which the Editor has printed in a smaller Character , and called a Scholion , no doubt because he found some such note of Distinction in his MS. What follows from that place to the end , seems to have been added in that later Council , wherein this Tome of Vnion was decreed . The Author of that Scholion , as it is called , speaks plainly of those Times as if they were his own : In regard that the Words do very well fit the Persons of the Fathers of the Council themselves : They there reckon from the first starting of the Controversie concerning fourth Marriages , to that part of the Reign of Basile and Constantine in which that Synod was held ; that is , as I have shewn , to the year of the Death of Nicholas Chrysoberges , and the Succession of Sisinnius , ninety years : This will sufficiently fix the Year of this second Council . The beginning of this Dispute was when Leo the Wise first designed his fourth Marriage , which must have been in the year 905. In the very beginning of the year 906 the Nuptials were solemnized , and Matters were so far advanced , that the Patriarchal Legates were now at Constantinople , and sided with the Emperour against the Patriarch , which could not have been , if the Matter had not been debated , and they sent for in the year before . Thus the 90 years will end exactly in the year 995. and the Death of this Nicholas is by Johannes Curopalates placed in the 8 th Indiction , which concurs with the former part of that year before September ▪ But however though the Vnion was perfected under Sisinnius , yet the Decree , as we have it now , was made before the death of Nicholas . That appears from the Acclamation there mentioned in the Council ▪ not in the form used by them to the deceased , but that which is there appropriated to the living . Their Acclamations to the dead are to wish their Memory everlasting : Their Acclamations to the living are to wish them many years . This was the old form first taken up in the times of the Heathen Emperors , and from thence deduced to the Christians ; and in this form the Acclamations in this Council run to the living Emperors and Empresses , and the other Patriarchs of this Synod , and so to our Nicholas among the Patriarchs . And to this later Synod belong all the Acclamations subjoyned to the Tomus Vnionis : That is clear from hence , that even Nichlaus Mysticus , in whose time the former Synod was held , is here celebrated with the Acclamations of the dead ; and not only he , but all his Successors between him and our present Nicholas Chrysoberges . So little reason there is to think strange that the Predecessors of that elder Nicholaus Mysticus should be mentioned in the same form . Thus we see how little reason there is for this inference , that the heads of these dividing Parties must therefore , when living , have kept Communion with each other , because their differences were at length accommodated so long after their deaths , and because the Church which lived , as well out of the Memory as the concern of the first heats , pleased at length to take up forms grateful to both Parties , in honour of those who at first began the differences . 44. The next instance is of Cosmas Atticus , deposed unjustly from the same See of Constantinople by the Emperor Manuel Comnenus . Yet he , as our Author tells us , neither made , nor taught any division of Communion from them who had injured him . But it is certain this Deprivation was not made by a Lay-Power , but Synodically . The Synod is expresly mentioned by those who mention the Case . Nicetas Choniates , to whom our Author refers us for the Story , tells us expresly ; that the Patriarch * excommunicated the Synod that assembled to deprive himself , for their frequenting the Palace , and their manifest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , accepting of the Emperor's Person , in the Judgment they had given against him . The like expressions there are also in (b) Cinnamus , intimating that this Deprivation was decreed Conciliarly . Nay , (c) Leo Allatius has preserved and published the Synod it self , by which we know the year , and day of it . Thence it appears , that Cosmas was deprived on the 26th of Feb. which fell in the 10th Indiction , and the year of our vulgar account 1147. But our Author says , that Cosmas himself neither divided , nor countenanced any division on his own account . But how comes our Author to know that he did not so ? His Author Nicetas Choniates says no such matter . And he has here neither Dyptichs nor Conciliary Acclamations from whence he might either gather , or presume it . His Author particularly is so far from owning it ▪ that he tells us expresly of his excommunicating the Bishops of the Synod ; that is the constant notion of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Ecclesiastical Canons , as it is opposed to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , as that signifies a Deprivation of an Ecclesiastical Dignity : And the Crimes he objects against them , were such as had been particularly censured in the Canons and Constitutions of the Church of that Age : They had provided against Bishops appearing frequently at Court , and against Partiality in the Ecclesiastical Judicatories . Thus he avoided their jurisdiction over himself as being themselves Criminals , and responsible for their breach of Canons antecedently to their sitting in that Synod : And he insisted on his own Right to put the Canons in execution on those who were Subjects of his own Jurisdiction . But our Author understands his Author Choniates so , as if Cosmas's sealing up the Womb of the Augusta from having any Male Children , had been an argument that his resentment proceeded no farther ; and that he otherwise owned their Authority , and submitted to the Deprivation . But the word which the Interpreter of Nicetas , and from him the Interpreter of our present Author , translates by execration , the English Interpreter by denunciation , is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , and signifies the infliction of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , ( that is the proper Ecclesiastical Term for Ecclesiastical Penences ) upon the Violaters of the Canons . This is exactly agreeable to the person he had acted in the now mentioned Excommunication of the Bishops who deprived him : This was as plainly an Exercise of his Patriarchal Authority over the Emperor and Empress , as the other was over his Suffragan Bishops . How then can it be an argument of any difference to their Censures ? Of any obligation that he thought lay on him , in Conscience , not to separate from their Communion ? Our Adversaries may perhaps fancy that our Author had some other Testimony for Cosmas's not separating , than that of Choniates : For my part I cannot think he had any other , but that he gathered it , not from the words of Choniates , but his own inferences . He says in the Summary that Cosmas was succeeded by Theodosius . These could hardly be the words of any other Summist than the Author himself , who had not , in his Tract , so much as mentioned the Name of Theodosius : Yet he could not have made Theodosius his immediate Successor , had he consulted any other Catalogues of Patriarchs : But Nicetas Choniates took no occasion of mentioning any other Patriarchs between Cosmas and Theodosius ; and Theodosius he does indeed mention towards the end of this same Emperor , Manuel . Thence our Author had an occasion likely enough to lead him into this mistake , that Theodosius was that immediate Successor with whom he supposes that Cosmas still maintained Communion : But it is certain that there were many Patriarchs and many years too between them ; and therefore it must also be as certain , that our Author could have no express Testimony , that Cosmas did continue in the Communion of The dosius . These Answers hold on the supposition that Cosmas was deprived unjustly : Yet there is reason to question whether that was indeen his Case . It is sufficiently clear that the Synod charged him with the Bogomilian He●esie , for favouring Nipho , who had been censured for it Synodically in the time of his Predecessor : Nor does Nicetas bring any thing in his defen●e to prove that he was not guilty of it . Nay , he owns that he had an excessive favour for the Heretick , without the least distinction made between his Person and his Heresie : This at least is certain that he was a Heretick in the Opinion of the Synod that deprived him . And how then could he continue in their Communion ? How could our Author justifie his doing so , when himself acknowledged that a precondemned Heresie , such as this was , did oblige to separate from Communion ? How can he commend them for doing so , or reason from their Practice as a Precedent , when by his own Principles it was not allowable ? 45. As to his instances in the Reign of Isaacius Angelus , we have a very imperfect account of them in History . We have now no other Original Author of those times that gives any distinct account of that Reign , but our Author Nicetas Choniates . Thus we do indeed know as much as our Author , and no more ; for Nicetas is slighter in these matters than they deserved . In the Deprivation of Basilius Camaterus , he tells us the charge laid against him , was that he had suffered Women who had been made Nuns against their Wills , to resume their Secular Habit , and to return to their Secular way of living . This was an Ecclesiastical Crime , and therefore proper for an Ecclesiastical Tribunal . And the next instance of Nicetas Mu●tanes , who was cast out meerly for his Old Age , * without any Accusa●ion , and yet against his Will , seems to imply that Bazilius had Accusation which Nicetas had not . This Accusation , if it had any thing peculiar in it from that which was used in the Case of Nicetas , must have been such wherein the Emperor did not judge as he did in the Case of Nicetas . And what Judicatory then can we suppose it to have been before whom it was brought , if not a Council ? However Nicetas ( will our Adversaries say ) was deprived by a Lay Power , without any Accusation , at least before any other Judge besides the Emperor himself . Suppose it was so , yet that will not prejudice the Right of his next Successor , nor make him Schismatical , nor warrant any Separation , even by our Principles : Before he came in the See was validly vacated ; if not by the Deprivation , yet by the Cession , however involuntary , that followed upon it . That he did at length † Surrender , we have the express Testimony of the Author of the Catalogue of Patriarchs that is subjoyned to the Jus Graeco-Romanum . Thus the third of the Patriarchs under the Emperor , was brought in by a good Authority . The Question then can only be , whether his Place was as fairly vacated for his Successor , as his Predecessor's had been for him . And indeed it was so , and by the same way , not of a Conciliary Deprivation , but of a voluntary Surrendry . So we read in our MS. Catalogue of Patriarchs by Nicephorus Callistus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . So the Author of the Catalogue in the Jus Greco-Romanum assures us , where we read expresly 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The last Case is that of Dositheus ; and here the Emperor shewed a piece of Art that did not very much become him . Balsamon , the famous Canonist , was at that time Patriarch of Antioch ; Him therefore Isaacius consults , as a person whose Authority was like to go far in influencing the Bishops ; and the Question he proposes to him , was that which has so frequently been controverted in the Greek Church , concerning Translations : And to incline Balsamon to be favourable in the Case , he makes him believe , that his design was to translate the Canonist himself from Antioch to Constantinople ; whether this influenced him , or not , is uncertain : However the event was such as the Emperor desired , that the Patriarch gave his opinion in favour of Translation . We plainly see hereby , that the Emperor did not pretend absolute Power , but only the execution of the Canons . When therefore he had thus gained his point , he immediately orders the Translation , not of Balsamon from Antioch , but of his Favourite Dositheus from Jerusalem to Constantinople . The Bishops finding how they were imposed on , make head against him , as a Person for whom they never intended the favour of a Dispensation : But he got Possession of the Throne , though he held it only for nine days ; then he was (a) cast out again by the Schism that followed upon it of the Arch-Bishops and Clergy from him : So our MS. Nicephorus Callistus in his Catalogue expresly . Here we see a withdrawing of Communion from a person who wanted a good Title , without any pretence of any Heresie maintained by him : But the Emperor was very much bent on having Dositheus in that Employment , and at last prevails ; but not by our modern way of using his force , but by the Consent of so many of the Bishops as were sufficient to make a (b) Synod in favour of him . This perhaps our Author might not know , because his Author Nicephorus had nothing of it : However we have as good Authority for it as our Adversaries can pretend from their Author's silence in it . Our Author of the Catalogue of the Patriarchs subjoyned to the Jus Graeco-Romanum , is very plain and full in it ; and he was perhaps a little elder than their anonymous ; for he concludes his Catalogue with the first Patriarchate of Joseph , in the Reign of Michael Palaeologus . However , Dositheus did not enjoy the place long : (c) Some few years are mentioned in the Catalogue with the Jus Orientale ; but the number was not legible there . The Greek Catalogue in the first Volume of the Byzantine Historians , is something more particular , and tells us of two years . With the help of this information , we may possibly gather a more distinct account out of our Manuscript Catalogue of Nicephorus , which had otherwise not been so easily intelligible , that it was not two full years ; for so Nicephorus in his Catalogue has it , 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , — the number of the months and days are wanting which must have made up near another year . But by that time Nicephorus says , the Schism was risen to that height , that he was the second time deprived , and finding his former Throne of Jerusalem filled , he abdicated both Thrones , as well that to which , as that from which , he had been Translated . Thus it again appears in an instance so near our Author's Age , that there was a Schism in this case , where notwithstanding our Author's reasonings does necessarily oblige him to suppose there was none ; by which we may easily perceive how unaccurate his Informations were , even in matters so ●ear his own memory . He seems to have known no more of this whole affair , than what his still extant Author Nicetas Choniates told him , and he did no● think fit to take notice of the Schisms that occasioned both these Deprivations of Dositheus : Yet even Nicetas mentions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , separate Assemblies . Here was plainly a Schism , not on the pretence of any objected Heresie , but on account of an original defect of Title . They reckoned the Emperor's Translation as nothing , and the Church's consent to it as nothing , because the Question had been proposed insidiously . All that Balsamon and the Bishops influenced by him had granted , was , that in general the Canons of the Church aganst Translations were dispensible , where the Church was pleased with the Person , so far as to think that he particularly deserved a Dispensation with her general Rules ; only the Application of the Canon to Dositheus , was the Emperor's Act , which we see was not allowed him by them who made the Separation . Had the Translation been valid , and by a sufficiently obliging Power , their Duty had necessarily followed upon it , and they could not have been at liberty , even in Conscience , to dispute it , after a Synod had consented to it , and after a Possession with two years settlement . But by the Schism we have reason to believe that the numbers of the Synod that consented , were less than of those who had never consented from the beginning ; otherwise they had been concluded by the Synodical Act. Or else the only reason that could be for excepting against the Synodical Suffrages , must have been , that the Emperor's Authority was thought too influential on those publick Meetings . Every way it appears how little the Secular Power was regarded , even in those late times of Isaacius Angelus , when his Authority , tho' seconded by a Synod for applying the Dispensation to Dositheus , was not thought sufficient to oblige an absent Majority dissenting from them , even with regard to Conscience , when even in such a Case as this , the Cause was at last over-ruled by those that separated , and carried for them . This plainly shews how little these practices of Isaacius were approved of by the generality of the best Judges of his own time , when they durst express their thoughts concerning them with any freedom . It was , in all likelihood , the unpopularness of these Invasions of the Liberties of the Church , that gave his Brother Alexis a great advantage against him , which ended in his Deprivation . Even (a) Nicetas himself , from whom our Author takes these things , does not mention them without a severe Censure . How then could our Author reason from them as Precedents ? How could he pretend the Authority of Nicetas for a reasoning so different from the Sentiments of Nicetas ? 46. It was therefore no such admirable matter , if it had been true , if there had been no Separation between these five Patriarchs of this Reign , succeeding each other in so short a time . It is not true , that they were deprived purely at the Emperor's pleasure . It is not true , that their Places were invalidly vacated . All of th●m were either deprived Synodically , or abdicated . There is no need to dispute how unjustly or corruptly the Synods proceeded in depriving them , nor how unwilling themselves were in their Abdication . Even an unjust Synodical Sentence was , by the Canons , sufficient to vacate their Places , till they could be remedied in another and a greater Synod , which none of them ever had . And even an involuntary Abdication , if Formally and Canonically made , was sufficient to cut them off from any pretensions to their former Rights . They had therefore , in these cases , no pretence left to vindicate their Rights by a Separation , or to question the validity of the Acts of Successors , who were brought into Sees so validly vacated . And why should it be thought so admirable that they did not make disturbances where they had , by the Canons , no tolerable pretence to do so ? Why should they be thought Precedents for our present Holy Fathers who are neither deprived Conciliar●y , nor have made any even involuntary Abdication . 47. Thus upon the whole , it has appeared that our Author's Instances , as they were never designed so neither do they make for our Adversaries purpose . Our Adversaries pretend , that unjustly deprived Bishops never vindicated their Rights by a Separation . And we confess we cannot make the contrary Observation , that unjust Possesso●s were always so modest and so resigned to the Church's Peace , as willingly to surrender the Vsurpations . Will they therefore make them Precedents in this particular ? So indeed they may if they can have the Consciences , if they can find in their Hearts to do so . But are they not in the mean time ashamed to tell us that good Bishops have been willing to part with their Rights rath●r than they would break Communion , when their own Fathers will rather break Communion than make Restitution ? It were easie here to retort all Mr. Hody's Exhortations upon his own Intruders ; I am sure he can give no Arguments why good Men ought to surrender Rights for Peace sake , but what will proceed more cogently for surrendering Vsurpations . But we have many new Topicks that we can justly use to his Fathers , which he cannot pretend to use to ours : We have the Right and Duty which was owing from his to ours before the encroachment , and which his own reasoning does not pretend not to be owing still : We have their Sacred Vows of Canonical Obedience , for securing that Right and Duty where no Worldly Power can force them to it , which no other Power in the World can dispence with , but that for whose Interest they were imposed : We have the dreadful imprecations implied in all such Oaths as an obligation for performance . Methinks our adversary Bishops should tremble at the consequence , if God should no otherwise help them , than as they have performed their Duties to their respective Ordinaries and their Metropolitane . Their great Plea of the Publick Good we can beter pretend than they , if they will allow that the Eternal interests of Souls and of Religion , are more to be valued in a Publick Account than Worldly Politicks : And this is methinks a concession for which we need not be beholen to any who own themselves Christians . And certainly it is more for the publick good of the Church that Subordinations should be preserved , than that any particular person should be made a Bishop by offering violence to them . It is more for the publick good of Religion , that the Glorious Passive Doctrines of the Church should be maintained in opposition to Worldly Interests , than that they should seem prostituted to serve them . It is more for the publick good of Religion , that the Credit of the Clergy should be maintained , than that they should enjoy the benefits of Worldly Protection . It is more for the publick good of Religion , that the Independency of that Sacred Function on the State should be asserted by challenging their Rights , than that by yielding them the Lay-Power should be owned to have any Power of depriving us of the comfort of Sacraments in a time of Persecution . It were easie also to shew , that the Doctrines and Practices , in defence of which our Holy Fathers have incurred this Deprivation , are more for the Interest even of the State , even of the Civil Magistracy , than those which are likely to obtain upon their Cession . Even the State cannot subsist without Obligations of Conscience and the Sacredness of Oaths , and these can signifie nothing for the security of any future Government , if they must signifie nothing for the time past . It is not for the Interest of the Publick to secure ill Titles in their Possession , and thereby to encourage the frequency of ill Titles and frequent Subversions of the Fundamental Constitutions , and all the Publick Miseries that must follow on such Changes ; especially in a Settlement where all the care has been taken that was possible , to preserve it by obligations of Conscience . And certainly Mr. Hody will not say , that our invalidly deprived Fathers are obliged to submit to the wrong that is done them , where there are not publick considerations that may make amends for the private injuries . But if Mr. Hody will needs live rather by Precedents than Rules ; yet where will he find even a Precedent for his own Case ? Good Men indeed have been willing rather to part with their own Rights , than they would violate the Church's Peace . So did St. Gregory Nazianzene , so St. Chrysostom , so the African Fathers : But where will he find a Mediator for Peace on any good account , who did as he does , who only addressed his Exhortations to the injured Persons to part with their Rights , not to their Injurers to restore them ? How can he hope to perswade those Persons against whom he shews himself so manifestly partial ? His own Instances of Mediation are all against him . Clemens Romanus did not perswade the injured Presbyters , but the Schismaticks , the Invaders of the Rights of the Presbyters , to submit and quit their Interests in the Party that sided with them . I know Dr. Owen as well as Mr. Hody , has fallen into the same mistake , to think they were Presbyters who are here exhorted by St. Clement ; but it is strange such Learned Men should fall into such a mistake , if they had considered any thing of the design of the Epistle . The persons with whom he had to deal , were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . n. 3. which are unlikely Characters of such as were Presbyters by Office. They were such as are supposed to oppose the Presbyters in general , n. 1.44 , 47 , 57. In opposition to them St. Clement insists on the example of Military Subordinations , n. 37. Who sees not from hence that they aspired beyond the Rank and Station assigned them in the Church ? He insists on the Sacredness of the Sacerdotal Function , n. 32 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , And he warns them particularly , that Laicks were to be restrained within the Duty imposed on the Laity , n. 40. implying plainly that the Schismaticks were Laicks , and had nothing to do with the Sacerdotal Function . He makes it such a Rivalling the Priesthood , as the Israelites were guilty of when God convinced them of his own Choice of Aaron , by the miraculous Blossoming of Aaron's Rod , n. 43. This was evidently of persons pretending to the Sacerdotal Office when they had no Right to it . He says the Apostles foresaw the same Aemulations for the sacred Office under the Gospel , and secured it from being invaded by deriving it in a Succesion , out of which it could not be received , n 42 , 44. To what purpose could that Discourse tend , but to restrain such Invasions in the Schismaticks he had to deal with , supposing withall that they had no pretence to it on account of that Succession ? It is to the Head● of those Schismaticks that this Author speaks in this place , n. 5● . Nay , in the very words produced by Mr. Hody , where the Apostolical Author personates them , saying , they would do the things enjoyned them by the Multitude , so that the Flock of Christ might live in Peace with the Presbyters appointed over them . So that in this very place they are opposed to the Presbyters . Only the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is unhappily translated Plebs , which made Dr. Owen fancy he had got a Testimony for his Lay Congregational Authority , and perhaps made Mr. Hody think they were not themselves Plebeians who were to receive the Commands of the Plebs . But the Greek ( 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ) signifies no particular Rank of the Ecclesiasticks , but takes in the whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with the Presbyters , in opposition to the smallness of the number of the Schismaticks , who were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 n. 1. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , n. 47. And as little to his purpose is the other Author produced by Mr. Hody , Dionisius Alexandrinus . He also addresses his exhortations , as became a just Mediator , not to Cornelius , but Novatian ; to the Invader , not to him who had received the injury . If he will therefore be true to his Authorities , let him perswade his Vsurpers to do Justice to the persons injured by them . They are said to excuse themselves from the odium of the Schism , by pretending they were forced into their Chairs : But they who had the Spirit of our Ancestors would not have given the occasion for a Schism for any violence . St. Cyprian counts it as glorious to die , if the Cause should require it , for Vnity , as for the Faith. Nor do our Laws force any to accept of Bishopricks , though they indeed force them who are to Elect and Consecrate them ; and they have had some good Precedents of those who neither would be , nor have been forced into Schismatical Thrones : God reward then for i● . Had all followed their examples , the Schism at least had been avoided , which is that which truly Christian Souls can bear with the least patience . But though the first Trial be past , Mr. Hody's Dionisius has found an expedient for them yet , by wh●ch they may satisfie the World whether they deal sincerely in pretending unwilli●gness . That is , by now resigning what they tell us they were forced to· 48 May all at length return to a love of Vnity , and an abhorrence of carnal Politicks ! May they doe it whilst God is yet ready to accept it at their hands , and before it be too late for securing their own greatest Interest ! May they doe it whilst they have yet an opportunity of satisfying the World by not gra●ifying Flesh and Blood in it ▪ whilst they may in some measure retrieve the Honour of Religion , and prevent the Ruine of innumerable invaluable Souls , for which they must otherwise be responsible ! May they doe it whilst it may be in their power to make some Amends for the Scandals given by them , without which their very Repentance cannot be acceptable to God , nor beneficial to themselves ; before they provoke God to farther and severer Inflictions on our beloved Countries , and to deprive us of that Religion for which they pretend so great a Zeal ! When shall we again return to our former Communion , and to our former glorious Passive Doctrines , and to our much more glorious Practice of them , in suffe●ing for a good Conscience ? When shall we on both sides instead of Vpbraidings and Reproaches remove all just occasion of Reproach , and return to a noble Emulation , who shall doe most for a solid lasting Peace by Principles ? We have had Principles more contributive to Vnion tha● all our new Projects of Comprehension , without uniting Principles ; But what can Principles signifie , if we will not be true to them , if we will fall from them as often as they pinch us ? We desire no hard things from them as Conditions on their side for a Reconciliation : We onely desire the same Terms from them on which we were united formerly , the common Doctrines of not onely ours , but the Catholick primitive Church ; the Preservation of our sacred Ecclesiastical Rights , our Duty to our H. Fathers , which is not their Invaders Interest to deny , before a just conciliary Deprivation , and the same innocent Offices in which we formerly communicated . And what can they pretend to yield for Peace , if they will scruple Concessions so very just and reasonable ; if they will not 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 concord●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 , Notes, typically marginal, from the original text Notes for div A36263-e10 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 Rh●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 . N●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. Nicephor● . 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 no● Power in the secular Magistrate for depriving Bishops as to Spirituals , not even as to their particular Districts . Thence it follows 2dly that Antibi●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 ●e Heretical , when they cause an actual Separation as the Latitudinarian Opinions do now in our Adversaries . 2. Even as He●●sie sign●fies an error in Fundamentals . The Church's being a Society is a fundamental Doctrine . It is at least fundamental a● 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 S●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 . Notes for div A36263-e26530 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 infor● 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 ●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. co●tin . Epiph. H●r . LXXIII . Phot. Cod. 258. The Life of Athanasius no good Authority . The D●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 attuler●nt : Ad quem ( inquit ) accedi●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 , Patriarch● Dei Gratiâ sum , nec à me quisquam hominum tollet hanc Dignitatem . Quis est ille , quem meo in loco collocâstis ? Quibus verbis cum illi respondere non possent , victi reverterunt ad ●os à quibus missi fuer●nt . Verum idem Conventus iterùm & tertiò contra Canones eum vo●avit . Sed ille semper congruenter respondit , Si Canonicum , inquiens , Judicium constitutum est , detur Mihi Clerus meus , & Ordo Patriarchatus , & veniam , defendamque m● , & Accusatorum meorum u●●r Testimonio . Haec illi responsa , cum accepissent , nihil consent●neum facientes , sententiam contra ipsum tulerunt ipsis Judicibus dignam . Quam tamen Beatus Vir antevertens subjecit omnes Poenas Canonicis , donec resipiscarent . Eustath . ib. Anthimus deposed in the same Reign by the Ecclesiasticks , against the Will of the secular Power . The Cases of Sergius , Pyrrhus Paulus , and Petrus , not to our Adversaries Purpose . Theophan . Eustath . in Vit. Eutych . Callinicus punished for his Rebellion : His communicating with Cyrus uncertain ; but his Cession very probable . Lampad . Mel. H. pars 3. p. 24. Aen●as Syl. in Decad. Blond . lib. 10. p. 180. Volat. fol. 247. Germanus abdicated . † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Niceph. Patr Hist 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Cedren . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . The Schism of Theodorus and Plato an Encroachment on Episcopal Authority in general , and nothing to our Case . That Case of those Monks very apposite to the Arsenian Schism , which was also abetted not by any Bishop , but only Monks : In such a Case nothing but Heresie could excuse Separation . (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Georg. Pa●hym . lib. IV. c. 10. (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Pachym . lib. IV. c. 11. ve●ba Michaelis . (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . verba Michaelis I●p . ubi supra . (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Verba Josephi ad Germanum , ap . ●und Pach. l. IV. c. 18. (e) Pachym . IV. 18 , 19. again . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Idem IV. 28 . * Ib. This Case turned against our Adversaries of the deprived Dioceses . The next instances to another Question considered by the Author , but not to Ours . Ignatius challenged his Right against Photius , though no H●●retick . † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Constant Porphyrog . continuat . Theophan . Lib. IV. N. 31. When Ignatius was deposed Synodically , he could not challenge the Duty till he was restored Synodically . Ep. 2. Nicola● ap . Labbaum . Ep. 5. Pope Nicholas with his Western Synod were not sufficient to deprive Photius of his Synodical Right , in the opinion of the Eastern Church . Pref. ad Concil . VIII . Nicet . vit . Ignat. The restoring of Ignatius by Basilius Macedo , was not very fair , by the Principles of his own Church . Can. Apost . 30. Photius's Title was good after his Restoration upon Ignatius's death ; especially af●er his General Council . These instances of Ignatius and Photius , neither servic●able to the design of our MS. (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nicet . vit . Ignat . (b) Concil . Gen. 8. Act. 5 , & 6. (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nicet . ib. (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Nicet . ib. (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Libel . Theognost . ex Personâ Ignatii , initio Concilii 8. (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Ep. Nicolai Graecè vers . de suo Concilio Rom. ante Synod . 8. Graec. Nor of our Adversaries . † Cum nulla penitus Imperiali manu & Potentia , ut quidam parvum vel magnum effecerim . Neque enim ut Sacratissimus Patriarcha ad proprium regrederetur Thronum , Imperii mei opus vel excogitatio facta est . Sed multum ante Sanctissimus & Beatissimus Papa Nicolaus quae circa eum erant perfectissime discens , Synodice decrevit reddi ei jus proprii Throni , & anathema cum tota Romanorum Ecclesia pronunciavit contra resistentes hujusmodi Decreto atque Sententiae . Hic autem nos olim sciente ▪ & paventes judicium anathematis promulgati , obsecundare Synodico judicio Romanae Ecclesiae necessarium duximus , & hujus rei gratia reddidimus ei proprium Thronum . Act. 6. Synod . 8. Photius abdicated before the Succession of Stephanus . * Sed de Photio quidem ita vos s●●i●sistis : illas vero Imperatoris literas cum legissemus , ●asdem à vestris procul abesse comperimus . Ita ●nim se habebant , quod Photius quietam vitam ●l●git . Quapropter in dubitatione versamur . Multum enim interest , abrenunciasse , & expulsum esse . Stephan . Ep. 2. ad Episcopos Oriental . The Breach between Nicolaus Mysticus and Le● was in the ●ear ●06 . against Baronius . Leo Gram. Script●res post Theoph. vi● . Leon. Sap. Nicol. Ep. ad Anast. ap . Baron . an . 910. It is very probable that Nicholas was deposed by a Synod . However our Author is mistaken when he thinks a Schism did not follow upon it . 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Gr●● . Rom. Part ▪ 1. Lib. 2. p. 104. Ap. Baron . An. 917. Numb . 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Annal. Simeon . Logot . inter Scriptores By Zantinos post . Theophan . Our Author does here , as well as elsewhere presume there were no Schisms where really there were Schisms , only on the Testimony of the Tomus Vnionis . p. 25 , 26. Anast. Caes. apud Cotelerium Tom. 3. Monumentorum Graec. Eccles. p. 432 , 433. Nico ib. p. 443. p. 29 , & p. 30. The Acclamations of the Tomus Vnionis , to which our Author so frequently refers , were no● elder than the year 995. From D● Quesne's Gloss●grae● . Sim. Mag. Ann. n. 18. The Case of ●osmas Atticus in the time of Manuel Comnenus . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Nicet . Chon . l. 2. n. 3. (b) So Cinnamus also makes the proceedings to have been done by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , by which I understand the Metropolites who in that Age concluded their Suffragan Bishops , Cin. l. 2. n. 10. (c) Allat . de con● . Occid & Orient . Eccl. l. 2. c. 12. In all the Successions under Isaacius Ange●us , the Throne was validly vacated . * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ▪ Nicet . Cho● . l. 2. vit . Isac . Ang. n 4. † 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Jur. Gr. Rom. Part 1. p. 303. (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , &c. Niceph. Callist . MS. Catalog . Patriarcharum . (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Jur. Gr. Rom. p. 303. (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Catalog . in Jur. Gr. Rom. (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Therefore it had not been strange if no Schism had followed it . Mr. Hody's Exhortations to yield for Peace's sake , more justly applicable to his own Fathers than ours . Or Faith. For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in ●ead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 . Clem. Rom. Epist. ad . Corinth . A pathetical Conclusion . Notes for div A36263-e83040 * Or Faith. * For 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 , in stead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 .