Selected quad for the lemma: book_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
book_n	author_n	church_n	write_v	2,265	5	5.4994	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A28220	An answer to a treatise out of ecclesiastical history translated from an ancient Greek manuscript in the publick library at Oxford by Humfrey Hody ... and published under the title of The unreasonableness of a separation from the new bishops, to shew that although a bishop was unjustly deprived, neither he nor the church ever made a separation, if the successor was not an heretick : to which is added, the canons in the Baroccian manuscript omitted by Mr. Hody.	Bisbie, Nathaniel, 1635-1695.; Browne, Thomas, 1654?-1741.	1691 (1691)	Wing B2980; ESTC R18575	41,921	46

worth our observation that notwithstanding it had been so customary for the Emperors in the Greek Church to Depose their Bishops yet after the Thirteenth Century and how long after we cannot tell it was matter of dispute in that Church whether they ought to Communicate with the new Bishops so that this Author 's whole Book is a contradiction to his very design in writing it for if they had constantly for so many Ages submitted to the Intruding Bishops as often as they were put up how came there at that time to be any doubt about it Or how could it then be necessary to prove with so much Pains and Formality that which he would make us believe had been the constant Practice of their Church in every Age If what he says had been true it could have needed no Proof to them and since he was forced to be at so much Pains to prove it to the Greeks themselves that this had ever been the Practice of their own Church it is a good Argument to us that it was not the Practice of it for if it had been all along practised no Man almost among them could have been ignorant of it since according to his own account there was scarce any Age but afforded too many Instances of the Removal of Bishops Considering all this I wonder that the learned Writer of the Preface should tell us that this Author is so unexceptionable a Judg to appeal to for I should be very sorry if any exception should lye against the Authors of our own time that does not lye against this Yes says he Surely no uncharitable Aspersions of time-serving courting Preferment or the like that might be cast upon any that should write now in this Cause can take place against this Author so remote from the present Age and Controversie I hope uncharitable Aspersions will take place neither against this Author nor any other but it is too much to persuade us that Clergy men were never swayed by Interest till now of late this would be too great a Satyr upon the present Age and would betray too great ignorance of all that are past for there is nothing more notorious than that mankind have had the same Passions and Frailties in all Times and if we were to search for Examples of Prejudice and Deceit and Persidiousness and all manner of ill Practices we should no where sooner find them than in those degenerate Ages of the Church And he tells us that our Author probably was one of the Bishops that assisted at the new Patriarchs Consecration for whose sake all this was written so that the Case was the same and the Controversie the same and the difference is only in Time and Place and perhaps in some other as inconsiderable Circumstances But I shall apply my self to the Greek Author and in Answer to him shall consider all that is said in the Preface to strengthen and support his Authorities from Antiquity AN ANSVVER TO A TREATISE OUT OF Ecclesiastical History c. I Shall follow our Author in his own way tho he does not always proceed according to order of Time which is no Argument of his Skill or Exactness but shews that he took up his Materials as he found them and placed them without any great Care or Method And to shew his Judgment we shall see he has sometimes brought Instances which are nothing to his purpose He begins with S. Chrysostom and Pag. 1. in the first place would insinuate that he was Uncanonically Ordained having received the Order of Deacon by the hands of Meletius who was placed by the Arians in the Sea of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia and was afterwards Translated to Antioch whilst Eustathius was yet living and he observes that Meletius notwithstanding was removed to Antioch by the joynt consent of both the Orthodox and Arian Bishops and that both S. Basil and S. Chrysostom were Ordained Deacons by him By all this we are given to understand that Eustathius of Sebastia had great wrong done him and that Meletius being besides made Bishop by the Arians could never become a lawful Bishop As to the first point Eustathius was condemned in two Synods for his ill Tenets and Practices He was first Socrat. l. 2. c. 43. Deposed by his own Father Eulalius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia and was afterwards condemned in a Synod at Gangre in Paphlagonia because after he was Deposed he had done many things contrary to the Canons He had forbidden to Marry and commanded to abstain from Meats he had caused several Men and their Wives to depart from each other those who would not come to Church he had persuaded to Communicate in their Houses He made several Servants leave their Masters upon pretences of Piety He were the Habit of a Philosopher which was the misdemeanor his Father at first Deposed him for and had introduced a new kind of distinct Habit for all of his own Sect. He caused Women to be Shorn He declared against the set Fasts of the Church and appointed his Followers to Fast on Sundays He would not so much as admit any Prayers to be made in the Houses of married Persons and commanded all to avoid as a thing abominable the Benediction and Communion of a Priest who had a Wife tho he had married her before he entred into Orders and he both did and taught many other things of like nature Sozomen relates that besides his being Sozom. l. 4. c. 24. Deposed at Caesarea in Cappodocia and at Gangre he was Excommunicated by a Synod at Neocesaria in Pontus and Deposed by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople for his Treachery in some business that he had been entrusted with and was Convicted of Perjury in a Synod of Antioch To all this I need not add that he was an Arian and renounced the Nicene Creed which he had once professed and that S. Basil often complains of his Basil Ep. 72 73 74. 78 79. 196. false and perverse dealing and besides says that it was reported of him that he had reordained some of his Proselites tho he could scarce believe it since no Heretick was ever known to dare to do it These certainly are Crimes which would justifie his being Deposed and it could be no fault in Meletius to preside in the See of a Bishop who for so just Reasons was condemned in several Synods and had had Anathema pronounced against his Doctrines The Second thing viz. Th●t Meletius was Cons●●r●ted by the Arians was ind●ed a great objection against him and had like to have been of very 〈◊〉 ●onsequence to the Church of Anti●●h For tho Meletius had shewn himself a zealous and learned Assertor of that Orthodox Faith and was highly esteemed by the Orthodox Bishops who were mightily sat●sfied with his Promotion to the See of Antioch yet there was a Party of Men who still retained a Prejudice against him upon the account of his Consecration and during his Banishment under

to the Canons (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id de Jaac lib 2. p. p 260. held separate Assemblies Our Author has observed that in the space of nine years the Emperour Isaacius Angelus made five Patriarchs successively who were all alive together but he might have spared his Admiration that they did not separate from one anothers Communion for if this had been the approved and constant Practice of the Church as he pretends what great matter of Admiration could it be that five Patriarchs should do as all their Predecessors had done in the like Case B●t the only wonder is how this Author comes to know that they did not separate when the Historian whom he quotes says no such thing It is plain indeed that if the Emperour had but any pretence and it was hard if he could find none the Greek Church in these Ages was so low and the Clergy of so base and abject Spirits that they were prepared to comply with any thing and if they expressed their Resentments it was in such a manner as could become the Zeal only of these degenerate times Thus when Euthymius was Deposed to make Cedren p. 607. way for the Restauration of Nicholas to his See again the Clergy who were of Nicholas's Party fell upon Euthymius like mad Men and beat him with their Fists and plucked him by the Beard and flung him down calling him Usurper and Adulterer and if it should be granted that Men who could shew such barbarous usage should notwithstanding keep in Communion with the Usurper whom they could think to deserve such usage from them I suppose their examp●e will be thought of no better Authority in the one than in the other But upon the whole matter after a full examination of all the Instances which this Author has brought to maintain his Assertion I must conclude in contradiction to it that very few if any Examples can be produced of Bishops who were unjustly Deposed that did hold Communion with the Intruders and that therefore upon the account of any thing which is offered in this Treatise a Separation is not Unreasonable REMARKS UPON THE Greek and Latin Edition SInce my writing this I have met with the Greek and Latin Edition of this Author and besides Mr. Hody's Preface there are some few things in the Book it self further to be observed In the English Preface to this Treatise we are told that there is no Name prefixt before it nor any Characters in it that may lead us to a probable Conjecture about the Author But Mr. Hody in his Preface to the Greek and Latin Edition thinks he has discovered the Author to be Nicephorus Gallistus that which he grounds his Conjecture upon is that this Discourse is in the same Volume with several other Manuscripts which have the Name of Nicephorus Callistus to them but he does not acquaint us that this is written in the same hand with the rest nor that it has the least Connexion or Affinity with them nor that all the other Tracts in that Volume have his Name before them and when the other Treatises have his Name prefixed and this has it not it is most probable that this is not his for if it were it would bear his Name as well as the rest Indeed if some of the most remarkable Tracts only had his Name to them and others which were known to be his were among them without his Name it would not be unlikely that this might be his too but when the rest have his Name and this has none what can be more reasonably concluded from it than that there was as much cause why his Name should be omitted in this as why it was pre●●xt before the ●est Mr. Hody himself observes that there is no e●●ct agreement in the Catalogue of the Patriarchs of C. P. by Nicephorus and the account of them in this Author But there is a much greater and more obvious Difference between them than that for Nicephorus Callistus writes in an easie flowing stile and with great Elegancy considering the Age in which he wrote but our Author is heavy and unpleasant and scarce able to express that little he has to say and the best thing that can be said of his stile is that it is as good as the Subject deserves and it is great pity that such Stuff should be put into any better Language But there is another Difference between these two Authors yet more remarkable for Nicephorus giving an account of (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 20. St. Chrysostom's parting Words to his Friends makes their holding Communion with the succeeding Bishop to depend wholly upon his Permission he says that St. Chrysostom did an extraordinary thing which was without example and had something more than Humane in it when he gave leave to his Friends to live in communion with Bishops by whom he had been so ill used Whereas our Author makes it not to depend upon any Permission of the rightful Bishop but to be the constant practice of the Church and the indispensable Duty of all Christians to submit to every Intruder if he be no Heretick But if there were as much reason to believe that Nicephorus Callistus was the Author of this Treatise as there is to think that he was not yet his Name would give no great Credit to it but a Suspicion rather that it is not to be credited For excepting Malela lately published by Mr. Hody there is scarce any Author more fabulous than Nicephorus But this Manuscript outgoes even Malela and may have the Reputation of being the worst Greek Author extant 'till Mr. Hody is pleased to publish some other Both the Latin and the English Preface suppose this Tract to have been a Sermon or Homily or at least as it is added in the Latin to have been a Lecture in the Schools of some Professor of History because in two places he bespeaks his Auditor and not his Reader I have no mind to maintain a Controversie about a thing of no moment but this Reason does not satisfie me for I find that (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Her 64. n. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. de Mensur Ponderib n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. n. 17. Epiphanius addresses himself to his Auditors in his Book against Heresies tho no Man can therefore imagin that that Book consists of as many Homilies as he treats of Heresies and he writes in the same manner in his Book of Measures and Weights tho it appears that that Book was neither an Homily nor a Lecture I rather believe that Copies of Books being dear and scarce before the Invention of Printing it was customary to recite other Discourses as well as Homilies or Lectures and that therefore such Expressions might either be used at first by the Author or be afterwards inserted by him that recited it Besides the stile of this Treatise does

they were forced to be at all that trouble to get a Synod of their own Party to effect it But if it be left to the Arbitrary Will of the Prince to Depose the Orthodox Bishops at his Pleasure and supply the vacancies with any whom he thinks fit and their Dioceses must be obliged in Conscience to acknowledge them he will be sure in a short time to have such Bishops as shall determine that only to be Heresie which he will have to be so and it is a vain thing to say that Heretical Bishops must not be promoted or that they must not be obeyed for in a little time by this Doctrine there will be nothing reputed Heresie nor Schism but to hold a different Opinion and a different Commanion from that of the Prince But to come nearer home this Doctrine denies the Church a Power which is granted to be in all other Societies own no Head but of their own choosing or who is otherwise regularly set over them according to their Charter or Constitution and it seems if King James had put in new Bishops against the consent of the Chapters the Dioceses would have been obliged to obey them though the Fellows of Magdalen College in Oxford were bound in Conscience not to acknowledge a President who was forced upon them against their Statutes It may perhaps be said that we are secured from all the inconveniences that would follow from this Doctrine inasmuch as by the Laws of the Land no Bishop can be forced upon us by the King but he must be chosen by the Chapter of the Cathedral Church of the Diocese to which he is nominated But first if this Doctrine be calculated only for our own Church and we must be governed by a different Rule from the rest of the Catholick Church why then is the Practice of the Greek Church brought to recommend it to us But if this have been the Doctrine and Practice of all Churches we are not to imagine that the Laws of the Land can make it no sin but a Duty to separate from intruding Bishops when the Laws of God and of his Church enjoyn the contrary For the Laws of our Country must cease to oblige us in Conscience when they are inconsistent with the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages and if these have been always the Principles and this the Practice of the Church as it is now pretended to own the present Bishop whoever he be if he be no Heretick I doubt it will be in vain to alledg the Laws of the Land against an Intruder when he is once in Possession as long as he can keep his Possession but we must have Bishops de Facto and must be bound in Conscience to submit to them by whatever ill means they came in at first But suppose that the Laws of the Land would be a security to us as they have hitherto been and will be still if we retain our old Principles yet how can we be sure that the Laity will be more tender of the Honour and welfare of the Church than the Clergy themselves are And that if the Clergy give up the Ecclesiastical Authority they will not be willing to consent to it and be contented that a Prince should be absolute in Ecclesiastical Affairs if he will but act according to Law in Civil But whatever security there may be from the Secular Power to the Church since it is incorporated into the State yet by these Principles the Church could not have supported it self against the Attempts of Schismaticks before the Emperours became Christians and if the Civil Government should withdraw its Protection it is plain this Scheme leaves the Church no Power to defend it self against the Vsurpation of one Bishop upon another for by this Model of Church-Government if a Bishop get into Possession of anothers Diocese by any way whatsoever whether by the Secular Power or by any other means provided he be no Heretick he is from thence forth to be looked upon as the true Bishop notwithstanding any Canon of the Church against his Vsu●pation So that this Notion does effectually dissolve all Church-Government and leaves no Power and Authority in the Church to preserve it self but leaves it at the Mercy not only of the Civil Magistrate but of any Invader who is no Heretick or does not appear to be such Novatian if he could have got into Possession of the Episcopal Throne must by these Principles have been submitted to as Bishop of Rome than which nothing can be more absurd or more contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages And if the Cause of the New Bishops can be defended by none but such Principles it is plain that it is not to be defended at all for we must not contradict the Doctrine of the Church in all Ages to serve a present Turn nor maintain the Church in this Age so as to have no Church left for the next But I shall not here undertake further to shew how dangerous and destructive these Principles are to the Church of England and to Religion in general much less is it my business to state the Case now in Controversie I intend only to pursue the Author of this Treatise through his Discoveries which he pretends to make in Ecclesiastical History and if I can shew that this Greek has put a fallacy upon us I hope we shall not suffer our selves to be cheated by the impertinent and false Stories of an obscure Writer of no Name nor Authority but who appears to have lived in the most decayed and worst State of the Greek Church when their Sermons were nothing but ill digested Rapsodies which both for their Stile and Sense will scarce endure the Reading their Ecclesiastical Histories nothing but Legends of Miracles and all their Histories both Ecclesiastical and Civil full of such idle Stories as most Men are ashamed to tell after them and when by their Vices and Ignorance they had rendred themselves ripe for that Destruction which soon after came upon them It is to those Ages that we owe the loss of so many of the Works of the Fathers of the First Centuries and the Corruption of others to Countenance the Tenets and Practices of their own times and it is no wonder that when their Bishops were so often Deposed at the pleasure of the Emperour upon frivolous or rather upon very unjust pretences some should endeavour to make it believed that such Proceedings must be acquiesced in according to the Practice of former Ages in the like cases when the decay of all sound Knowledge and true Religion and of all good Orders and Discipline both in Church and State was so great and their Divisions so incurable which were principally occasioned or extremely heightened by the frequent changes of the Patriarchs that they at last brought utter ruin upon the Empire and subjected the Church to the Arbitrary Pleasure of the Grand Seignior And it is