Bishop disown'd by the Generality of the Catholick Church for this Reason because put into the place of another deposed by the Civil Autority If they can shew me I say any one single Instance I shall own my self obliged for the Instruction I assure my Reader that after a nice and very Search I know not one Should our Adversaries be able to produce such an Example as I think they will never be able 't will advantage their Cause but little especially if it be one of the later Ages since it is not agreeable to the Practice of the Church in general But if they are not able to produce so much as one single Example how rashly have they acted who have separated themselves from the Church on such an account I conclude in the Words of Drusius which I here make my own Scripsi haec animo juvandi non laedendi Si laesi quempiam jam me poenitet Si offendi pias aures monitus lubenter mutabo Si erravi uspiam monstretur mihi error non ero pertinax ☞ Pag. 5. lin 40. Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's Interest so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils is so far from being obliging that it would be a Sin to act according to it Least that Proposition should be misunderstood after the words of very great Evils add I speak of Oaths of Canonical Obedience THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power demonstrated Objections answer'd No obligation to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience The Autority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleg'd by our Adversaries The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose Page 1. CHAP. II. That the Iewish High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly Deposed by the Civil Autority were all along own'd and receiv'd as true High-priests An Account of all those High-priests from the Reign of King Solomon to the Destruction of Jerusalem The Instance of Abiathar and Zadok nicely examin'd The Practice of the Jews and God's Approbation of such High-priests a sufficient Warrant to us Page 16. CHAP. III. That our Saviour himself and his Apostles acknowleged and communicated with those High-priests who were put into the Places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority as true High-priests Mr. Selden's Conjecture That in the Histories of the New Testament as often as there is mention made of the High-priest is to be understood not the High-priest properly so called but the Prince of the Sanhedrin confuted A Reply to an Answer of our Adversaries concerning the Reason why the Jews our Saviour and the Apostles submitted to the present Possessor Page 33. CHAP. IV. That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops if accounted Orthodox as were put into the Places of others deposed by the Secular Power tho never so unjustly No Examples either for or against us in the three first Centuries all the Emperors being then Heathens The Example of Felix II. Bishop of Rome the put into the place of Liberius unjustly deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Constantius and against Liberius's consent yet he 's own'd by all that accounted him Orthodox by the Roman Clergy among them by the famous Damasus who was afterwards Pope He is own'd as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the District of Rome His Ordinations are allow'd of as valid by even his Adversary Liberius He has been all along own'd by the Church as a Saint and true Pope Page 40. CHAP. V. The Catholicks of Alexandria reject Lucius because he was an Arian not because his Predecessor Peter was unjustly deposed by the Emperor Our Adversaries Doctrine not known to the said Peter § 1. S. Briccius of Tours deposed by the People Yet Justinian and Armentius his Successors are own'd as true Bishops of Tours Armentius is own'd as true Bishop by S. Briccius himself though he had never given up his Right but had always claim'd it § 2. S. Euthymius refuses to communicate with Theodosius Patriarch of Jerusalem because he was a Heretick and had embrued his hands in the Bloud of many Persons not because the Patriarch Juvenalis whose See he had usurpt was still living Theodolius's Ordinations are allowed of as valid § 3. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurus not because he was put into the place of Timotheus Salofaciolus unjustly deposed by the Heretical Vsurper Basiliscus but because he was a Heretick and a Parricide § 4. Jo. Talaias the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria being deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperour Zeno though he still laid claim to the See yet Petrus Mongus his Successor is acknowledged by all that accounted him Orthodox by Acacius and Fravitas Patriarchs of Constantinople by Martyrius Patriarch of Jerusalem by almost all the Bishops of the Eastern Church That they who refused to communicate with Mongus viz. the Western Bishops the Bishops of Dardania c. did it only because they thought him a Heretick That Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople communicated with him till he found him to be a Heretick then forsook his Communion Pope Simplicius when he heard that Talaias was to be deposed was well enough satisfied till he understood that Mongus whom he accounted a Heretick was design'd for his Successor Whether Orthodox Bishops unjustly ejected by the Emperor be restor'd or new Orthodox Bishops be created he values not he only desires that they that are made Bishops should be Orthodox Pope Felix III. not at all concern'd for Talaias's being deprived without a Synod only dislikes that one whom he accounted a Heretick was constituted in his place § 5. Calendion Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Zeno without any Synod the Orthodox Bishops viz. Pope Felix III. Quintianus Asculanus Justinus Siculus Acacius Constantinopolitanus Antheon Arsinoites Faustus Apolloniates Pamphilus Abydensis Asclepiades of Trallium c. refuse to communicate with his Successor Petrus Gnapheus only because he was a Heretick take no notice of his being constituted in the room of one Unsynodically deposed and are ready to communicate with him as a true Patriarch of Antioch if he will but forsake his Heresy Page 57. CHAP. VI. Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox though at the same time they profess'd that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust and could never be induced by any Terrors to subscribe to it viz. by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium the Orthodox People of Constantinople by the great Abbots of Palaestine S. Sabas and S. Theodosius and by all Palaestine in general at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostacy of
to apply it The other Instance is that of the Bishops of our own Country in the Reign of William II. There arising a great Difference between the King and Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury about acknowledging the Pope Whether the Archbishop could lawfully do it without the King's Consent The Matter was referr'd to the Parliament and the Bishops being by the King requir'd to deprive the Archbishop they answer'd saith Eadmerus That that they could not do because he was their Metropolitan 'T is hard to conjecture what our Author intended by proposing this Example as worthy Consideration unless it be that an Archbishop of Canterbury should be now above all Deprivation He contends in his Treatise that a Bishop ought not to be Deprived but by Bishops and hereby producing this Example if he means any thing at all he intimates That an Archbishop cannot be Deprived by the Bishops his Suffragans because of their Oath of Obedience But whatever was our Author's meaning certain it is that it was not because of the Oath of Obedience that the Bishops refus'd to Deprive Anselm as the King would have had 'em but because they had at that time an Opinion amongst 'em that a Primate or Metropolitan could be judg'd and depriv'd by no one but the Pope So far were they from thinking themselves oblig'd by their Oath not to Deprive him that it 's very notorius that tho' he was not Depriv'd yet they threw off all Obedience and renounced their Subjection to him § 9. We are next to consider that Objection which is made by the learned Vindicator That a Bishop put into the place of another deposed by the Lay-power is in reality no Bishop If this is true then it must be granted that we cannot be oblig'd for the sake of Union and Peace to adhere to the present Possessor This indeed is the Difference between our Civil and our Ecclesiastical Governors The former are purely Governors and nothing more is required in them but to be capable of Governing The latter are not onely Governors but are likewise the Administrators of Sacraments and the sole Ordainers of the Clergy It is therefore necessary not onely that the Ecclesiastical Governor should be duly qualified for Government but that he should be likewise endued by God Almighty with the Power of Ordaining and of administring the holy Sacraments Thus much must be granted Let us now see what Argument the Vindicator can produce to degrade our present Possessors and to prove 'em no Bishops It is nothing but a Saying of S. Cyprian that is nothing at all to his Purpose The Saying is this That a second Bishop is no Bishop 'T is strange methinks that so great and so worthy a Man should pretend to raise so great and so extraordinary a Structure upon so weak a Foundation The Occasion of the Saying was this Novatian a private Presbyter had rais'd a Schism against Cornelius the lawfull Bishop of Rome he had got himself to be ordain'd Bishop tho' Cornelius had never been depos'd was still the Possessor and acknowledg'd the true and the onely Bishop of Rome by all the Churches of the World both the Western the Eastern and the African and Novatian was by all condemn'd as a rank and notorious Schismatick S. Cyprian who was always very zealous for the Unity of the Church thus expresses himself in his Epistle to Antonianus concerning him Cornelius says he being possess'd of the See according to the Will of God and confirm'd in it by the Consent of us all whoever would now be a Bishop of that See must needs be out of the Church neither can he have any Ecclesiastical Orders who does not continue in Vnity with the Church Whosoever he is whatsoever he may boast of himself or pretend to he is a prophane Person an Alien and not of the Church And since there cannot be a second Bishop where another is already in possession whosoever is made Bishop after another who ought to be alone he is not a second but none This is the place out of which the learned Vindicator is pleas'd to draw his Argument with how Logical an Inference the judicious Reader may see 'T is strange that That excellent Person should be so much blinded with Prejudice as not to be able to discover how vast a difference there is between the Case of our Present Bishops and that of which S. Cyprian discourses Had Cornelius been deposed by the Emperor for refusing to acknowledge his Autority we have all the reason in the world to believe That his Deprivation would have been lookt upon by S. Cyrrian as very reasonable and just But let us still grant as we first supposed in our Question That he ought not to have been deprived by the Emperor himself but by Bishops Yet if he had been deprived for refusing to acknowledge the Emperor's Autority or if he had been upon any other account so deprived by the Imperial Autority as that it would have been impossible for him to exercise his Episcopal jurisdiction Is it possible for any wise and unprejudiced Man to imagine That S. Cyprian would have thought so ill of Novatian and his Adherents as he did If an Enemy of the Roman Empire suppose the King of Persia should in S. Cyprian's time have taken a Frontier City and the Bishop of that City should have been deposed by him for refusing to submit to his Autority Who can believe that That great and wise Man S. Cyprian would have declared a new Bishop no Bishop and all his Adherents Schismatical That a second that is a Schismatical Bishop an Invader of a See already fill'd and possess'd is no Bishop is confess'd to be S. Cyprian's Doctrine But that our Bishops are in the Sence of S. Cyprian the Invaders of a See already fill'd and possess'd that they are secundi in his Sence is what we utterly deny Not a Word not a Hint in S. Cyprian from whence such a thing can be inferr'd The Vindicator may be pleas'd to consider that our present Possessors did not set up themselves in opposition to such as were possess'd of their Sees but before they pretended to be Bishops their Predecessors were made by the Supreme Civil Power uncapable of Governing i. e. were Depos'd Again he ought to consider that our present Possessors were so far from ambitiously invading like Novatian the Sees of others that they were all chose by their respective Churches according to the usual manner viz. in the same manner that their Predecessors themselves had been Let us hold up the Picture which the Vindicator has been pleas'd to draw to a true Light and then we shall the better see what a strange Figure it is The Vindicator's Enthymeme is this S. Cyprian says that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who ambitiously invades a See which another is fully possess'd of Therefore S. Cyprian thought that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who is chosen by the
is lawfull and warranted by the general Practice of the Antients It is not my Design to detain my Reader long in a Preface Onely one or two things I desire of him If any thing here in this Treatise seem long and tedious to him I desire he would be pleas'd to consider that my Design was to make this Discourse as perfect as I could that so if possible it might put an End to this Controversie And if our Adversaries shall be pleas'd to publish a Reply to what is here written I desire he would seriously compare and weigh one Treatise with the other consider if the main and more Substantial Parts of this Treatise are answer'd then judge for himself and not expect that of Course there must be another Reply As I am not so vain as to think my self clear from Error so neither am I conscious to my self of having been so Careless and Indiligent as to think I am often mistaken I mean in things material I hate everlasting Wrangle And an Adversary that Cavils and excepts against things not material I shall think deserves a Reply as little as one that Rails 'T will be hard I know to perswade our Adversaries that the History I here present 'em is what I call it Impartial But this Assurance I give 'em I have written nothing but what I myself believe That may be perhaps they will say But you have not written all that you believe You have not told all you know Why truly as to that I know not what to answer Since the Judgments of Men are so extremely different as that some have fansy'd that the Canons I omitted when I publish'd the Baroccian Treatise are really a Part of that Treatise and ought to have been publish'd with it there is nothing so Impertinent but what some or other may fansie I ought to have mention'd I cannot promise but that there may be more Canons But least it should be suspected that tho' I have produced many Instances for the Cause I have undertaken to defend there are others as good and as many that make against us which I have designedly conceal'd I shall here make this solemn Declaration That if any of our Adversaries I speak to all in general but my Eye is particularly upon the learned Vindicator can produce me any one single Instance from the time of Aaron the first High-priest of the Iews to this very day of a High priest disown'd by the Iews or a Bishop disown'd by the Generality of the Catholick Church for this Reason because put into the place of another deposed by the Civil Autority If they can shew me I say any one single Instance I shall own my self obliged for the Instruction I assure my Reader that after a nice and very curious Search I know not one Should our Adversaries be able to produce such an Example as I think they will never be able 't will advantage their Cause but little especially if it be one of the later Ages since it is not agreeable to the Practice of the Church in general But if they are not able to produce so much as one single Example how rashly have they acted who have separated themselves from the Church on such an account I conclude in the Words of Drusius which I here make my own Scripsi haec animo juvandi non laedendi Si laesi quempiam jam me poenitet Si offendi pias aures monitus lubenter mutabo Si erravi uspiam monstretur mihi error non ero pertinax ☞ Pag. 5. lin 40. Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's Interest so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils is so far from being obliging that it would be a Sin to act according to it Least that Proposition should be misunderstood after the words of very great Evils add I speak of Oaths of Canonical Obedience THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power demonstrated Objections answer'd No obligation to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience The Autority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleg'd by our Adversaries The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose Page 1. CHAP. II. That the Iewish High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly Deposed by the Civil Autority were all along own'd and receiv'd as true High-priests An Account of all those High-priests from the Reign of King Solomon to the Destruction of Jerusalem The Instance of Abiathar and Zadok nicely examin'd The Practice of the Jews and God's Approbation of such High-priests a sufficient Warrant to us Page 16. CHAP. III. That our Saviour himself and his Apostles acknowleged and communicated with those High-priests who were put into the Places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority as true High-priests Mr. Selden's Conjecture That in the Histories of the New Testament as often as there is mention made of the High-priest is to be understood not the High-priest properly so called but the Prince of the Sanhedrin confuted A Reply to an Answer of our Adversaries concerning the Reason why the Jews our Saviour and the Apostles submitted to the present Possessor Page 33. CHAP. IV. That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops if accounted Orthodox as were put into the Places of others deposed by the Secular Power tho never so unjustly No Examples either for or against us in the three first Centuries all the Emperors being then Heathens The Example of Felix II. Bishop of Rome the put into the place of Liberius unjustly deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Constantius and against Liberius's consent yet he 's own'd by all that accounted him Orthodox by the Roman Clergy among them by the famous Damasus who was afterwards Pope He is own'd as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the District of Rome His Ordinations are allow'd of as valid by even his Adversary Liberius He has been all along own'd by the Church as a Saint and true Pope Page 40. CHAP. V. The Catholicks of Alexandria reject Lucius because he was an Arian not because his Predecessor Peter was unjustly deposed by the Emperor Our Adversaries Doctrine not known to the said Peter § 1. S. Briccius of Tours deposed by the People Yet Justinian and Armentius his Successors are own'd as true Bishops of Tours Armentius is own'd as true Bishop by S. Briccius himself though he had never given up his Right but had always claim'd it § 2. S. Euthymius refuses to communicate with Theodosius Patriarch of Jerusalem because he was a Heretick and had embrued his hands in the Bloud of many Persons not because the Patriarch Juvenalis whose See he had usurpt was still living Theodosius's Ordinations are allowed of as valid § 3. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurus not because he was put into the place of Timotheus Salofuciolus unjustly deposed by
Autority we have all the reason in the world to believe That his Deprivation would have been lookt upon by S. Cyprian as very reasonable and just But let us still grant as we first supposed in our Question That he ought not to have been deprived by the Emperor himself but by Bishops Yet if he had been deprived for refusing to acknowledge the Emperor's Autority or if he had been upon any other account so deprived by the Imperial Autority as that it would have been impossible for him to exercise his Episcopal Jurisdiction Is it possible for any wise and unprejudiced Man to imagine That S. Cyprian would have thought so ill of Novatian and his Adherents as he did If an Enemy of the Roman Empire suppose the King of Persia should in S. Cyprian's time have taken a Frontier City and the Bishop of that City should have been deposed by him for refusing to submit to his Autority Who can believe that That great and wise Man S. Cyprian would have declared a new Bishop no Bishop and all his Adherents Schismatical That a second that is a Schismatical Bishop an Invader of a See already fill'd and possess'd is no Bishop is confess'd to be S. Cyprian's Doctrine But that our Bishops are in the Sence of S. Cyprian the Invaders of a See already fill'd and possess'd that they are secundi in his Sence is what we utterly deny Not a Word not a Hint in S. Cyprian from whence such a thing can be inferr'd The Vindicator may be pleas'd to consider that our present Possessors did not set up themselves in opposition to such as were possess'd of their Sees but before they pretended to be Bishops their Predecessors were made by the Supreme Civil Power uncapable of Governing i. e. were Depos'd Again he ought to consider that our present Possessors were so far from ambitiously invading like Novatian the Sees of others that they were all chose by their respective Churches according to the usual manner viz. in the same manner that their Predecessors themselves had been Let us hold up the Picture which the Vindicator has been pleas'd to draw to a true Light and then we shall the better see what a strange Figure it is The Vindicator's Enthymeme is this S. Cyprian says that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who ambitiously invades a See which another is fully possess'd of Therefore S. Cyprian thought that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who is chosen by the Church according to the usual manner into the place of another whom the Civil Power will not suffer to govern any longer because he refuses to own its Autority I add That if a Bishop be a secundus and no Bishop who is put into the place of one unjustly depos'd by the Civil Autority then it likewise must follow that he is a secundus and no Bishop who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly depos'd But this the learned Vindicator will neither himself grant neither does he I suppose believe that S. Cyprian thought so I say that must follow if we seriously consider the Matter For the onely good Reason assignable why in the former Case the Successor is a secundus and no Bishop is this Because the Predecessor has still a Right to the Bishoprick Now 't is certain that the Reason is the same in the latter Case For a Bishop whom a Synod has unjustly depriv'd has still as much Right to his Bishoprick as a Bishop invalidly depos'd by the Civil Autority For to me 't is absurd that any unjust Sentence should take away the Right tho' the Nature of Government requiring it it is oftentimes necessary that we should submit to such a Sentence And this if I am not mistaken is the common Sence of Mankind When a Bishop is unjustly depriv'd by a Synod we submit to his Successor not because we imagine that the other has no longer a Right but onely for Peace sake That a Bishop unjustly depriv'd by a Synod has still a Right to that Bishoprick as well as a Bishop deposed by an Incompetent Autority may be clearly demonstrated from this That after he is deprived he may be again restor'd and his Successor be deposed by Appeal to another Synod and yet the ejected Successor is accounted a true Bishop Now is that done justly or not There is no one will say it is not And yet it is impossible that the Successor should be justly deprived if the other had no Right To conclude That a Bishop who is put into the place of another unjustly deprived by the Secular Power is a real and true Bishop will by and by appear by the Opinion and the Practice of the Antients in general Let us now proceed to demonstrate that as the submitting to a Bishop whose Predecessor was unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority is not in it self a Sin so the ill Consequences to which it may be liable are either not so mischievous to the Church or not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid § 10. The Evils we endeavour to avoid area a Schism and a Persecution two Evils as great as can possibly befall the Church And that those two very great Evils must needs be the certain and the immediate Consequences of a non-submission is too evident to any Considering Man to need any Proof If the ill Consequences to which a submission may be liable are so great as those two Evils but not so certain or if they are so certain but not so great it must then be granted that with respect to Consequences a Submission is more reasonable than a Non-submission Now if we consider those evil Consequences which may justly be charg'd upon the Submission we shall find that they are so far from being both so great and so certain that they are neither so great nor so certain as those two Evils which by a Non-submission must unavoidably be brought upon the Church So far indeed is the Principle which we maintain from being necessarily attended with any very ill Consequence that it is not easy to foresee any Consequence at all that is Evil. As it is for the Good the Peace and Prosperity of the Church that we think our selves obliged to comply upon occasion with the Necessity of Times So if ever the Civil Power which to fear in this Reign would be very unjust and unreasonable should pretend to break in upon the Essentials of the Church we should then be obliged not to yield to such Impositions If the evil Day must needs some which God forbid we will keep it off as long as we can When it necessarily comes as now we shew our Prudence so we 'll then prove our Fortitude Not to endeavour to escape from Damascus when a Basket is fairly offer'd would be Folly in an Apostle And to run on to Martyrdom when it honestly may be avoided is according to the Sanctions of the Primitive Christians a Sin Should
the Patriarchs Flavianus and Elias confuted Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretick when they communicated with him They are Honoured by the Church as Saints Page 70. CHAP. VII Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Anastasius his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretick Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People though at the same time they hated him by the whole Church of Palaestine particularly the two great Abbots S. Sabas and S. Theodosius so famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Greek Church by all the whole Church ever since those Times The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript The old Patriarch Elias though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith continues however to communicate with those who acknowledged his Successor Page 81. CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him Page 90. CHAP. IX Macarius Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by the Emperour Justinian his Successor Eustochius is own'd as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholick Church After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperour and Macarius being restored is received by the Church According to our Adversaries Principles either Eustochius or Macarius after his Restauration was no true Patriarch yet the Church receiv'd both Page 97. CHAP. X. Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresie John sirnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room After John was consecrated Patriarch Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay Lords as Bishops not only of Ecclesiasticks as the Vindicator contends He actually lays claim to the See despises the Sentence of his Iudges as null and invalid because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him and Excommunicates them Notwithstanding all this his Successor because he prov'd Orthodox was receiv'd and own'd by all the Church as a true Patriarch He continu'd in the See near 13 years near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is own'd by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly belov'd John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him For what reason Anastasius Patriarch by Antioch reprov'd the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordain'd by him Anastasius did not refuse to communicate with him He is Honour'd by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint Tho' Eutychius lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and tho' he never resign'd but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch yet he liv'd quietly and never endeavour'd to make a Division in the Church Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretick confuted The Authority of the Life of Eutychius often quoted in this Chapter vindicated against the same Author Page 101. CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius though deposed by the Lay-power and though he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church Page 121. CHAP. XII S. Martin Pope of Rome being deposed without any Synod and banish'd by the Heretical Emperor Constans tho' he never resign'd yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome tho' at the same time they were zealous Assertors of the Orthodox Faith and had likewise a great love for S. Martin Eugenius is receiv'd and own'd by all as a true Pope and has been honour'd all along by the Church as a Saint S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope and prays to God for him as such Page 128. CHAP. XIII Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus his Successor Cyrus is receiv'd as a true Patriarch § 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus § 2. Page 135. CHAP. XIV An Account of the Schism between Photius and Ignatius Patriarchs of Constantinople Photius who was put into Ignatius's place when deposed by the Emperor no such Person as his Enemies report him By how great a Party he was receiv'd The reason why some refused to acknowlege him was not so much because he was so constituted as because he was a Neophytus and was besides ordain'd by a Bishop Excommunicated and in their Iudgments stood himself Excommunicated at that time Ignatius professes that if Photius had been one of the Church i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration he would willingly have yielded to him Ignatius values the Counâ—ils that condemn'd him no more than he did the Lay-power The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter His Errors concerning the Council call'd the First and Second A New account of the reason of that Title His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome call'd by P. Nicholas against Photius Photius after he was receiv'd by the Church and confirmed by a general Council is deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Leo yet his Successor Stephen is receiv'd by the Church Page 139. CHAP. XV. Nicolaus Mysticus Patriarch of Constantinople not deprived by a Synod as the Vindicator contends but by the Emperor Leo the Wise. § 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Besengarius yet his Successor Antony is own'd and receiv'd by the Church particularly by the Pope the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna and continued in the See many years § 2. Basilius Camaterus and Nicetas Muntanes Patriarchs of
Notion 'till they had refused to communicate with us So dangerous a thing it is First to do a thing rashly and then to hunt for a Reason If this Plea of our Author is good I would very fain know how any Separation can be proved to be unlawfull Let our Author stand out a little and dispute with our old Dissenters He asks a Dissenter why he separates from the Church The Dissenter tells him 't is because the Church is Heretical But why Heretical Because she thinks it lawfull to oblige her Members to the use of Ceremonies and pursuant to that Opinion she actually imposes the use of ' em In the use of these Ceremonies says the Dissenter we cannot join with you and for that very reason because we cannot join with you in this Opinion That the Church has power to impose upon its Members the use of Ceremonies And because we cannot join with the Church in this Opinion and Practice upon that very account the Church is Heretical Thus according to our Author 's own Plea but the Plea would be vain and Illogical § 14. But this is not all We are not onely Hereticks upon that account but as the Vindicator contends we are Hereticks likewise as Heresy signifies an erring even in Fundamentals He affirms that our Opinion is a fundamental Error because as he says it is utterly destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society distinct from the State To maintain this Opinion That for Political Crimes a Bishop may be lawfully Depriv'd by the Civil Autority Or this That supposing he cannot be lawfully so depriv'd yet if he is deprived it is lawfull for Peace-sake to submit to his Successor How that is destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society I for my part cannot perceive To me 't is much more apparent that to advance this Opinion That a Bishop cannot be deprived by the Civil Autority for any Crime whatsoever is destructive of all Civil Government which as well as the Ecclesiastical is of God's Institution He therefore that advances that Notion advances a very dangerous Notion But it is not my Business at present to engage in these Disquisitions I shall onely make bold to ask the Vindicator a few Questions If he thinks that Opinion concerning the Power of the Magistrate a fundamental Heresy and enough to justify the present Separation how came it to pass that he did not leave the Communion of those whom he knew to be the Maintainers of that Opinion before this time I will ask him one Question more If the late Bishops should be again restor'd would he then refuse to communicate with those who advance that Opinion If he would not then it is certain that he does not think that enough to justify the present Separation One more and then I have done I desire to know if our Author knows none of his own Communion who themselves acknowledge the Power of the Supreme Civil Governor to depose a Bishop for Political Crimes 'T is strange if he should be ignorant of what every body knows And it is to be believ'd that the Fathers themselves of his own Communion at least some of 'em agree with us in this Opinion which the Church of England has all along to this time accounted Orthodox tho' the Vindicator is pleas'd to declare it a Heresy But enough and too much of these Matters We will leave our much honour'd Adversary to invent some other new Notion more consistent and more usefull for his Cause And will now proceed to enquire how Heretical our Forefathers were in thinking it lawfull to adhere to the present Possessor and in acting accordingly CHAP. II. That the Iewish High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly Deposed by the Civil Autority were all along own'd and receiv'd as true High-priests An Account of all those High-priests from the Reign of King Solomon to the Destruction of Jerusalem The Instance of Abiathar and Zadok nicely examin'd The Practice of the Jews and God's Approbation of such High-priests a sufficient Warrant to us TO make it appear that the general Practice of the Antients throughout all Ages was agreeable to ours I shall first shew That the same was the Practice of the Iews throughout all Ages in reference to their High-priests whom S. Cyprian and others of the Fathers are wont to compare to our Bishops Secondly I shall shew That our Saviour himself and his Apostles acknowledged and communicated with the High-priests of the Iews as true High-priests tho' put into the places of others unjustly turn'd out by their Governors By which they seem to instruct us what we ought to doe in relation to our Bishops or High-priests And Thirdly I shall shew That the same has been all along the general Practice of the antient Christians § 2. I begin with the Iews But before I proceed to Examples I think it convenient to prevent an Objection that may possibly be made This perhaps may be the Plea of our Adversaries in answer to the Examples of the Jewish High-priests That the Office of a Bishop amongst us is of a nature much more Spiritual than the Office of those High-priests To that Plea I answer That he that considers the true and full Import of the Question now before us will find it to be no other than this Whether a Person duly invested with an Ecclesiastical Office of God's own Institution and Ordinance being Deposed by the Lay-power any other can lawfully succeed in that Office Now as to God's particular Institution and Appointment whatsoever otherwise the Difference may be which 't is needless for us to contend about it is certain that the Jewish High-priests were rather superior than inferior to our Bishops 'T was by God himself and that too in a very extraordinary manner that the Office of the High-priest was instituted and it was from God alone that he receiv'd his Autority If therefore a Person was accepted of by God as a true and real High-priest tho' put into the room of another Deposed by the Civil Autority then a Bishop likewise may be truly a Bishop and accordingly ought to be receiv'd tho' put into the place of a Bishop deposed by that Power To this I add That the Annual Expiation for the Sins of the whole People was to be perform'd by the High-priest This was the chief of the federal Rites of that Religion and that to which our Saviour's offering himself up a Sacrifice is particularly compared in the Epistle to the Hebrews And this they did ex opere operato so that it was of the greatest Consequence to the Iews to have this Divine Institution perform'd by one appointed to it by God And tho' no provision was made for Cases of Necessity yet Necessity was understood to be a provision for itself And it is certain these Annual Expiations were accepted of God till our Saviour's days for that is a certain Consequence of their being still in Covenant
with God since these Expiations were the yearly renewing of that Covenant Nor can any of the Performances of the Christian Priesthood be compared to this unless we believe the Power of Transubstantiating These Examples of the Jewish High-priests alone were there no other to be alleged would sufficiently warrant our Submission to our present Possessors Let us now see what Examples those are § 3. Our first Example is that of the first High-priest that ever we know to have been deposed viz. of Abiathar He was deposed by the bare Autority of King Solomon for having adhered to Adonijah his elder Brother as small a fault as could be of that nature tho' afterwards he had submitted and acknowledged King Solomon's Autority as soon as ever he was made King Tho' Abiathar was thus deposed yet Zadok being by the same Autority placed in his room all the Nation of the Iews both Priests and People submit themselves to him and own him as High-priest Even the Sons of the deposed Abiathar Ionathan and Ahimelech act as Priests under Zadok Iosephus in his Iewish Antiquities has observ'd that this was the first Instance of a High-priest deposed From the beginning says he for 13 Successions there was no High-priest put into the room of another unless deceased after that some began to be constituted whilst their Predecessors were living What is said by some of the Rabbies concerning the Deprivation of Phineas the Grandson of Aaron was altogether unknown to Iosephus neither does it concern the Subject of this Treatise he being depriv'd if at all by God's immediate Act. It 's alleged by one of our Adversaries that Abiathar was not deposed by the Autority of the King but by that of the Sanhedrin or great Council And this he endeavours to evince from these two Considerations 1. Because it is said by the Rabbies that in Capital Causes it was lawfull onely for the Sanhedrin to judge the High-priest 2. Because Iosephus the Historian says of Ioab That before the King sent Benaiah to fall upon him he first sent him to fetch him from the Altar in order to bring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Seat of Iudicature there to plead his Cause And if this Formality says our Author was used towards Joab before ever the Command was given to have him slain it 's probable â—he like was used towards Adonijah the King's Brother before he was slain and the like also to Abiathar before he was thrust from the Priesthood At present it is not my Business to assert the Autority of the Civil Power in depriving a Bishop or to shew that the Kings of Iudea had Autority to deprive a High-priest I suppose at present That the Deprivation of Abiathar by King Solomon was irregular and unlawfull and am onely to demonstrate That de facto he was deposed by the bare Autority of the King Now a thousand such little Nothings as our Author's Presumptions and Conjectures from what is related by Iosephus concerning Ioab I shall fully and unanswerably confute by producing the Words of the Scripture Now therefore as the Lord liveth says King Solomon which hath established me and set me on the Throne of David my Father and who hath made me a house as he promised Adonijah shall be put to death this day And King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the Son of Iehoiada and he fell upon him that he died And unto Abiathar the Priest said the King Get thee to Anathoth unto thine own Fields for thou art worthy of death but I will not at this time put thee to death because thou barest the Ark of the Lord God before David my Father and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my Father was afflicted So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. So likewise Iosephus And sending for Benaiah the Captain of his Guard he commanded him to go and slay his Brother Adonijah And calling to him the Priest Abiathar Thy bearing the Ark says he with my Father and those things which thou suffered'st in his service deliver thee from death but this punishment I inflict upon thee because thou tookedst part with Adonijah Stay thou not here nor come into my sight any more but go unto thy own Country and there live till the time of thy death For having thus sinn'd thou art not worthy to continue in Dignity as High-priest And thus for the aforesaid Cause the Family of Ithamar was deprived of the Honour of the High-priesthood Whatsoever was done to Ioab 't is as clear and apparent as the Sun That what was done to Adonijah and Abiathar was all done on a suddain without any manner of Judicial Process in the Sanhedrin by the bare Autority of the King But neither is it true that Ioab was ever cited to plead his Cause in the Sanhedrin For first Iosephus himself does not say so as our Author imagins For by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not meant the Court of the Sanhedrin that is wont to be called by Iosephus not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the King 's own Tribunal where he himself sat Iudge and so 't is understood by both the Latin Translators Epiphanius Schol. and Gelenius 2. Even that which Iosephus does say is not true as appears by the words of the Scripture which Iosephus follows and mistakes Then tidings came to Ioab for Ioab had turned after Adonijah tho' he turned not after Absalom and Ioab fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord and caught hold on the Horns of the Altar And it was told King Solomon that Ioab was fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord and behold he is by the Altar Then Solomon sent Benaiah the Son of Iehoiada saying Go fall upon him And Benaiah came to the Tabernacle of the Lord and said unto him Thus saith the King Come forth And he said Nay but I will die here And Benaiah brought the King word again saying Thus said Ioab and thus he answered me And the King said unto him Doe as he said and fall upon him It is said expressly that the King sent Benaiah not to cite him to the Tribunal but immediately to fall upon him These Words Iosephus who oftentimes mistakes the true Sence of the Scripture by trusting too much to his Memory had forgot And because he remember'd that Ioab was commanded to come forth he therefore rashly conjectured that he was commanded to come to the Tribunal When the Reason why he was commanded to come forth was onely this Because it was thought not proper to shed his bloud at the Altar Much like the aforesaid Evasion of our English Author is that of the Jesuits Salianus and Menochius who would needs perswade us that what was done was not done by King Solomon alone but that Zadok likewise the Priest pass'd his Sentence upon Abiathar and condemn'd him to be
to give an account of those Men who were at one certain particular time the great Officers under Solomon but to give an account likewise of those who at any time had been so This Explication may well pass for probable but the true one I take to be that of Serarius Menochius and Grotius who tell us That therefore he is join'd with Zadok in the Text above cited because tho' turn'd out of the Office yet he still enjoy'd the Name and Title of High-priest and was still highly honour'd as a Man of great Age and Dignity Thus 't is certain from Iosephus That in After-times when so many High-priests were deposed all they that were deposed enjoy'd still the Title as well as if they had been the Possessors And so it is now with the Patriarchs of Constantinople A fifth Evasion is that of Io. de Pineda and the Card. Bellarmin whom the Jesuits generally follow as Gretser Serarius A Lapide Becanus c. They own that Abiathar was completely deprived by King Solomon but say they he did not do it as King but by a particular Commission from God as a Prophet And this they prove from that Saying of the Scripture And Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spake concerning the House of Eli in Shiloh In answer to this I observe first That till after this was done King Solomon had no Gift of Prophecy It appears from the Scripture that he was first inspir'd and made a Prophet when God appear'd to him in a Vision at Gibeon which was after the Deprivation of Abiathar 2dly If Solomon had deprived Abiathar to this end that he might fulfill that Prophecy God to Eli yet it would not thence follow That he did it as a Prophet He had heard of that Prophecy and so he might adventure of himself to fulfill it It appears from Abulensis that tho' in his time and before there were some of that Opinion That Solomon depriv'd Abiathar that he might fulfill the aforesaid Prophecy yet they never imagin'd that he did it as a Prophet by a special Commission from God they thought he did it of himself by his own bare Autority 3dly It does not appear by the Text that Solomon design'd by deposing Abiathar to fulfill that Prophecy of God For those words That the Word of the Lord might be fulfilled do onely shew that That was the design of Providence a common mode of Expression In the Hebrew it is ad implendum sermonem where ad says Grotius is onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neque enim hoc respiciebat Salomon So long before Grotius the great and judicious Abulensis a Bishop of their own Church It is said in the Gospel of S. Matthew that Ioseph came and dwelt in a City called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets He shall be called a Nazarene That the Jews crucified Christ parting his Garments casting Lots that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet They parted my Garments among them c. So S. Iohn The Souldiers said therefore among themselves Let us not rent but cast lots for it whose it shall be that the Scripture might be fulfilled which saith c. It is said in another place of S. Iohn that notwithstanding all the Miracles of Christ yet the Iews believed not on him that the Saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled which he spake Lord who hath believed our Report c. That when Pilate commanded the Iews to take Jesus and Judge him according to their Law they said unto him It is lawfull for us to put any man to death That the Saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die Who so very injudicious as to inferr from these places that such was the End and Design of the Persons themselves Yet as well may we inferr that such was here the Design of the Persons themselves as that such was the Design of King Solomon deposing Abiathar I shall onely add That whereas some of the Iesuits do pretend to confirm their Opinion with the Autority of Theodoret and Procopius Gazaeus those Authors are so far from thinking that King Solomon depriv'd Abiathar as a Prophet that it does not appear that they thought he had any respect to that Prophecy They onely say That in depriving Abiathar he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Instrument or an Asier made use of by God for the fulfilling of his Prophecy The Jesuit Becanus not very well satisfied as it seems with this Answer of Bellarmin has besides another of his own He tells us That if King Solomon deposed Abiathar by his Regal Autority onely and was not inspired by God then he acted unlawfully for as he was King says he he was not a lawfull and a competent Judge Here now is a Man that speaks out This is home to our Purpose Let our Adversaries now take what Part they please If they grant that King Solomon did well then the Civil Power is a Competent Judge of a Bishop and may lawfully deprive him if he refuses to own its autority or for any other Criminal Cause for which he may by Bishops be justly deprived If with the Jesuit Becanus they say he did ill then 't is plain from the Scripture it self that the whole Nation of the Iews and God himself accepted of a High-priest who was put into the place of another invalidly deprived by the Civil Autority as a true High-priest § 4. For a great many Generations the High-priesthood continued in the Family of Zadok without the Deprivation of any We read of no one deposed by either the Regal or any other Authority till the time of Onias III. Sirnamed the Pious Of him we read in the Breviary of Iason of Cyrene viz. the 11. of Maccabees that he was deposed by King Antiochus Epiphanes by the means of a Bribe which his Brother Iesus call'd otherwise Iason had offer'd for the Honour who was thereupon placed in his room Iosephus in the 12th Book of his Antiquities says Antiochus conferr'd the High-priesthood on Iason after the death of Onias And again in his 15th Book he says that Iason himself was the first of all the High-priests he means after Solomon's time that whilst alive were depriv'd of their Dignity But in this Iosephus was mistaken as appears not onely by the express Testimony of Iason of Cyrene but likewise by that very particular account which he gives of Onias's Death several years after the Promotion and even after the Deprivation of Iason in the time of the High-priest Menelaus And Iosephus himself in another place viz. in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has affirm'd the same thing that Onias was deposed by the King and Iason for Money promoted to the High-priesthood The contrary Custom
call'd as appears from the same Author and Ionathan was one that had formerly enjoy'd that Honour That Ionathan was not there mentioned before Ananias because he was his Superiour in some other Station suppose as Prince of the Sanedrin I inferr from hence that in another Place where Iosephus speaks of the same thing there is no mention at all made of Him but onely of Ananias who was High-priest properly so call'd He sent Ananias the High-priest and Ananus the Captain bound to Rome there to answer before Caesar for what had been done Another Example of this nature we have in the Scripture it self where Zadok the inferiour is mention'd before Abiathar the superiour High-priest And David call'd for Zadok and Abiathar the High-priests Hence some have imagin'd that Zadok even at that time was superiour to Abiathar But the reason why he is first mention'd is Because by being afterwards placed in the room of Abiathar and by being the first High-priest of the Temple and by having his Posterity establish'd in the High-priesthood he was at that time when that Book was written much more famous than Abiathar § 3. To what has been said concerning our Saviour and his Apostles that they acknowleged and communicated with the High-priests of that Age as true High-priests I add that it appears moreover from S. Iohn that Caiaphas was accepted and owned by God himself And one of them named Caiaphas being the High-priest that same year said unto them Ye know nothing at all nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation perish not And this spake he not of himself but being High = priest that year he prophesied that Iesus should die for that nation c. It appears from these words both that S. Iohn own'd him to be a true High-priest and that as High = priest he receiv'd from God the Power of Prophesying § 4. I shall here for the close of all take notice of an Answer which some of our Adversaries have been pleased to make when urg'd with these Examples of the Iews our Saviour and his Apostles Upon this account say they the Nation of the Iews our Saviour and his Apostles submitted to the present Possessor tho' put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Secular Autority because the Temple being in the power of the Secular Magistrate they could not perform the more Solemn Acts of their Religion unless they accepted of that High-priest whom the Secular Magistrate had set over the Temple To this I answer That if they had look'd upon the present Possessor to be no true High-priest their being confined to the Temple of Ierusalem could not have been any inducement to 'em to submit themselves to him and to communicate with him in the Sacrifices which he offered If the Secular Magistrate would shut up their Temple they were not oblig'd to have any Sacrifices or any High-priest at all And because they have now no Temple they have therefore no Priests or Sacrifices So if they had not been permitted to offer up their Sacrifices by a High-priest duly qualified they would not have thought themselves obliged to offer any Sacrifices at all any more than they would if he that was their Governour should have kept all lawful Sacrifices from 'em and allow'd 'em only Swine And how can we imagine that if God had not look'd upon those High-priests to be true and real High-priests he would ever have accepted of the Sacrifices which they offer'd or have sent down upon 'em as High-Priests his Spirit of Prophecy If a Swine had been offer'd would God have accepted that Sacrifice because the Civil Governour would permit no other to be offer'd CHAP. IV. That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops if accounted Orthodox as were put into the places of others deposed by the Secular Power tho never so unjustly No Examples either for or against us in the three first Centuries all the Emperors being then Heathens The Example of Felix II. Bishop of Rome tho put into the place of Liberius unjustly deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Constantius and against Liberius's consent yet he 's own'd by all that accounted him Orthodox by the Roman Clergy among them by the famous Damasus who was afterwards Pope He is own'd as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the District of Rome His Ordinations are allow'd of as valid by even his Adversary Liberius He has been all along own'd by the Church as a Saint and true Pope WHAT was the Practice of the Iews our Saviour and the Apostles in relation to the High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority that they all along own'd 'em as true High-priests and that God himself approved of 'em we have shewn in the two foregoing Chapters I come now to shew in the third place That the same was the Practice of the Antient Christians throughout all Ages I mean the generality of 'em in every particular Age with respect to their Bishops provided only that they thought 'em upon no other account justly exceptionable For the three first Ages the Emperors were all Heathens and if they deposed any Bishops they did it to destroy Christianity and all Bishops in general It is not therefore to be expected that the three first Ages should afford us any Examples But as they afford us no Examples so neither can our Adversaries produce any one single Example of those Ages that makes for their Cause We can say says our Adversary the Learned Vindicator that even in the Age of St. Cyprian it is very notorious that they then own'd 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 Tradition 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 maintain'd against the consent of the Civil Magistrate It is as notorious also that this Adherence of theirs was not onely matter of Fact which is all our Adversaries pretend here but a Duty own'd by them as obliging in Conscience and as the Result of Principles Again says the Vindicator 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 S. Cyprian ' s Age their Author's Collection of later Instances were it never so pertinent to their purpose can do them no
Service Should a Person unacquainted with the Histories and Writers of those Times read what the Vindicator has here so positively asserted he could not but conclude that the three first Ages were full of Examples against us But they that are not utterly Strangers to the Practice and the Histories of those Ages know very well that all that the Vindicator lays down is unworthy of so learned a Man either utterly untrue or not in the least to his Purpose That the Christians of those Ages did not own any Power in the Secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely Spiritual Power is what we never denied That they ever disown'd the Power of the Secular Magistrate to deprive a Bishop of his particular District if he should refuse to acknowledge the Autority of that Magistrate or if upon any other Civil account he deserv'd to be depriv'd our Adversaries cannot demonstrate But it is not now our Business to inquire concerning that We are onely at present to inquire Whether ever they refus'd to submit to the present Possessor because his Predecessor was unjustly depos'd by the Secular Power That they were wont to adhere to their Bishops tho' set up and maintain'd against the Consent of the Civil Magistrate we acknowlege But what is that to our Adversaries Purpose If they still adher'd to their Bishops when the persecuting Emperors endeavour'd to root out Christianity by driving away the Bishops what is that to the Case now before us Should our Magistrates like the Persecutors of those Ages endeavour to destroy Christianity by depriving us of our Bishops and by suffering none to be substituted in their places then those Bishops would be our onely Bishops and as such we should still adhere to ' em If in those Ages the Emperours had onely deposed such Bishops as would not own their Autority or as otherwise deserved to be depriv'd and had suffer'd other Persons as worthy to be put into their Places who can doubt but that the Christians of those Ages would have done as we now do as was done in the very next Age and as the Iews had all along done I shall answer all that the Vindicator has said or ever will be able to say concerning the Practice of those Ages with this Challenge That he shew me any one single Instance of a Bishop disown'd by the Church in those three first Centuries for being put into the place of another depos'd by the Civil Autority If he cannot do that I shall onely desire him to produce the Autority of any one single Writer of those Ages that directly makes to this purpose That a Bishop so constituted ought not upon that account to be own'd Till that be done whatsoever he is pleas'd to allege I shall onely say this of him Magna dicit sed nihil probat § 2. The first Instance of an Orthodox Bishop put into the place of another Orthodox Bishop depos'd by the Civil Autority is that of Felix II. Bishop of Rome who in the Year CCCLV. was put Into the place of Liberius depos'd by the Emperour Constantius That Liberius was depos'd and banish'd by the bare Autority of the Emperour without any pretence to a Synod and that too very unjustly for no other Reason but because he was Orthodox and refus'd to comply with him in subscribing to the Condemnation of S. Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria is manifest beyond all doubt from the Testimonies of all Historians Socrates Sozomen Theodores S. Athanasius himself Ammianus Marcellinus and others Felix who was put into his place tho' he was rejected by the much greater number of the Laity of Rome because he was Ordain'd by the Arians and because he was thought to favour that Party yet by all such as were satisfied that he was really Orthodox was own'd and receiv'd without any Regard had to the Lay and unjust Deprivation of Liberius Theodoret tells us that when he was at Church there were none of the People of Rome would go into it But what does he say was the reason It was not because Liberius had been deposed onely by the Civil Autority but because he communicated with the Arians After the great Liberius says he there was Ordain'd one of his Deacons nam'd Felix who indeed had continu'd firm in the Faith of the Nicene Fathers yet with those that endeavour'd to subvert it he freely Communicated And on that account there were none of the Inhabitants of Rome would go into the Church when he was there Should we grant what Theodoret says that none of the Inhabitants of Rome would communicate with him Yet this at least we have gain'd by his Testimony that they would not have refus'd if he had not communicated with Hereticks That the reason of the Peoples refusing to submit to Pope Felix was because they thought him a Heretick is expressly asserted by Freculphus Bishop of Lisieux who flourish'd in the Year 840. Liberius says he knew that the Clergy and the People of the City declin'd the Communion of his Successor Felix as being a Heretick If Freculphus did not write this from some antienter Historian as indeed he could not read so concerning the Clergy for that is very false as will by and by appear then by that Conjecture it appears that he did not think there was any other good Reason for which they might separate from him It appears likewise by the Testimony even of S. Athanasius that the reason of the People's Aversion to Felix was Because he was put in by the Hereticks and was himself thought one But the People says he well knowing the wickedness of the Hereticks did not suffer 'em Felix and his Ordainers to enter into their Churches but separated from their Communion That S. Athanasius thought Felix a Heretick is a thing not at all to be wonder'd at For he knew nothing of him and had never heard of him but as put by the Arians into Liberius's place And therefore it was natural for him to think him as the People of Rome did one of that Party But tho' the Generality of the People were so far possess'd with Prejudice against him through the great and extraordinary Affection which they had for Liberius as not to be capable of being convinc'd but that he must needs be an Arian Yet the Clergy of the City of Rome knew him to be throughly Orthodox and accordingly receiv'd him for their Bishop Let us hear what the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus say of it The same day say they that Liberius went away into banishment all the Clergy that is the Presbyters and the Archdeacon Felix and Damasus Liberius ' s Deacon and all that bare Office in the Church with one accord in the presence of the People oblig'd themselves by an Oath not to accept of any other Bishop as long as Liberius was living But the Clergy notwithstanding their Oath accepted of Felix the Archdeacon when
does not appear from these words that they thought it was a Sin to receive a Bishop when the other had been unjustly depos'd They onely seem to reflect upon their being forsworn so they afterwards say that Liberius pardon'd their Perjury and do not take notice of any other Sin pardon'd If they meant any more it is not at all to be wonder'd at in regard that Felix was ordain'd by the Arians and 't is certain that the said Presbyters were great Admirers of Lucifer Calaritanus and did not allow of a Bishop ordain'd by the Arians I add That whatsoever their Opinion might be it deserves not at all to be regarded since what they write is directly against Pope Damasus who was one of that Party And since when they wrote they were Schismaticks and had never any regard to the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church It appears in particular of the Historian Sozomen that he never knew any thing of our Adversary's Doctrine He says that when Liberius was restor'd he and Felix were Co-bishops of Rome But Felix says he after Liberius was join'd with him liv'd but a little while and Liberius alone govern'd the Church And this indeed happen'd by God's particular Providence lest the See of Peter should be dishonour'd by being govern'd at the same time by two Bishops which is both repugnant to the Vnity and against the Laws of the Church Tho ' this be not altogether true as to matter of fact yet from what he says it is easy to discover that this was his opinion That Felix was a true Bishop and that it was lawfull to acknowlege him as such Yet no one more tender of the Church's Honour than he as appears from these same Words Tho' we have been a long while in the Company of Pope Felix and the Reader I presume begins to grow weary of it Yet before we shake hands there must one thing more be clear'd 'T is said in the Pontifical that when Liberius was depos'd 't was by his own Advice that Felix was made Bishop in his room In this the Pontifical is follow'd by several of the Moderns in particular by Antoninus Archbishop of Florence who tells us That either Liberius resign'd and so together with others chose Felix for his Successor or else he made him his Vicar-General to supply his place in his absence If any thing of this be true then all that we have hitherto said makes nothing for our purpose It therefore highly concerns us to lay open the falseness of that Story We shall do it with a great deal of ease and that from these Considerations First That the Clergy of Rome when Liberius was about to leave the City engag'd themselves to him by an Oath not to accept of any other Bishop whilst he was alive and that when they did accept of Felix they were lookt upon as perjur'd This is expressly attested by S. Ierome the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus and the Writer of the Register quoted by Onuphrius who all liv'd at that time Secondly That the same S. Ierome and likewise Ruffinus and Socrates and S. Athanasius himself expressly affirm and others plainly intimate that Felix was put into Liberius's Place by the Arians Thirdly That Liberius being agen restor'd Felix with all those of the Clergy that had submitted to him were with violence expell'd and Liberius enter'd Rome as a Conquerour So S. Ierome affirms and with him agree the Pontifical it self Theodoret Socrates Onuphrius's Register and the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus To conclude That Story of the Pontifical that Liberius consented to the making of Felix Pope is by Baronius himself rejected as not in the least to be hearken'd to The falseness of it seems to have been discover'd by Platina himself and long before him by the Author of the Book De Vitis Pontificum ascrib'd to Luitprandus who tho' in other things they follow the Pontifical and say as that does that the Sacerdotes call'd a Synod and made Felix Bishop yet they leave out those words Cum Consilio Liberii I shall onely add That if Liberius gave his Consent to the Election of Felix then Felix was the rightfull and the onely Bishop Since therefore Liberius was again receiv'd and own'd by the Catholick Church when Felix was depos'd by the Emperour 's bare Autority we should if we granted that Story to be true onely change one Instance for another not lose one And thus have we done with the famous Example of Felix and Liberius An Example which our Adversaries as I found after this was written are so unhappy as to allege for their Cause They tell us that Felix was rejected by the Catholicks of Rome So the Author of the Further Account of the Baroccian MS. and the Author of the Vnity of Priesthood c. Once more says the latter and then most or all my Instances will be review'd and made good and that relates to Liberius and Felix Liberius was banish'd and Felix his Deacon was made Bishop in his stead A man saith Sozomen always reported to be firm to the Nicene Faith and as to matters of Religion altogether blameless And yet when Liberius was re-call'd from Banishment Felix was forc'd to retire nay the People of Rome tho' requested thereunto by the Emperour would not so much according to Theodoret as suffer him to remain Co-partner with Liberius in the Bishoprick From whence it is evident let Mr. Hody say what he will to the contrary that there is something more requir'd in a new Bishop than barely to be Orthodox 'T is impossible but these Authors must have known at least something of what has been above demonstrated But they did not think that it would be for their profit to let their Readers know all To confirm our Assertion says the Author first quoted that the Antients thought it unlawfull to submit to the present Possessor when the Predecessor was deposed by the Emperour you may command a great many Instances from the Churches of France Italy Asia Egypt and the like at present I shall onely produce that of Felix and Liberius I am sorry those many Instances of France Italy Asia Egypt c. were conceal'd by our Author What sort of Instances they are we may guess by that of P. Felix which as one of his best he thinks fit to produce When he shall be pleas'd to draw out the rest of his Artillery I dare engage they will either appear to be nothing at all but Wood or may easily be turn'd against him I expect the former in regard that to prove his Assertion he produces the Example of S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers who says he was banish'd by the Emperour Constantius yet was still own'd as Bishop of that See And that he proves from those words of his in his Book which he wrote to the Emperour Licet in exilio permanens Ecclesiae adhuc per Presbyteros meos Communionem distribuens If S. Hilary
that Catalogue of the Bishops of that See which is added at the end of the last Book Briccius is call'd the Fourth and Eustochius who succeeded upon his Death is call'd the Fifth Bishop from the first Institution of the See yet throughout the whole History Iustinian and Armentius are reckoned in the number For Perpetuus who succeeded Eustochius is call'd the Fifth Bishop after S. Martin Virus who was the 2d from Eustochius is call'd the 7th Bishop after S. Martin To him succeeded Licinius and him he calls the 8th Bishop after S. Martin Now unless Iustinian and Armentius are included in the Number Perpetuus will be only the 3d. Bishop after S. Martin Virus only the 5th and Licinius only the 6th Thirdly I observe that S. Briccius though he was so unjustly deposed by barely the Violence of the People and though he never had given up his right but had all along endeavour'd to recover it yet he himself own'd Armentius to be a true Bishop of Tours and calls him his Brother The Historian tells us that when he was sent back to Tours by the Pope to be restor'd as he lay at some distance from the City Armentius died and the death of Armentius being reveal'd to him by a Vision he thus cried out to his Company Arise quickly that we may go to the Funeral of our Brother the Bishop of Tours § 3. In the year 452. Iuvenalis being Patriarch of Ierusalem Theodosius a certain turbulent Monk and an Adversary of the Council of Chalcedon had by the slaughter of a great many Persons got himself to be ordained Patriarch of that See though Iuvenalis was still alive and had never been deposed by any Synod nor yet by the Emperour himself yet the only Objection that the Venerable the Great and Orthodox Abbot S. Euthymius made against him when urged to acknowlege him as Patriarch and to communicate with him was this That he had been guilty of many Murders and was likewise a Heretick God forbid says he I should approve of his Murders and ill Opinions Concerning Iuvenalis that he had not been Synodically deprived and that therefore it was not lawful to acknowledge a Successor not a word Theodosius had ordained many Bishops in the room of those Orthodox Bishops who were not yet returned from the Council and all places that were vacant he filled up After some little time he was deposed by the Emperour and Iuvenalis being restored was commanded by the Emperour to depose all those Bishops whom he had ordained But though he had usurpt the See after so barbarous a manner and though they that had been ordained by him were as uncanonically ordained as possibly they could be yet they who were Orthodox were still accounted true Bishops and if their Predecessors were dead were still continued in their Sees This appears from the Example of Theodotus Bishop of Ioppa who though he was ordained by him yet continued long after that time Bishop of that See and was owned as such by the Orthodox § 4. Timotheus Aelurus a notorious Eutychian Heretick who as such had been formerly condemn'd by a Synod of all the Bishops of Aegypt was in the year 457. the 1st of the Emperour Leo made Bishop of Alexandria by the People of that City Proterius the Orthodox Bishop being then living and in full possession of the See and ordained by only two Bishops and those besides Hereticks and as such judicially condemned Being made Bishop after this irregular manner his Predecessor Proterius was in a little time after murder'd as 't was thought by his procurement After some time he was deposed and banish'd by the Authority of the Emperour and the Judgment of the Bishops of the Catholick Church and an Orthodox Person Timotheus Salofaciolus was constituted his Successor After 18 years Salofaciolus was deposed by the sole Authority of the Heretical Usurper Basiliscus and Aelurus being recall'd from Banishment was again made Bishop of Alexandria Whilst he was at Constantinople with the Emperor Basiliscus Acatius the stout and Orthodox Patriarch of that City would not suffer him to enter into any of his Churches And why not Not because he was substituted in the room of one unjustly deposed by the bare Authority of Basiliscus but because he was a Heretick and a Murderer So Pope Simplicius in one of his Epistles to Acacius Thy constancy says he is praise worthy both in the sight of God and in ours in that thou wouldst not suffer that condemn'd Person to enter into any of the Churches of Constantinople not only because he was a Heretick but likewise because he was a Parricide § 5. In the year 482. Iohannes Talaias or Tabennesiotes an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria was deposed by the Emperour Zeno and Petrus Mongus one who had been formerly deposed from that See for being an Eutychian but had now subscribed to the Orthodox Faith and had been absolv'd by Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople was made Bishop in his stead The reason why Talaias was deposed was this There having been great Seditions rais'd at Alexandria in the elections of the Patriarchs the Emperour had been forc'd to deprive that Church and People of their ancient Right of Election and to take upon him to constitute their Patriarch himself The Patriarch Timotheus Salofaciolus being again restored to that See sends Talaias his Oeconomus or the Treasurer of the Church to Constantinople to the Emperour to thank him for his restoring him and withal to beg of him that after his Salofaciolus's Death the Church of Alexandria might have a free Election This the Emperour grants but suspecting that Talaias might have took upon him to negotiate this Affair that so he himself might obtain the dignity he made him take an Oath that he himself would never endeavour to obtain it Talaias returning home with the Emperour's Grant was after the Death of Salofaciolus chosen Patriarch by the Orthodox party and the Emperour disliking the Election deposed him as guilty of Perjury That Talaias was really guilty he himself would never acknowlege alleging that it was only because he was Orthodox that he was deposed But guilty or not guilty deposed he was and that too by barely the Emperour's Authority as appears from Evagrius Liberatus Diaconus and the Epistles of Pope Gelasius that he had been canonically chosen and ordain'd and to all intents and purposes fully confirm'd by the Catholick Bishops of the district of Alexandria is apparent from an Epistle of Pope Simplicius to Acacius as likewise from Liberatus Diaconus who tell us besides That he had sent about his Synodical Epistles and that after he was ejected he never surrendred up his Right but still laid claim to the See of Alexandria is what I need not endeavour to prove His fleeing to Rome to the Pope that so he might be restored by his means is notorious
Cyrillus Scythopolitanus who tells us That near three years after he was banish'd a little before he fell sick and died S. Sabas and Euthalius the Governor of those Monasteries which he had built at Iericho when he was Archbishop and another Abbot went to Aila where he lay confin'd in banishment to give him a visit Though S. Sabas and the rest had immediately acknowleged his Successor as soon as he was deposed though they still adher'd to that Successor as the true Archbishop of Ierusalem and though Euthalius had been in a particular manner obliged to Elias by being constituted by him the Governor of his own Monasteries yet the good old man takes no notice at all of it but as Cyrillus says receiv'd them with joy kept them several days with him and communicated daily with them CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him IN the year 538 Silverius Pope of Rome was deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Iustinian's General then in Italy being accused of a design to betray the City of Rome to the Goths and Vigilius was made Pope in his stead There being a suspicion says Procopius Caesariensis that Silverius the Bishop of the City intended to deliver up the City to the Goths Belisarius sent him away immediately into Greece and a little after made another Bishop in his stead by name Vigilius To the same purpose the Continuator of Marcellinus Comes ' s Chronicle and Paulus Diaconus least any one should suspect that though he is said to be deposed by Belisarius yet it was not barely by his Autority but by a Synod of Bishops I shall here present the Reader with that particular Account of the whole Proceeding which we find in Liberatus Diaconus who flourish'd at that time He tells us That Pope Agapetus being dead and Silverius being chosen by the City of Rome in his stead the Empress perswaded Vigilius Agapetus's Deacon who was at that time at Constantinople to enter into a secret Engagement That if he should be made Pope he would condemn the Council of Chalcedon and communicate with the Hereticks Theodosius Anthimus and Severus and confirm their belief by an Epistle He having engaged himself to do so she writes a Letter by him to Belisarius requiring him to depose Silverius and to make Vigilius Bishop in his room Belisarius to fulfill the Empress's Will and for the lucre of a summ of Money which Vigilius had offer'd him gets Silverius to be accused as having written to the Goths and engaged to deliver up the City into their hands And 't is reported saies Liberatus that one Marcus and one Iulianus forged Letters in his name to that purpose Now Belisarius and his Wife had privately perswaded Silverius to do the same thing which the Empress had engaged Vigilius to do but he refused and betakes himself to a Church Belisarius sends a messenger to him to invite him again to the Palace he accordingly goes relying upon an Oath which was made him that he should have leave to return He returns again to the Church and again is commanded by Belisarius to come to the Palace but he would not go out of the Church well knowing that some evil was design'd him At last he yielded to go and commending himself and his cause to God by Prayer he went thither He enter'd in alone and was afterwards never seen by those that attended him Another day Belisarius call'd together the Presbyters and the Deacons and all the rest of the Clergy and commanded them to choose another Pope Which when they scrupled to do and some laugh'd at the command Vigilius was by his order ordain'd Pope Now Silverius being banish'd to Patara a City of Lycia the Bishop of that City addressed himself to the Emperor and reason'd with him concerning the Expulsion of Silverius telling him that there were many Kings in the World but but one Pope the Head of the Church of the whole World This the Popes at that time had pretended to be and their Flatterers humour'd them in it By this the Emperor was induced to recall Silverius and gave order that those Letters which were produced against him should be enquired into That if it could be proved that he wrote them he should be banish'd to any City they should think fit but if they appear'd to be false he should be restored to his See This news being carried to the Empress she endeavoured to prevent Silverius's return to Rome but she could not prevail and Silverius was brought back to Italy by the Emperor's command Now Vigilius being terrified at his coming least he should lose his See required Belisarius to deliver him up into his hands telling him that if he did not do so he should not be able to pay him that fumm of Money which he had promis'd him Sâ— Belisarius gave him up into the hands of Vigilius's Servants who carried him into the Isle Palmaria where in their custody he died of want This is the account which Liberatus has given us and the same account as to the main we have in the Pontifical It appears from hence That Silverius was not onely deposed without any Synod but likewise by an inferior Person not by the order of the Sovereign Power that besides that he was deposed very unjustly and tyrannically without any formal Tryal and lastly that Vigilius was made Pope without any Election expresly against the consent of the Clergy of Rome by the bare Arbitrary Power of Belisarius Though such were the Circumstances of Silverius's deprivation though after his deprivation he never gave up his right and though Vigilius was besides that so uncanonically constituted yet because he appear'd to be Orthodox he was own'd and acknowleged by all by the People of Rome even though they very much hated him for his Cruelty to his Predecessor and for other ill Actions and by all the Catholick Church particularly by the 5 th General Council He govern'd as long as he liv'd near 18 years and to this day is reckon'd by all as one of the true Popes of Rome I need not produce the Autorities of any of the Antients to prove that he was generally acknowleged it being a truth so notorious But there are four things which I must not omit taking notice of 1. That there is extant in Isidorus Mercator an Epistle of Silverius supposed to be then in banishment
look upon him to be otherwise unexceptionable but separated from him for several Reasons From whence it appears that the Case is quite different from ours and no Example for our Adversaries In the Year but now mention'd Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople Son to a former Emperor Michael Rangabe was deposed by the Emperor Michael Sirnam'd the Drunkard because he refused to take the Emperors Sisters and his Mother and make 'em Nuns by force as the Emperor had commanded him This was the immediate Reason but he that excited the Emperor against him was Bardas the Emperor's Uncle whom the Patriarch had a little before Ex-communicated for living incestuously with his own Son's Wife Ignatius being thus deposed November 23. the famous Photius chief Secretary of State was on Christmas-Day ordain'd Patriarch in his stead Two Months or to speak exactly forty days after that Ignatius began to be persecuted and was Deposed and Anathematiz'd by his Successor Photius whilst absent at the Island Terebinthus to which he had been banish'd He was suspected to have conspired against the Emperor and on that account suffer'd very hard things but nothing could be made out against him From Terebinthus he was removed to Hieria from thence to Numera and on the Month of August after his Ejectment to the Isle Mitylene still suffering great Afflictions and Indignities Between this time and November following he was again Deposed and Anathematiz'd while absent by a Provincial Synod which Photius had call'd After this the Emperor and the Patriarch Photius send to Rome to Pope Nicholas to desire him to send some Legates to Constantinople to consult against the Iconoclasts intending by the concurrence of those Legates when they should be sent to ratifie what had been done against Ignatius The Pope receives his Letters and refuses to own him as the true Patriarch of Constantinople till by his Legates he had had a hearing of the whole Cause He sends his Legates Radoaldus and Zacharias both Bishops to Constantinople and there in the beginning of the Year 861. by a general Council of no less than 318 Bishops just the number of the Council of Nice Ignatius is again Condemn'd Deposed and Anathematiz'd The Crime alleged against him was That he had been made Patriarch by the Emperor 's bare Autority without the Suffrages of the Clergy and this was attested upon Oath by 72 Witnesses of whom there were some of the Order of Senators He appeals from the Council to the Pope and about Six months after he sends away privately one of his Friends by name Theognostus to the Pope to give him an Account of what had been done and to beg his assistance who resided at Rome as his Legate or Agent all the time of his Deprivation The Pope before this had had an Account of the whole Matter his Legates return from Constantinople with a Copy of the Acts of the Council he refuses to ratifie what they had done alleging that he had commanded that nothing should be decreed concerning Ignatius till they had given him a particular Account and receiv'd his Orders He sends away speedily to the Emperor and Photius to let 'em know that he did not give his Consent to what had been done requires that Photius should be deposed and Ignatius restored and because he was not obey'd in the Year 863. he calls a Synod at Rome by which he deposes Photius declares him a mere Lay-man and withal Excommunicated if ever he should pretend for the future to Act as Patriarch so as never to be capable of Absolution except at the point of Death The same Synod Excommunicates likewise the Emperor himself together with all the Senate if they refused to receive Ignatius and to reject Photius It likewise declares the Orders of all those whom Photius had ordain'd void In the same Synod Zacharias one of the Legates was Deposed and Excommunicated because he had concurr'd in the Deprivation of Ignatius and because the other Legate Radoaldus was not there present there was afterwards another Synod call'd at Rome on his Account in which as well as the former he refused to make his appearance but by this he was Deposed and Anathematized as his Collegue had been in the former In the Year 865. the Emperor sends his Holiness a very contemptfull and opprobrious Letter which provoked him to that Degree that the next Year after he sends an Epistle to Constantinople directed to the Bishops and Clergy of that District in which he requires that the Emperor should make him satisfaction by burning his Epistle In the same Epistle he exhorts 'em all to receive Ignatius as their Patriarch and sends 'em the Decrees of his Roman Synod In the latter end of the same Year viz. on the Ides of November 866. he sends about many Epistles to Photius himself to the Caesar Bardas to the Empresses Theodora and Eudoxia and to the Senate of Constantinople and he likewise sends to the Emperor exhorting him to send Ignatius and Photius both to Rome that he might sit Judge of their Cause But so far are all these efforts from prevailing that as Photius had been deposed by him so he pays him in his own Measures and the Emperor by his perswasions calls a General Council at Constantinople which Condemns Deposes and Anathematizes the Pope for certain Crimes charged upon him This Council sate about Midsummer 867. 'T was this I suppose that broke Pope Nicholas's heart for he died presently after On September 24. the same Year the Emperor Michael was kill'd by Basilius Macedo who the next day after deposed the Patriarch Photius and on the 23. of Novem. following restored Ignatius to his See after a Deprivation of Nine years Having done thus he summoned a General Council and sends away to Rome to Pope Nicholas to give him an Account of what he had done That Pope being dead his Successor Hadrian II. receives the Emperor's Letter he calls a Synod at Rome confirms the Decrees of Pope Nicholas's Synod against Photius and condemns the Acts of the late Constantinopolitan Council by which his Predecessor was deposed to be burnt by the common Hangman and sends his Legates to Constantinople by whom he requires that not a Copy of that Council should be preserv'd not an Iota under pain of Excommunication but all be burnt in the Presence of the General Council Two years before the Arrival of his Legates at Constantinople the Bishops were there gathered together at last they came and the Council began to sit Octob. 5. 869. It breaks up on the last of Febr. following and issues out this Decree against Photius That he never was nor is now a Bishop that all his Ordinations are absolutely Null and that those Churches which he or they whom he had ordain'd had consecrated should be consecrated again In fine they heap upon him a thousand Anathema's This is the Council which
himself that Socrates was particularly diligent in his Chronology 3. It is not onely Socrates and those that follow him that are Witnesses of what we assert I shall not urge the Autority of Photius nor that of the Life of S. Athanasius of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Nicephorus Callisti who as well as Sozomen seem to have borrow'd from Socrates But others there are who did not follow him 1. 'T is expressly asserted in the Menology of the Greek Church that our Eustathius was a hundred Years old when he died 2. 'T is likewise expressly asserted by Theodorus Lector who is follow'd by Theophanes that he died a hundred Years before his Body was translated from Philippi to Antioch by the Patriarch Calendion which was in the Year 482 or 483 Therefore according to Theodorus he died about the Year 382. To which time he might very well live since he was a hundred Years old when he died But to what purpose do I cite these Autorities when S. Chrysostom himself is my Witness Let us hear what he says of Eustathius in his Encomium He there plainly tells us not only that he was living when Meletius was ordain'd his Successor which I wonder that neither Baronius nor Valesius observ'd but likewise that he left off to concern himself as a Bishop of Antioch as soon as the Orthodox Meletius was ordain'd in his place God says S. Chrysostom permitted the Blessed Eustathius to be lead away into Banishment that he might make the strength of Truth and the weakness of Hereticks more manifest When he was to be carried away tho' he was to leave the City yet he would not cease to love you and he did not therefore look upon himself to be deprived of his Episcopal Office because he was thrust out of his Church But so much the more he apply'd himself to take care of you and calling you all together he exhorted you not to yield to the Wolfs or betray the Flock to ' em When they invaded the Sheep he did not leave 'em tho' he was not possessed of the Episcopal Chair But that his generous and Philosophical Soul did not value the Honours of a Governor he left to others but he bore the burden of a Governor being conversant among Wolfs In doing thus he formed all to the true Faith Neither did he desist till by the Providence of God the blessed Meletius came hither and received the whole Mass the one sow'd and the other reapt 3. I observe that tho' as S. Chrysostom witnesses Eustathius continued to Act as Bishop of Antioch yet as soon as Meletius an Orthodox Person was proposed to be Elected Bishop of that See the Orthodox Party very readily concurr'd and accepted of him tho' it does not appear that they knew that Eustathius would give his Consent How chearfully the Orthodox accepted of Meletius we may read in Theodoret. There were some of the Eustathius that stood out against him and refused to own him But their reason was because he had been ordain'd by Arians which that party accounted a just Cause of Separation and besides was by many accounted an Arian himself We are told by the Vindicator that the onely Reason why his Adversaries excepted against him was his being ordain'd by Arians But that is a very great Mistake That by some he was accounted an Arian even whilst he was Bishop of Antioch S. Basil complains S. Ierom himself expresly calls him a Heretick or Arian and so does the Author of the Chronicon Paschale § 2. After some time Meletius was by the Emperor Constantius banished and recalled together with the other Orthodox Bishops that had been banished by the Emperor Iulian. Before he return'd to Antioch Lucifer Calaritanus a great Zealot one that did not allow of any one whom the Arians had ordain'd had been there and had ordain'd a Presbyter of the Eustathians by Name Paulinus Bishop of Antioch This the greatest part of the Orthodox did not allow of but refused to receive him as their Bishop and when their Bishop Meletius returned adhered to him We are told by some of our Adversaries that this Example makes directly against us For say they Paulinus was possessed of the See of Antioch and was likewise Orthodox yet Meletius's Party did not receive him but waited for his Return and adhered to him But 't is strange that this should be urged against that Doctrine which we maintain I shall not mention that Paulinus was esteemed by some not Orthodox but a Sabellian neither shall I mention that his not allowing the Ordinations of the Meletian Clergy as being derived from the Arians was enough to make that Party oppose him I only observe that the Circumstances of his Promotion were extreamly different from those supposed in our Question 1. Lucifer Calaritanus had nothing at all to do with the See of Antioch What Autority had he to constitute a Bishop of Antioch Had Meletius been dead the Church of Antioch would not have been obliged to submit to Paulinus whom he made Bishop If an Outlandish Bishop that had nothing at all to do here should pretend to constitute an Archbishop of Canterbury in the room of a banished Archbishop who can imagine that by the Principles which we advance we should be obliged to receive him 2. Meletius was not at that time in Banishment not made uncapable of serving as a Bishop of Antioch He was so far from being made uncapable by any Sovereign Power that by the Emperor's Autority he had leave given him to return to his See and was as it were upon the Road. § 3. It 's alleged by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise That Maximus an Orthodox Bishop of Ierusalem was deposed by Acacius the Heretical Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine because he took part with S. Athanasius and established the Doctrine of the Homoousion That he being so deposed Cyrillus an Arian was constituted Bishop in his room but was afterwards own'd by the Church because he came over to the Orthodox Faith and is honoured by the Church as a Saint To this our Adversaries answer that Theodoret and S. Ierom attest that Maximus was not deposed but dead before Cyril was made Bishop of Ierusalem To which they might have added the Autority of the General Council of Constantinople in which it is declared that Cyril was made Bishop Canonically ordained by the Bishops of the Province On the other side it may be alleged that the Historian Socrates expresly affirms that Maximus was expelled and Cyril substituted in his room by the Arians Acacius and Patrophilus and that in this Socrates is followed by many by the Author of the Synodicon and by the Authors of the two Lives of S. Athanasius It is likewise attested by Theophanes that Maximus was deposed To which I shall add the Testimony of Photius out of a MS. Treatise which is directly
the Heretical Vsurper Basiliscus but because he was a Heretick and a Parricide § 4. Jo. Talaias the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria being deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperour Zeno though he still laid claim to the See yet Petrus Mongus his Successor is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox by Acacius and Fravitas Patriarchs of Constantinople by Martyrius Patriarch of Jerusalem by almost all the Bishops of the Eastern Church That they who refused to communicate with Mongus viz. the Western Bishops the Bishops of Dardania c. did it only because they thought him a Heretick That Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople communicated with him till he found him to be a Heretick then forsook his Communion Pope Simplicius when he heard that Talaias was to be deposed was well enough satisfied till he understood that Mongus whom he accounted a Heretick was design'd for his Successor Whether Orthodox Bishops unjustly ejected by the Emperor be restor'd or new Orthodox Bishops be created he values not he only desires that they that are made Bishops should be Orthodox Pope Felix III. not at all concern'd for Talaias's being deprived without a Synod only dislikes that one whom he accounted a Heretick was constituted in his place § 5. Calendion Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Zeno without any Synod the Orthodox Bishops viz. Pope Felix III. Quintianus Asculanus Justinus Siculus Acacius Constantinopolitanus Antheon Arsinoites Faustus Apolloniates Pamphilus Abydensis Asclepiades of Trallium c. refuse to communicate with his Successor Petrus Gnapheus only because he was a Heretick take no notice of his being constituted in the room of one Unsynodically deposed and are ready to communicate with him as a true Patriarch of Antioch if he will but forsake his Heresy Page 57. CHAP. VI. Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox though at the same time they profess'd that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust and could never be induced by any Terrors to subscribe to it viz. by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium the Orthodox People of Constantinople by the great Abbots of Palaestine S. Sabas and S. Theodosius and by all Palaestine in general at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostacy of the Patriarchs Flavianus and Elias confuted Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretick when they communicated with him They are Honoured by the Church as Saints Page 70. CHAP. VII Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Anastasius his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretick Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People though at the same time they hated him by the whole Church of Palaestine particularly the two great Abbots S. Sabas and S. Theodosius so famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Greek Church by all the whole Church ever since those Tunes The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript The old Patriarch Elias though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith continues however to communicate with those who acknowleged his Successor Page 81. CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him Page 90. CHAP. IX Macarius Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by the Emperour Justinian his Successor Eustochius is own'd as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholick Church After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperour and Macarius being restored is received by the Church According to our Adversaries Principles either Eustochius or Macarius after his Restauration was no true Patriarch yet the Church receiv'd both Page 97. CHAP. X. Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresie John sirnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room After John was consecrated Patriarch Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay Lords as Bishops not only of Ecclesiasticks as the Vindicator contends He actually lays claim to the See despises the Sentence of his Iudges as null and invalid because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him and Excommunicates them Notwithstanding all this his Successor because he prov'd Orthodox was receiv'd and own'd by all the Church as a true Patriarch He continu'd in the See near 13 years near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is own'd by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly belov'd John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him For what reason Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch reprov'd the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordain'd by him Anastasius did not refuse to communicate with him He is Honour'd by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint Tho' Eutychius lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and tho' he never resign'd but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch yet he liv'd quietly and never endeavour'd to make a Division in the Church Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretick confuted The Authority of the Life of Eutychius often quoted in this Chapter vindicated against the same Author Page 101. CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius though deposed by the Lay-power and though he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church Page 121. CHAP. XII S. Martin Pope of Rome being deposed without any Synod
Constantinople deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Isaacius Angelus yet no Division in the Church on their account § 3 4. The Patriarchs of the present Greek Church very frequently deprived by the Turk yet no Division in the Church As great Reason to submit to the present Possessor here as in the Greek Church The Necessity the same Page 170. CHAP. XVI The Sentence of an Uncanonical Synod esteemed by the Aâ—tients invalid S. Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople unjustly and invalidly deposed by a Synod He declares however at first against all Separation from the Church on his Account He afterwards yields to Resentment and refuses to Communicate with his Successors Arsacius and Atticus because they had been his Enemies and had a hand in his Deprivation The Joannites acted by their Passions not by Principles They separate from the Church not because there was another made Patriarch in S. Chrysostom's place but before that was done Arsacius being made Patriarch they refuse to Communicate with him not because he was put into S. Chrysostom's place but through Hatred against St. Chrysostom's Deposers because they frequented his Churches Pope Innocent of Rome not consistent with himself His Practice contradicts his Words He did not think Arsacius and Atticus no Bishops His Zeal for the Honour of his own See the chief Cause of his Opposing ' em He at last receives Atticus as a true Patriarch The Vindicator's Exception against the Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Baroccian Treatise confuted The Eastern Bishops refuse to separate from the Communion of the Church tho' S. Chrysostom laid Claim to his See and actually separated and tho' they esteemed his Deprivation invalid So did the Monks of Egypt The Testimony of S. Nicon out of a M.S. S. Nicon himself tho' he esteemed his Deprivation extremely unjust yet approves of those that did not separate on his Account S. Chrysostom takes it for granted as a thing of Course that all would immediately resolve to choose a new Patriarch in his room The Patriarch Atticus highly esteemed by the whole African Church The Ecclesiastical Historian Socrates disapproves of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation yet speaks of Arsacius and Atticus as of true Patriarchs Theodoret extremely offended at the Injustice of his Deposers yet reckons both Arsacius and Atticus among the Patriarchs of Constantinople They are both owned in all the Catalogues of the Patriarchs Their Ordinations never questioned by any Atticus praised by P. Celestine I. and owned to be a true Successor of S. Chrysostom Page 176. CHAP. XVII Deprivations by Heretical Synods invalid S. Eustathius Patriarch of Antioch deposed by an Heretical Synod he himself accounts his Deprivation invalid The Orthodox separate from the Communion of his Successors not because he was invalidly deprived but because they accounted them Hereticks Eustathius acts as Bishop of Antioch tho' in banishment as long as his Successors were Hereticks but as soon as Meletius an Orthodox Person was ordain'd his Successor he desisted and concern'd himself no more as Bishop of Antioch That he lived till Meletius was made Patriarch demonstrated against Baronius Valesius c. Why some of the Orthodox refused to submit to Meletius The Vindicator's Asseâ—rtion That none accounted Meletius on Arian whilst he was Bishop confuted The Schism between the Meletians and the Paulinists no Example against us § 1 2. The Instance of Maximus and Cyril of Jerusalem examin'd § 3. Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople deposed by an Heretical Synod yet Macedonius an Orthodox and a good Man accepts of his See tho' he own'd him to be the rightfull Patriarch Macedonius is receiv'd by the Catholicks tho' they loved Euphemius and accounted him unjustly deprived He is own'd by S. Elias Bishop of Jerusalem tho' Elias at the same time declared Euphemius's Deprivation unjust and refused to subscribe to it § 4. The Schisms of the Novatians Donatists and Meletians of Egypt no Examples against us § 5. Two Fragments of Photius out of a M S. § 1 3. Page 186. CHAP. XVIII The Conclusion Bishops deposed by the Civil Autority obliged even in common Charity to acquiesce But whether they acquiesce or not the Church is to submit to the present Possessor Page 196. The CASE of SEES Vacant by an Unjust or Uncanonical Deprivation Stated c. CHAP. I. The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power demonstrated Objections answer'd No obligation to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience The Authority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleg'd by our Adversaries The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose THE Doctrine maintain'd by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise is this That supposing a Bishop depriv'd without any Synod by the Civil Power is unjustly depriv'd yet neither He himself nor the People ought to separate from the Communion of his Successor provided that Successor is not a Heretick In answer to that Treatise it is alleg'd by some of our Adversaries That not onely Heresy but Schism likewise and Excommunication make a Person uncapable of being receiv'd as a Bishop It is manifest says one of our Answerers that the Principles advanced by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise make all Church-Censures ineffectual and expose the Church to all the Mischiefs of Erastianism For if a Prince should preferr an excommunicated Person to the See of the Bishop by whom he stands excommunicated supposing onely that he was not excommunicated for Heresy this Person tho' never so justly excommunicated must be own'd and obey'd instead of the Bishop who excommunicated him which lodges all Church-Power in the Prince and makes all Ecclesiastical Censures of no effect for the Benefit and Preservation of the Church whenever he pleases All this He very well knew was nothing at all to his Purpose and nothing against either ours or our Author's Cause But he likewise knew it would have been less to his Purpose to have told his Reader so To avoid all impertinent Cavil that we may not run off from the Scope and Design of our Writing I shall take leave to alter the last Clause of the Proposition thus Provided that Successor be in all other Respects such whose Communion no good Catholick can justly refuse § 2. Having laid down fairly our Proposition and secured it if that may be possible from all Cavil We will now proceed to demonstrate the Truth of it And this we shall do first from the Reasonableness of it and 2dly from the Autority and Practice of the Antients by which the Reasonableness of it will more certainly and evidently appear § 3. First from the Reasonableness of it And that is grounded on this certain and self-evident Maxim That whatsoever is necessary for the present Peace and Tranquillity of the Church that ought to be made use of provided it is not in it self sinfull and the ill Consequences which may possibly attend
it are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid That this was a Maxim of the Antients We shall easily find if we please but to cast our eyes back upon their Times and consider those Methods which were wont to be made use of in the Church We shall find that in all manner of Cases They always preferr'd the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church to all other Things the Essentials of Religion excepted There was no Custom or Law of the Church so sacred and inviolable but what they readily sacrificed whensoever Necessity requir'd to the Peace and Tranquillity of it If the exact Observation of the receiv'd Customs and Canons of the Church was not like to conduce to the present Peace and Tranquillity of it they were readily superseded and Necessity and Convenience became the onely Legislators To preferr a Rule of the Church to the Welfare and Prosperity of it and to stand to the Saying of a Father in Opposition to a Law of Necessity is a sort of Theological Pedantry which They were not guilty of They were wont to consider like truly Wise men the Circumstances and the Exigencies of the Times and they knew that those Customs and Canons of the Church which were proper in the Times of Peace could never indispensably oblige in Times of a different Complexion To prevent or to heal the Diseases of the Church they acted like Philosophers not like Empericks consider'd what ought to be done in this and that particular Case what was truly expedient not what had been prescrib'd when the Symptoms were not the same Tho' of all the General Councils there was none so rever'd as the Nicene and tho' among all the Canons of that Council there was none so Religiously and so Universally observ'd as that which makes it unlawfull for any one City to have two Bishops and altho' that had always been a Rule of the Catholick Church long before the time of that Council yet S. Augustine and all the other Catholick Bishops of Africa thought fit to propose that Expedient to their Adversaries the Donatists for the putting an End to their Schism And the same Expedient was proposed by Meletius Bishop of Antioch to the Anti-bishop Paulinus for the putting an End to that Schism that was between them Thus when Queen Chrodielde of France had made the Bishops Theodorus and Proculus Archbishops of Tours together the whole Gallican Church because they were both very old and so the Inconvenience of suffering it was not like to be so great as that of opposing the Queen very freely acknowedg'd ' em And tho' it is expresly forbidden by the aforesaid Council of Nice and likewise by the more antient Canons or Rules of the Church That one Bishop alone should Ordain another and three at least are positively requir'd by that Council how great soever the Necessity may be tho' it were moreover unlawfull for any one to be Ordain'd a Bishop without the Consent of the Metropolitan and a Bishop so Ordain'd is declar'd by that Council uncapable of governing as a Bishop Yet when Siderius had been ordain'd Bishop of Palebisca by the single Bishop of Cyrene a bold and resolute Man one who often transgress'd the Orders of his Superiors and that too without the knowledge of S. Athanasius the Metropolitan because of the badness of the Times it being in the Reign of the Arian Emperor Valens Athanasius allow'd of his Orders and because he was Orthodox he was so far from depriving him of his Bishoprick that he preferr'd him to a greater He yielded saith Synesius to the Necessity of the Times 'T is a Saying of the same Author himself a Bishop and a very great Man where he speaks concerning that Matter viz. in one of his Epistles to the Patriarch of Alexandria Theophilus In dangerous Times it is necessary not to observe Rules Tho' nothing was more unlawfull than to be made a Bishop Simoniacally or by the meer Force of the Lay-power and tho' as the Author of the Pontifical attests Silverius obtain'd the Popedom of Rome by both those unlawfull Means yet after he was Ordain'd the Peace of the Church requiring it he was own'd and receiv'd by all He had given a Summ of Money to the Tyrant Theodatus the King of the Goths and the Tyrant threaten'd that whosoever refus'd to consent to his Election should be punish'd with Death The Bishops however refused to subscribe and so he was made Pope without any consent of theirs But after he was Ordain'd says the Author of the Pontifical they subscrib'd for the sake of the Vnity of the Church and of Religion Tho' the Synod of C P. before whom the Patriarch Alexius was accused for his having been promoted to that Dignity by the bare autority of the Emperour without the Votes of the Clergy lookt upon his Promotion to be altogether unlawfull yet when he pleaded that he had Ordain'd many Bishops and that if they depriv'd him they must likewise deprive all those whom he had Ordain'd upon that bare Consideration because to Deprive so many was likely to occasion a great Disturbance in the Church they over-ruled the Accusation and determin'd nothing against him When Calendion was made Patriarch of Antioch by the Emperor Zeno and Ordain'd by Acacius the Patriarch of C P. tho' that was unlawfull by the Canons of the Council of Nice and directly contrary to the constant Custom of the Catholick Church yet because it was done as the Emperour and Acacius alleg'd to avoid Seditions in Antioch the Proceeding was approv'd of by Simplicius Bishop of Rome Tho' I wish says he that it had not been done yet I easily excused it because it was done through Necessity For that which is not voluntary i.e. that which is done onely for Convenience or Necessity 's sake cannot be imputed as a Fault These Examples and Autorities may serve to shew in general That there are no Laws or Customs of the Church so sacred but what our Wise Forefathers thought ought to be postpon'd to the present Welfare and Prosperity of it That the same was their Opinion in reference to our particular Case We shall hereafter shew in its due Place § 4. Our Proposition being thus establish'd on that sure Maxim acknowledg'd as has been shewn by the Antients That whatsoever is necessary for the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church that ought to be made use of provided that it is not in it self Sinfull and that the ill Consequences which may possibly attend it are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid There are two Things which I am oblig'd to make out First That the Submitting to a Bishop put into the place of another unjustly Depos'd by the Civil Autority is not in itself
Sinfull And 2dly That the ill Consequences to which it is liable are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid § 5. First It is not in it self Sinfull For if it is so it must be so for one or more of these following Reasons Either first because it is forbidden by some express Law of God Or 2dly because it makes us Accomplices in the Injustice Or 3dly because of the Oath of Canonical Obedience which the inferior Clergy have taken to their Bishop and the inferior Bishops to their Archbishop Or lastly because as one of our Adversaries the learned Vindicator contends such a Bishop as is placed in the room of one Deposed by the Civil Autority is in reality no Bishop These Objections I shall consider distinctly § 6. First It is not against any Law of God For as to our Case the Scripture is altogether silent 'T is true it Commands us to be obedient to our Governors and that Command reaches as well to the Spiritual as to the Temporal But when there are two that stand Competitors and both claim our Obedience to which of those two our Obedience ought to be paid it leaves to our Wisdom to determine § 7. Neither 2dly does it make us Accomplices in the Injustice For if a Landlord be unjustly and invalidly dispossess'd of his Estate by an Incompetent Autority Who thinks the Tenant an Accomplice in the Injustice because he pays his Rent to the present Possessor Should the Clergy refuse to submit to the Bishops in possession it could onely serve to draw down Ruin upon themselves It cannot restore those whom the State has deposed It is not our Submitting to the present Possessors that ejects the former for they are already irretrievably Depos'd since the Supreme Power is peremptory against ' em That has publickly declar'd that whoever are our Bishops the old ones shall govern us no longer If we think the Proceeding unjust 't is enough that we remonstrate against it and express our dissatisfaction If that will not doe the Good of the Publick obliges us to be quiet § 8. Neither Thirdly is it sinfull on the account of the Oath of Canonical Obedience For that is taken not absolutely and unconditionally but with this Supposition That the Bishop to whom we take it has power to govern us If I take an Oath to be faithfull or obedient to a Governour whether Civil or Ecclesiastical I engage my self to him as a Governour that is as one that can govern If therefore he can no longer govern whatsoever the Impediment is my Obedience is no longer engag'd As it is in the State so it is in the Church The Oath that is taken to a Bishop as he is the Governour of a Church is not taken for the sake of the Bishop but for the Peace and good Order of the Church 'T is this was the Design of the Church when she order'd such an Oath to be taken When therefore the Oath tends no longer to the Good of the Church but notoriously to Schism Disorder and Confusion it cannot any longer oblige but is void of it self by virtue of the Church's Intent and Design in the first Institution of it It is further to be consider'd that particularly here in the Church of England the Oath of Canonical Obedience is always taken with this Supposition That the Civil Power as well as the Ecclesiastical do allow the Bishop to govern But let us suppose even that which in reason we ought not to suppose Let us suppose that the Bishop intended that the Oath should always oblige Whatsoever was the Intent of the Bishop That was not the Intent of the Church And it is the Intent of the Church not the private Intent of the Bishop that gives an Obligation to the Oath I add That should it be both the Intent of the Bishop and likewise the Intent of the Person who takes the Oath that it should always oblige should it run in these express words I will always adhere to you if Depos'd by the Civil Autority in opposition to him whosoever he be that shall be put into your place Should any one I say take such an Oath as that yet he cannot be oblig'd by it The Oath is in it self unlawfull 't is a Sin against the Publick repugnant to the Will and the Welfare of the Church It would be in effect to swear thus I will for your sake oppose the Welfare of the Publick and break the Vnion of the Church I will leave the Communion of the Church and adhere to you tho' I have not any Reason to do so besides this bare Oath To conclude Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's interest so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils is so far from being obliging that it would be a Sin to act according to it It is granted by our Adversaries that the Obligation of an Oath of Canonical Obedience ceases if a Bishop is depriv'd tho' never so unjustly by a Synod Now what is the Reason of that 'T is because to adhere to a Bishop when a Synod has fully deposed him and placed another in his See must occasion a Division in the Church and disturb the Publick If that is the Reason as no one can assign any other at least there can be none but what is grounded on that then the Reason is the same in both Cases and consequently in both Cases the Oath will be equally void 'T is in vain to allege That in the Case of a Synod we cease to be obliged by our Oath because every Bishop is suppos'd to have obliged himself to submit to the Determination of a Synod whether just or unjust and therefore when a Synod has Deposed him tho' by an unjust sentence his Place is truly void by virtue of his supposed Consent For suppose a Bishop should have always declar'd that he never would give his Consent that a Synod should have Power to Depose him by an unjust Sentence ought we not however to submit to the new Constituted Bishop Our Adversaries will tell us that we ought But why 'T is because the Necessity of Government and the Peace of the Church requires it Well then it is certain that it is not the Bishop's Consent but Necessity and the Good of the Publick that makes our Oath void Tho' in some Respects there is a great deal of Difference between what is done by a competent or a lawfull Autority and what is done by an incompetent or an unlawfull Autority yet as to our Acquiescence in a Case of Necessity such as is here supposed I can see no Difference at all The Obligation to acquiesce is the same in both Cases when in both Cases the Necessity is the same If a Lord be dispossess'd of his Mannor by an Incompetent Autority that cannot be resisted a Conqueror suppose or an unlawfull Court Who thinks the Tenant forsworn
for submitting to the new Possessor Who makes any difference there between a Competent and an Incompetent Autority And why is the Tenant in such a Case not forsworn If he cannot or ought not to oppose the Intruder yet ought he not at least to give up his Estate rather than submit and do Homage to the wrong Lord 'T will be granted I presume by our Adversaries that he is neither obliged to oppose the Intruder nor yet to give up his Estate But why does the Oath which he took to the rightfull Lord cease to oblige him 'T is because when he took the Oath he took it onely on this Supposition That the Lord was Possess'd of the Mannor The Peace and Tranquillity of the Publick and the Good of Tenants in general give that Restriction to the Oath If the Bishop of a Frontier Town will not own the Autority of a Conqueror and is therefore Deposed by that Conqueror I desire to know of our Adversaries whether the Clergy of that Town are perjur'd if they own that Bishop whom the Conqueror thinks fit to set over ' em If a Bishop should by the Civil Power be condemn'd to perpetual and close Imprisonment or be banish'd forever from his Country so as that it is impossible for him to perform the Duties of a Bishop or should he be carried away Captive we know not where or from whence we cannot redeem him What then Are we still obliged by our Oath because he was Deposed by no Synod When in the Beginning of the 3d. Century Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem had secretly withdrawn himself and no Body knew what was become of him left the Church should be without the Assistance of a Bishop there was presently a new one Ordain'd How their Bishop was lost they knew not 'T was enough that he was gone and did not any longer Officiate The Church says S. Chrysostom cannot be without a Bishop That he said to his People when he himself was to be carried away into Banishment and on that account he advises 'em to accept of another for their Bishop I easily foresee what will be the Reply of our Adversaries They will tell us That in such Cases we ought to presume that the Bishop gives his Consent that his Successor should be acknowledged That therefore the Oath does no longer oblige because there is a rational Presumption that the banish'd the imprison'd or the captive Bishop and He of the Frontier Town do remit the Obligation of it To this I answer 1. It is indeed to be presum'd that a good Bishop one that can say with S. Gregory then Bishop of C P. I seek not yours but you will readily forego his own Interest for the Welfare and Prosperity of his Flock And since our ejected Bishops who are I am fully perswaded very worthy and good Men and real Lovers of their People have never by any publick signification of their Will laid claim to the Obedience of their People and do not now exercise their Episcopal Power as before in reason we ought to presume that they give their Consent that their Successors should be acknowledged But 2dly let it be supposed that the outed Governor does expresly assure his Inferiors that he does not give his Consent but still lays Claim to their Obedience Suppose the conquer'd the banish'd the imprison'd or the captive Bishop should charge his People expresly upon their Oath never to accept of any other Bishop as long as by the common Course of Nature he himself may be supposed to be living or till they be assur'd he is dead Let this I say be supposed and easy it is to be supposed What must be done in such Cases Is the Church perjur'd if she accepts of another Will our Adversaries say that she is A hard Saying Who can bear it This Presumption of the ejected Governor's Consent is I know what is commonly alleg'd by some very learned and otherwise judicious Men as the true and the onely foundation of Acquiescence when the lawfull Governor is unjustly Depos'd by a Power incompetent But that that is not the true and the onely foundation these Difficulties which I have alleg'd do me-thinks abundantly demonstrate Other Men I must leave to their own ways of Thinking For my part I cannot imagine that the Welfare and Prosperity of Mankind does depend upon so ticklish and uncertain a Point as that of an ejected Governor's Consent That if he refuses to give his Consent all the Church or the Nation must be made a Sacrifice to him It is easy to discover upon how false a Principle that Notion is built It is grounded on this That the Oath that is taken to the Governor is taken onely for his sake when if the true End and Design of Government were duely and impartially consider'd it would be found as above I observ'd that the Oath that is taken to the Governor is taken not onely for his Good but chiefly for the Good of the Publick and that any Oath taken to a Governor that is notoriously and in a high degree repugnant to the Good and Prosperity of the Publick so as to be necessarily productive of intolerable Evils is in its own Nature void because by the Publick it was never design'd that in such a Case it should oblige By the Author of a Treatise entitled Vnity of Priesthood necessary to the Vnity of Communion there are two Examples produced to shew how observant the Antients were of their Oath of Canonical Obedience which the Author calls eminent Instances and proposes 'em to the Consideration of the Bishops of our Church and wishes they would seriously apply ' em The first is that of Ivo Bishop of Chartres in France who flourish'd about 600 years ago He being one of the Suffragans of the Archbishop of Sens was desired by the Bishop of Lyons who was likewise the Pope's Legate to assist him at the Consecration of the Bishop of Nivers but the Bishop of Nivers being a Suffragan to the said Archbishop of Sens and that Archbishop having never given his Consent that the Bishop of Lyons should Ordain a Bishop of his District Ivo refuses to assist at the Consecration And this is the reason he gives for it Because if he should engage in such an undertaking he should be unfaithfull to his own Metropolitan and betray the Privileges allow'd that Church by the Canons as a Metropolitical Church which by Oath he was oblig'd to maintain Reus sieret violatae sponsionis quam Sedi Metropolitanae secerat If the Archbishop of York had pretended to Constitute a Bishop of the Province of Canterbury without the Consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury and a Suffragan of the Province of Canterbury had assisted in that Ordination our Bishops would then have been able to apply this eminent Instance But as the Case stands they know not I believe how to do it And the Author is desired that he himself if he can would be pleas'd
Church according to the usual manner into the place of another whom the Civil Power will not suffer to govern any longer because he refuses to own its Autority I add That if a Bishop be a Secundus and no Bishop who is put into the place of one unjustly depos'd by the Civil Autority then it likewise must follow that he is a secundus and no Bishop who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly depos'd But this the learned Vindicator will neither himself grant neither does he I suppose believe that S. Cyprian thought so I say that must follow if we seriously consider the Matter For the onely good Reason assignable why in the former Case the Successor is a secundus and no Bishop is this Because the Predecessor has still a Right to the Bishoprick Now 't is certain that the Reason is the same in the latter Case For a Bishop whom a Synod has unjustly depriv'd has still as much Right to his Bishoprick as a Bishop invalidly depos'd by the Civil Autority For to me 't is absurd that any unjust Sentence should take away the Right tho' the Nature of Government requiring it it is oftentimes necessary that we should submit to such a Sentence And this if I am not mistaken is the common Sence of Mankind When a Bishop is unjustly depriv'd by a Synod we submit to his Successor not because we imagine that the other has no longer a Right but onely for Peace sake That a Bishop unjustly depriv'd by a Synod has still a Right to that Bishoprick as well as a Bishop deposed by an Incompetent Autority may be clearly demonstrated from this That after he is deprived he may be again restor'd and his Successor be deposed by Appeal to another Synod and yet the ejected Successor is accounted a true Bishop Now is that done justly or not There is no one will say it is not And yet it is impossible that the Successor should be justly deprived if the other had no Right To conclude That a Bishop who is put into the place of another unjustly deprived by the Secular Power is a real and true Bishop will by and by appear by the Opinion and the Practice of the Antients in general Let us now proceed to demonstrate that as the submitting to a Bishop whose Predecessor was unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority is not in it self a Sin so the ill Consequences to which it may be liable are either not so mischievous to the Church or not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid § 10. The Evils we endeavour to avoid are a Schism and a persecution two Evils as great as can possibly befall the Church And that those two very great Evils must needs be the certain and the immediate Consequences of a non-submission is too evident to any Considering Man to need any Proof If the ill Consequences to which a submission may be liable are so great as those two Evils but not so certain or if they are so certain but not so great it must then be granted that with respect to Consequences a Submission is more reasonable than a Non-submission Now if we consider those evil Consequences which may justly be charg'd upon the Submission we shall find that they are so far from being both so great and so certain that they are neither so great nor so certain as those two Evils which by a Non-submission must unavoidably be brought upon the Church So far indeed is the Principle which we maintain from being necessarily attended with any very ill Consequence that it is not easy to foresee any Consequence at all that is Evil. As it is for the Good the Peace and Prosperity of the Church that we think our selves obliged to comply upon occasion with the Necessity of Times So if ever the Civil Power which to fear in this Reign would be very unjust and unreasonable should pretend to break in upon the Essentials of the Church we should then be obliged not to yield to such Impositions â—â— the evil Day must needs come which God forbid we will keep it off as long as we can When it necessarily comes as now we shew our Prudence so we 'll prove our Fortitude Not to endeavour to escape from Damascus when a Basket is fairly offer'd would be Folly in an Apostle And to run on to Martyrdom when it honestly may be avoided is according to the Sanctions of the Primitive Christians a Sin Should a Person absolutely unqualified be imposed upon us for a Bishop we are not then to accept him If a Roman Decius would depose all our Bishops and not permit us to constitute others in their places that so he may destroy our Religion we are not then to regard either what he does or commands As the Romans upon the Martyrdom of Fabian tho' to avoid the Fury of a Persecution Propter rerum temporum difficultates we might possibly deferr the Election yet as soon as we thought it convenient we would choose a Cornelius Bishop notwithstanding the Tyrant's Decrees If an Heretical King Frazamund should command us not to Ordain any Bishops that so the Catholick Religion may of Course be rooted out and his Heresy onely prevail we would then no more value that Command than the Catholicks heretofore did but in spite of his Edict would get as many Bishops ordain'd as we thought convenient for the Church But how can our Case be compared with either of these Here is no forbidding Elections no deposing all Bishops in general no imposing unqualified Persons no destroying of Religion no advancing of Heresy The onely Question here is Whether Paul or Apollos may be follow'd when Cephas is in Prison and is render'd uncapable of acting as an Apostle Our Adversaries are resolv'd to have Cephas If they cannot have him they will neither have Christ. To us 't is altogether indifferent whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas as long as we have Christ. There is onely one Inconvenience that I can possibly foresee which can justly be charg'd on this Principle which we advance and that is this That by a Submission to the present Possessor the Civil Governor is like to be encouraged to tyrannize over the Church and to turn out such Bishops as he does not like whensoever he pleases tho' never so unjustly If that be the Objection of our Adversaries I answer First That the same Inconvenience is in all manner of Government By submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly depos'd that Synod may be possibly encouraged to turn out others unjustly as many as it does not like tho' never so worthy Secondly That here in England it is not the Will of the Prince that can turn out a Bishop He has all the same Securities that another Subject can have and he cannot be deprived of his Bishoprick without a due Course of Law If they mean that the
King and the Parliament may by that be encouraged to Depose our Bishops at pleasure that Supposition will be wild and extravagant For who can imagine that they can ever concurr for the Deprivation of a Bishop but upon a very extraordinary Occasion There is nothing can be more manifest than that this Inconvenience is not so likely to happen as those Evil's we endeavour to avoid These are certain and present That only possible But Thirdly should we grant what in reason cannot be granted that it is as likely to happen yet how great is the Difference Should the State here or in other Countries one single absolute Governor be supposed to be so very dissolute as to turn out frequently the Bishops of the Church without any just Cause yet who can look upon that Mischief to be comparable to that of a Schism and a Persecution What can the suffering of a few particular Men be when compared to the Peace and Tranquility of the whole Church besides Our Adversaries may be pleas'd to consider That it was not for the Bishops that the Church was establish'd but the Bishops were appointed for the sake of the Church It is not therefore the Welfare of the Bishops as the Bishops are these or those Men much less of some few particular Bishops but the Welfare of the whole Church in general that is chiefly to be regarded § 11. And thus I hope I have sufficiently made out what I proposed to prove That the submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority is neither in it self a Sin nor liable to ill Consequences so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid or if so likely to happen not so great and pernicious to the Church as those are From whence it necessarily follows That such a Submission is in it self highly reasonable Which was the first Proposition we proposed to be demonstrated I come now to the Second General proposed to be made out That such a Submission is agreeable to the Practice of the Antients § 12. But before I put an end to this Chapter and proceed to the Proof of this last Proposition there remains yet one thing more to be consider'd and that is the Imputation of Heresy which the learned Vindicator is pleas'd to fix upon us Any Opinion says the Vindicator on account of which Men separate from their Ecclesiastical Governors is Heretical tho' it be not in its own nature so And such an Opinion is not Heretical onely when Men designedly separate from others on that very account because they are not of that Opinion but also when they venture on such Practices on account of that Opinion wherein others cannot communicate with 'em for that very reason because they cannot join with 'em in that Opinion 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 Heresy His meaning is that We maintaining this Opinion That the Civil Power has Autority to depose a Bishop for a Political Crime or if it has no such Autority when once it has deposed a Bishop it is lawfull to acknowledge the Successor and in consequence of that Opinion submitting now to the present Possessors are therefore Hereticks because He and his Party cannot join with us in that Practice as being of the contrary Opinion Here it comes into my mind what S. Ierom somewhere says That he that can with Patience hear himself call'd Heretick is no good Christian. This is true of those Heresies which were so in the Opinion of the Antients But in this Case we dare to be patient Ego tibi Haereticus tu mihi That 's all the Return we shall make The Vindicator in consequence of his Opinion that the Civil Autority has no power to depose a Bishop and that if a Bishop is so deposed his Successor ought to be rejected tho' otherwise never so worthy adheres to the Bishops deprived and disowns those that are put into their places In this Practice of the Vindicator we cannot join with him and for that very reason because we cannot join with him in his Opinion And what now follows from our Author's Notion of Heresy but that he himself is a Heretick It is nothing at all to our Purpose But for his own sake I shall here take upon me to add with a pace maximi Viri That this Notion of Heresy is a groundless and a fancyfull Notion That he may be properly call'd a Heretick who separates from the Church because the Church is not of his Opinion tho' the Opinion is not at all in its own nature Heretical I grant For there is a sort of Heresy which is not sinfull on the account of the Opinion maintain'd but onely because it is a separation from the Church But this I assert in opposition to what is laid down by the Vindicator That to all Heresy as the word is strictly taken to denote a Sin contradistinct to Schism it is necessary that there be an Opinion maintain'd which either the Church condemns or for which the Person that maintains it does of himself separate from the Church If it be not for any Opinion that the Vindicator is divided from the Church but onely for what is done by the Church he cannot be call'd in a strict sence a Heretick but only a Schismatick § 13. But to wave this Dispute as not at all material and to suffer the Vindicator if he pleases to enjoy his Notion What now is the Life he would make of it What is his Design in advancing it The Life he makes of it is this He alleges the aforesaid Heresy as a Reason for their Separation He tells us That we being guilty of Heresy they ought by our own Concessions to keep off from our Communion because we our selves acknowlege that Heresy is a just cause of Separation Tho' we should admit says he that the Author of the Baroccian Treatise had been successfull in all that he has attempted we may yet justify our adherence to the deprived Bishops and our Separation from our Adversaries opposite Altars and justify it too by the Doctrine of their own Author for even he permits a Separation where Orthodoxy is concern'd and expressly excepts this Case from the Number of those which he pretends to confute An Heretical Bishop he calls a false Bishop c. 'T is strange that the worthy and learned Vindicator should be so much out in his Logick as not to see the Inconsistency of what he alleges and to offer this as a reason for their not communicating with us If it is their not communicating with us that makes our Opinion Heretical and us Hereticks how do they refuse to communicate with us for this reason because we are Hereticks We could not be Hereticks according to the Vindicator's own
of continuing the High-priest during life is call'd by Iosephus a Law yet of any Contention occasion'd by the good and unjustly deposed Onias not a word in any Author On the contrary it appears that he meekly submitted to Necessity and we read no more of him till the time of the High-priest Menelaus that he reprehended that ungodly High-priest for having embezell'd the holy Vessels of the Temple and was therefore murder'd § 5. Iason after the expiration of three years was deposed by the same Autority and by the same means by which he had been advanced and his younger Brother Onias called likewise Menelaus succeeded him He was deposed says Iosephus through some displeasure which the King had conceived against him by the means of a Bribe says Iason of Cyrene which his Brother Menelaus had offer'd for the Honour Here now is an Example for our Adversaries but a very unhappy one There was no Sedition occasion'd by the Pious Onias but Iason who after he was made High-priest proved a very prophane and ungodly Wretch was no sooner deposed but he raised a Sedition against his Successor He raised a Sedition for the Dignity of the High-priesthood says Eusebius and Iosephus tells us that the greater part of the People join'd with him to that degree that Menelaus with the Chief of his Adherents was forc'd to flee away to Antiochus tho' he soon return'd and enjoy'd the High-priesthood You will not imagine it was any thing of Conscience or any sense of Religion that caused that Sedition or that made the major part of the People declare in the beginning for Iason No certainly That could not be since Iason himself had been advanc'd to that Dignity when his Brother and Predecessor had been unjustly depos'd and that too by his procurement especially since that Brother who had been unjustly depos'd was still living Tho' Menelaus was at that time a very flagitious Villain and ought upon that account to have been oppos'd yet 't was nothing but Revenge and Resentment that excited Iason and 't was chiefly the lewd and prophane Pastimes which the People enjoy'd under Iason that made 'em adhere in the beginning to him Read the 4th Chapter of the 2d of Maccabees where after a History of his excessive wickedness as it is there term'd and an account of the Heathenish Customs to which he had debauch'd the People he is styl'd the ungracious Jason that ungodly Wretch and not a High-priest There was yet another thing which seems to have heighten'd the People's aversion to Menelaus when first he was advanc'd to that Dignity and that was his cruel and bloudy Disposition He came says the Author of the Maccabees with the King's Mandate bringing nothing worthy of the High-priesthood but having the fury of a cruel Tyrant and the rage of a Savage beast We will leave the foeda certamina of these two Brothers so Sulpitius Severus calls 'em and proceed to § 5. Hyrcanus the second of that Name who was depriv'd of his High-priesthood and Kingdom by his younger Brother Aristobulus after he had enjoy'd the High-priesthood for the space of nine years They had fought a battle and Hyrcanus being overcome was forc'd to resign both his Honours by a solemn League and Agreement His Resignation was by Compulsion and Aristobulus was lookt upon by all as an Vsurper Iosephus affirms that Hyrcanus had still a Right to the Dignity and so it was afterwards adjudg'd by I. Caesar and so Hyrcanus after that pleaded before Pompey However Aristobulus is own'd and is peaceably settled in his Government Hyrcanus submits to Necessity and lives very quietly under him He is urg'd by his Friend Antipater to endeavour for a Restauration he denies to do it Antipater tells him He is in danger of his Life that the King designs to destroy him yet nothing will perswade him At last being wearied by the Importunities of Antipater and affrighted by the continual Representations made him of the danger he was in he flies away to Aretas a King of the Arabs obtains of him an Army defeats his Brother in a Battle and besieges him in the Temple The Siege is rais'd by the Autority of the Romans Their Cause is brought before Pompey the Great who leaves it not fully decided Pompey having afterwards receiv'd an Affront from Aristobulus raises a War against him takes the City Ierusalem by Storm and bestows the Pontificate on Hyrcanus This he did says Iosephus as well because of other good Offices which Hyrcanus had done him as because he had hinder'd the Jews of the Country round about from defending Aristobulus against him At that time that Hyrcanus as is above said besiege Aristobulus in that part of the City Ierusalem where the Temple was built Iosephus says that the People of Ierusalem went all over to the Conqueror Hyrcanus but withall he observes that the Priests would not leave their present High-priest Aristobulus but still adhered faithfully to him It is further observable what Iosephus relates as happening during that Siege For by that it may appear of what opinion both He and others were concerning those Sacrifices which were offer'd up to God by the Usurper Aristobulus and how acceptable to God those Acts of Religion were which he as High-priest performed tho' he came into the Office by force and usurpation and was not accounted the rightfull High-priest Whilst Aristobulus says Josephus was besieged in the Temple the Feast of Vnleavened Bread which we call the Passover being at hand the Chief among the Jews left their Country and fled into Egypt Now one Onias a just Man and beloved of God who had formerly in the time of a Drought obtained Rain by his pious Prayers and hid himself as perceiving a Civil War coming on Him the Jews brought into their Camp and required him That as he had heretofore prevented a Famine so he would now draw down a Curse upon Aristobulus and all those that adhered to him When he had long refused to do it and at last was threatned by the Multitude he stood in the midst of 'em and prayed thus O God the King of all the World since these who stand here with me are thy People and they that are besieged are thy Priests I beseech thee not to hearken to the Prayers of either Party against the other After he had made this Prayer there encompassed him round about certain Villainous Jews and they overwhelmed him with Stones Which cruelty God immediately revenged after this manner Whilst Aristobulus was thus besieged the Passover comes on in which Feast our Custom is to honour God with many Sacrifices Now the Besieged being destitute of Sacrifices entreated their Countrymen without that for Money as much as they would desire they would supply 'em with Victims They demand a thousand Drachms for each Victim which Aristobulus and the Priests agree to and let down the Money from the Wall But they when
After that at the time of our Saviour's Passion Caiaphas was the Prince and Annas onely the Father And therefore when our Saviour was first led to Annas he sent him away to Caiaphas as his Superiour And on this account likewise it is said in the Gospel of S. Iohn that Caiaphas was the High-priest that same year After that again Annas was the Prince and Caiaphas onely the Father And hence it is said in the Acts And Annas the High-priest and Caiaphas and Iohn and Alexander tho' Caiaphas was at that time in the proper and original sence the onely High-priest To this I answer First That if we granted Mr. Selden's Conjecture to be true tho' we could not conclude by the words above mentioned that our Saviour owned Caiaphas as a true High-priest properly so called yet still our Observation would hold good That our Saviour himself communicated with the High-priest of that Age and does not any where hint That they that in his time Officiated in the Temple as High-priests were not truly High-priests And it would however appear that S. Paul acknowleged the reality of the then High-priests so call'd in the proper and original Sence since he owned himself in an Errour as soon as he was told that the Person whom he had reviled was GOD's High-priest For by the Title of GOD's High-priest the Ecclesiastical Office was pointed out to him Secondly I deny Mr. Selden's Conjecture to be true And against it I offer these following Considerations First Neither Iosephus nor any other Jewish Writer does any where tell us that the High-priests properly so called were deprived by the Romans of their Power and Autority in Iudicial Matters and confined to the Offices of the Temple Mr. Selden does not pretend to the Autority of any Writer And Iosephus had there been any such thing would scarce have fall'd to have mention'd it especially since he mentions that in such and such Parts of Iudea there were Courts of Iudicature erected by the Romans Secondly Iosephus is so far from warranting any such Opinion that on the contrary he speaks throughout his whole History of the High-priests properly so called as of Persons of great Power and Autority in Civil Affairs What he says of Ananus the younger is very express Having said that the King had deprived Iosephus Cabei of the High-priesthood and substituted in his place Ananus the Son of Ananus he immediately adds The younger Ananus who was constituted as we said High-priest was a man of a rigid and severe Temper by Sect a Sadducee which sort of men is the most severe of all Jews in Judicial Matters Being of that disposition he took an opportunity after Festus the Governour 's death before his Successour Albinus was arrived in Judea to call a Council of the Iudges and commanding James the Brother of Iesus to be brought before him he condemned him together with some others and delivered 'em to the People to be stoned to death This thing extremely displeased all those of the City that were well disposed and zealous for the Laws and they privately sent Messengers to the King to entreat him to lay his Commands upon Ananus not to do the like for the future it being a thing that he ought not to have done Some moreover went to meet Albinus as he came from Alexandria and suggested to him That it was not lawfull for Ananus without his Consent to call a Council That it was not lawfull for the Iews without the particular Consent of the Governour to sit Judges in a Capital Cause Hereupon Albinus wrote angrily to the High-priest and threatned him for what he had done And after three months King Agrippa deprived him for that Fact of the High-priesthood and bestowed the Dignity on Jesus the Son of Damnaeus Here seems to be a plain Intimation that the High-priest as such had autority in Civil Affairs tho' neither he nor any other of the Iews might without the Consent of the Roman Governour sit Judge in a Capital Cause Thirdly It is likewise confirmed by that frequent and continual Changing of the High-priest under the Romans For if the High-priests properly so call'd were as such concerned about the Sacrifices onely not at all in Matters of Government how could they so frequently come under the Displeasure of the supreme Civil Governour Why so frequently turn'd out of their Places Fourthly When S. Paul was told that the Person whom he had revil'd was God's High-priest that is High-priest properly so call'd he strait inferrs That then he was the Ruler of the People Fifthly Those difficult places of Scripture on which Mr. Selden's Conjecture is bottom'd may well admit of another Explication I am so far from denying that the two chief Rulers the Prince and the Father of the Sanedrin might commonly be honour'd with the Title of High-priests that I almost perswade my self that in those later Times that Title was common to all those of the Sacerdotal Order who were Members of the Sanedrin But on this I do not rely I have one thing more to offer to account for those many High-priests which are mentioned as flourishing at the same time Which is this That the 24 Chief Men or Heads of the 24 Sorts or Families of the Priests into which it is said in the first of Chronicles that King David distributed the Priests were wont to be peculiarly honour'd with the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or High-priests As all in general were call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Priests so 't was natural to distinguish the Heads of the several Classes from the inferiour Priests whom they govern'd by the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 High or Chief Priests That this Division of the Priests was continued to our Saviour's time appears from the first Chapter of S. Luke where 't is said That Zacharias the Father of S. Iohn Baptist was a Priest 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Course of â—bia and 't is added And it came to pass that while he executed the Priest's Office in the Order of his Course according to the Custom of the Priest's Office his Lot was to burn incense when he went into the Temple of the Lord. This is plainly according to the Order and Division made by King David in the 24th of 1 Chron. where the Houshold of Abia is mentioned as the 8th principal Houshold of the Priests Neither ought it to be objected that in that place of S. Luke Zacharias is call'd onely Priest not High or Chief priest For even the High-priest himself properly so call'd is oftentimes call'd by the bare Title of Priest That in those days there were many at the same time entitled High-priests is apparent from a great many Places both of the New Testament and likewise of Iosephus That those learned Men are mistaken who think that those many High-priests who are mentioned by Iosephus and in the New Testament as flourishing at the same time were
he further inferr'd that some one was appointed by Liberius to oppose in his stead the endeavours of the Arians and who should that be but his Damasus Hence likewise it was that the Chronologer Marcellinus Comes thought he ought to be excepted out of the number of the Bishops of Rome That his thinking him an Arian was the reason of his excepting him may be gather'd from hence that he likewise excepts Liberius because he at last had subscrib'd to the Arian Belief In like manner S. Ierome calls S. Cyril of Ierusalem and Meletius of Antioch Hereticks and he will not allow 'em a place amongst the Bishops of those Sees because they were made Bishops by the Arians and at first seem'd to favour ' em Yet even in his Time almost all the Greek Church receiv'd 'em into Communion and very highly esteem'd 'em and now by both Churches they are honour'd with the Title of Saints By Optatus Melevitanus and S. Augustine where they reckon up the Successions of the Bishops of Rome our Felix is omitted But from thence it cannot be inferr'd that they did not own him as one of the Bishops of Rome For it is not their Design to reckon up all the Popes that had been but onely to shew for the Confutation of the Donatists that at Rome they had had a Succession of Bishops from the Times of the Apostles Since therefore Liberius was again restor'd and so was the immediate Predecessor of Damasus as he was the Successor of Iulius it was not at all for their purpose to make any mention of Felix It is not the business of Optatus says a learned Annotator to give us the Names of all the Popes but onely the Successions And it would have been ridiculous in him to have mention'd Felix as the Successor of Liberius since Liberius not onely out-liv'd Felix but likewise enjoy'd the Pontificate after his death Vpon this account likewise S. Augustine in his 165 th Epistle where upon the like occasion he reckons up the Successions of the Bishops of Rome makes no mention of Felix Thus the learned Meric Casaubon tho' he was not at all concern'd whether Felix were own'd as a true Pope or no. 'T is observ'd by Anastasius in his Edition of the Pontifical that the Time of Felix's Government is usually comprehended in that of Liberius Thus it is in the Catalogues of Kings if a King has Reign'd twice the Name of that King who Reign'd in the Time of the others Expulsion is very frequently omitted And this was the reason why Felix is omitted by Theodoret in that Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome which he has subjoin'd at the end of his History These things I thought fit to premise to prevent Mistakes and to cut off all Objections before-hand We will now proceed to the Things propos'd to be prov'd 1. That the Catholick Bishops of his District acknowleg'd him as their Metropolitan and that others likewise as many as had an occasion communicated with him may be prov'd by many Arguments First From the three Epistles which are extant in Isidorus Mercator one from S. Athanasius and the Synod of Alexandria to him in which he is own'd as true Bishop of Rome and address'd to as such another from him and a Synod at Rome in answer to that of S. Athanasius and a third from him and a Synod at Rome to the Church-Catholick For tho' it be certain that all those Epistles are altogether fictitious yet from them it is manifest that at that time in which they were written viz. about 900 Years ago it was taken for granted that Felix was generally own'd by all Catholick Bishops 2dly From the Autority of the Pontifical in which it is said that he call'd a Synod of 48 Bishops and condemn'd the Emperour Constantius and the Arians And this is affirm'd not onely in the Vulgar Pontifical ascrib'd to Anastasius but likewise in that which was publish'd in the time of the Emperour Iustinian the Elder above 1150 Years ago viz. about the Year 534. If it be doubted whether there were really such a Synod call'd by Pope Felix as the Pontifical affirms yet at least thus much must be granted that near 1200 Years ago there was an undoubted Tradition in the Church that the Bishops of the District of Rome acknowleg'd him for their Metropolitan But 3dly It appears from the Inscription which was found on his Body when that was took up at Rome in the Time of Pope Gregory XIII that there was such a Synod call'd by him The Inscription was this CORPVS S. FELICIS PAPAE ET MARTYRIS QUI DAMNAVIT CONSTANTIVM The aforesaid Pope Gregory XIII having order'd the Roman Martyrology to be review'd and corrected Baronius was very zealous to have our Felix omitted as doubting of his being a Martyr and because he thought that his being own'd as one of the true Popes might prove a good Argument against some Pretensions of the Church of Rome In this he was by many oppos'd especially by the Card. Iulius Antonius Sanctorius In the midst of this Contention the Body chanc'd to be found together with the Bodies of some other Saints by a Miracle say the Popish Historians and that put an end to the Controversy Tho' there 's no one more apt than my self to suspect the Integrity of Romanists in things of this Nature and tho' the time in which this Body was found is enough to make one suspect at first thought that the Inscription of that Body which was found was onely a pia fraus of the Cardinal Sanctorius's Party Yet if we feriously consider 't will be hard to think it an Imposture since all the great Men of Rome saw the Body amongst them Baronius who owns himself confuted by it 'T is true I do not believe that the being a second time baptiz'd was that for which Constantius was condemn'd by that Synod But that is not said in the Inscription and 't was onely the mistake of the Author of the Pontifical Neither do I believe that that Synod was call'd before Pope Felix was ejected I rather think that 't was after he was ejected and that it consisted of sâ—alâ— Bishops scarce so many I suppose as 48. as adher'd to him in the time of his Ejectment in opposition to the laps'd Liberius Neither Lastly do I believe that Felix was ever put to death The whole truth I take to be this He was therefore call'd a Martyr by his Adherents and so entitled in the above-said Inscription because he was ejected by the Hereticks and suffer'd much for his Faith and died a Confessor Hence afterwards arose that Tradition concerning his being put to death the Title of Martyr being understood by Posterity in the more common sence 4thly It is said in both the Pontificals as well the antient as that ascrib'd to Anastasius that Felix in his time Ordain'd 5 Deacons 21 Presbyters and 18 or 19 Bishops And the truth of this
he utter'd to the Patriarch Gregory and of Gregory's going to give him a visit in his sickness to take his leave of him before he died How holy a Man this Symeon Stylites was we may read at large in Evagrius He tells us That of all Men living in that Age he was the most holy And by both Churches he is to this day honour'd as a Saint by the Latin on the third by the Greek on the first of September 7. That he was generally own'd as Bishop of Antioch by the Bishops of the Catholick Church is apparent from his being tried as a Patriarch by a very great Council at Constantinople a Council in which all the Eastern Patriarchs were present either in their own Persons or by their Representatives The Case was this There happen'd a great Difference between him and Asterius the Comes Orientis who usually resided at Antioch and by the influence which the Comes had upon the People they were mightily excited against their Patriarch to that degree that they malitiously accus'd him for lying with his own Sister another man's Wife and as a Disturber of the Peace and Quiet of the City He appeal'd to the Emperor and a Council which accordingly was call'd at Constantinople where he made his Appearance and was acquitted and his Accuser was publickly whipt and banish'd That this Council was a very great and a General Council is attested by Evagrius who was there present as the Patriarch's Counsel and Advocate He says That all the Patriarchs were there present at the Trial either in their own Persons or by their Legates together with a great many Metropolitans and the Senators of Constantinople When he says that all the Patriarchs were there he means the Oriental Patriarchs For there is extant in Isidorus Mercator an Epistle from Pope Pelagius II. to the Bishops of that Council from which it may be gather'd That the Pope had no Legate there for he seems very angry that Iohn Nesteutes the then Patriarch of Constantinople who had call'd the Council by his own Autority and had usurpt the Title of Vniversal Bishop should pretend to do so and he declares That the Summons being unlawfull and derogatory to the Power of the See of Rome whatsoever was done in that Council should be null and of no force And tho' it be certain that this Epistle is spurious and Labbée himself confesses it yet 't is likewise apparent from the express words of Pope Gregory the Great that Pope Pelagius II. did not approve of the Synod And that he had no Representative in it may be collected from Pope Gregory's Words for he says That the Patriarch of Constantinople having in that Synod endeavour'd to usurp the Title of Universal Pope Pelagius as soon as he heard of it sent not to any Legate or Legates that he had sent to the Synod but to his Deacon who according to custom resided at the Emperor's Court as Apocrisiarius for the See of Rome and commanded him not to communicate with the Patriarch But nevertheless it is certain that Pope Pelagius himself as well as the other Patriarchs acknowleged Gregory as Patriarch of Antioch This appears from another Epistle of Pope Gregory the Great in which he says that Pope Pelagius did not declare all the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople void but onely that part which was concerning the Title of Vniversal which the Patriarch of Constantinople had usurpt and that he ratified what had been decreed concerning Gregory the Patriarch of Antioch 8. It is likewise very notorious that Pope Gregory the Great himself who succeeded Pelagius tho' the ejected Patriarch Anastasius was his dearly beloved Friend and tho' he lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and accounted him always the rightfull Patriarch of Antioch yet never separated from the Communion of his Successor Gregory but communicated always with him First That Pope Gregory lookt upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch of Antioch while Gregory was possess'd of the See and accounted his Deprivation invalid is apparent first from the Titles which he always gives him of Patriarch of Antioch Gregorius Anastasio Patriarchae Antiocheno 2. From his sending a Synodical Episle to him as well as to the rest of the Patriarchs when first he was made Pope 3. From his express Words to that purpose in an Epistle which he wrote him together with the Synodical one In which he tells him That he had sent a Synodical Epistle to him as well as to the other Patriarchs as looking upon him to be still a Patriarch as well as heretofore to be still what God Almighty had made him not what he was commonly accounted deposed Secondly That notwithstanding all this tho' such was his Opinion concerning the Nullity of Anastasius's Deprivation yet that he likewise communicated with Gregory Anastasius's Successor and acknowleged him as Bishop of Antioch is apparent from the Title of his Synodical Epistle For from that it is manifest that the Epistle was sent to Gregory as well as to Anastasius and the rest of the Patriarchs The Title is this Gregorius Ioanni Episcopo Constantinopolitano Eulogio Alexandrino Gregorio Antiocheno Ioanni Hierosolymitano Anastasio Patriarchae Antiocheno à paribus Tho' in order the Patriarch of Antioch was always mention'd before the Patriarch of Ierusalem as Gregory is here plac'd yet Anastasius he places below the Patriarch of Ierusalem because he was a Patriarch of Antioch de jure onely not in possession In another Epistle the Pope calls the Patriarch Gregory then deceas'd his late Brother and Co-bishop And in another agen he calls him venerandae memoriae Gregorium Episcopum Antiochenum This Example of Pope Gregory his owning both Gregory and Anastasius at the same time Non satis advertere videntur says the learned Annotator on his Epistles in the last Paris Edition qui ad summos juris apices de re qualibet decernentes SCHISMATIBVS contentionibus viam parant zelo PRAECIPITI NEC SATIS CAVTO 'T is worthy our Observation that among those who communicated with and acknowleged Gregory as Patriarch of Antioch there were no less than four who are honour'd by the Church as Saints 1. Symeon Stylites 2. Pope Gregory the Great 3. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria who was one of those Patriarchs that acquitted our Patriarch Gregory in the above-mention'd Synod of Constantinople These three are honour'd and worshipt as Saints by both Churches both the Greek and the Latin Of S. Symeon Stylites I have spoken already Of S. Gregory the Great there is no need I should say any thing he being so generally known Of Eulogius it is to be observ'd That as he was a very holy Man and a Saint in the Church's Calendar so he was likewise a very learned Man a zealous Defender of the Orthodox Faith and a great Opposer of Hereticks as his several learned
in the Church of S. Irene against their Patriarch The whole Truth is this When Ignatius began to be persecuted then some of the Bishops and others excited by Compassion towards their old Patriarch began to fall off from him So Anastasius Bibliothecarius expressly tells us He tells us that Ignatius being in Banishment was extremely tormented by Bardas that he was continually cufft and had his Teeth struck out Then he adds These things being known some Metropolitans and inferiour Church-men and Lay-men compassionating the Afflictions of their Patriarch and being sorry for his being deposed began to cry out very zealously to have him restor'd 2. Stylianus Bishop of Neocaesarea a great Ignatian tells us That the People of Constantinople were induced by the Autority of the Pope after his Legates Radoaldus and Zacharias had deposed Ignatius in the Synod of Constantinople to own and receive Photius intimating that they did not do so before But that is notoriously false Anastasius Bibiiothecarius having told us that some Metropolitans c. began to cry out to have Ignatius restored adds that on that account Photius call'd a Synod and deposed and anathematized Ignatius And this being done says he the piety of the Faithfull was the more inflam'd and the more constantly did the Sheep require their Shepherd the more cruelly Photius raged It is plain from these words and those but now produced that they first adher'd to Photius and that they that afterwards left him were drawn off from him not by their Consciences but their Passions He afterwards adds That after Photius had been Condemn'd and Deposed by the Pope in his Synod at Rome they that were subject to Photius Sequestred themselves from him in whole Troops as paying great Deference to the Pope's Autority Thirdly How great and numerous a Party there continued to adhere to Photius may be gather'd from the great number of Bishops which sate in the Two Synods call'd against Ignatius by both which Ignatius was Condemn'd and Anathematiz'd The first of those two Synods is spoken of by Radoaldus and Zacharias the Pope's Legates who sate in the Second as a Synod of Autority sufficient to depose Ignatius The Second Synod was so numerous that it consisted of 318. Bishops and was not only Provincial but General So 't is expresly call'd by Balsamon So likewise by those Messengers whom it sent to command Ignatius to make his appearance 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Agen 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And that there were Legates in it sent as well from the Eastern Patriarchs of Alexandria Antioch and Ierusalem as from the Pope is sufficiently apparent from the Reason of it's being call'd For why should Photius send to the Bishop of Rome to have Legates sent from thence and not to the rest of the Patriarchs Was it because the Council of Sardica seems to give the Bishop of Rome a particular Power in the Deprivation of Bishops That could not be the Reason for neither was the Council of Sardica regarded by Photius neither was the business of Ignatius's Deprivation the only Reason why this Council was call'd For it 's very notorious that one great Reason why Photius got this Council to be call'd was because the Iconoclasts began at that time to grow powerful that by the Decrees of a Council that Sect might be utterly suppress'd This appears by P. Nicholas's first Epistles to the Emperor Michael and Photius sent in Answer to theirs by the Legates Radoaldus and Zacharias who were sent to that Council And it also appears by what was done in that Council For the Council sate twice so as to seem two different Councils once about the Patriarch Ignatius and another time about the Iconoclasts and other matters relating to the Discipine of the Church And hence it came to be call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the First and Second Council This is what the Learned have not hitherto observ'd The learned Vindicator is extremely mistaken concerning this Council The Author of the Synodicon says he besides the Synod which he mentions cap. 148. by which he says Photius was made Patriarch makes two more c. 149 150. 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 the 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 Sessions 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 I shall not take this Account in pieces to confute the several parts of it but proceed to demonstrate the truth We are told by the Commentator Zonaras that this Synod sate both times in the Church of the Apostles and that therefore it was call'd First and Second because it was forced to break up re infectâ by reason of a Disturbance occasion'd by the seditious Hereticks so the Iconoclasts were call'd and afterwards met together again and so publish'd its Decrees In this account Zonaras is followed by Balsamon 'T is the opinion of the Reverend and very Learned Dr. Beverege that therefore it was call'd First and Second because it was really two distinct Councils and the Decrees of the former were confirm'd by the latter The first of those two Councils he takes to be that in which Nicetas says Ignatius was Condemn'd when absent which was only a Provincial one the Second to be that in which the Pope's Legates Radoaldus and Zacharias sate Presidents This Conjecture may seem to be confirm'd by this Consideration that the former the Provincial Synod was likewise in the Church of the Apostles as appears tho' the Synodicon makes it to have been in Blachernis by the express Testimony of Nicetas and Metrophanes Bishop of Smyrna or whoever else was the Author of the Epistle written in his Name To which may be added That as both Condemn'd the Patriarch Ignatius so Zonaras whom Balsamon follow'd seems to speak only by Hear-say when he says that the Council call'd First and Second was in truth but one Council and was therefore call'd First and Second because it broke up by reason of Tumults and Disturbances and afterwards sate a Second time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 But notwithstanding all this it is certain that the Council call'd First and Second was really but one Council that the Roman Legates presided in both its Sessions or Parts that the former Provincial
he had called together very many Bishops out of many of the Western Provinces and condemn'd Photius So in his Epistle to the Bishops and Clergy of the District of Constantinople But in an Epistle to the Emperor Michael he uses Terms as general as those above quoted and tells him that himself with all the Western Bishops had condemn'd Photius The exact truth we learn from the Appendix of the Greek Acts of the 8 th General Council we have there the number of Bishops precisely set down and they amount to no more than One hundred and seventy tho' it is not at all to be doubted but that the Pope did his utmost endeavour and got as many Bishops together as possibly he could It appears from this Testimony how much the Vindicator is mistaken when he Fansies that this Synod of the Pope exceeded the Photian Synod which it condemn'd which consisted of Three hundred and Eighteen Bishops P. Nicholas says he no doubt made all the interest he could to get a Synod that he might oppose to this Synod of Photius He knew his Autority alone would never be admitted for it without a Synod and suchâ— a Synod as the Canons required And tho' he allow'd no Superstition for the number of Three hundred and Eighteen the same with the number of the Nicene Council yet the Antiochian Canon which by this time obtain'd 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 Three hundred and Eighteen Bishops This I suppose made it some time before he could condemn Photius or restore Ignatius with such a Synod Tho' it be asserted by the Roman Legates in the 8th General Chuncil that all the Western Archbishops Metropolitans c. sate in that Synod yet Binius if I well remember confesses that there was only one Metropolitan there but how he knew that I know not Seventhly As Photius was by so many receiv'd whilst the ejected Patriarch Ignatius was still living so as soon as he was restored upon Ignatius's Death tho' he was not ordain'd agen he was generally receiv'd by both the Metropolitans and Bishops of his own District and likewise all the Patriarchs As soon as he was restored to his See he sent a Synodical Letter to Pope Iohn IX the Successor of Hadrian subscribed by all the Metropolitans of the Constantinopolitan District as appears from Nicetas who according to the Calumny so often made use of by Photius's Enemies adds that he got their Subscriptions by Deceit The Metropolitans says he knowing nothing at all of the Matter but believing that they had set their hands to a Deed of Conveyance Pope Iohn having receiv'd his Epistle receives him as Patriarch and sends away his Legates to Constantinople to the Gen. Council which the Emperor had summon'd An Abridgment of the Acts of that Council as it was transcribed out of a Treatise of Ioannes Beccus a Patriarch of Constantinople Dr. Beverege has publish'd in his Pandects From the Acts of this Council I observe That Pope Iohn and the rest of the Patriarchs and Bishops not onely own Photius as a true Patriarch at that time and make a Decree That whosoever was rejected by Photius should be likewise rejected by the Pope and whoever was rejected by the Pope should be likewise rejected by Photius but also that they own'd him to have been a true Patriarch whilst Ignatius was living from the very beginning This is manifest concerning the Pope from his Epistle to the Emperor Basilius which is there extant In that Epistle he calls those Synods which were call'd against Photius unjust Synods And is so much asham'd of what had been done by those Synods that he affirms that his Predecessors Nicholas and Hadrian had no hand in 'em and did not approve of what they decreed He requires all Christians to receive him as a true Patriarch And let no one says he allege for their excuse those unjust Synods which were gather'd against him Let no one plead that as some foolish Persons do believe our blessed Predecessors Nicholas and Hadrian condemn'd him For those things which were done against him were not approv'd of by them I know that these Words are not to be found in the Copy of this Epistle which the Popish Editors of the Councils have publish'd out of the Vatican Library with the Title of Pope Iohn's genuine Epistle But 't is much more probable that the Romanists corrupted that Epistle than that this which we have quoted was corrupted by Photius He likewise declares that he receiv'd him by virtue of his first Promotion in these words Because we through the care we have of the Peace of the Church have receiv'd our most holy Brother Photius as heretofore Pope Hadrian I. did his Vnkle Tarasius promoted as Photius was immediately from a Lay-man it ought not to be made a Custom or Rule for those things which are good onely upon occasion cannot be a Law to many It appears also from that Epistle which the Romanists call his genuine Epistle that the Pope did not require that Photius should be re-ordain'd tho' by the Synods in which he was condemn'd he was declared a meer Lay-man 2dly I observe that all that whole General Council condemn'd all the Proceedings of the several Synods against him We decree says the Council that the Synod call'd at Rome under the most blessed Pope Hadrian against the most holy Patriarch Photius and the Synod gather'd at Constantinople against the most holy Patriarch Photius be to all intents and purposes condemn'd and cast out of the Church That it be never reckon'd as one of the holy Councils nor ever call'd by the Name of a Council God forbid it should To this the whole Council of no less than 373 Bishops and among them the Legates of the Pope and all the other Patriarchs subscribe And the Emperor Basilius who had some Years before subscribed to the Council that condemn'd and anathematiz'd Photius here subscribes with the Princes his Sons to the renunciation of all things that had either been written or spoken against him Notwithstanding all this they that were heretofore great Sticklers for Ignatius continu'd still Photius's Enemies and refused to communicate with him And lest Pope Iohn's Autority should draw off some of their Party they raise a Report that he did not receive Photius but that he had condemn'd and deposed his Legates Eugenius and Paul for confirming Photius in that Council without his Order and that from the Ambo he pronounced them Anathema who should think that Photius when condemn'd by Pope Nicholas and Hadrian was not condemn'd by the just Iudgment of God But 't is confess'd by even Stylianus himself that Photius was receiv'd by Pope Iohn He pretends that Paul and
their leave of Ignatius and turn to the other fresh Company But for those who are not weary of this Entertainment I shall add these following Remarks 1. I observe that Ignatius and his Adherents did no more regard the Determinations of Synods than they did the Imperial Autority When the Suffrages of a Council were once gain'd says the worthy and learned Vindicator what Arts soever those were that were used to gain 'em Photius had then some appearance of Right till Ignatius could relieve himself by another and a greater Council That was a lawful way of recovering it by the very Canons However Photius could in the mean time plead the Canons of his own Council which condemned Ignatius and forbad the Clergy and Bishops to separate from their present Patriarch that none ought to separate from himself thus Synodically setled nor to joyn with Ignatius thus Synodically condemned till himself were condemned and Ignatius resetled by a greater and a more numerous Synod Till P. Nicholas says the Vindicator a little after had restored Ignatius by a greater Synod than that was that condemned him how good soever his Tible 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 consider'd if he had challenged any Duty from his Clergy and People before a Synod had restor'd him He adds that by the Canons of the Church a Provincial Synod of Rome could not condemn or restore a Patriarch of Constantinople and therefore the Synod called at Rome by P. Nicholas how numerous soever it might be could not have any Autority to depose Photius and restore Ignatius that Photius therefore was the Canonical Patriarch of Constantinople till he was deposed by a Synod called at Constantinople that was greater than that which deposed Ignatius The Synod says he by which Ignatius was to be relieved was to be 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 Thus much the Vindicator And thus tho' he does not know it he perfectly condemns Ignatius and all his Adherents as men not regarding the Rules of Ecclesiastical Government but hurried away by their own Passions to Schismatical Proceedings We do not find says he that Ignatius made any stir after he was deposed by a Synod of Constantinople till he was restored Conciliarly in the same place where he had been deprived No Then sure he never could find that he made any stir at all There is nothing can be more notorious than that Ignatius never paid any deference to the Autority of those Synods that condemned him That he lookt upon himself as Patriarch as well after he was condemned by Synods as before appears First from hence That after he had been condemned by a Provincial Synod when he was summoned to appear before the General Council called First and Second he asked those that summoned him under what Character they would have him appear as a Bishop as a Priest or as a Monk And when it was told him that he might appear as himself in his own Conscience thought fit he put on his Patriarchial Robes and was going to the Council in 'em till Messengers from the Emperor met him and commanded him to put 'em off or it should cost him his Life This Account we have in his Life 2. When he made his appearance before that Council he declared against their Autority and positively told 'em that they could not be his Iudges except they first deposed Photius This his Legate Theognostus attests in his Case presented to Pope Nicholas 3. After he was condemned by this great Council he still continued to suffer the same Afflictions and Torments as before and why was he still tormented and persecuted but because he was still the same Man A Description of what he suffered even after he was deposed by that Council you may see at large in his Life Theognostus likewise speaks of ' em So P. Nicholas's Synod alleges in its Decrees against Photius that he still continued to that very time to torment Ignatius and to depose and punish those Bishops that would not joyn with him So likewise P. Nicholas in his XIth Epistle to Photius 4. As soon as the Emperor Basilius had deposed Photius tho' Photius as yet had never been condemned by a Council call'd at Constantinople nor yet by any called any where else that was greater than that which had confirmed him Ignatius readily accepts of the See and not only so but condemns and rejects both Photius and all those whom he had Ordained as no Bishops 5. So far were the Ignatians from regarding the Autority of Synods that even after Ignatius's Death tho' Photius had been again confirmed by a General Council of no less than 373 Bishops yet they still continued their Schism and refused to Communicate Nay even after Photius was a Second time deposed and even after his Death some of 'em still refused to receive those whom Photius had Ordain'd And the Schism does not seem to have been perfectly ended till the Tomus Vnionis or Synodicon was published in the Year 920. by which there was an end likewise put to several other Divisions in the Church Secondly I observe that Ignatius and all his Party were great betrayers of the Privileges of the Constantinopolitan See That he might regain his See he cared not for the Honour of it but Acted very unworthily of a truly great Man and appeals from the Council of Constantinople to the Pope of Rome Thus betrays the Honour of his See and Acts quite contrary to the Canons of the II. General Council by which it is Enacted That the Affairs of every Province shall be managed by a Synod of that same Province Thirdly In the Third and last place it is to be observed that the Reason why the Popes of Rome engaged so zealously against Photius and for the ejected Ignatius was chiefly because they thought it concerned the Honour of their See The Pope took upon him to be the chief Judge in Causes relating to Bishops and to suffer the Emperor to Depose a Patriarch was to give away forsooth his own Super-eminent Prerogative That all the Proceedings of the Popes in this Matter were grounded chiefly on their Pride and Ambition may be easily gather'd from their so frequently inculcating their Prerogative of being the ultimate Judges of all Bishops in the Epistles which they wrote concerning this Business from their so frequently inculcating That a Bishop ought not to be deposed by any Autority whatever whether Imperial or Synodical without the Consent of the See of S. Peter Because says P. Nicholas in an Epistle to the Emperor
that refused to Communicate with Atticus even after S. Chrysostom's Name was inserted in the Diptychs they refused to Communicate even with his Successor Sisinnius they refused likewise to communicate with Sisinnius's Successor Proclus But observe what follows when the Patriarch Proclus had ordered S. Chrysostom's Body to be brought to Constantinople and there to be honourably interred which was three and thirty Years after his Deprivation then the Breach was all made up they were all contented and submitted freely to Proclus What was this but to be governed by Passion What Alteration could be made in the Nature of the thing by bringing S. Chrysostom's Body to Constantinople 'T is moreover observable that the Ioannites of Constantinople fell off from the Communion of the Church before there was any one ordain'd in his place and before S. Chrysostom was carried away from Constantinople This appears from the Testimony of Socrates The Emperor says he sent Chrysostom word that himself could not go to Church if he who had been deposed by two Synods were there On that Account Chrysostom went no more to the Church Then all that were of his Party forsook the Church and celebrated the Feast of Easter in the publick Baths of Constantius With them there were many Bishops and Presbyters and other Ecclesiastical Persons who because they kept separate Meetings were call'd JOANNITES To all this I add that Sozomen tells us that the reason why the Ioannites refused to Communicate with Arsacius after Chrysostom was carried away and He made Patriarch was not because they thought it unlawful to Communicate with him but because in his Congregations there were some of Chrysostom's Deposers Among those that received Atticus into Communion upon his inserting S. Chrysostom's Name in the Diptychs was P. Innocent of Rome together with the rest of those Western Bishops who had been kept by his Autority from Communicating with Atticus P. Innocent in his Epistle to the Clergy and People of Constantinople had said that a Bishop unjustly constituted cannot be a Bishop but words are oftentimes rashly spoken 't is Practice that best expresses the true and genuine Sentiments of the Heart And the Pope's Practice was contrary to that Saying If Atticus was no Bishop because unjustly constituted how could he be a Bishop afterwards without a New Ordination yet afterwards he is own'd by the Pope and that too without being confirmed by any Council by Vertue of the Orders conferr'd upon him while Chrysostom was living I must here observe that the chief Reasons why the Pope declared so zealously for S. Chrysostom seems to be this because Theophilus of Alexandria his taking upon him to depose a Patriarch of Constantinople was a great Presumption and a Derogation from the Grandeur of the See of Rome The Pope therefore was obliged to oppose him And hence it came to pass that he only desired that S. Chrysostom's Name should be restored to the Diptychs For by that the Patriarch Atticus own'd that S. Chrysostom was not justly or validly deprived That was all the Pope aim'd at It is also observable that P. Innocent when he proposed that S. Chrysostom's Name should be restored to the Diptychs of the Church of Constantinople and of the other Churches of the East does not at all insist on this that Arsacius's Name who was made Patriarch while Chrysostom was living and died before him should be struck out No tho' such were his Circumstances yet the Pope was well contented that his Name should be recited in the Churches as one of the true Patriarchs of Constantinople 3. It is to be observed that a very great part of the Catholick Church receiv'd and communicated with Arsacius and Atticus tho' at the same time they own'd that S. Chrysostom was unjustly deposed and that too whilst S. Chrysostom was still living 1. Maximianus a Bishop of Macedonia one of S. Chrysostom's great Friends and one to whom he wrote some Epistles whilst he was in Banishment sent to P. Innocent to desire him to receive the Patriarch Atticus into Communion 'T is true this was after S. Chrysostom's Death yet it shews that he was not of Opinion that Atticus's Ordination was Null because ordain'd while Chrysostom was living 2. That the Patriarch Atticus was owned and received by all the African Church appears from the Code of the Canons of that Church Let us send says Alypius one of the Bishops of the Council of Africa to our most holy Brother the Bishop of Constantinople for a Copy of the Nicene Canons Accordingly they did so and the Patriarch Atticus's Answer to them is still extant The same Church in her Epistle to P. Celestine calls Atticus the venerable Bishop of Constantinople and Liberatus a Deacon of that Church where he mentions him gives him the Title of Beatus Atticus So by Marius Mercator who also seems to have been of Africa he is styled sanctae memoriae Atticus Episcopus again sanctus ille Vir. I Grant that these Testimonies of the Church of Africa were after S. Chrysostom's Death but withall it must be observ'd that as they shew that the Church allowed of his Ordination so it does not by any means appear that that Church was ever concerned for S. Chrysostom or ever declin'd Atticus's Communion whilst S. Chrysostom was living tho' it cannot be doubted but that they accounted S. Chrysostom unjustly deposed That the African Church did not side with P. Innocent against the Patriarch Atticus and those that Communicated with him appears moreover from a Decree of one of the Synods of that Church by which the Church orders that a Letter should be sent to P. Innocent to reconcile the two Churches of Rome and Alexandria that there might be Peace between 'em as the Lord had commanded This Decree was made in the Year 407. 3. 'T is expresly attested by Theodoret that the greatest part of the Eastern Bishops esteemed S. Chrysostom ' s Deprivation unjust yet did not break the Peace of the Church on his Account And this express Testimony I desire the Vindicator would be pleased to take notice of who tells us that he believes we can give no Instances of any who thought S. Chrysostom unjustly deprived but who were Joannites and therefore separated from the Communion of his Deprivers One would wonder how so learned a Man should be ignorant of a thing so obvious 4. 'T is asserted by S. Nicon who flourished above Seven hundred years ago in a Treatise concerning Schismaticks and Schism not yet published taken I suppose cut of his Pandects that the Monks of Egypt a vast Body of Men and exceedingly pious accounted S. Chrysostom's Deprivation unjust yet never separated from the Communion of their Patriarch Theophilus and consequently not from the Communion of Arsacius and Atticus Patriarchs of Constantinople In the same words S. Nicon plainly discovers what his opinion was He speaks of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation
to our purpose S. Maximus says he the Confessor being expelled by the Arians for his Orthodoxy Cyril was by the Arians ordain'd in Jerusalem one of the Chief of the Arian Faction as Ecclesiastical Historians tell us But he coming over to the Orthodox Faith was not only receiv'd as a Bishop together with those whom he had ordain'd but is also honour'd by the Church as a Saint Concerning whom Gregory Nyssen in his Homily upon the Translation of the Body of S. Stephen the Proto-Martyr has these words Cyril repented and adhered to the Orthodox Faith He presided in the Second Council and was not excepted against either because he was ordained by Arians and had been an Arian himself or because he had usurpt the Chair of S. Maximus expelled in defence of the Homoousion and still living This Instance I leave to the Reader 's Judgment § 4. Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople was deposed by an Heretical Synod in obedience to the Heretical Emperor Anastasius The Emperor Anastasius says Theodorus Lector charged the Patriarch Euphemius with the Rebellion of the Isauri alleging that he had written Letters to the Rebels and called together those Bishops which were in Town who to gratifie the Emperor pass'd upon Euphemius the Sentence of Excommunication and Deprivation 'T is to be observ'd of this Synod that it was unlawful on two Accounts 1. It was only a Synodus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a few Bishops called together such as were then residing at Constantinople which by the Canons of the Church could be of no force at all for they require that a Synod should be at least Provincial The Vindicator says such a Synod was by the Canons of the Church sufficient and obliging till a greater number of Bishops could be perswaded to restore him By what Canons If the Law requires that all the Members of Parliament should be summoned and only some few are called tho' every one is truly a Member yet they cannot make a Parliament 2. It was an Heretical Synod Such a one to be sure it was For the true reason why the Emperor would have Euphemius deposed was because he knew him to be a stout Defender of the Faith If they had not been Men of his own Faith the Emperor would never have employ'd 'em in that Business and Theophanes expresly tells us that the Bishops that were about the Emperor were Hereticks That this Synod in particular was an Heretical Synod the Libellus Synodicus asserts I now observe 1. That Macedonius who was put into Euphemius's place and was really Orthodox tho' the Emperor I suppose thought him well inclin'd to his Party tho' he accounted Euphemius invalidly deprived and had with all a great Honour for him yet he freely accepted of the See and that too tho' he knew that Euphemius had never resign'd That he thought him invalidly deprived may be gathered from these words of Theodorus Lector The Emperor says he Commanded Euphemius to be banished to Euchaita who desired that Macedonius might give him his Word that he should not be injured on the way Macedonius therefore being permitted by the Emperor to pass his Word for his Security did a thing that deserves Praise He commanded his Deacon to take off his Episcopal Robe and so he went into the Baptisterium of the Church to Euphemius He took up Money likewise upon use and gave it him to sustain his Company If he had not thought him invalidly deposed he would not have shew'd him that kind of respect 2. That Macedonius being thus constituted was receiv'd as Patriarch of Constantinople by the Catholick Church This is too notorious to need any Proof I shall only observe that he is called by Zonaras a Holy Man and that the People of Constantinople submitted to him tho' they loved Euphemius so well and so much condemned the Proceedings against him as to raise a Sedition for his sake when first deprived 3. That when Macedonius sent his Synodical Letters to Elias Patriarch of Ierusalem Elias received him as Patriarch tho' at the same time he refused to subscribe to Euphemius's Deprivation Elias says Cyrillus Scythopolitanus refused to give his Consent to Euphemius ' s Deprivation but Macedonius he received into Communion when he found by his Synodical Letter that he was Orthodox So between Macedonius and Elias there was Concord 4. So far was Euphemius from cherishing any Animosity against his Successor Macedonius that after Macedonius was likewise banished they visited one another as Friends and were therefore both murdered by the Emperor's Command § 5. It 's alleged by one of our Adversaries that the Novatians the Donatists and the Meletians of Egypt were Schismaticks in the Opinion of the Church because the Bishops who first headed 'em were Second Bishops but this is easily answered For the Bishops whom they followed were not set up by any Sovereign coercive Power in the room of others deposed but were set up by inferior Persons against others possessed of the Sees I have already said that it is not every one whom a small tumultuous Party shall get to be ordain'd that ought to be received as a Bishop but that which we maintain is this That where the lawful Bishop is deposed by an Irresistable Party there the Successor may be acknowleged Here I cannot but take notice that before Majorinus the Head of the Donatists was made Bishop of Carthage by that Party Caecilianus who was first possessed of the See was deposed by a Synod of no less than Seventy Bishops yet was owned by the Catholick Church to have been all along the rightful Bishop even before he was confirmed by the Synods of Rome and Arles and the other Party was accounted Schismatical from the very beginning This our Adversaries who are pleased to Talk so much of Synods would do well to consider He never was thrust out of his See by the Civil Power and the Synod no Body valued tho' it was Orthodox he was therefore owned because he was still in Possession CHAP. XVIII The Conclusion Bishops deposed by the Civil Autority obliged even in common Charity to acquiesce But whether they acquiesce or not the Church is to submit to the present Possessor I Have now done And from what has been said I think we may very well draw this Conclusion That supposing a Bishop deprived by the Secular Power is unjustly and invalidly deprived supposing likewise that he does not acquiesce but still lays claim to his Bishoprick yet the Church may lawfully and ought for peace sake to receive the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable I shall here take my leave of those Readers to whom I have hitherto directed my Discourse and address my self with all due Reverence and Respect to those reverend and worthy Persons whose Dissatisfactions have occasion'd the writing of this Treatise If the Church is not obliged to adhere to an ejected Bishop who refuses to acquiesce
then 't is certain that That Bishop if he makes a Separation is himself guilty of a Schism We will now proceed to consider in short the Duty of an ejected Bishop upon this Supposition That there are some of our late Bishops that still lay Claim to the Obedience of their People which as has been observ'd in the Beginning of this Treatise does not as yet sufficiently appear And for their sakes I speak it may it never appear We will suppose if they please that the Church ought not to submit to the present Possessor unless the ejected Bishop gives his Consent Let that be supposed Yet if the Church to avoid a Persecution has actually done it what then ought a good Bishop to do Let us consider a little what the consequences of a Schism may be To be engaged in a Schism is according to S. Cyprian and our Adversaries themselves to be out of the Church of Christ and to be in a State of Damnation And how can a good Bishop one that ought to lay down even his Life for his Flock see his People in a State of Damnation when by onely his communicating with his Successor they may be redeem'd This deserves to be seriously consider'd 'T is the Advice of S. Clement Bishop of Rome to some turbulent Persons of Corinth who disturbed the Presbyters of the Church that they should if they could not agree rather leave that place than disturb the Presbyters and hinder 'em in the Discharge of their Duty This place of S. Clement I formerly understood as if he had given that advice to the Presbyters themselves that they should rather withdraw than be the occasion of Schisms and Divisions and so easie it is to mistake it that it 's acknowleged by even some of my Adversaries that I rightly understood it But upon perusing S. Clement's Epistle a second time I agree with the learned Vindicator that this is his Meaning Vtinam mihi sic semper disputare contingat ut ad meliora proficiens deseram quod maâ—â— tenebam That I heartily say with S. Ierom. I could heartily wish that all were of the same Disposition Caeterum scimus quosdam I use S. Cyprian's words quod semel imbiberunt nolle deponere nec propositum suum facile mutare That the Clergy ought not to be unjustly disturbed is a thing we all agree in It is likewise certain that if they have Injury done 'em they ought to have Amends made ' em But the Question now is Whether if the State has unjustly deposed 'em and is resolv'd not to restore 'em and the Church for Peace-sake has thought fit to submit they that are injured ought not so to acquiesce as that all People may be united and the much greater Part retriev'd from the Spiritual Danger to which they are obnoxious I have produced in my Preface to the Baroccian Treatise some Examples to shew how tender good Bishops have always been of their Flock and the Church's Peace They deserve to be here also mention'd When S. Gregory Nazianzen was Patriarch of Constantinople and great Disturbances were rais'd in the Church on his account he freely surrender'd up his Right and in the General Council of Constantinople thus address'd himself to the Bishops 'T is a base and unworthy thing my Collegues and Co-pastors of the Flock of Christ for you who teach others Peace to stir up among your selves an intestine War For how shall you be able to reduce others to Concord who differ and disagree among your selves By the Trinity it self I beseech you to concert your Affairs peaceably and as becomes you And if on my account there be any Dissentions I am not better than the Prophet Jonas Throw me into the Sea and so shall you cease to be toss'd by the tempest of Tumults Whatsoever you shall think fit tho' I am not guilty of any thing I will willingly endure it if by that means there may be Concord preserv'd Depose me from my Throne Cast me out of the City This onely I desire that to speak in the words of Zacharias you would love Truth and Peace When Nectarius was ordain'd and fate as his Successor he address'd himself to him and desired him to take care against Hereticks As for my own private Troubles says he I do not so much as reckon 'em among Evils I regard onely the Afflictions of the Church When the African Church was broken in pieces by the Schism of the Donatist's all the Catholick Bishops of that Church to the number of near 300 made the Donatists this Offer That if they pleas'd all the Bishops of both Parties should resign their Bishopricks and new ones whom both Parties should acknowlege should be chosen in their places This Offer they publickly make in the first Conference of Carthage in their Epistle to Marcellinus the Emperor's Vice-gerent For why say they I should we doubt to offer up in our Redeemer the Sacrifice of such a Humility Did he descend into a Human Body from Heaven that we might be Members of him and shall we scruple to descend from our Thrones to preserve his Body from being torn in pieces by a cruel Division 'T is sufficient for us that we are faithfull and obedient Christians Let us therefore so continue We are ordain'd Bishops for the sake of the People of Christ That therefore which conduces to the peace of Christ's Church let us do according to the Duty of Bishops If we are profitable Servants how can we preferr our Temporal Honours to the Eternal Rewards of our Lord. The Episcopal Dignity will be more advantageous to us if by being resign'd it may gather together the Flock of Christ than if it disperses it by being retain'd For with what face shall we hope for those Honours which are promis'd by Christ in the World to come if our pretending to our Honours here in this World does hinder the Vnity of the Church Who can believe that these great Men if they had been unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority would therefore have broken the Peace of the Church and separated from the Communion of their Successors 'T is a Saying of S. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria That Schism is more to be avoided than Idolatry it self because by avoiding Idolatry we consult onely our owâ— private Good but by avoiding Schism we consult the Good of all the whole Church This he writes to Novatian who had set up himself against Cornelius as Bishop of Rome And he tells him That if he was chosen against his Will as he had pretended he ought to shew it by resigning voluntarily That he ought to endure any thing that the Church of God might not be divided This Autority our Adversaries are pleas'd to urge for themselves But they do not consider how different their Case is from that of Cornelius They do not consider that Cornelius was never deposed was still in Possession still own'd by all the Churches of the World Novatian
Nicolaus p 147. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 150. n. 4. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 188. n. 4. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What Errors there may be in the following Pages which the Author has not seen the Reader is desired to correct THE CASE of SEES VACANT By an Unjust or Uncanonical DEPRIVATION STATED In Reply to a TREATISE ENTITULED A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops c. TOGETHER WITH The several other Pamphlets lately publish'd as Answers to the BAROCCIAN TREATISE By HUMPHRY HODY D. D. Fellow of Wadh. Coll. in Oxford Abstineamus nos à Convitiis ne tempus inaniter impendamus ad iâ— quod agitur inter nos potius advertamus S. Aug. Ep. ad Pascentium Comitem Non â—nim vincimur quando offeruntur nobis meliora sed instruimur maximè in his qua ad Ecclesia unitatem pertinent spei fidei nostrae veritatem S. Cypr. LONDON Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCIII Imprimatur Geo. Royse R. R mo in Christo Patri ac D no D no Iohanni Archiep. Cantuar à Sacris Domest Decemb. 1. 1692. To the most Reverend Father in God JOHN By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY His GRACE Primate of all England and Metropolitan May it please your Grace THis Treatise being design'd for the Service of the Church as at present Establish'd I presume to make your Grace this humble offer of it It must be confest that the greatness of the Subject deserves a more able Manager but my Lord that favourable Acceptance with which you were pleas'd to honour the Baroccian Treatise has encouraged me to hope that your Grace will likewise be pleas'd to accept of these Endeavours and to excuse and pardon the Defects of Your GRACE's Most dutifull Servant HVMPHRY HODY To the Reader THere are two things which they that separate from the Communion of the Church on the account of Bishops deposed by the Civil Autority are obliged to make out to justifie themselves from the Charge of Schism 1. That the Civil Power has no Autority in any Case whatever to deprive a Bishop of his See 2. That no Bishop that is put into the place of another deposed by an incompetent Autority ought to be own'd If they cannot make out both these Propositions they do nothing at all For if we may lawfully submit to a Bishop put into the place of another deprived by the Civil Power tho' the Civil Power had no Autority to deprive it must thence follow that They are guilty of Schism who separate from the Church on such an account because there is nothing can justifie a Separation from the Church when we may lawfully communicate with it But on the other Side the Case is quite different They that own the present Possessor in opposition to one deposed by the Civil Power are to justifie their Adherence to him obliged to make out but onely one thing Either 1. That the Civil Power may lawfully deprive a Bishop of his See for Crimes or reputed Crimes purely Political Such as are here supposed or 2. That if it cannot lawfully do so yet if it has actually done it and another unexceptionable on all other accounts is establish'd in the See it is lawfull for Peace-sake to own the Possessor This Advantage We have of our Adversaries The Baroccian Treatise which I lately publish'd is a Proof of the last Proposition It supposes that Bishops deprived uncanonically whether by Princes onely or by Synods it produces Examples of both kinds are unjustly and invalidly deprived yet shews that we ought not to separate on that account from the Communion of the Present Possessor Never was a poor Treatise more hardly and severely used by its Adversaries than that has been This was a Proposition that our Adversaries were not aware of They were therefore highly concern'd to employ all their Art to weaken the Autority of that Treatise But for all the hard Names they have so liberally bestow'd upon it they are forced to confess by their Practice that it carries with it a great deal of Strength If to be opposed by seven several Answerers the latter not satisfied with what the former had urged be an Argument of Strength in a Treatise we may still believe and I hope it was so that the finding it out at this Juncture had something of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it I presume the Reader will expect I should give him some Account of these seven several Answers which have been publish'd against it I shall lay down the Titles of 'em in the same Order as they came to my hands 1. The Oxford Antiquity examin'd c. 2. An Answer to a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History translated from an antient Greek MS. in the Publick Library at Oxford by Humphry Hody B. D. c. 3. Epistola ad Humfredum Hody c. de Tractatu à Scriniis Baroccianis Bibliothecae Bodleianae eruto ab illo nuper edito conscripta 4. A farther Account of the Baroccian MS. lately publishâ—d at Oxford 5. Reflections on the Greek MS. translated by Mr. Hody This is not Printed but was put into my hands in a MS. 6. A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops asserting their Spiritual Right against a Lay-Deprivation against the Charge of Schism c. These six are professedly and entirely in Answer to the Baroccian Treatise But the Author of this last mention'd was I know not how so unhappy as to mistake the Question He writes against the Treatise as if the Design of it were to vindicate the Autority of the Civil Power in depriving Bishops But that is not the Design of the Treatise neither was it my Design in publishing it And from this strange Mistake it comes to pass that a great part of what that Author says is nothing at all to our Purpose 7. Vnity of Priesthood necessary to the Vnity of the Church with some Reflections on the Oxford MS. and the Preface annext The Vindication of the Autority of the Civil Power in Depriving a Bishop for Political Crimes I reserve for a particular Treatise My Business at present is to manage the last Proposition that advanced by the Baroccian Treatise In Reply to these several Answers I here present our Adversaries with an Impartial History of the Church's Behaviour throughout all Ages under Bishops put into the Places of others Deposed by a Lay or otherwise Invalid Sentence I grant at present that all Lay-Deprivations are invalid I suppose the worst in all Cases Suppose the Deprivation was not onely uncanonical but also unjust Suppose the Depriver not onely a Lay-man but doubly unqualified by being likewise a Heretick Suppose besides that the ejected Bishop was deprived for adhering to the Truth and for opposing Vice or Heresy Notwithstanding all this I assert That if he was deprived by a Power irresistible a Submission to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable
and banish'd by the Heretical Emperor Constans tho' he never resign'd yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome tho' at the same time they were zealous Assertors of the Orthodox Faith and had likewise a great love for S. Martin Eugenius is receiv'd and own'd by all as a true Pope and has been honour'd all along by the Church as a Saint S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope and prays to God for him as such Page 128. CHAP. XIII Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus his Successor Cyrus is receiv'd as a true Patriarch § 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus § 2. Page 135. CHAP. XIV An Account of the Schism between Photlus and Ignatius Patriarchs of Constantinople Photius who was put into Ignatius's place when deposed by the Emperor no such Person as his Enemies report him By how great a Party he was receiv'd The reason why some refused to acknowlege him was not so much because he was so constituted as because he was a Neophytus and was besides ordain'd by a Bishop Excommunicated and in their Iudgments stood himself Excommunicated at that time Ignatius professes that if Photius had been one of the Church i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration he would willingly have yielded to him Ignatius values the Councils that condemn'd him no more than he did the Lay power The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter His Errors concerning the Council call'd the First and Second A New account of the reason of that Title His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome call'd by P. Nicholas against Photius Photius after he was receiv'd by the Church and confirmed by a general Council is deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Leo yet his Successor Stephen is receiv'd by the Church Page 139. CHAP. XV. Nicolaus Mysticus Patriarch of Constantinople not deprived by a Synod as the Vindicator contends but by the Emperor Leo the Wife § 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Berengarius yet his Successor Antony is own'd and receiv'd by the Church particularly by the Pope the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna and continued in the See many years § 2. Basilius Camaterus and Nicetas Muntanes Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Isaacius Angelus yet no Division in the Church on their account § 3 4. The Patriarchs of the present Greek Church very frequently deprived by the Turk yet no Division in the Church As great Reason to submit to the present Possessor here as in the Greek Church The Necessity the same Page 170. CHAP. XVI The Sentence of an Uncanonical Synod esteemed by the Antients invalid S. Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople unjustly and invalidly deposed by a Synod He declares however at first against all Separation from the Church on his Account He afterwards yields to Resentment and refuses to Communicate with his Successors Arsacius and Atticus because they had been his Enemies and had a hand in his Deprivation The Joannites acted by their Passions not by Principles They separate from the Church not because there was another made Patriarch in S. Chrysostom's place but before that was done Arsacius being made Patriarch they refuse to Communicate with him not because he was put into S. Chrysostom's place but through Hatred against St. Chrysostom's Deposers because they frequented his Churches Pope Innocent of Rome not consistent with himself His Practice contradicts his Words He did not think Arsacius and Atticus no Bishops His Zeal for the Honour of his own See the chief Cause of his Opposing ' em He at last receives Atticus as a true Patriarch The Vindicator's Exception against the Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Baroccian Treatise confuted The Eastern Bishops refuse to separate from the Communion of the Church tho' S. Chrysostom laid Claim to his See and actually separated and tho' they esteemed his Deprivation invalid So did the Monks of Egypt The Testimony of S. Nicon out of a MS. S. Nicon himself tho' he esteemed his Deprivation extremely unjust yet approves of those that did not separate on his Account S. Chrysostom takes it for granted as a thing of Course that all would immediately resolve to choose a new Patriarch in his room The Patriarch Atticus highly esteemed by the whole African Church The Ecclesiastical Historian Socrates disapproves of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation yet speaks of Arsacius and Atticus as of true Patriarchs Theodoret extremely offended at the Injustice of his Deposers yet reckons both Arsacius and Atticus among the Patriarchs of Constantinople They are both owned in all the Catalogues of the Patriarchs Their Ordinations never questioned by any Atticus praised by P. Celestine I. and owned to be a true Successor of S. Chrysostom Page 176. CHAP. XVII Deprivations by Heretical Synods invalid S. Eustathius Patriarch of Antioch deposed by an Heretical Synod he himself accounts his Deprivation invalid The Orthodox separate from the Communion of his Successors not because he was invalidly deprived but because they accounted them Hereticks Eustathius acts as Bishop of Antioch tho' in banishment as long as his Successors were Hereticks but as soon as Meletius an Orthodox Person was ordain'd his Successor he desisted and concern'd himself no more as Bishop of Antioch That he lived till Meletius was made Patriarch demonstrated against Baronius Valesius c. Why some of the Orthodox refused to submit to Meletius The Vindicator's Assertion That none accounted Meletius an Arian whilst he was Bishop confuted The Schism between the Meletians and the Paulinists no Example against us § 1 2. The Instance of Maximus and Cyril of Jerusalem examin'd § 3. Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople deposed by an Heretical Synod yet Macedonius an Orthodox and a good Man accepts of his See tho' he own'd him to be the rightfull Patriarch Macedonius is receiv'd by the Catholicks tho' they loved Euphemius and accounted him unjustly deprived He is own'd by S. Elias Bishop of Jerusalem tho' Elias at the same time declared Euphemius's Deprivation unjust and refused to subscribe to it § 4. The Schisms of the Novatians Donatists and Meletians of Egypt no Examples against us § 5. Two Fragments of Photius out of a M S. § 1 3. Page 186. CHAP. XVIII The Conclusion Bishops deposed by the Civil Autority obliged even in common Charity to acquiesce But whether they acquiesce or not the Church is to submit to the present Possessor Page 196. The CASE of SEES Vacant by an Unjust or Uncanonical Deprivation Stated c. CHAP. I. The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power demonstrated Objections answer'd No obligation
with Death The Bishops however refused to subscribe and so he was made Pope without any consent of theirs But after he was Ordain'd says the Author of the Pontifical they subscrib'd for the sake of the Vnity of the Church and of Religion Tho' the Synod of C P. before whom the Patriarch Alexius was accused for his having been promoted to that Dignity by the bare autority of the Emperour without the Votes of the Clergy lookt upon his Promotion to be altogether unlawfull yet when he pleaded that he had Ordain'd many Bishops and that if they depriv'd him they must likewise deprive all those whom he had Ordain'd upon that bare Consideration because to Deprive so many was likely to occasion a great Disturbance in the Church they over-ruled the Accusation and determin'd nothing against him When Calendion was made Patriarch of Antioch by the Emperor Zeno and Ordain'd by Acacius the Patriarch of C P. tho' that was unlawfull by the Canâ—ns of the Council of Nice and directly contrary to the constant Custom of the Catholick Church yet because it was done as the Emperour and Acacius alleg'd to avoid Seditions in Antioch the Proceeding was approv'd of by Simplicius Bishop of Rome Tho' I wish says he that it had not been done yet I easily excused it because it was done through Necessity For that which is not voluntary i.e. that which is done onely for Convenience or Necessity 's sake cannot be imputed as a Fault These Examples and Autorities may serve to shew in general That there are no Laws or Customs of the Church so sacred but what our Wise Forefathers thought ought to be postpon'd to the present Welfare and Prosperity of it That the same was their Opinion in reference to our particular Case We shall hereafter shew in its due Place § 4. Our Proposition being thus establish'd on that sure Maxim acknowledg'd as has been shewn by the Antients That whatsoever is necessary for the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church that ought to be made use of provided that it is not in it self Sinfull and that the ill Consequences which may possibly attend it are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid There are two Things which I am oblig'd to make out First That the Submitting to a Bishop put into the place of another unjustly Depos'd by the Civil Autority is not in itself Sinfull And 2dly That the ill Consequences to which it is liable are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid § 5. First It is not in it self Sinfull For if it is so it must be so for one or more of these following Reasons Either first because it is forbidden by some express Law of God Or 2dly because it makes us Accomplices in the Injustice Or 3dly because of the Oath of Canonical Obedience which the inferior Clergy have taken to their Bishop and the inferior Bishops to their Archbishop Or lastly because as one of our Adversaries the learned Vindicator contends such a Bishop as is placed in the room of one Deposed by the Civil Autority is in reality no Bishop These Objections I shall consider distinctly § 6. First It is not against any Law of God For as to our Case the Scripture is altogether silent 'T is true it Commands us to be obedient to our Governors and that Command reaches as well to the Spiritual as to the Temporal But when there are two that stand Competitors and both claim our Obedience to which of those two our Obedience ought to be paid it leaves to our Wisdom to determine § 7. Neither 2dly does it make us Accomplices in the Injustice For if a Landlord be unjustly and invalidly dispossess'd of his Estate by an Incompetent Autority Who thinks the Tenant an Accomplice in the Injustice because he pays his Rent to the present Possessor Should the Clergy refuse to submit to the Bishops in possession it could onely serve to draw down Ruin upon themselves It cannot restore those whom the State has deposed It is not our Submitting to the present Possessors that ejects the former for they are already irretrievably Depos'd since the Supreme Power is peremptory against ' em That has publickly declar'd that whoever are our Bishops the old ones shall govern us no longer If we think the Proceeding unjust 't is enough that we remonstrate against it and express our dissatisfaction If that will not doe the Good of the Publick obliges us to be quiet § 8. Neither Thirdly is it sinfull on the account of the Oath of Canonical Obedience For that is taken not absolutely and unconditionally but with this Supposition That the Bishop to whom we take it has power to govern us If I take an Oath to be faithfull or obedient to a Governour whether Civil or Ecclesiastical I engage my self to him as a Governour that is as one that can govern If therefore he can no longer govern whatsoever the Impediment is my Obedience is no longer engag'd As it is in the State so it is in the Church The Oath that is taken to a Bishop as he is the Governour of a Church is not taken for the sake of the Bishop but for the Peace and good Order of the Church 'T is this was the Design of the Church when she order'd such an Oath to be taken When therefore the Oath tends no longer to the Good of the Church but notoriously to Schism Disorder and Confusion it cannot any longer oblige but is void of it self by virtue of the Church's Intent and Design in the first Institution of it It is further to be consider'd that particularly here in the Church of England the Oath of Canonical Obedience is always taken with this Supposition That the Civil Power as well as the Ecclesiastical do allow the Bishop to govern But let us suppose even that which in reason we ought not to suppose Let us suppose that the Bishop intended that the Oath should always oblige Whatsoever was the Intent of the Bishop That was not the Intent of the Church And it is the Intent of the Church not the private Intent of the Bishop that gives an Obligation to the Oath I add That should it be both the Intent of the Bishop and likewise the Intent of the Person who takes the Oath that it should always oblige should it run in these express words I will always adhere to you if Depos'd by the Civil Autority in opposition to him whosoever he be that shall be put into your place Should any one I say take such an Oath as that yet he cannot be oblig'd by it The Oath is in it self unlawfull 't is a Sin against the Publick repugnant to the Will and the Welfare of the Church It would be in effect to swear thus I will for your sake oppose the Welfare
of the Publick and break the Vnion of the Church I will leave the Communion of the Church and adhere to you tho' I have not any Reason to do so besides this bare Oath To conclude Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's interest so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils is so far from being obliging that it would be a Sin to act according to it It is granted by our Adversaries that the Obligation of an Oath of Canonical Obedience ceases if a Bishop is depriv'd tho' never so unjustly by a Synod Now what is the Reason of that 'T is because to adhere to a Bishop when a Synod has fully deposed him and placed another in his See must occasion a Division in the Church and disturb the Publick If that is the Reason as no one can assign any other at least there can be none but what is grounded on that then the Reason is the same in both Cases and consequently in both Cases tho Oath will be equally void 'T is in vain to allege That in the Case of a Synod we cease to be obliged by our Oath because every Bishop is suppos'd to have obliged himself to submit to the Determination of a Synod whether just or unjust and therefore when a Synod has Deposed him tho' by an unjust sentence his Place is truly void by virtue of his supposed Consent For suppose a Bishop should have always declar'd that he never would give his Consent that a Synod should have Power to Depose him by an unjust Sentence ought we not however to submit to the new Constituted Bishop Our Adversaries will tell us that we ought But why 'T is because the Necessity of Government and the Peace of the Church requires it Well then it is certain that it is not the Bishop's Consent but Necessity and the Good of the Publick that makes our Oath void Tho' in some Respects there is a great deal of Difference between what is done by a competent or a lawfull Autority and what is done by an incompetent or an unlawfull Autority yet as to our Acquiescence in a Case of Necessity such as is here supposed I can see no Difference at all The Obligation to acquiesce is the same in both Cases when in both Cases the Necessity is the same If a Lord be dispossess'd of his Mannor by an Incompetent Autority that cannot be resisted a Conqueror suppose or an unlawfull Court Who thinks the Tenant forsworn for submitting to the new Possessor Who makes any difference there between a Competent and an Incompetent Autority And why is the Tenant in such a Case not forsworn If he cannot or ought not to oppose the Intruder yet ought he not at least to give up his Estate rather than submit and do Homage to the wrong Lord 'T will be granted I presume by our Adversaries that he is neither obliged to oppose the Intruder nor yet to give up his Estate But why does the Oath which he took to the rightfull Lord cease to oblige him 'T is because when he took the Oath he took it onely on this Supposition That the Lord was Possess'd of the Mannor The Peace and Tranquility of the Publick and the Good of Tenants in general give that Restriction to the Oath If the Bishop of a Frontier Town will not own the Autority of a Conqueror and is therefore Deposed by that Conqueror I desire to know of our Adversaries whether the Clergy of that Town are perjur'd if they own that Bishop whom the Conqueror thinks fit to set over ' em If a Bishop should by the Civil Power be condemn'd to perpetual and close Imprisonment or be banish'd forover from his Country so as that it is impossible for him to perform the Duties of a Bishop or should he be carried away Captive we know not where or from whence we cannot redeem him What then Are we still obliged by our Oath because he was Deposed by no Synod When in the Beginning of the 3d. Century Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem had secretly withdrawn himself and no Body knew what was become of him left the Church should be without the Assistance of a Bishop there was presently a new one Ordain'd How their Bishop was lost they knew not 'T was enough that he was gone and did not any longer Officiate The Church says S. Chrysostom cannot be without a Bishop That he said to his People when he himself was to be carried away into Banishment and on that account he advises 'em to accept of another for their Bishop I easily foresee what will be the Reply of our Adversaries They will tell us That in such Cases we ought to presume that the Bishop gives his Consent that his Successor should be acknowledged That therefore the Oath does no longer oblige because there is a rational Presumption that the banish'd the imprison'd or the captive Bishop and He of the Frontier Town do remit the Obligation of it To this I answer 1. It is indeed to be presum'd that a good Bishop one that can say with S. Gregory then Bishop of C P. I seek not yours but you will readily forego his own Interest for the Welfare and Prosperity of his Flock And since our ejected Bishops who are I am fully perswaded very worthy and good Men and real Lovers of their People have never by any publick signification of their Will laid claim to the Obedience of their People and do not now exercise their Episcopal Power as before in reason we ought to presume that they give their Consent that their Successors should be acknowledged But 2dly let it be supposed that the outed Governor does expresly assure his Inferiors that he does not give his Consent but still lays Claim to their Obedience Suppose the conquer'd the banish'd the imprison'd or the captive Bishop should charge his People expresly upon their Oath never to accept of any other Bishop as long as by the common Course of Nature he himself may be supposed to be living or till they be assur'd he is dead Let this I say be supposed and easy it is to be supposed What must be done in such Cases Is the Church perjur'd if she accepts of another Will our Adversaries say that she is A hard Saying Who can bear it This Presumption of the ejected Governor's Consent is I know what is commonly alleg'd by some very learned and otherwise judicious Men as the true and the onely foundation of Acquiescence when the lawfull Governor is unjustly Depos'd by a Power incompetent But that that is not the true and the onely foundation these Difficulties which I have alleg'd do me thinks abundantly demonstrate Other Men I must leave to their own ways of Thinking For my part I cannot imagine that the Welfare and Prosperity of Mankind does depend upon so ticklish and uncertain a Point as that of an ejected Governor's Consent That if he refuses to give his Consent all the Church or the
Nation must be made a Sacrifice to him It is easy to discover upon how false a Principle that Notion is built It is grounded on this That the Oath that is taken to the Governor is taken onely for his sake when if the true End and Design of Government were duely and impartially consider'd it would be found as above I observ'd that the Oath that is taken to the Governor is taken not onely for his Good but chiefly for the Good of the Publick and that any Oath taken to a Governor that is notoriously and in a high degree repugnant to the Good and Prosperity of the Publick so as to be necessarily productive of intolerable Evils is in its own Nature void because by the Publick it was never design'd that in such a Case it should oblige By the Author of a Treatise entitled Vnity of Priesthood necessary to the Vnity of Communion there are two Examples produced to shew how observant the Antients were of their Oath of Canonical Obedience which the Author calls eminent Instances and proposes 'em to the Consideration of the Bishops of our Church and wishes they would seriously apply ' em The first is that of Ivo Bishop of Chartres in France who flourish'd about 600 years ago He being one of the Suffragans of the Archbishop of Sens was desired by the Bishop of Lyons who was likewise the Pope's Legate to assist him at the Consecration of the Bishop of Nivers But the Bishop of Nivers being a Suffragan to the said Archbishop of Sens and that Archbishop having never given his Consent that the Bishop of Lyons should Ordain a Bishop of his District Ivo refuses to assist at the Consecration And this is the reason he gives for it Because if he should engage in such an undertaking he should be unfaithfull to his own Metropolitan and betray the Privileges allow'd that Church by the Canons as a Metropolitical Church which by Oath he was oblig'd to maintain Reus fieret violatae sponsionis quam Sedi Metropolitanae fecerat If the Archbishop of York had pretended to Constitute a Bishop of the Province of Canterbury without the Consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury and a Suffragan of the Province of Canterbury had assisted in that Ordination our Bishops would then have been able to apply this eminent Instance But as the Case stands they know not I believe how to do it And the Author is desired that he himself if he can would be pleas'd to apply it The other Instance is that of the Bishops of our own Country in the Reign of William II. There arising a great Difference between the King and Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury about acknowledging the Pope Whether the Archbishop could lawfully do it without the King's Consent The Matter was referr'd to the Parliament and the Bishops being by the King requir'd to deprive the Archbishop they answer'd saith Eadmerus That that they could not do because he was their Metropolitan 'T is hard to conjecture what our Author intended by proposing this Example as worthy Consideration unless it be that an Archbishop of Canterbury should be now above all Deprivation He contends in his Treatise that a Bishop ought not to be Deprived but by Bishops and hereby producing this Example if he means anything at all he intimates That an Archbishop cannot be Deprived by the Bishops his Suffragans because of their Oath of Obedience But whatever was our Author's meaning certain it is that it was not because of the Oath of Obedience that the Bishops refus'd to Deprive Anselm as the King would have had 'em but because they had at that time an Opinion amongst 'em that a Primate or Metropolitan could be judg'd and depriv'd by no one but the Pope So far were they from thinking themselves oblig'd by their Oath not to Deprive him that it 's very notorious that tho' he was not Depriv'd yet they threw off all Obedience and renounced their Subjection to him § 9. We are next to consider that Objection which is made by the learned Vindicator That a Bishop put into the place of another deposed by the Lay-power is in reality no Bishop If this is true then it must be granted that we cannot be oblig'd for the sake of Union and Peace to adhere to the present Possessor This indeed is the Difference between our Civil and our Ecclesiastical Governors The former are purely Governors and nothing more is required in them but to be capable of Governing The latter are not onely Governors but are likewise the Administrators of Sacraments and the sole Ordainers of the Clergy It is therefore necessary not onely that the Ecclesiastical Governor should be duly qualified for Government but that he should be likewise endued by God Almighty with the Power of Ordaining and of administring the holy Sacraments Thus much must be granted Let us now see what Argument the Vindicator can produce to degrade our present Possessors and to prove 'em no Bishops It is nothing but a Saying of S. Cyprian that is nothing at all to his Purpose The Saying is this That a second Bishop is no Bishop 'T is strange methinks that so great and so worthy a Man should pretend to raise so great and so extraordinary a Structure upon so weak a Foundation The Occasion of the Saying was this Novatian a private Presbyter had rais'd a Schism against Cornelius the lawfull Bishop of Rome he had got himself to be ordain'd Bishop tho' Cornelius had never been depos'd was still the Possessor and acknowledg'd the true and the onely Bishop of Rome by all the Churches of the World both the Western the Eastern and the African and Novatian was by all condemn'd as a rank and notorious Schismatick S. Cyprian who was always very zealous for the Unity of the Church thus expresses himself in his Epistle to Antonianus concerning him Cornelius says he being possess'd of the See according to the Will of God and confirm'd in it by the Consent of us all whoever would now be a Bishop of that See must needs be out of the Church neither can he have any Ecclesiastical Orders who does not continue in Vnity with the Church Whosoever he is whatsoever he may boast of himself or pretend to he is a prophane Person an Alien and not of the Church And since there cannot be a second Bishop where another is already in possession whosoever is made Bishop after another who ought to be alone he is not a second but none This is the place out of which the learned Vindicator is pleas'd to draw his Argument with how Logical an Inference the judicious Reader may see 'T is strange that That excellent Person should be so much blinded with Prejudice as not to be able to discover how vast a difference there is between the Case of our present Bishops and that of which S. Cyprian discourses Had Cornelius been deposed by the Emperor for refusing to acknowledge his
a Person absolutely unqualified be imposed upon us for a Bishop we are not then to accept him If a Roman Decius would depose all our Bishops and not permit us to constitute others in their places that so he may destroy our Religion we are not then to regard either what he does or commands As the Romans upon the Martyrdom of Fabian tho' to avoid the Fury of a Persecution Propter rerum temporum difficultates we might possibly deferr the Election yet as soon as we thought it convenient we would choose a Cornelius Bishop notwithstanding the Tyrant's Decrees If an Heretical King Frazamund should command us not to Ordain any Bishops that so the Catholick Religion may of Course be rooted out and his Heresy onely prevail we would then no more value that Command than the Catholicks heretofore did but in spite of his Edict would get as many Bishops ordain'd as we thought convenient for the Church But how can our Case be compared with either of these Here is no forbidding Elections no deposing all Bishops in general no imposing unqualified Persons no destroying of Religion no advancing of Heresy The onely Question here is Whether Paul or Apollos may be follow'd when Cephas is in Prison and is render'd uncapable of acting as an Apostle Our Adversaries are resolv'd to have Cephas If they cannot have him they will neither have Christ. To us 't is altogether indifferent whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas as long as we have Christ. There is onely one Inconvenience that I can possibly foresee which can justly be charg'd on this Principle which we advance and that is this That by a Submission to the present Possessor the Civil Governor is like to be encouraged to tyrannize over the Church and to turn out such Bishops as he does not like whensoever he pleases tho' never so unjustly If that be the Objection of our Adversaries I answer First That the same Inconvenience is in all manner of Government By submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly depos'd that Synod may be possibly encouraged to turn out others unjustly as many as it does not like tho' never so worthy Secondly That here in England it is not the Will of the Prince that can turn out a Bishop He has all the same Securities that another Subject can have and he cannot be deprived of his Bishoprick without a due Course of Law If they mean that the King and tâ—â— Parliament may by that be encouraged to Depose our Bishops at pleâ—â—ure 〈◊〉 Supposition will be wild and extravagant For who can imagine that they can ever concurr for the Deprivation of a Bishop but upon a very extraordinary Occasion There is nothing can be more manifest than that this Inconvenience is not so likely to happen as those Evils we endeavour to avoid These are certain and present That onely possible But Thirdly should we grant what in reason cannot be granted that it is as likely to happen yet how great is the Difference Should the State here or in other Countries one single absolute Governor be supposed to be so very dissolute as to turn out frequently the Bishops of the Church without any just Cause yet who can look upon that Mischief to be comparable to that of a Schism and aâ— Persecution What can the suffering of a few particular Men be when compared to the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole Church besides Our Adversaries may be pleas'd to consider That it was not for the Bishops that the Church was establish'd but the Bishops were appointed for the sake of the Church It is not therefore the Welfare of the Bishops as the Bishops are these or those Men much less of some few particular Bishops but the Welfare of the whole Church in general that is chiefly to be regarded § 11. And thus I hope I have sufficiently made out what I proposed to prove That the submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority is neither in it self a Sin nor liable to ill Consequences so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid or if so likely to happen not so great and pernicious to the Church as those are From whence it necessarily follows That such a Submission is in it self highly reasonable Which was the first Proposition we proposed to be demonstrated I come now to the Second General proposed to be made out That such a Submission is agreeable to the Practice of the Antients § 12. But before I put an end to this Chapter and proceed to the Proof of this last Proposition there remains yet one thing more to be consider'd and that is the Imputation of Heresy which the learned Vindicator is pleas'd to fix upon us Any Opinion says the Vindicator on account of which Men separate from their Ecclesiastical Governors is Heretical tho' it be not in its own nature so And such an Opinion is not Heretical onely when Men designedly separate from others on that very account because they are not of that Opinion but also when they venture on such Practices on account of that Opinion wherein others cannot communicate with 'em for that very reason because they cannot join with 'em in that Opinion 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 Heresy His meaning is that We maintaining this Opinion That the Civil Power has Autority to depose a Bishop for a Political Crime or if it has no such Autority when once it has deposed a Bishop it is lawfull to acknowledge the Successor and in consequence of that Opinion submitting now to the present Possessors are therefore Hereticks because He and his Party cannot join with us in that Practice as being of the contrary Opinion Here it comes into my mind what S. Ierom somewhere says That he that can with Patience hear himself call'd Heretick is no good Christian. This is true of those Heresies which were so in the Opinion of the Antients But in this Case we dare to be patient Ego tibi Haereticus tu mihi That 's all the Return we shall make The Vindicator in consequence of his Opinion that the Civil Autority has no power to depose a Bishop and that if a Bishop is so deposed his Successor ought to be rejected tho' otherwise never so worthy adheres to the Bishops deprived and disowns those that are put into their places In this Practice of the Vindicator we cannot join with him and for that very reason because we cannot join with him in his Opinion And what now follows from our Author's Notion of Heresy but that he himself is a Heretick It is nothing at all to our Purpose But for his own sake I shall here take upon me to add with a
pace maximi â—iri That this Notion of Heresy is a groundless and a fancyfull Notion That he may be properly call'd a Heretick who separates from the Church because the Church is not of his Opinion tho' the Opinion is not at all in its own nature Heretical I grant For there is a sort of Heresy which is not sinfull on the account of the Opinion maintain'd but onely because it is a separation from the Church But this I assert in opposition to what is laid down by the Vindicator That to all Heresy as the word is strictly taken to denote a Sin contradistinct to Schism it is necessary that there be an Opinion maintain'd which either the Church condemns or for which the Person that maintains it does of himself separate from the Church If it be not for any Opinion that the Vindicator is divided from the Church but onely for what is done by the Church he cannot be call'd in a strict sence a Heretick but onely a Schismatick § 13. But to wave this Dispute as not at all material and to suffer the Vindicator if he pleases to enjoy his Notion What now is the Use he would make of it What is his Design in advancing it The Use he makes of it is this He alleges the aforesaid Heresy as a Reason for their Separation He tells us That we being guilty of Heresy they ought by our own Concessions to keep off from our Communion because we our selves acknowlege that Heresy is a just cause of Separation Tho' we should admit says he that the Author of the Baroccian Treatise had been successfull in all that he has attempted we may yet justify our adherence to the deprived Bishops and our Separation from our Adversaries opposite Altars and justify it too by the Doctrine of their own Author for even he permits a Separation where Orthodoxy is concern'd and expressly excepts this Case from the Number of those which he pretends to confute An Heretical Bishop he calls a false Bishop c. 'T is strange that the worthy and learned Vindicator should be so much out in his Logick as not to see the Inconsistency of what he alleges and to offer this as a reason for their not communicating with us If it is their not communicating with us that makes our Opinion Heretical and us Hereticks how do they refuse to communicate with us for this reason because we are Hereticks We could not be Hereticks according to the Vindicator's own Notion 'till they had refused to communicate with us So dangerous a thing it is First to do a thing rashly and then to hunt for a Reason If this Plea of our Author is good I would very fain know how any Separation can be proved to be unlawfull Let our Author stand out a little and dispute with our old Dissenters He asks a Dissenter why he separates from the Church The Dissenter tells him 't is because the Church is Heretical But why Heretical Because she thinks it lawfull to oblige her Members to the use of Ceremonies and pursuant to that Opinion she actually imposes the use of ' em In the use of these Ceremonies says the Dissenter we cannot join with you and for that very reason because we cannot join with you in this Opinion That the Church has power to impose upon its Members the use of Ceremonies And because we cannot join with the Church in this Opinion and Practice upon that very account the Church is Heretical Thus according to our Author 's own Plea but the Plea would be vain and Illogical § 14. But this is not all We are not onely Hereticks upon that account but as the Vindicator contends we are Hereticks likewise as Heresy signifies an erring even in Fundamentals He affirms that our Opinion is a fundamental Error because as he says it is utterly destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society distinct from the State To maintain this Opinion That for Political Crimes a Bishop may be lawfully Depriv'd by the Civil Autority Or this That supposing he cannot be lawfully so depriv'd yet if he is deprived it is lawfull for Peace-sake to submit to his Successor How that is destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society I for my part cannot perceive To me 't is much more apparent that to advance this Opinion That a Bishop cannot be deprived by the Civil Autority for any Crime whatsoever is destructive of all Civil Government which as well as the Ecclesiastical is of God's Institution He therefore that advances that Notion advances a very dangerous Notion But it is not my Business at present to engage in these Disquisitions I shall onely make bold to ask the Vindicator a few Questions If he thinks that Opinion concerning the Power of the Magistrate a fundamental Heresy and enough to justify the present Separation how came it to pass that he did not leave the Communion of those whom he knew to be the Maintainers of that Opinion before this time I will ask him one Question more If the late Bishops should be again restor'd would he then refuse to communicate with those who advance that Opinion If he would not then it is certain that he does not think that enough to justify the present Separation One more and then I have done I desire to know if our Author knows none of his own Communion who themselves acknowledge the Power of the Supreme Civil Governor to depose a Bishop for Political Crimes 'T is strange if he should be ignorant of what every body knows And it is to be believ'd that the Fathers themselves of his own Communion at least some of 'em agree with us in this Opinion which the Church of England has all along to this time accounted Orthodox tho' the Vindicator is pleas'd to declare it a Heresy But enough and too much of these Matters We will leave our much honour'd Adversary to invent some other new Notion more consistent and more usefull for his Cause And will now proceed to enquire how Heretical our Forefathers were in thinking it lawfull to adhere to the present Possessor and in acting accordingly * An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles History c. in the Preface * S. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Anton. Ergo ille evangelii vindex ignorabat unum Episcopum esse oportere in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ says Cornelius Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch Ap. Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 43. concerning Novatian To have two Bishops in one and the same City is adversum fas Sacerdotii singularis says Pacianus Epist. 3. ad Sympronianum Novatianum (a) Collat. Carthag 1. c. 16. (b) Theodoret Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3. (c) And by the Synod of Sirmium to the Clergy and People of Rome in the Case of Felix and Liberius as Sozomen says l. 4. c. 15. but that Synod not was not Orthodox but Arian (a) Grâ—g Turon Hist. l. 10. c. 31. (b) Can. 4. (c) Can. 6.