order'd him to be put into a Boat and to be carried to Hieria from whence he went on foot through the Snow to Galacreni In his place Euthymius the Syncellus was ordain'd So word for word the Anonymous Continuator of Constantinus Porphyrogennetus And Georgius Cedrenus agrees exactly with ' em Neither does Zondras differ from ' em Samonas says he urged the Emperor to do many things against his Duty among other things to force the Patriarch to absolve him The Emperor therefore sending for the Patriarch desired to be absolv'd which the Patriarch refusing to do he was immediately carried over to Iria from whence they led him on foot to the Monastery in Galacrenae which he himself had built after he had govern'd the Church XI Years And Euthymius the Syncellus was made Patriarch But the Knot that the Vindicator would cut I will fairly untie for him The whole Truth is this The Patriarch Nicolaus was first deposed by the Emperor but before Euthymius was made Patriarch in his room he resign'd tho' he does not seem to have regarded his Resignation That he did resign I gather from the Oration which Aretas Archbishop of Caesarea spoke in praise of Euthymius which the Vindicator does not seem to have read But since of our own accord we give away this Example to what purpose has there been so much said concerning it To that I answer That I therefore thought fit to lay open this Error of the Vindicator not because I have thereby demonstrated a Truth For in a Treatise which should be Logical to endeavour to make out an impertinent Truth is to discover either want of Iudgment or want of Argument But because the Vindicator does not seem methinks to have discover'd any great Ingenuity in what he says concerning Nicolaus's Deprivation Since he thought fit to quote so bad an Author as Eutychius one that he himself perfectly contemns how came it to pass that he did not think fit to tell his Reader what the Authentick Greek Authors say It is certain he had read 'em But he knew not how to answer this Example without a little of Shuffle He knew that the good Greek Authors made directly against his Evasion The Cause I have undertaken to defend does not need any Disingenuities If it did I should leave it to some other to be its Vindicator § 2. In the Year 950 or 951 Ioseph by some call'd Gonfus Bishop of Brixia in Italy was deposed by the Tyrannical King Berengarius without any manner of Synod as Luitprandus Ticinensis who flourish'd immediately after in Berengarius's Court as his Secretary expressly attests Tho' Ioseph was thus deposed yet Antony whom the King made Bishop in his room was own'd and receiv'd by the Church This appears first from Luitprandus who says he was at that time Bishop of Brixia when he wrote his History Qui nunc usque superest By which he must mean that he still continued Bishop of Brixia to that time For if he had been deposed at that time he would have mention'd it not have used those words 2. From the Preface to the Decrees of the Synod of Augspurg held in the Year 952 in which our Antony Bishop of Brixia is reckon'd among the Bishops that sate in that Synod 3. From the Subscriptions of the Council of Ravenna held in the Year 967 in which we read Antonius Brixiensis Ecclesiae Episcopus consensi subscripsi 4. From the Subscriptions to Pope Iohn the thirteenth's Diploma against Heroldus Archbishop of Salisburg sent to the Bishops of that Council and by them subscribed among whom he is one § 3. In the Reign of Isaacius Angelus who was Emperor but nine Years began 1185 and ended 1194 there were at least three Patriarchs deposed without any Synod The Emperor Isaacius Angelus says the Author of the Baroccian Treatise finding Basilius Camaterus in the Patriarchal Chair deposed him without any just cause and promoted Nicetas the Chaplain of the Church to the See In Answer to this the Vindicator tells us That the Reason why he was deprived was a Matter of Ecclesiastical Cognisance and therefore 't is probable that he was deposed by a Synod But what says Nicetas Choniates in his History of Isaacius Angelus He plainly intimates the contrary that he was violently deposed by the Emperor As the violence says he and power of Emperor is not wont to be restrain'd till they have alter'd and chang'd all things both divine and human according to their pleasure so Isaacius when he came to the Crown deposed Basilius Camaterus from the Patriarchal Chair tho' he had been the chief Instrument in his promotion to the Imperial Crown The Reason pretended was That he had freed those noble Women from their confinement whom the late Emperor Andronicus had made Nuns against their Wills In his room he substituted Nicetas Muntanes the Chaplain of the great Church The same account we have in Nicephorus Callisti his MS. Catalogue of the Patriarch's of Constantinople He tells us that Basilius Camaterus was made Patriarch by Andronicus and deposed by Isaacius Angelus that he might not crown another Emperor after he had crownâ—d him But the Emperor's pretence says he was this That he had given a Lady who had thrown off her Nuns habit which she had been forced to put on his Benediction Of any Division in the Church on the account of this Deprivation there is no mention made And the same is true of the Instance following § 4. After a little time Nicetas himself was deposed as unfit to govern by reason of his Old age The Vindicator tells us from the Catalogue of Patriarchs that is extant in the Ius Graeco-Romanum that Nicetas resign'd But what says Nicetas Choniates a much better Author He tells us expressly that he was deposed by the Emperor against his will But neither says he did the Emperor suffer this Man so old as he was to die Patriarch but alleging that by reason of his age and simplicity he was not fit to be Patriarch he expell'd him the See against his will And that he did not resign may be confirm'd from Nicephorus Callisti his M S. Catalogue of Patriarchs For he mentions that his Successor Leontius resign'd but of Nicetas he says no such thing If he had known any such thing he would doubtless have mention'd it since he takes care to tell us that his Successor did so and since he takes care likewise to tell us that Theodosius Barradiotes Basilius Camaterus's Predecessor and several others did so I here observe that the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used concerning the Patriarch Nicetas in the Catalogue of the Ius Graeco-Romanum tho' it properly denotes a Resignation yet was used sometimes for amisit he lost his Bishoprick It seems to be used in this sense by Nicephorus Callisti in his M S. Catalogue where he speaks concerning Dositheus Patriarch of
Presbyter Timotheus Bishop Theophanes the Emperor commanded Celer to fetch Macedonius out of his Palace by force who cried out That he was ready to justifie himself not only before the Emperor but even before all the People in the Theatre Thus he commanded him to be led away forcibly by Night first to Chalcedon and thence to Euchaita not daring to bring him to a Trial for fear of the People and the next day be made one Timotheus Bishop To these may be added Marcellinus Comes Cyrillus Scythopolitanus Liberatus Diaconus Libellus Synodicus Zonaras Cedrenus Nicephorus Callisti After Macedonius was Banish'd and Timotheus Ordain'd Patriarch in his room the Emperor to persuade the World that it was not for nothing but for very great Crimes that he was Banish'd order'd a mock Trial Accordingly he was tried when absent Accused Judged Condemn'd by the very same Persons His Mock-Condemnation or Deprivation being sent him he rejected it as null and void in it self because his Judges were Hereticks Of this Theophanes has given us a particular Account I suppose out of the Ecclesiastical History of Theodorus Lector for him he quotes by Name a little after That Timotheus though the Deprivation of Macedonius was accounted by all the Orthodox Party to be absolutely Null and though he was ordain'd Patriarch even before that Mock-Deprivation was however acknowledged by all those of the Orthodox Party that accounted him Orthodox is apparent from many Authorities If he was rejected it was only by those who believ'd him to be what really he was a Heretick I observe in the first place that amongst all the Authors who mention the Deprivation of Macedonius there is not so much as one that either says expresly or gives any hint that any one separated from Timotheus upon that account They observe indeed that many of the Followers of Macedonius were at the same time Persecuted and Banish'd So Theophanes Cedrenus and Nicephorus Callisti But then at the same time they intimate that it was for the same Reason that Macedonius himself was Banish'd viz. Because they were great Sticklers for the Orthodox Faith and because for the sake of the Orthodox Faith they still adher'd to him In the Relatio or Libellus Petitionis which was presented to Iohn the Successor of Timotheus by the Synod of Constantinople after the Death of the Emperor Anastasius concerning the Condemnation of the Heretick Severus and the restoring of the Names of Euphemius and Macedonius to the Sacred Diptychs It is likewise desired that they that had been Banish'd or forced to flee away upon the account of Euphemius and Macedonius might be recall'd and restored to their respective Places These things had been demanded by the People in their publick Acclamations and that the aforesaid Persons were banish'd and forced to flee away for their zealous defence of the Catholick Faith the same People testifie by their Acclamations just after the aforesaid Petition was delivered Their words there are Let those that are in banishment for the Faith be recall'd and restored to the Church Secondly Theophanes says of the Illustrious and Religious Lady Iuliana That she was so great a Defender of the Council of Chalcedon that the Emperour could not possibly perswade her with all his Art to communicate with Timotheus neither could Timotheus himself perswade her though he often endeavour'd to do it The reason why she would not communicate with Timotheus was as may be gather'd from these words of Theophanes not because Macedonius was unjustly deposed but because she accounted Timotheus an Enemy to the Council of Chalcedon Thirdly 'T is observ'd by the same Author That though some Orthodox Bishops refused to communicate with Timotheus because they thought him a Heretick yet others and those two not the most timorous receiv'd him into Communion though they absolutely refused to subscribe to Macedonius's Deprivation and Condemn'd it as Unjust and Uncanonical Timotheus says he sent his Synodical Spistles and a Copy of Macedonius ' s Deprivation to the several Bishops to be subscrib'd Those that were more stout refused to subscribe to either they that were timorous subscribed through fear of the Emperor to both Others kept the midway and subscribed to the former but refused to subscribe to the latter which in effect was the same thing though to them they seem'd to be different By these last Words is meant That they that subscribed to Timotheus's Synodical Epistle though they did not themselves believe him to be a Heretick yet because he really was so did by consequence and by accident as much advance the Cause of the Hereticks as if they had likewise approv'd of Macedonius's Deprivation Amongst those Bishops who accepted of Timotheus's Synodical Epistle and by doing so receiv'd him into Communion and own'd him as Bishop of Constantinople two were the Famous Flavianus and Elias the Patriarchs of Antioch and Ierusalem This is in express Terms attested by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus a very good Author in these Matters as one of our Adversaries the Learned Vindicator acknowleges tho' another who either does not know how to distinguish a good Author from a bad one or at least for a Cause can Vilifie any good Author is pleas'd to affirm That Cyril's Legend is too weak an Authority to perswade any Man that Elias and Flavianus accepted of Timotheus'â— Synodical Epistle We will leave our Author to inform himself a little better of the Character of Writers and will give you here the words of Cyrillus The Emperor says he having driven Macedonius out of his See placed Timotheus in his room and requir'd Flavianus and Elias to unite themselves to him in Communion And they indeed assented to his Synodical Letters but they would not do so to the Acts of Macedonius ' s Deprivation Vpon which account the Emperor was extreamly enraged against them both and a great storm hung over both Churches 'T is observ'd by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise That the great Elias Bishop of Jerusalem embraced the Communion of three Patriarchs of Constantinople all alive together viz. Euphemius Macedonius and Timotheus being troubled indeed at the Ejectment of him in Possession but receiving the Successor also because of his Orthodox Faith That Timotheus Flavianus and Elias were Fellow-Communicants is intimated likewise by Liberatus Diaconus 'T is acknowleged by the Learned Vindicator who because their Opinion and Practice was so directly contrary to his is resolv'd to be revenged on ' em They were Men says he of no Principles turn'd frequently Apostates to the Eutychian Hereticks very frequently and easily-varied from the Principles which they themselves profess'd and own'd for Principles We see says he that they corresponded with so Notorious a Heretick as Timotheus which is more than ever our Authors own Principles would have allow'd 'em rather than hazard their Places Why should we then wonder if they had corresponded
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
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
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.