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
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
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
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
vel tempus accepturus locum satisfactionis Desinitio Thomae Episcopi Tyri in Concilio act 1. p. 993. à toto Concilio rata p. 994. (d) Actio secunda fuit Nâ—v 7. Ind. 13. ut patet ex Actis (e) Nicetas V. Ignatii (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 1225. (b) Amongst them were two Volumes containing the Acts of his two General Councils that against Ignatius and that against Pope Nicholas which were burnt with the rest together with two other Copies of the same Councils which Photius had sent into the West and the Emperor Basilius had recall'd by sending some that overtook the Messengers (c) P. 1228. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) Ep. 3. p. 67. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (e) Ep. 8. ad Bardam 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. (f) Hâ—ec Epistola says Bishop Montague in his Notes upon it uti praecedentes ad Bardam scriptae Photium impium improbum hypocritam non repraesentant quod calumniatur Baronius sed verè pium divinâ—e providentiâ—e se submittentem (g) P. Iohn Epist ad Basil. Imp. ap Conc. juxta Graecos 8. in Pandect Bevereg to 2. p. 276. says he was forced likewise when he was restored 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (h) As the Pope mentions in an Epistle of his (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. 6. (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (c) Ep. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. (d) Annal. l. 16. c. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) So Ioannes Thracesius Scylitzes ap Append. Actorum Graec. Concilii VIII c. 12. p. 1432. and out of him Cedrenus says he expell'd Photius by a Synod by which they mean the VIII Gen. Council as the Latins call it But 't is certain that Photius waâ— expell'd before that Council by the Emperor 's bare Autority who pretended that he did it in Obedience to the Decrees of Pope Nicholas's Synod (b) Ad an 867. p. 380. (c) P. 179. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (d) Chronogr p. 471. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (*) De novis Imp. p. 544. (e) Cit. à Labbâ—eo not in Append. Actorum Graec. Concilii VIII p. 1431. †Hist. Basilii Macedonis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 44. (f) Ap. Acta Conc. VIII juxta Graecos Pandect Bevereg to 2. p. 277. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sic leg 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 These words are not in the Epistle publish'd Conc. Labbaei tom 8. p. 1452. which the Popish Editors call the genuine Epistle looking upon this as corrupted by Photius But 't is this is the genuine one and the other is corrupted (a) Ep. 3. p. 66. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (b) Vita Ign. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (c) Anonymus de Photianorum Perjuriis ap Append. Actorum Graec. Concilii VIII p. 1413. (d) Ep. ad Manuclem Patricium ap Append. Actorum Graec. Conc. VIII p. 1385. (a) P. 1388. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. * How then could the other Synod consist of all the Bishops of the District of Constantinople (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 1392. (c) 1. He says that Ignatius was carried Prisoner to Mitylene after he was deposed by Photius in a Synod whereas it appears by Nicetas in his Life that he was at that time a Prisoner in Mitylene 2. The third Synod which as he says condemn'd Photius he makes to be called by Pope Nicholas before he sent away his Legates Radoaldus and Zacharias to Constantinople But 't is certain from Pope Nicholas's first Epistle to the Emperor Michael and from his first to Photius that he was not at that time condemn'd in any Synod call'd at Rome The Pope indeed refuses to own him as Patriarch but he sends his Legates to Constantinople to enquire into his Cause intending to act according to the account they should give him So the Author de Perjuriis Photianorum p. 1415. mentions onely two Roman Synods in which Photius was condemn'd viz. that call'd by Pope Nicholaes after the return of his Legates from Constantinople and that call'd by Pope Hadrian The Emperor Basilius's Legates to Pope Hadrian in their Speech which they spoke before the Pope had call'd his Synod recorded by Ioannes Bibl. in Pontificalis Contenuat V. Hadr. II. assert That before that he was bis à Sede Apostolicâ judicatus bisque damnatus But that Speech seems to be made by the Author himself who therefore makes 'em speak so because when he wrote it was true that he had been twice condemn'd at Rome Unless we will suppose that Pope Nicholas's second Synod which he call'd to condemn Radoaldus for consenting to Ignatius's Condemnation might be meant for one 3. He says that the Pope's Legates were at Constantinople eight Months before they could be perswaded to join with Photius which could not possibly be for the Legates did not leave Rome before Septemb. 25. 860. and the Council in which they condemn'd Ignatius must needs be ended in February following as has been already proved (a) Praef. Conc. VIII His ergo compertis COEPERUNT NONNULLI Metropolitani antistites ac inferioris sacerdotii vel Laici Pontificis sui tormentis compatientes dejectionémque dolentes rectorem sibi proprium reddi magnopere clamitarc (b) Ep. ad Steph. P. (c) Quo gesto magis ac magis pietas fidelium accenditur eò constantiùs ab universis ovibus proprius Pastor exquiritur quo versutiùs lupi crudelitas fuerit * Cujus Censurâ— Photio minimè parente sacratus fidelium catalogus magis inâ—lammatur ab ejus se communione catervatim sequestrat horrescens quod nec à tantâ sede perculsus corrigi consenserit (a) Ap. Theognosti Libel pro Ignatio ad Nic. P. (b) Comment in Canones istius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. (c) Ap. Nicetam V. Ignatii p. 1205. (d) Nicholaus P. Ep. ad Photium ap Conc. VIII act 4. p. 1033. Quod verò dicitis neque Sardicense Concilium neque Decretalia vos habere sanctorum Pontificum vel recipere non facilè nobis facultas credendi tribuitur maximè cum Sardidicense Concilium quod penès vos in vestris regionibus actum est omnis recipit quâ ratione convenerat ut hoc sancta Constantinopolitana Ecclesia abjiceret ut dignum est non retineret c. * P. 78. (a) Zonaras 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (b) Not. in hoc Conc. Pandect tom 2. p. 170. (a) Ap. Conc. VIII act 7. p. 1068. (b) P. 1069. (c) Pontificali V. Nicholai I. (d) V. Ign. p. 1225. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theognostus speaks in the Person of Ignatius 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (b) V. Ign. p. 1224. (c) Praef. Conc. VIII Mille circiter Antistisam subscriptiones (d) Act. 8. p. 1103. (e) Ibid. act 1. p. 997. act 4. p. 1035. (a) Ibid. act 4. p. 1035. act 5. p. 1042. (b) Act 8. p. 1102 1103. act 9. p. 1121 1122. (c) Nicetas V. Ignatii Metrophanes Ep. ad Manuelem Patricium
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
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
Michael you the Synod of Constantinople have deposed the Patriarch Ignatius and confirmed Photius in his See without the Autority of our Apostleship We give you to understand that we do not either receive Photius or condemn Ignatius And to the Eastern Patriarchs and Bishops in his Circular Epistle We require you says he not to give your Assent to the Synod called against Ignatius but to Act according to our Sentence And these things we write not fearing at all least we may have judged amiss For the See of S. Peter is not to be judged by any one except by him who gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom And do you that you may observe the ancient Customs neither judge nor approve of any thing without our Autority We have now done with the Patriarch Ignatius but not yet with Photius He affords us another Example for tho' he was received by the Church and confirm'd by a General Council yet as soon as Leo Sapiens upon his Father Basilius's Death had obtain'd the Empire he was presently deposed a second time by the Imperial Autority He being thus deposed the Emperor's Brother Stephen was prefer'd to his See and was own'd and receiv'd by the Church This the Author of the Baroccian Treatise observes 'T is observ'd by the Vindicator in Answer to that Treatise that Photius was not deposed by the Emperor Leo but resigned And this he proves from an Epistle of P. Stephen V. ad Episcopos Orient in which the Pope says that in a Letter the Emperor had told him that Photius quietam vitam elegit Stylianus and a Synod had written to the Pope to acquaint him that Photius for certain Crimes was deposed by the Emperor Leo the Emperor in a Letter of his own had told the Pope that Photius had resigned this made the Pope write that Letter to Stylianus and the rest of the Bishops to know of him how it came to pass that they so contradicted one another Stylianus and the rest of those Bishops tell him in their Answer that they that own'd Photius as a Bishop had sent him word that he had resign'd but as for themselves they did not own him to have been ever a Bishop and therefore it was that they did not say he had resign'd This confirms what the Vindicator contends for But notwithstanding all this it is not true that Photius resign'd To me it is certain that he was turned out by the Emperor The Reason why the Emperor pretended to the Pope that Photius had resign'd was because he dar'd not tell him that he himself had deposed him That he knew the Pope would never approve of it being in the Judgment of the Popes of those times the Prerogative of the See of S. Peter to depose a Bishop And the reason why Stylianus and his Bishops writ after that manner in their Answer to the Pope was because if they had told the truth it was like to occasion a great Disturbance in the Church For the Pope had positively declar'd in his Epistle to 'em that he would not give his Consent that Photius should be turned out without his special Concurrence But this you will say is only Conjecture What greater Autorities have we that Photius was truly deposed I. Answer we have many 1. That Photius was deposed by the Emperor Leo is positively asserted by all Historians The Emperor says Joel for certain Reasons deposed Photius and made his own Brother Stephen Patriarch Glycas The Emperor Leo being resolved to be revenged on Santabarenus Bishop of Euchaita who had set his Father against him chuses first to depose the Patriarch Photius because it was likely he would take Santabarenus 's part for there was a report that Photius had conspired with Santabarenus to advance one of his own Family to the Empire Zonaras Leo as soon as he was made Emperor was forthwith bent upon revenge against Santabarenus But suspecting that the Patriarch Photius who was his Friend would take his part he invents Accusations against the Patriarch and thrusts him out of the Church and banishes him to the Monastery of the Armeniaci 2. By other Historians he is not only said to be deprived by the Emperor but there is likewise a particular Relation given of the manner And in one and the same Relation they all unanimously agree The Anonymous Continuator of the Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus's History gives us this account of it The Emperor says he sent Andrew the Captain of his Guards with Joannes Hagiopolites to the Church of S. Sophia who there went up into the Ambo and in the hearing of all read the Accusations against the Patriarch Photius and expelled him out of his See and banished him to the Monastery of the Armoniani And the Emperor makes his own Brother Stephen the Syncellus Patriarch who was ordain'd by Theophanes Metropolitan of Caesarea and continued Patriarch Six years and Five months then died The Emperor says Leo Grammaticus sent Andrew the Captain of his Guard and Joannes Hagiopolites the Logotheta Dromi who went up into the Ambo of the Church and there read Accusations against Photius the Patriarch and deposed him and thrust him into the Monastery of the Armeniani and promoted his own Brother Stephen to the Throne who was ordain'd a little before Christmas by Theophanes the first Metropolitan of Caelarea and the rest of the Bishops The same Leo tells us that Photius died in Banishment The Emperor Leo says Georgius Cedrenus being come to the Throne immediately resolv'd to be reveng'd on Santabarenus and first of all he set upon Photius to depose him because he knew that if he continu'd Patriarch he would defend Santabarenus and besides there was a report that Photius had conspired with Santabarenus to destroy him and to advance one of his own Family to the imperial Throne He accordingly sent Andreas c. Having told us how he was deposed and banish'd agreeing exactly with the Authors already quoted he adds that Stephen was immediately constituted in his Room 3. It appears by the Minutes of the Tryal of Photius and Santabarenus which happened a little after Photius was ejected that Photius had never resign'd 'T was expected at that Tryal which by the by was onely before Lay-Lords That Santabarenus would have accused Photius of High Treason and he was ask'd by one of the Judges concerning a Promise he had made the Emperor to accuse him upon which he fell down upon his Knees before Photius with these words My Lord I conjure you by God to depose me and degrade me from my Priesthood and then let 'em punish me as a Malefactor for I never told the Emperor any such thing To which Photius made this Answer By the Salvation of my Soul my Lord Theodorus you are an Archbishop both in this World and in the World to come Thus the Continuator of Constantinus Porphyrogennetus Leo Grammamaticus and Cedrenus By
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
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
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
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
from Paulus Diaconus that he was restored just after Iustinian's death and that he crown'd the Emperor Iustin and from the Patriarch Nicephorus's Chronology that he was in Banishment onely two Years and Seven Months This Argument I have already ready confuted A Second Argument proposed by Crakanthorp is this It. is said in the Life That after the Fifth General Council was summon'd Eutychius was sent to Constantinople by the Bishop of Amasea who was then sick to supply his place in that Council that a little after he came to Constantinople Mennas the Patriarch died and so he was made Patriarch in his stead This Relation says Crakanthorp is so untrue that there are not so many Words as Lyes therein For the Fifth General Council says he was not summon'd till the Six and Twentieth Year of Iustinian and it appears from the Testimony of the Pope's Legates in the Third Act of the Sixth General Council that the Patriarch Mennas died in the One and Twentieth Year of Iustinian To this I answer That though it be true that the Pope's Legates in the Sixth General Council affirm That Mennas the Patriarch died on the One and Twentieth of Iustinian yet either they were extremely mistaken or at least the Reading is Erroneous and for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it ought to be read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That Mennas lived till after the One and Twentieth of Iustinian and till the beginning of the Fifth General Council as the Life of Eutychius relates is undoubtedly certain from many other Authorities 1. It is manifest from an Epistle of Pope Vigilius to Valentinianus a Bishop of Scythia dated XV. Kal. Apr. in the Three and Twentieth or Four and Twentieth Year of Iustinian which is extant in the Acts of the Fifth General Council that the Patriarch Mennas was at that time living 2. It appears from the Testimony of Theophanes That he was living in September the Fifteenth Indiction and Theophanes particularly mentions that at that time he and Apollinarius Patriarch of Alexandria Consecrated the Church of S. Irene and he gives a particular description of their Procession He just after adds That Mennas died and Eutychius succeeded him on that same Year Now the former part of this Fifteenth Indiction falls in with the Five and Twentieth Year of Iustinian and the latter part falls in with his Six and Twentieth Year And to his Six and Twentieth Year Theophanes places the Fifth General Council It appears from the Acts of the Council that it began to sit in the beginning of the Seven and Twentieth Year of Iustinian the Fourth Day of May Eight Months after the end of that Year or Indiction on which Mennas died And it is to be supposed that the Summons were sent about a Year or more before that time Thirdly It is positively asserted by Evagrius that Mennas was alive when first the Council was call'd and he particularly observes that he died a little after and was succeeded by Eutychius Vigilius says he being Bishop of Rome Mennas first and then Eutychius being Bishop of Constantinople Apollinarius being Bishop of Alexandria Domninus of Antioch and Eustochius of Jerusalem the Fifth Council was call'd by Justinian Evagrius in what follows gives us a particular account how Eutychius came to be made Patriarch It appears from him that before the Council fate there were several Debates among those who were sent to the Council and that in the time of those Debates Mennas was Patriarch It appears likewise from that him that before Mennas died there were sent to Constantinople from Eustochius Patriarch of Ierusalem certain Legates to concert the Affair against the Origenists and that those that were sent by Eustochius about that Business were sent to the General Council is expressly asserted by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus And here I observe that all those previous Debates relating to the Origenian Heresie were wont to be reckoned as part of the General Council it self Hence it was that Theophanes places that Council to the Six and Twentieth and Cedrenus and the Chronicon Paschale to the Five and Twentieth Year of Iustinian Fourthly It is likewise asserted by the Patriarch Photius That Mennas and Eutychius one after the other presided in the Fifth General Council together with Vigilius of Rome c. Fifthly That Mennas fate in the Chair of Constantinople Sixteen Years is asserted by Nicephorus Callisti and Theophanes and Zonaras Nicephorus the Patriarch adds the odd Months and allots him Sixteen Years and Six Months Now 't is certain that he was promoted on the Ninth Year of Iustinian in the latter part of the Year which falls in with the Year of Christ 536. and so says Nicephorus Callisti And hence it must follow that he died not on the One and Twentieth but on the Five and Twentieth or Six and Twentieth of Iustinian Sixthly That Eutychius was Patriarch not above Twelve Years and Five Months before he was deposed is asserted by Nicephorus Callisti Theophanes for the roundness of the number says 13 Years The Patriarch Nicephorus allows him but Twelve Years and two Months Zonaras strikes off the odd Months and allows him no more than Twelve Years Now 't is very notorious that he was not deposed before about the end of Iustinian's Eight and Thirtieth Year Nicephorus Callisti and Cedrenus say he was deposed on the Eight and Thirtieth Victor Tun. on the Nine and Thirtieth of Iustinian The truth is this He was deposed two Months before the end of Iustinian's Eight and Thirtieth Year for Iustinian began his Reign April 1. Indict 5. and tho' his Predecessor Iustin Sen. did not die till the First of August following yet the Years of Iustinian's Reign were always computed from the time of his Inauguration as the Chronicon Paschale observes Now from April 1. Indict 5. to Jan. 22. Indict 13. on which Eutychius was deposed are Thirty Seven Years and near Eleven Months From hence it follows that he was not made Patriarch till the Six and Twentieth or about the end of the Five and Twentieth Year of Iustinian The most antient Monument from whence we may gather any thing concerning the beginning of Eutychius's Patriarchate is an Epistle of Pope Vigilius to him in answer to one of his dated Ian. 6. in the Seven and Twentieth Year of Iustinian A Third Objection alleged by Crakanthorp against the Life of Eutychius is that it is full of improbable Fables concerning Miracles wrought by Eutychius but this is no Argument at all against the Genuineness of it For Stories concerning Miracles are common to all the Writers of Lives as well of that Age as of the following Ages tho' otherwise very good Authors as Cyrillus Scythopolitanus and others The profess'd Historians themselves such as Evagrius Theodoret and the like are full of such Relations 'T was the natural result of a Superstitious Piety I need not mention a Fourth
Argument proposed by Crakanthorp that he could not find the Life of Eutychius any where but in Surius who he thinks ought not to be trusted I onely observe that as it is generally receiv'd as genuine by the Learned so it carries with it as clear and manifest Characters of Genuineness as any Life extant Concerning the Author of it I have this to add That he was the same with that Eustratius whom Photius entitles Presbyter of the Great Church of Constantinople and whose Treatise concerning the state of the Dead he mentions which Treatise is now extant published by L. Allatius That he was the same I gather from hence that Eustratius the Presbyter who wrote of the State of the Dead not onely discovers as the Worthy and Learned Dr. Cave has observed that he lived in the time of the Patriarch Eutychius but expresses likewise a singular Affection and Veneration for him The geat Eutychius Archbishop of Constantinople that Holy and by me ever-to-be honour'd Person 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 tho' deposed by the Lay-power and tho' he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church I Have mention'd in the foregoing Chapter that Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch was deposed by the Emperour Iustin the Younger It was done in the fifth Year of Iustin's Reign in the Year of Christ 570. And that it was done barely by the Emperour's Autority without any Synod may easily be gather'd from the account which Evagrius gives of it Iustin says he turn'd Anastasius out of the See of Antioch objecting against him that he had profusely squander'd away the sacred Money upon things not necessary and that he had likewise spoken reproachfully of him that being ask'd why he was so profuse of the sacred Money he answer'd down-right That therefore he had done it that it might not be took away by Justin that common Plague Now it was said that therefore Justin had a spite against Anastasius because when he demanded a summ of Money of him when promoted to the Bishoprick he refused to give it him There were besides the above-mention'd some other things objected against him by some that were willing as we may suppose to gratifie the Emperour in his design The same may be gather'd from the account we have in Theophanes That he was thrust out of his See through the Emperor Justin 's displeasure because he had spoken sharply against John Patriarch of Constantinople who had ordain'd John Patriarch of Alexandria and likewise against John of Alexandria himself Agreeably to this Iohannes Diaconus tells us that he was deposed Potestatibus And Pope Gregory the Great intimates the same thing when he says he was made Patriarch by God but deposed voluntate hominum Tho' such were his Deprivation and tho' as will by and by appear he never gave up his Right and tho' he was a great and admired Bishop of that Age so highly esteem'd and rever'd by all the Bishops of the Catholick Church as that when the Emperor Iustinian had sent about to all Bishops and requir'd 'em to subscribe to his new-fangled Heresie they all unanimously replied That they would follow the Example of Anastasius of Antioch Tho I say he was so great and admired a Person yet 1. I observe that there is not the least mention in any Author of any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by his Deprivation 2. It is certain that Gregory Abbot of Mount Sinai who succeeded him continued Patriarch of Antioch no less than 23 or 24 Years and that too tho' Anastasius was all that while living and was never deprived but died possess'd of the See And after his Death Anastasius was agen restor'd Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople assigns him 24 Years Evagrius 23. 3. It appears from Evagrius that Gregory who accepted of his See was a Person of extraordinary Worth And from thence it appears That the greatest and the worthiest Men did not think it unlawfull or a disparagement to accept of the See of a Bishop deposed by the Lay-power 4. It appears likewise from Evagrius That he was not onely receiv'd as Bishop of Antioch but was highly beloved and honour'd Let us hear what Evagrius says After Anastasius says he Gregory was preferr'd to the Episcopal Throne whose glory according to the Poet is spread far and near He was for Vnderstanding and Vertue and all Accomplishments a very extraordinary Person and in any thing he undertook of an unconquerable Resolution fearless and undaunted and never yielding in any ill or unreasonable thing to the Supreme Powers So liberal and magnificent he was that as often as he came abroad a vast number of Persons besides his own proper Attendants were wont to wait on him And as soon as any perceiv'd him or heard that he was a coming they immediately flock'd in to attend him And so highly was he honour'd that the Honour which is usually paid to the Emperors themselves was less than that which was paid to him Evagrius adds much more in his praise and tells us That he was admired not onely by the Christian but likewise by the Persian Emperors c. He tells us likewise how by his great Autority he appeas'd a whole Army that mutinied against their Commanders In his Speech to that Army I am says he by the Grace of God a Bishop and have the power of binding and loosing both in Heaven and in Earth Evagrius adds That he appeased God by Prayers and Supplications This Action of the Patriarch Gregory is recorded likewise by another Historian of that Age Theophylactus Simocattes Philippicus says he was receiv'd by the Army Gregory the then Archbishop of Antioch having reconciled it to him 5. To this Patriarch our Historian Evagrius was himself Assessor or Chancellor Tho' it appears by that great Character which he gives the former Patriarch Anastasius that he highly honour'd and esteem'd him yet he readily acknowleges the present Possessor and acts as Assessor or Chancellor under him as the true Patriarch There was no one doubted of the lawfulness of it 6. He was likewise acknowleg'd by S. Symeon Stylites the latter of that name as appears from Evagrius who speaks of a Prophecy which
the Emperor raged with a great fury against his Name-sake the Patriarch and having found out certain Monks Clergymen and Laicks who were the Patriarch's intimate Friends he got 'em to allege against him that they had heard him speak against him to Podomagulus or Podopagurus a great Man whom the Emperor had just before put to death as accused of conspiring against him and sent 'em to the Patriarch's Palace there to witness it to his Face and the Patriarch denying it he made 'em swear by the Holy Cross that they had heard the Patriarch speak thus and thus reproachfully of him and sent some to seal up the Gate of his Palace and took him and banish'd him to Hieria and after that to the Prince's Island Theophanes adds That on the Sixteenth of November following the Emperor made Nicetas an Eunuch Patriarch in Constantine's room He further adds That on the 16 th of October next after that he sent for Constantine from the Prince's Island and having so scourg'd him as that he was not able to stand he commanded him to be carried into the Great Church and all the People of the City being gather'd together there was a Libel read publickly containing the Heads of all the Accusations that were brought against him and at the reading of every Accusation the Secretary who read it and stood by him struck him on the Face the Patriarch Nicetas sitting there in his Throne by him and seeing all that was done Then they went up into the Pulpit and the Patriarch Nicetas took the Libel and commanded some Bishops to take away his Patriarchal Cope from him and anathematiz'd him So giving him the nick-name of Scotiopsis they made him go out of the Church backward After this Relation Theophanes gives an account of his being put to death and how very inhumanely and barbarously they used him It appears from this exact and particular account that Constantine was never Synodically tried and condemned and that Nicetas was made Patriarch before he was condemn'd in the great Church and that when he was there condemn'd and deposed or degraded he was deposed or degraded by Nicetas himself who had been put into his place It likewise appears that he had never given up his Right since he still wore his Patriarchal Cope and was there deprived of it Nicephorus the Patriarch gives the same account of the Matter tho' not so particularly The Emperor says he suborn'd some of the Patriarch Constantine 's Acquaintance to depose upon Oath that they had heard him speak of the Conspiracy of Antiochus and Theophylactus They had been condemn'd together with Podopagurus And immediately sent him away as a banish'd Man to Hieria an Imperial Palace in Asia over against Constantinople and created Nicetas the Presbyter of the Church of the Apostles an Eunuch Patriarch All these things were done in the Month of August Indict 4. Not long after he sent for Constantine and commanded him to be carried to the Church and together with him he sent one of his own Secretaries with Accusations against him which the Secretary read before all the people there gather'd together striking him on the Cheek at the reading of every Accusation And then they went up into the Pulpit and deposed him the new Patriarch reading the Accusations at the Altar To the same purpose Zonaras Tho' such were the Circumstances of Nicetas's Promotion yet of any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by it not a Syllable in any Author He was readily own'd by all the Orthodox i. e. the Iconoclasts and govern'd no less than Fourteen Years as appears from Theophanes and Nicephorus Callisti The Patriarch Nicephorus in his Chronology allows him Fifteen Years If you find him call'd by any Author a Pseudo-Patriarch or the like it is onely by such as being themselves the Worshippers of Images accounted him so likewise his Predecessor himself a Heretick and on that account no true Patriarch 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 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 IT appears from what has been said in the foregoing Chapters that the Doctrine which we maintain is grounded on the earliest Antiquity and confirm'd by the Practice of the Church in the first 400 Years after the Emperors became Christian. We are now fallen into the Dregs of time says one of our Answerers speaking of the Seventh and the following Centuries years of Superstition Idolatry Dot age and Disorder and therefore tho' the Instances produced out of this Age were truly reported and pertinent to the Purpose they would not be fit Examples for us to follow Had our Author known that the Ages of which he gives this Character were the Ages that afford his Party their most considerable in themselves inconsiderable Precedents we should not I suppose have found him so ingenuous in his Confession and free of his Characters We are now fallen into the Dregs of time 'T is true and no wonder if the Spirit of Antiquity was so far lost as that some few Instances may be found in these times agreeable to the practice of our Adversaries But this is confess'd by them themselves that the Examples of these lower Ages that do not agree with the Practice of the former are not fit Examples for us to follow In the Year 858. there broke out a Schism at Constantinople between Ignatius deposed and Photius who was constituted in his place That the Reader may have a full and perfect view of all this Concern I will first present him with a short Historical and Chronological Account of the chief Transactions Secondly I will shew what manner of Man Photius was who accepted of Ignatius's See that he was a vertuous and pious Man Thirdly I will shew by how great and numerous a Party he was receiv'd Fourthly That they that separated from him did not
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
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
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
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 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 Palehisca 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
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