they were forced to be at all that trouble to get a Synod of their own Party to effect it But if it be left to the Arbitrary Will of the Prince to Depose the Orthodox Bishops at his Pleasure and supply the vacancies with any whom he thinks fit and their Dioceses must be obliged in Conscience to acknowledge them he will be sure in a short time to have such Bishops as shall determine that only to be Heresie which he will have to be so and it is a vain thing to say that Heretical Bishops must not be promoted or that they must not be obeyed for in a little time by this Doctrine there will be nothing reputed Heresie nor Schism but to hold a different Opinion and a different Commanion from that of the Prince But to come nearer home this Doctrine denies the Church a Power which is granted to be in all other Societies own no Head but of their own choosing or who is otherwise regularly set over them according to their Charter or Constitution and it seems if King James had put in new Bishops against the consent of the Chapters the Dioceses would have been obliged to obey them though the Fellows of Magdalen College in Oxford were bound in Conscience not to acknowledge a President who was forced upon them against their Statutes It may perhaps be said that we are secured from all the inconveniences that would follow from this Doctrine inasmuch as by the Laws of the Land no Bishop can be forced upon us by the King but he must be chosen by the Chapter of the Cathedral Church of the Diocese to which he is nominated But first if this Doctrine be calculated only for our own Church and we must be governed by a different Rule from the rest of the Catholick Church why then is the Practice of the Greek Church brought to recommend it to us But if this have been the Doctrine and Practice of all Churches we are not to imagine that the Laws of the Land can make it no sin but a Duty to separate from intruding Bishops when the Laws of God and of his Church enjoyn the contrary For the Laws of our Country must cease to oblige us in Conscience when they are inconsistent with the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages and if these have been always the Principles and this the Practice of the Church as it is now pretended to own the present Bishop whoever he be if he be no Heretick I doubt it will be in vain to alledg the Laws of the Land against an Intruder when he is once in Possession as long as he can keep his Possession but we must have Bishops de Facto and must be bound in Conscience to submit to them by whatever ill means they came in at first But suppose that the Laws of the Land would be a security to us as they have hitherto been and will be still if we retain our old Principles yet how can we be sure that the Laity will be more tender of the Honour and welfare of the Church than the Clergy themselves are And that if the Clergy give up the Ecclesiastical Authority they will not be willing to consent to it and be contented that a Prince should be absolute in Ecclesiastical Affairs if he will but act according to Law in Civil But whatever security there may be from the Secular Power to the Church since it is incorporated into the State yet by these Principles the Church could not have supported it self against the Attempts of Schismaticks before the Emperours became Christians and if the Civil Government should withdraw its Protection it is plain this Scheme leaves the Church no Power to defend it self against the Vsurpation of one Bishop upon another for by this Model of Church-Government if a Bishop get into Possession of anothers Diocese by any way whatsoever whether by the Secular Power or by any other means provided he be no Heretick he is from thence forth to be looked upon as the true Bishop notwithstanding any Canon of the Church against his Vsuâ—pation So that this Notion does effectually dissolve all Church-Government and leaves no Power and Authority in the Church to preserve it self but leaves it at the Mercy not only of the Civil Magistrate but of any Invader who is no Heretick or does not appear to be such Novatian if he could have got into Possession of the Episcopal Throne must by these Principles have been submitted to as Bishop of Rome than which nothing can be more absurd or more contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages And if the Cause of the New Bishops can be defended by none but such Principles it is plain that it is not to be defended at all for we must not contradict the Doctrine of the Church in all Ages to serve a present Turn nor maintain the Church in this Age so as to have no Church left for the next But I shall not here undertake further to shew how dangerous and destructive these Principles are to the Church of England and to Religion in general much less is it my business to state the Case now in Controversie I intend only to pursue the Author of this Treatise through his Discoveries which he pretends to make in Ecclesiastical History and if I can shew that this Greek has put a fallacy upon us I hope we shall not suffer our selves to be cheated by the impertinent and false Stories of an obscure Writer of no Name nor Authority but who appears to have lived in the most decayed and worst State of the Greek Church when their Sermons were nothing but ill digested Rapsodies which both for their Stile and Sense will scarce endure the Reading their Ecclesiastical Histories nothing but Legends of Miracles and all their Histories both Ecclesiastical and Civil full of such idle Stories as most Men are ashamed to tell after them and when by their Vices and Ignorance they had rendred themselves ripe for that Destruction which soon after came upon them It is to those Ages that we owe the loss of so many of the Works of the Fathers of the First Centuries and the Corruption of others to Countenance the Tenets and Practices of their own times and it is no wonder that when their Bishops were so often Deposed at the pleasure of the Emperour upon frivolous or rather upon very unjust pretences some should endeavour to make it believed that such Proceedings must be acquiesced in according to the Practice of former Ages in the like cases when the decay of all sound Knowledge and true Religion and of all good Orders and Discipline both in Church and State was so great and their Divisions so incurable which were principally occasioned or extremely heightened by the frequent changes of the Patriarchs that they at last brought utter ruin upon the Empire and subjected the Church to the Arbitrary Pleasure of the Grand Seignior And it is
AN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OUT OF Ecclesiastical History Translated from An Ancient Greek MANUSCRIPT in the Publick Library at Oxford BY HVMFRET HODY B. D. c. And Published under the Title of The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the New BISHOPS TO SHEW That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick To which is added The CANONS in the Baroccian Manuscript Omitted by Mr. HODY LONDON Printed and are to be sold by J. Wells near S. Paul's Church-Yard 1691. THE PREFACE THat a Separation is always unreasonable on one side or the other is without all question but that it is unreasonable to separate from New Bishops that are placed in the Sees of Bishops who are uncanonically deposed for this Cause only that they are in Possession upon what Reason and Justice soever of the said Episcopal Sees is very strange Doctrine and such as was never I think heard of in the Church of England till this Treatise was published For in the Sense of the Catholick Church in her Canons and Constitutions the New Bishop himself in such a Case makes the Separation and to continue Communion with the true Bishop is not to separate from the wrongful Possessor but to keep our former Place and Station to adhere to the Right and not to follow those who have set themselves up in opposition to it But the Doctrin which this Anonymous Greek Author is brought to vouch for to the World is of such a pernicious Nature and if it be allowed must have such destructive Consequences in the Church that I cannot but think that all Men who have a sincere Love for the Church of England whatever their Opinions may be in other Matters will not be ill pleased to see it proved that there is no Example to be found of this in the Practice of the Greek Church till it was reduced to so low and deplorable a Condition as to be no longer a Pattern for Imitation but a Caution rather for us to beware of those things which brought the Greeks into that Distress under which they have so long groaned And if we will but give our selves the least leisure to consider what is then that can bring more certain and speedy Ruine upon a Church than to act by such a Principle as makes all Ecclesiastical Authority have its sole and entire dependance upon external Force and Power and upon the casual Success and Events of things For if when the Civil Magistrate shall displace a Bishop for any frivolous cause or for no Cause at all but with the greatest and most apparent Injustice all Christians shall be obliged in Conscience to submit to the Intruder if he be but Orthodox and not to adhere to their lawful Bishop this utterly destroys all Church Authority and gives it up wholly into the Power of the Magistrate who may set up what Bishop he pleases provided they be no Hereticks and change them as often as he pleases and the Clergy and People shall be bound in Conscience to take no further notice of the dispossessed but to live under the new ones be they never so many and never so bad in all Acts of Communion and Obedience Now unless the Church can be ruined by nothing but Heresie or there be nothing that can render a Bishop unqualified for his Station but Heresie it is evident that this Doctrine leaves it at the Mercy of the Prince whether there shall long be any Church in his Dominions It is manifest that these Principles make all Church Censures ineffectual and expose the Church to all the Mischiefs of Erastianism For if a Prince should prefer an excommunicated Person to the See of the Bishop by whom he stands excommunicated supposing only that he was not excommunicated for Heresie this Person tho never so justly excommunicated must be owned and obeyed 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 A Schismatical Prince by this Doctrine may set up Schismatical Bishops and the Church will have no Remedy against them For instance if Constantine had been a Novation or Donatist he might have deposed the Rightful Bishops and have set up Novations or Donatists in their stead if those Sects were then only Schisms and they were no more at first But whoever can imagin that the Clergy and People of that Age would have communicated with them and have deserted their true Bishop may indeed believe all that our Author has said Tho the truth is according to his Principles no Prince can be a Schismatick because he may make what Bishops he pleases and so can make what Church he pleases and it will be the Duty of Christians to communicate not with their Bishops but with their Prince or which is the same thing with what Bishops he appoints A Popish Prince might set up Popish Bishops amongst us for he could never want Men who at least upon as good Grounds and from as good Authorities as those upon which this Doctrine is propounded to us would prove that Popery is no Heresie A Prince of a Latitudinarian Faith may by these Principles give us Socinian Bishops For the Disciples of Episcopius and Curcellaeus will undertake to prove that the Points in Controversie are not of necessity to Salvation and do not consequently involve the Assertors of them in Heresie And if a Prince should design never so well for the Glory of God and the Interest of Religion yet how easie it is for Princes to be mistaken and misled in things of this nature we may see in Constantine himself who was deceived by the Arians into a good Opinion of them after the Council of Nice even to the sending St. Athanasius away from his See tho he took care to keep it void from him till his return to prevent a Schism which by the Practice of the Church could not otherwise have been avoided But this is most of all remarkable in the unhappy Reign of Constantius who certainly was a very Devout Prince and had very good intentions in calling so many Synods and therefore the Fathers often mention him with Respect and with great Compassion but was miserably deluded and imposed upon by the Arians and persuaded to banish all the Orthodox Bishops and fill up the Sees with those of their own number But we must observe that tho Constantius believed that the Arians were not Hereticks but Orthodox and died in his errâ—r as S. Athanasius declares tho S. Gregory Nanianzen and Theodorâ—t say the contrary and therefore cannot be supposed to want any inclinations to Depose Athanasius by his own Power and the Arians wanted no Malice against Athanasius nor no Authority with the Emperour to put him upon it yet because according to the Doctrine professed on both sides this could not be done
writing Legends and has altogether as much foundation in History as that For the Historians only say that the Emperor caused his Eyes to be put out and then banished him to Rome but what became of him there or with whom he communicated they do not inform us The next Instance which he dwells Pag. 11. longer upon than any other in his whole Treatise is nothing at all to his purpose For what if Theodorus Studites were in fault for separating from the Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus because they had admitted Joseph the Steward of the Church to Communion who had officiated in an unlawful Marriage How does this prove that although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick Were Tarasius and Nicephorus Intruders Or did Theodorus separate upon that account No such thing is pretended but Joseph had been guilty of a scandalous and wicked Action and yet was suffered to continue in Communion and hereupon Theodorus withdraws himself from the Church for which he is blamed and very justly But this only shews that private Christians ought not to forsake the Church tho the Discipline of it should not be so duly administred as they could wish but must take care of their own Duty tho the Church Governours should be negligent of theirs After so much said in so short a Pag. 17. Book beside the Subject he at last comes again to the Point but falls upon such an Example as is alone enough to disparage his whole Performance with any one almost that has ever heard of the Names of Ignatius and Photius For what can be more notorious than that Ignatius did not Communicate with Photius after he was displaced and Photius got into the See can we imagin he Communicated with one by whom he stood himself Excommunicated with one who was Excomunicated by his best Friend and Advocate Pope Nicholas and who in return had Excommunicated the said Pope (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Constantinopol 4. Col. 1268. For Photius had not been Consecrated forty days before he openly Deposed and Anathematised Ignatius as we have it related in an account that Ignatius sent to Pope Nicholas to acquaint him how Photius had dealt with him Ignatius was soon after sent into Nicet vit Ignat. p. 1222. Banishment where he was kept under so close Confinement that he was not suffered to perform any part of his Function and as he was not allowed to stir out so no body was permitted to come to him And if there be any thing of certainty in all the History of those affairs nothing can be more certain than that Ignatius and Photius did not hold Communion with each other for nothing occurs more frequently than the Anathema's which they pronounced one against the other But all the Reason our Author seems to have in this and some other Instances to conclude that the Deposed Patriarch did not refuse Communion with the Intruder is because both their names were read in the Diptycks whereas this one instance of Ignatius and Photius is enough to convince us that this is no good Argument for it is certain that these two Bishops did not hold Communion with one another yet after these differences were composed which had been occasioned in the Church by setting up Photius both their names were Recorded in the Diptycks and probably neither Party being to be wrought upon to recede from their Pretensions in behalf of the Patriarch whose Right they had maintained this was found to be the only Expedient to do the same honour to both of them which might without difficulty be agreed to since the Synod which restored Photius after the death of Ignatius had cancelled all the Acts against Photius of that Council which Deposed him and restored Ignatius and this Council which restored Photius is by the Greeks reckoned the eighth General Council Concerning the Deposing of Photius P. 18 19. a second time and the Deposing of Nicholas Zonaras whom our Author Zon. Tom. 3. p. 113. quotes says nothing from which it may be collected that Photius continued Communion with Stephen and Nicholas with Euthymius who were put into their rooms But because Zonaras says nothing to the contrary he concludes that they did hold Communion with them which is a very fallacious way of arguing to make Inferences from a Negative without any other Reason or Circumstance especially in so short an account as Zonaras gives of these things who only says in as few words as he can well express himself in that the Emperour picking a quarrel with the Patriarch sent him into a Monastery and appointed his Brother Stephen to be Patriarch and that Nicholas was likewise put into a Monastery and Euthymius constituted Patriarch in his stead And the same Author in S. Chrysostom's Case takes no notice of that separation which was occasioned by his Banishment for thirty five years together in the Church which the more ancient Historians inlarge so much upon and set forth in so many particulars And to be convinced that nothing ought to be concluded from the silence especially of these latter Historiars and Annalists we need only compare what these write with the account which Theodorite and Socrates and Sozomen give of the same Actions and when it is notorious that they commonly omit things as material as those they take notice of nothing more need be said to shew how little regard is to be had to their omission of things it is well if we may depend upon what they relate but to say such a thing never was because they do not relate it is such a way of arguing as only betrays the weakness of the Cause and shews how great want there is of better Arguments And as for the Ordinations of Euthymius Pag. 20. which he says were not rejected after Nicholas was restored again I have shewn how insignificant an Argument that is when even after Hereticks were received into the Church upon their Conversion their Orders were not disallowed But his account of Cosmas Atticus 〈◊〉 is the boldest stroke we have had yet for when Nicetas Choniates whose Authority he alledges says in express terms (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceâ— Choniat de Imperat. Mâ—nuel lib 2. p. 54. that he Excommunicated some of the Courtiers and the Synod too which Deposed him this Author has the confidence to quote Nicetas to vouch for him that Cosmas Atticus never separated from the Communion of his Deposers But we have had experience enough of our Author by this time not to wonder much now at whatever he is pleased to say Of the Deposing the Patriarchs Basilius Pag. 21. Camaterus and Nicetas we have only a bare Narrative in Nicetas Choniates but upon the Promotion of Dositheus in the room of Leontius he expresly says that the chief Bishops looking upon his Translation from Jerusalem to Constantinople to be contrary
The Force of St Clement's Discourse seems to be this that if Moses was so indulgent and affectionate towards the People who had sinned so heinously against God this ought to be a powerful Motive to those who had been themselves criminal to resign up all particular Interests for the Peace of the Church and if it had been so usual for the most innocent and worthy Persons to sacrifice their own Safety and Honours to the publick it might much rather be expected from such as had themselves given the first occasion to the Divisions in the Church His Design is the same that Dionysius afterwards had in his Letter to Novation and that he might persuade them the more effectually to desist from their Pretensions he tells them that this was no more than the most worthy and heroick Persons had done before them not upbraiding them too severely with their past Miscarriages and presing it upon them as a Duty which in justice they were bound to and which was the least satisfaction they could make to the Church to forbear those Practices which had caused so much Disturbance but proceeding in a more gentle Method and yet in the mean time not failing to let them know that he required them not to resign any Right but to desist from an unjust Claim which was the least that could be expected of them but if it should seem grievous to Men who had been so long puffed up with vain Expectations and high Conceits of themselves to be thus humbled at last he acquaints them that they must consider that the Chastisements of God must be born with patience in much severer instances than this affliction which they had brought upon themselves and that however irksom it might now seem it would bring Peace and Joy to them in the end But if we understand St. Clement as Mr. Hody does to exhort those who were the lawful Presbyters to resign their Right rather than be the occasion through the Wickedness and Injustice of others towards them of Trouble and Disorder to the Church we must necessarily suppose some extraordinary Circumstances which made St. Clement advise them to this Condescension in their particular Case For it is not to be imagined that he should lay it down as a general Rule in all Cases that a Bishop or Presbyter whenever he is molested or dispossessed must give way to the Intruder for Peace sake but we must of necessity understand this Precept and Admonition in some such qualified sense as we do those Commands of our Saviour himself Whosoever shall Mat. 5. 39 40. smite thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also For to oblige all honest Men to suffer themselves to be abused and to give up their Rights of any kind for the sake of Peace and Quietness would be so far from being a means to procure Peace that it would be the readiest and most effectual way to all manner of Confusion in the World So that the utmost that this Quotation from St. Clement can amount to is only thus much that for some special Reasons and in some extraordinary Cases it would be an act of great Charity and worthy of a Christian for a Bishop to condescend so far as to recede from his own Right which affords nothing in proof of that Doctrin that this Greek Author is published to advance That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick The Quotations from St. Irenaeus and from the Apostles Constitutions are excellent Cautions and Persuasions against Schisms in general but do not in the least concern the Cause before us And I heartily pray that either their Authority or any other may have the effect which it ought upon those who are most concerned seriously to take notice of them towards the preventing a Schism which seems to threaten the Destruction of the best Church in the World to the Ruin whereof nothing can more contribute than to teach that a Bishop when once deposed tho never so (e) Ego actus ab episcopatu quantumvis per injuriam summam cesso esse vester Episcopus c. Mr. Hody 's Preface unjustly ceases to be any longer Bishop of his See Which are Words now put into St. Chrysostom's Mouth but how much against all reason and probability has been already shewn In the Book it self where it is said that Meletius was p. 1. translated from Sebastia to Antioch Eustathius being yet in Banishment in the English Edition this Eustathius is supposed to be Eustathius late Bishop of Sebastia But in the Greek and Latin Edition Eustathius late Bishop of Antioch p. 4. and a Note is subjoyn'd to inform us that both Socrates and Sozomen say that Eustathius Bishop of Antioch lived till the Reign o◠Valens and that the Arguments which Baronius and Valesius bring to the contrary are not of weight enough to be set against the Authority of these two Historians Baronius argues that Eustathius of Antioch never lived to be recalled from Banishment by Jovian but died in exile under Constantius For if he had been recalled it cannot be supposed that no mention should be made of him in the Synod of Antioch which was held at that time by the Orthodox and besides neither Meletius nor Paulinus would have been suffered by the People of Antioch to be confecrated and reside there as their Bishop if he had been still living without their dividing into Parties about it since a great part of the Orthodox from their great Zeal and Affection for him were denominated Eustathians And if Eustathius had survived his Banishment there is no question but both Meletius and Paulinus would have resigned the See to him at his return For Meletius was put into that See at the earnest desire of the orthodox Bishops after the Banishment of Eustathius and he who was so condescending to Paulinus would have yielded much more to Eustathius himself For all the pretence that Paulinus could have was to be Bishop over a Party of Men who for the great Veneration they had for Eustathius were called Eustathians and who would not live in communion with Meletius because he had been ordained by Arians And it is absurd to think that Paulinus the chief of the Eustathian Party would retain his Bishoprick if Eustathius himself had been yet living unless perhaps we say that Eustathius had wholly relinquished his See to him and that he lived concealed at Constantinople or in some other place from the time of his first Banishment as Socrates and Sozomen say he did in the Reign of Valens till he was a second time banished But to put this out of all Controversie Theodorite expresly (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. lib. 3. cap. 4. says that Eustathius was dead before Meletius succeeded him in
General Council tho Paulinus was yet living who thereupon nominated Euagrius for his Successor but he dying soon after Paulinus no other Bishop was chosen in his room But the state of this Controversie as it lay between the Meletians and Luciferians is a direct confutation of the whole design of this Authors Treatise For if all Christians are obliged to look no further than to the Bishop in Possession Paulinus was put into possession of the See of Antioch whilst Meletius was in Banishment and he at his return was forced to hold his Assemblies without the City yet the Meletians never thought this any Reason for their compliance nor did the Adherents of Paulinus ever urge it upon them they urged that Meletius had been made Bishop by Arians and that Plea was over-ruled by the determination of a Council held at Alexandria whereas if our Authors notion had then been good Doctrine it must soon have decided the Question for no Man could deny but Paulinus was actual Bishop in the absence of Meletius which was a better pretence than if he had been turned out to make way for him and so it is impoâ—sible but this Argument must have been insisted upon if this had been then an approved Doctrine and it had been at least a good Argument in the Eastern Church where our Author would make us believe it was always the Custom to Communicate with the Bishop for the time being however he came to be so and it is incredible that in so weighty a Controversie which was so long depending no Man should once think of the thing which could alone decide it when it was so obvious to all capacites and is supposed to have been received into the constant Practice of the Church in all such cases St. Chrysostom himself after the Socr. l. 6. c. 3. death of Meletius for three whole years would not Communicate with either side and at last as all but Socrates testifie was ordained Presbyter by Flavianus that is he espoused the cause of the Meletians and took directly the contrary side to that which he ought to have taken by these Principles For it was a received Maxim that regularly there could be but one Bishop of one Church at the same time for if a Bishop appointed his own Successor and took him in his life time for an Assistant to him this was an extraordinary case and he retained the Authority still to himself or it was at his own choice whether he would part with any of it and if the Bishop in Possession were to be the one Bishop Meletius had been precluded by Paulinus when he reâ—urned from Banishment and Paulinus was afterwards left in Possession upon the death of Meletius 'T is plain then that this Doctrine was unknown to the whole Church at that time and particularly to S. Chrysostom upon whose account this is brought and whose Case comes now to be considered The Author observes that upon the Pag. 2. Deposing of S. Chrysostom Arsacius was placed in his See who in fourteen months time must be supposed to Oâ—dain Bishops Priests and Deacons or if he did not yet Atticus succeeded him whilst S. Chrysostom was yet alive and in Exile Atticus sat as Patriarch twenty years and yet all his Ordinations were never questioned but were received by the Church as if they had been Canonical Atticus was succeeded by Sisinnius and he by Nestorius and both Atticus and Sisinnius were owned as Patriarchs by Celestine Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to Nâ—storius and in the General Council of Ephesus no exceptions were made to the Promotions of the Patriarchs of Coâ—stantinople only Nestorius himself was Deposed for Heresie To enforce all this yet further the Writer of the Preface cites some passages out of the life of S. Chrysostom written by Palladius to shew what the Opinion of that Father was in his own Case and how far he was from insisting upon any Right he had to be acknowledged still as Patriarch when he was once Deposed For says he S. Chrysostom advised and charged the Bishops his Friends more than once That as they loved Christ none of them should leave his Church upon his account That they must keep Communion with his Deposers and not rend and divide the Church And he enjoyned some devout Women that attended there that as they hoped to obtain Mercy from God they should pay the same Service and Good will to his Successor by a fair Election that they had done to himself for the Church could not be without a Bishop But this notwithstanding upon examinatioâ— we shall find that S. Chrysostom was clearly of another mind than he is here represented to be of and that there is nothing in his Case which will in the least favour this Authors Doctrine I have already observed how much contrary S Chrysostom acted to these Principles in the case of Meletius and I shall now make it appear that he was evidently against them in his own The account Palladius gives us is Palâ—aâ—vit Châ—â—â— p. â—â— this S. Chrysostâ—m before his first Banishment when he perceived what violent Methods his Adversaries would take spoke to the forty Bishops who were met with him That as they loved Christ none of them would leave his Church upon his account For says he I am nâ—w ready to be offered and the time of my departure is at hand in S. Paul 's words I shall undergo many Sufferings I see and so depart this life And afterwards To me to live is Christ and to die is gain and am I better than the Patriarchs Ib. p. 68. than the Prophets and Apostles that I should be immortal From whence it is plain that he was very apprehensive that his Enemies had a design upon his life and that they would not suffer him to live much longer (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pallad pâ—g 68. For it was commonly reported that he was to be beheaded At this one of them expressed how much they were troubled for the Desolation and Confusion that would befal the Church when wicked Men should Usurp the Government of it Upon which he again exhorts them not to forsake their Churches For says he Preaching did not begin with me nor Ib. p. 69. will it end with me did not Moses die And was not Joshua appointed to succeed him Did not Samuel die And was not David anointed Jeremiah departed this life but did he not leave Baruch behind Elijah was taken up into Heaven but then did not Elisha Prophecy S. Paul was beheaded but did he not leave Timothy Titus Apollos and innumerable others behind him When he had said this â—ulysius Bishop of Apamea in Bithynia puts him in mind that if they retained their Churches they must be forced to Communicate and to Subscribe to the Deposing him to which S. Chrysostom answers that he would have them hold Communion to prevent a Schism in the Church but by no means to Subscribe for
who had filled the Ep 126. World with Confusions and had brought such divisions into the Church and he writes to the Bishop of Jerusalem to the same purpose and almost in the same words In his Epistle to Cyriacus (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. 143. I have heard says he of * Or that Dotard for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Dotage of old Age. that vain Man Arsacius whom the Empress has placed in the Episcopal Throne that he has afflicted the Brethren and the Virgins who would not Communicate with him and many of them have died in Prison for my sake For he is a Wolf in Sheeps clothing and has the Habit of a Bishop but is an Adulterer for as a Woman is called an Adulteress who is married to another Man whilst her Husband is living so he is not a Carnal but a Spiritual Adulterer for he has usurped my See whilst I am alive It is doubtful I confess whether this Epistle to Cyriacus be genuine for it is rejected both by Mr. Hales and Mr. Boys in their Notes upon it and these expressions concerning Arsacius are alledged by Mr. Hales as one reason why he thinks it cannot be S. Chrysostom's but Mr. Boys says he should the rather be inclined to think it genuine because of these expressions and he answers all the other Objections against it rejecting it himself only upon the account of the Style I shall only say that there are so many Accidents which may make any Authors stile different at different times especially in his familiar Letters and those written in Banishment and perhaps under the disorders of sickness and dangers which S. Chrysostom so often complains of that this Censure from the Stile must be the less certain especially since Photius could not discern but that it was genuine tho he took notice of this very passage concerning Arsacius and defends it But suppose it not to be genuine yet it is very ancient and was written probably by one who lived in S. Chrysostom's time and was not unacquainted with his sense of these things S. Chrysostom having put another Bishop Ep. 148. in mind of the reward which he would certainly receive for his sufferings in another World takes off that Objection which might be made from the smalness of their number and tells him that if they would shew themselves couragious they would be too hard for those who were more in number and boasted themselves in their wickedness that God would be their help and assistance if they would but do their Duty and that they were ingaged in a Cause which concerned all the Churches in the World But that which yet further shews S. Chrysostom's Ep. 13. ad Oâ—â—mp mind in this matter is that the Bishop whom he had Consecrated and sent to the Gothes being dead he takes care to provide another Bishop for them and is very sollicitous that one should not be Ordained and sent thither by Arsacius or Atticus so that he not only looked upon himself as the only rightful Patriarch but acted as such in his Banishment We see that S. Chrysostom was very far from advising or so much as conniving at a compliance with the Usurpation of the Bishop that had possessed himself of his See He commended and encouraged those that would not Communicate with him he comforted them with the expectation of Rewards in Heaven for whatever they could suffer here in a Cause which was so pleasing to God and upon which depended the good of the whole Christian Church he called Arsacius by name a Wolf in Sheeps clothing if the Epistle to Cyriacus be genuine and took upon himself Episcopal Authority even in his Exile he encouraged all every where to stand out against the Usurper by his Epistles which he sent to the Eastern Bishops and to those of the West to the Bishops Priests and Deacons who were imprisoned and to persons of both Sexes and of all Orders and Degrees for the greatest part of his Epistles are upon this Subject and yet there is not one word of submission or compliance but the most earnest and passionate Exhortations to the contrary from all the motives which he could use that concern either this or another life And there is much more to the same purpose in (g) Chrys 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 19. 23. a Discourse which he wrote in his Exile to remove the scandal some took by reason of the Persecution the Church then lay under The Author of the Preface confesses that the Western Churches did a Tâ—eod â— 5. c. 34. long time refuse Communion with some Bishops that had conspired against S. Chrysostom He should have said as Theodorite whom he quotes soon after does that they would not hold Communion with the Bishops of Egypt and of the East nor with those upon the Bosphorus and of Thrace till they had Registered the name of S. Chrysostom among the rest of the Patriarchs deceased But he says that in this case the renouncing Communion was only as it were a breaking off a Correspondence Suppose it were no more yet it cannot be shown that it was ever thought lawful for one Patriarch to break off Correspondence thus with another but upon such Reasoâ—s as would justifie a separation in Bishops from their own Patriach But it was not bâ—rely a not Corresponding with Aâ—sacius and Atticus for the Western Church not only espoused S. Chrysostom's Cause but did approve of the proceedings of those who suffered for it and were not backward to declare that they had done well in not Communicating with the new Patritriarchs Sozom. l. 8. c. 26. Pallad p. 214 c. they denyed that these had any Episcopal Authority or ought to be owned as Patriarchs during the life of S. Chrysostom But most of the Eastern Bishops would not renounce Communion though they would not be accessary to that unjust Deprivation This I confess Theodorit says and it is no wonder that in the East many who declared for the Justice of S. Chrysostom's Cause and against the proceedings of of his Enemies should be wrought upon by Terrors and Punishments whereas those in the West acted unanimously being under no such hard Circumstances to awe them to a compliance And this makes S. Chrysostom in one of his Epistles purposely take off that Objection from the smalness of their number But though the Bishops in the East did not so generally refuse to Communicate with the Deposing Bishops as they did in the West yet that very many did refuse to do it is evident for the Prisons were filled with them and many of these who refused were Bishops of the chiefest Sees for the Bishops of Jerusalem and Thessalonica and in general the Chrys Ep. 26 27. 126. Bishops of all Macedon were of the number besides many others of lesser Note or whose Sees are not mentioned But Atticus at last began to relent Socr. l 7. c. 25. or
was forced to relax his Rigour and to Register the name of S. Chrysostom in the Diptycks of the Church endeavouring by this means to bring over the Joannites as they were called who asserted his Cause And when S. Chrysostom had been so long time dead and this Right had been done to his memory it is no wonder that Atticus and Sisinnius should have the Titles of Patriarchs given them and that the Council of Ephesus should take no notice of the Injustice that S. Chrysostom had had done him when both He and those that had done it were dead and their names were read together in the Diptycks when the Joannites had had this satisfaction given them and there was no Man now alive who could pretend any injury done him by the Promotion of the present Patriarch it could not become the Wisdom and the Charity of a General Council to revive the memory of a thing which after so long a time could admit of no Remedy but what might be of worse Consequence and might increase and prolong the Divisions which now were much abated and soon after ceased The Western Churches had long before Theod. l. 5. c. 34. the Council of Ephesus renewed Communion with the Eastern when once S. Chrysostom's name was written among the names of the other Patriarchs deceased For they never took any notice of Arsacius at all and rejected all the Messages that Atticus sent to get himself acknowledged by them till he had made this amends to the Memory of S. Chrysostom But as Theodorite observes these Bishops who were thus injurious to S. Chrysostom were otherwise excellent Men and there was nothing else to be found in them which might deserve the Churches Censure and therefore after the Church had been satisfied as to this matter they were mentioned with those Titles that were due to their Station and to their Vertues For the Titles which Celestine gives to Atticus Conc. Ephes Part 1. col 353. 361. and Sisinnius in his Epistle to Nestorius are only such as suppose their names to be written in the Diptycks among the other Patriarchs and that they were assertors of the Catholick Faith he supposes Atticus at last to have been the Rightful Patriarch and consequently Sisinnius who succeeded him by a Canonical Election to have been so too and he highly commends both of them for their zeal in maintaining the true Faith which Nestorius the next in Succession had so shamefully betrayed Atticus after the death of S. Chrysostom and Sisinnius who succeeded him were in their times the only Patriarchs of Constantinople and tho Arsacius and Atticus had not come in regularly yet it was in the Power of the Church upon due satisfaction made for the sake of Peace and Order to pass by such a defect and dispense with it and when Atticus had Registred S. Chrysostom's name in the Diptycks as Rightful Patriarch this was in effect to acknowledge himself to have been an Usurper during his life which was accepted of by the Church as a sufficient Declaration of his Repentance and as it has been already shewn Hereticks themselves upon their Repentance were to be received not only to Lay Communion but according to their Order and Degree in the Church If our Author could have shewn that Celestine had said as much of Arsacius as he has done of Atticus and Sisinnius that had been to his purpose because S. Chrysostom survived Arsacius but it is acknowledged that after the death of S. Chrysostom Atticus was at last Rightful Patriarch and owned by the Western Church for such What is added of Maximian and Proclus that they were acknowledged as Rightful Patriarchs by the Church needs no other Answer than what has been already given for if Atticus were Rightful the rest who succeeded him were such too if no other exception lay against them than that concerning what had been done to S. Chrysostom But besides Maximian was Conc. Ephâ—s Part 3. col 10â—â— made Patriarch in the room of Nestorius in the General Council of Ephesus and this surely was enough to purge all defects in the Succession of the Patriarchs of Constantinople For where a General Council does not only approve of but appoint the Successor of a Bishop Deposed for Heresie it can no longer be pretended that there remains any defect upon the account of injustice done to a Patriarch who had been so long dead for if the Succession had been interrupted till now from the time that S. Chrysostom was Deposed yet this would put it in its due course again Proclus who is next mentioned and was next in Succession to Maximian had been bred up under S. Chrysostom and could little suspect that he should ever have been reckoned among his uncanonical Successors for as Atticus had inserted his name among the other Patriarchs so Proclus was zealous to make him Socr. l. 7. c. 45. all the further reparation that could be made by causing his Body to be removed to Constantinople and there interr'd with all the Honours of a Funeral solemnity If Severianus Bishop of Gabala Pag. 4. and Acacius Bishop of Berrhea being afterwards discovered to Pope Innocent were neither deposed nor reprehended by him The reason must be that that Pope did not assume to himself so much as his Successors have done but said he would procure a General Council to be called to redress the Grievances of the Greck Church upon this account and at the same time denies all Authority in Arsacius as being an Intruder Nay in an (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Innocentii Epist apud Sozom. lib. 8. c 26. Epistle written to the Emperour Arcadius he Deposed Arsacius after his death or declared him never to have been Patriarch and commanded his name to be razed out of the Diptycks and in the same Epistle Excommunicated Arcadius himself and the Emâ—ress Eudoxia and both Deposed and Anathematized and Excommunicated Theophilus of Alexandria I will not suppose that this Epistle Biondell Pseudo Isid p. 562 Georg. Alex. vit Chrys c. 68 Mich. Glyc An. Part 4 p. 259. Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. Cedren p. 332. Conc. Tom. 2. Col. 1310. to Arcadius deserves much Credit for it is rejected by Blondel because Georgius Alexandrinus is the first that produces it from whom Glycas and Nicephorus had it and before them both Cedrenus made mention of it And whereas Pope Innocent in this Epistle wherein S Chrysostom is mentioned as already dead threatens Eudoxia the Empress with Punishments in this World as well as in the World to come it is noted in the Margin over against this Epistle in Labbe's Edition of the Councils that Eudoxia died before S. Chrysostom which is a plain intimation that the Epistle is Spurious But I produce this Epistle to observe that if it could pass for Authenâ—ick in the several Ages in which these Authors lived it is in vain to endeavour to make it be believed that the Practice of the Greek Church
advancement to the See And in these Cases it was scarce greater force upon the Bishop that was deposed than upon him that was promoted but they by consent did what they saw most advantageous for the Church iâ— those difficult Circumstances thinking it no time for the Orthodox to divide from one another when their Number was so small in compaâ—ison of the Hereticks who had a zealous Emperor at the head of them The case was the same in the Deprivation Vit. Sabae c. 56. of Elias Bishop of Jerusalem John his Successor had promised the Emperor to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon but was prevailed upon by the Orthodox to make profession of the True Faith for which he was cast into Prison and was to have been banished but the Sabas and the rest of the Monks petitioned the Emperor to keep him in the See knowing that it was impossible to get Elias restored and that if John were cast out for being Orthodox the next in Succession must of consequence be an Heretick This then only proves that there has been such a Case when to prevent Heresies in the Church Bishops have resigned their Sees or at least have consented that others should succeed them but this is so far from being an Argument that in all Cases and without their consent an Usurper ought to be communicated with in prejudice to the Authority of the true Bishop that it plainly proves the contrary St. Gregory Nazianzene for the like Reasons resigned the Bishoprick of C. P. saying that he was contented to be the Jonas who should be thrown over-board to allâ—y the Storms that threatned the Church But can we from hence conclude that Nectarius his Successor would have been owned by the Church as Patriarch of C. P. if St. Gregory had not resigned Or must we not rather conclude that the Church would never have acknowledged him And like this seems to have been the Case of the Jews under the Romans the High Priest by right of Succession receding and being glad upon any terms to preserve the true Religion and Worship of God rather than with the whole Jewish Nation to be deprived of it under Heathen Governours Hitherto our Author has spoken only of the Patriarchs of C. P. excepting that he occasionally mentioned Meletius upon the account of St. Chrysâ—stom and Elias on occasion of Euphemius But after he has proceeded thus far he takes a large step back again to inform us that St. Cyrill Bishop of Jerusalem came into that See contrary to the Canons being by Arians put into the room of Maximus who was thrust out for having taken part with St. Athanasius Now St. Cyrill says he was notwithstanding upon his Conversion to the Orthodox Faith acknowledged for Patriarch of Jerusalem and even Maximus himself did not withdraw from Cyrill's Communion For the proof of all this he refers to the Life of St. Athanasius whereas Vit. Athan. p. 48. the Author of his Life only says that Acacius and Patrophilus thrust Maximus out of the See of Jerusalem and placed Cyrill there but says nothing of Maximus's holding Communion with Cyrill afterwards Yet he saying nothing to the contrary our Author takes it for granted that Maximus did communicate with Cyrill whereas he mentioning Maximus upon the account only of St. Athanasius had no occasion to take any further notice either of him or of Cyrill than St. Athanasius was concerned in Socr. l. 2. c. 38. it I confess Socrates agrees with this anonymous Authour of the Life of St. Athanasius in relating that Maximus was turned out of his Bishoprick Hieron in Chron. by Acacius and Patrophilus to make way for Cyrill But St. Hierom on the contrary says that Maximus was dead before St. Cyrill came into his See and Theodorite (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. lib 2 c. 2. that Maximus being translated to an immortal Life Cyrill succeeded him who was a vigorous defender of the Catholick Faith and to put this matter out of all diâ—pute besides St. Hierom and Theodoret we have the express Testimony of the (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synod Ep. Conc. C. P. apud Theod. lib. 5. c. 9. General Council of C. P. that he came in câ—nonically being ordained by the Bishops of the Province and had in divers places signalâ—zed himself in maintaining the Catholick Faith against the Arians But there being one Cyrill an Arian who soon after Maximus was made Bishop of Jerusalem and was the next Bishop but one to St. Cyrill the great Uncertainty and Confusion that there is in the Catalogue of the Bishops of this See at that time as may be seen by comparing the different accounts of their Names in St. Hierom Epiphanius Hieron in Chron. Epiphan Haer. 66. Niceph. and Nicephorus might easily occasion the Aspersions which have been cast upon this Father by some Writers who supposed St. Cyrill the Arian was that Cyrill who was next in Succession to Maximus But it is abundantly * See the Life of S. Cyrill by Dr. Cave sufficient in his Vindication that a general Council by their united Suffrages have attested both to his being Orthodox and to the Canonicalness of his Consecration But I must not omit here to take notice that tho Socrates and the Author of the Life of St. Athanasius do both say that Cyrill was made Bishop of Jerusalem by Usurpation during the Life of Maximus yet they mention this as done under Constantius and it is a Mistake peculiar to our Author to place it under the Reign of Constantine the Great in contradiction to all History The Author now returns again to Pag. 9. Constantinople and says that when Eutychius was deposed from that See and John preferred to it in the Reign of Justinian Eutychius continued to communicate with John Which he could bring no Proof of but there is undeniable Proof of the contrary For Eustathius who was an Eye Witness to all this business and a constant Attendant upon Eutychius (r) Subjecit omnes canonicis paenis donec resipiscerent Vit. Eutychii c. 5. Auctore Eustathio Presbytero Domestico familiari has left it written in his Life that Eutychius pronounced Excommunication against the Synod which was called to depose him till they should repent of it and restore him All that he says concerning Anthimus Pag. 9. Sergius and others whose Ordinations tho they were Hereticks were allowed of as valid needs no Answer enough having been already said on that Point in the Case of Meletius Callinicus he acquaints us after he Pag. 10. was deposed by Justinian Rhinotmetus did not depart from the Communion of Cyrus who was appointed his Successor He might as well have said that Callinicus saw and conversed with Cyrus after the loss of his Eyes when he was as far from him as Rome is from Constantinople For this had Cedren p. 446. Theophan p. 313. Niceph. Constantinop p. 28. been more agreable to the way of