so he ventur'd to do as soon as Acacius was Dead which he dar'd not do before at least not publickly he was very much troubled and broke off from his Communion Hence it plainly appears that before that time he freely Communicated with him and that now he broke off upon only the account of Heresie yet how Orthodox a Person he was and how stout and couragious a Bishop is very Notorious That sufficiently appears from his Behaviour to Anastasius When being a great Person in the Court of the Emperor Zeno Anastasius had discover'd his Inclination to Eutychianism and did something prejudicial to the Cause of the Orthodox Euphemius the Patriarch thrust him out of the Church and threaten'd him that if he did not desist from his Practices he would shave his Head for him and deliver him up to the Mockeries of the Rabble When the same Anastasius was to be Crown'd Emperor in the room of Zeno he refus'd to give his consent till he had forced him to give him an Assurance under his Hand That he never would innovate in Matters of Religion And he afterwards so stoutly opposed him as to suffer Expulsion and Banishment 4. As it appears from Evagrius and others That the Proterians or the Orthodox of Aegypt acknowleged Mongus for their Bishop so we are told by Liberatus Diaconus that when it was Reported that he had Anathematiz'd the Council of Chalcedon they that believ'd he had done so separated from him Et his ita gestis abscesserunt quidam à Petri Communione Romam nuntiaverunt Papae Romae 5. When Pope Simplicias had receiv'd a Letter from the Emperor concerning his design to Depose Talaias he was so far well enough satisfied and nothing displeas'd him till Reading further in the Letter he found that a Heretick i. e. one whom he accounted a Heretick was design'd for his Successor This he owns in his Letter to Acacius When says he according to Custom I was about to send to John my Confirmatory Letters I receiv'd a Letter from the Emperor in which he declar'd him unworthy of the Dignity as being guilty of Perjury I forthwith slept and recall'd my Sentence of Confirmation least I should be judg'd to have acted rashly in opposition to so great a Testimony But this extreamly astonish'd me that in the same Letter he mentions that he thought fit to promote Peter in his room one who was ere while a Ringleader of the Hereticks and is still to be presum'd to be out of the Communion of the Church He adds That if Peter Mongus did 〈◊〉 to return to the Church he could not be made a Bishop till by Penance according to the Rules of the Church he had made ample Satisfaction That it was not safe for the Church that he should be promoted to that Bishoprick least by making a shew of being a Convert he should propagate his Heresie He begs Acacius to do his utmost endeavour with the Emperor that Mongus might not be made Bishop to intercede with him incessantly for the Catholick Faith that what was done in prejudice to it might be Revok'd Concerning the Unlawfulness of a Bishops succeeding another before that other was Synodically Deposed not a word The same Pope in another Epistle to Acacius which in order follows the former but was written before it and before these times just after the Emperor Zeno was restor'd upon the Expulsion of Basiliscus when the Heretick Timotheus Aelurus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the room of Timotheus Salofaciolus the Orthodox Patriarch whom Basiliscus had Deposed I say in that Epistle he desires Acacius to take care to intercede with the Emperor that the Heretical Bishops might be turn'd out and Banish'd and that either the ejected Orthodox Bishops might be Restored or at least new Orthodox Bishops be Created Quatenus his submotis atque in solitudinis perpetua relegatione damnatis Antistites Cathelici deceptis vel reddantur Ecclesiis vel creentur Whether old ones or new ones was to him altogether indifferent he only desired they should be Orthodox So as is above observ'd in the forgoing Section he highly extolls Acacius's Constancy in forbidding Aelurus to enter into any of his Churches because he was a Heretick and a Murderer takes no notice at all of his being put into the room of Salofaciolus Vnsynodically Deposed 6. Pope Felix III. in his two first Pathetical Epistles which he wrote in his own Name and the Name of a Synod of Rome to Acacius and the Emperor concerning the promotion of Mongus takes no notice at all of Talaias's being Deposed without a Synod He only complains that Mongus was a Heretick So likewise in his sixth Epistle to Acacius wherein he Excommunicates him and declares him Deposed the great Reason assign'd is because he continu'd to Communicate with the Heretick Mongus And though there are other pretended Crimes charg'd upon him yet concerning any Crime committed by him in Communicating with a Person put into the place of another Vnsynodically Deposed there is nothing alleged We may gather lastly from Evagrius That Talaias himself did not think it Unlawful for the People and Clergy of Aegypt to accept of another Patriarch if that other had been likewise Orthodox He flees says Evagrius to Rome and raises there very great Stirs affirming not that another could not be put into his place because he was not Deposed by a Synod but that it was for his defending the Council of Chalcedon that he was Deposed and that he that was Constituted his Successor was an Enemy to the Doctrine of that Council By these Allegations Simplicius Pope of Rome was so far moved as to write to the Emperor concerning him And the Emperor return'd him this Answer That 't was only for Perjury that he had been Deposed not on any other account 7. In the year 483. Calendion the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was Deposed by the Emperor Zeno as suspected to have conspired against him with the Rebels Illus and Leontius That he was Deposed without any Synod is manifest from the express Testimony of Pope Gelasius I. Though Deposed in this manner yet his Successor Petrus Gnapheus a notorious Heretick was rejected by none of the Orthodox upon any other account but because he was a Heretick 1. Pope Felix III. in his two Epistles to Petrus Gnapheus in the latter of which he declares him Deposed and in another which he writes to the Emperor to desire that he might be Ejected takes no notice at all of Calendion no notice at all of his being Vnsynodically Deposed the only thing he objects against Gnapheus is his being a Heretick For this and for this alone he Deposes him and he plainly intimates that if he would forsake his Heresie there was nothing else to be objected against him He tells the Emperor That the Church had Deposed him because he was a Heretick and to him himself Forsake says he I beseech thee
Church's Submission to Bishops put into the places of others deposed by the Secular Power I have brought it down from the first High-priest that ever was deposed by the Secular Power i. e. from the Reign of King Solomon to these very times and have shewed That the Behaviour of the Iews under their High-priests and of the Antient Christians under their Bishops was agreeable to the present Practice of our Church To make this History the more complete I shall now shew That the same was the general Practice of the Antients in respect to Bishops put into the places of others unjustly and uncanonically deposed by Synods where the Secular Power concurr'd as executing the Sentence of the Bishops I say where the Secular Power concurred in executing the Sentence of the Bishops for whatever the Vindicator and others are pleas'd to tell us concerning Synodical Deprivations it is easie to shew That the Antients never regarded the Decree or Sentence of an Vncanonical Synod if the Civil Governour did not force 'em to submit by taking upon him to excuse the sentence It is not every Synod that has power by the Canons of the Church to depose a Bishop and the Sentence of an Vncanonical Synod is by the Canons as invalid as if it were no Synod at all In the Fifth Canon of the General Council of Nice there is a plain Intimation that the Affairs of every Province ought to be managed by the Bishops of the respective Provinces and by the Second Can. of the General Council of Constantinople 't is expressly ordain'd That no Metropolitan should go out of his own District to concern himself in the Affairs of another District except in a General Council So when Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria was accused to the Emperor Arcadius of certain great Crimes and the Emperor commanded him to make his Appearance at Constantinople to be tryed there by S. Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople he sent S. Chrysostom a Letter in which he alleged That he could not be Iudge of his Cause that the Affairs of every Province ought to be managed only by the Bishops of the respective Province And S. Chrysostom tells P. Innocent that when Theophilus came to Constantinople and the Emperor commanded him to call him before him as his Iudge he refused to do it because he knew that by the Canons he could not do it 'T was contrary to this Law of the Church that S. Chrysostom himself was deposed and that too by Theophilus himself who had pleaded that Law The Circumstances of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation were these Theophilus being at Constantinople instead of being judged by S. Chrysostom was encouraged by S. Chrysostom's Enemies particularly by the Empress Eudoxia to summon Him before him and to Depose him He packs a Synod consisting of Twenty nine Bishops of Egypt whom he brought with him and Seven others of other Countries and several malicious Accusations being preferred against him by his Enemies cites him to appear before he himself had cleared himself from the Crimes charged upon him which was contrary to all Canons and Laws S. Chrysostom sends him word that he was ready to appear before a lawful and impartial Synod but as for him he could not own him as his Judge because he was his profess'd Enemy had already drawn oft a part of his People from his Communion and had no Autority to sit as a Iudge out of his own District and besides was himself obnoxious Notwithstanding all this Theophilus and the Bishops that were with him pass upon him the Sentence of Deprivation And pursuant to that Sentence he is carried away from Constantinople but there being a great Tumult among the People by whom he was exceedingly admired he is presently recalled by the Emperor's Command and the Suffrages of Thirty Bishops He desires the Emperor to call a General Council that his Cause might be heard Theophilus flees away to Alexandria together with most of his Bishops But after a little time S. Chrysostom's Enemies prevail again They gather a Synod at Constantinople and depose him by a Canon of the Synod of Antioch for presuming to act as a Bishop after he had been deposed by a Synod He 's accordingly expell'd a Second time tho' there were present at that time at Constantinople no less than Forty Bishops that declared against those Proceedings among whom there were Seven Metropolitans He was carried away into Banishment in which he died Three years and Three Months after his Expulsion A little while after Arfacius Brother to Nectarius his Predecessor was ordain'd his Successor who died November 11. 405. after he had been Patriarch somewhat above a Year For S. Chrysostom was deposed Iune 20.404 To him succeeded Atticus S. Chrysostom being still living Such were the Circumstances of that great Man's Deprivation That the Emperor was not at all concern'd in it any otherwise than as he executed the Sentence of the Bishops he himself attests in his Epistle to P. Innocent And that he himself lookt upon it as absolutely invalid is notorious Let us now see what the Consequences were what was his Behaviour and what the Behaviour of the Church in relation to his Successors 1. It is to be observed that tho' he was so injuriously and provokingly dealt with tho' he accounted all the Proceedings against him perfectly invalid yet before he was carried away from Constantinople he absolutely declar'd against all Separation on his Account This appears from what has been already observ'd in the Prefaces to the Baroccian Treatise When he expected to be deposed Pray for me my Brethren says he to the Bishops his Friends and if you love Christ let no one leave the Church on my Account And so you may obtain Mercy When one of the Bishops complain'd of the loss the Church would have in his Deprivation It suffices Brother says he speak no more but as I said leave not your Churches For as the Gift of Preaching did not begin with me so neither will it end with me Again he charges 'em to continue in Communion with those that deposed him that they might not rend the Church When he was just agoing out of his Church to be led away into Exile he thus addrest himself to the Deaconnesses who were wont to attend there Come hither says he my Daughters and hear me I am I perceive to be your Patriarch no longer I have finish'd my Course and perhaps my Face you will never see any more This is that which I exhort you to do Let no one of you be drawn off from the Good-will to the Church which you have hitherto had And whoever shall be ordain'd Patriarch in my stead without his own seeking it by the Consent of all to him submit your Heads to receive his Blessing as to my self for the Church cannot be without a Bishop And by doing so you may obtain Mercy Remember me in your Prayers We
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
King and the Parliament may by that be encouraged to Depose our Bishops at pleasure that Supposition will be wild and extravagant For who can imagine that they can ever concurr for the Deprivation of a Bishop but upon a very extraordinary Occasion There is nothing can be more manifest than that this Inconvenience is not so likely to happen as those Evil's we endeavour to avoid These are certain and present That only possible But Thirdly should we grant what in reason cannot be granted that it is as likely to happen yet how great is the Difference Should the State here or in other Countries one single absolute Governor be supposed to be so very dissolute as to turn out frequently the Bishops of the Church without any just Cause yet who can look upon that Mischief to be comparable to that of a Schism and a Persecution What can the suffering of a few particular Men be when compared to the Peace and Tranquility of the whole Church besides Our Adversaries may be pleas'd to consider That it was not for the Bishops that the Church was establish'd but the Bishops were appointed for the sake of the Church It is not therefore the Welfare of the Bishops as the Bishops are these or those Men much less of some few particular Bishops but the Welfare of the whole Church in general that is chiefly to be regarded § 11. And thus I hope I have sufficiently made out what I proposed to prove That the submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority is neither in it self a Sin nor liable to ill Consequences so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid or if so likely to happen not so great and pernicious to the Church as those are From whence it necessarily follows That such a Submission is in it self highly reasonable Which was the first Proposition we proposed to be demonstrated I come now to the Second General proposed to be made out That such a Submission is agreeable to the Practice of the Antients § 12. But before I put an end to this Chapter and proceed to the Proof of this last Proposition there remains yet one thing more to be consider'd and that is the Imputation of Heresy which the learned Vindicator is pleas'd to fix upon us Any Opinion says the Vindicator on account of which Men separate from their Ecclesiastical Governors is Heretical tho' it be not in its own nature so And such an Opinion is not Heretical onely when Men designedly separate from others on that very account because they are not of that Opinion but also when they venture on such Practices on account of that Opinion wherein others cannot communicate with 'em for that very reason because they cannot join with 'em in that Opinion Then plainly the differing in such Opinions makes a difference of Communion unavoidable and therefore the Opinions themselves in such a Case as this is are Signals of different Communions which will come under the Charge of Heresy His meaning is that We maintaining this Opinion That the Civil Power has Autority to depose a Bishop for a Political Crime or if it has no such Autority when once it has deposed a Bishop it is lawfull to acknowledge the Successor and in consequence of that Opinion submitting now to the present Possessors are therefore Hereticks because He and his Party cannot join with us in that Practice as being of the contrary Opinion Here it comes into my mind what S. Ierom somewhere says That he that can with Patience hear himself call'd Heretick is no good Christian. This is true of those Heresies which were so in the Opinion of the Antients But in this Case we dare to be patient Ego tibi Haereticus tu mihi That 's all the Return we shall make The Vindicator in consequence of his Opinion that the Civil Autority has no power to depose a Bishop and that if a Bishop is so deposed his Successor ought to be rejected tho' otherwise never so worthy adheres to the Bishops deprived and disowns those that are put into their places In this Practice of the Vindicator we cannot join with him and for that very reason because we cannot join with him in his Opinion And what now follows from our Author's Notion of Heresy but that he himself is a Heretick It is nothing at all to our Purpose But for his own sake I shall here take upon me to add with a pace maximi Viri That this Notion of Heresy is a groundless and a fancyfull Notion That he may be properly call'd a Heretick who separates from the Church because the Church is not of his Opinion tho' the Opinion is not at all in its own nature Heretical I grant For there is a sort of Heresy which is not sinfull on the account of the Opinion maintain'd but onely because it is a separation from the Church But this I assert in opposition to what is laid down by the Vindicator That to all Heresy as the word is strictly taken to denote a Sin contradistinct to Schism it is necessary that there be an Opinion maintain'd which either the Church condemns or for which the Person that maintains it does of himself separate from the Church If it be not for any Opinion that the Vindicator is divided from the Church but onely for what is done by the Church he cannot be call'd in a strict sence a Heretick but only a Schismatick § 13. But to wave this Dispute as not at all material and to suffer the Vindicator if he pleases to enjoy his Notion What now is the Life he would make of it What is his Design in advancing it The Life he makes of it is this He alleges the aforesaid Heresy as a Reason for their Separation He tells us That we being guilty of Heresy they ought by our own Concessions to keep off from our Communion because we our selves acknowlege that Heresy is a just cause of Separation Tho' we should admit says he that the Author of the Baroccian Treatise had been successfull in all that he has attempted we may yet justify our adherence to the deprived Bishops and our Separation from our Adversaries opposite Altars and justify it too by the Doctrine of their own Author for even he permits a Separation where Orthodoxy is concern'd and expressly excepts this Case from the Number of those which he pretends to confute An Heretical Bishop he calls a false Bishop c. 'T is strange that the worthy and learned Vindicator should be so much out in his Logick as not to see the Inconsistency of what he alleges and to offer this as a reason for their not communicating with us If it is their not communicating with us that makes our Opinion Heretical and us Hereticks how do they refuse to communicate with us for this reason because we are Hereticks We could not be Hereticks according to the Vindicator's own
with God since these Expiations were the yearly renewing of that Covenant Nor can any of the Performances of the Christian Priesthood be compared to this unless we believe the Power of Transubstantiating These Examples of the Jewish High-priests alone were there no other to be alleged would sufficiently warrant our Submission to our present Possessors Let us now see what Examples those are § 3. Our first Example is that of the first High-priest that ever we know to have been deposed viz. of Abiathar He was deposed by the bare Autority of King Solomon for having adhered to Adonijah his elder Brother as small a fault as could be of that nature tho' afterwards he had submitted and acknowledged King Solomon's Autority as soon as ever he was made King Tho' Abiathar was thus deposed yet Zadok being by the same Autority placed in his room all the Nation of the Iews both Priests and People submit themselves to him and own him as High-priest Even the Sons of the deposed Abiathar Ionathan and Ahimelech act as Priests under Zadok Iosephus in his Iewish Antiquities has observ'd that this was the first Instance of a High-priest deposed From the beginning says he for 13 Successions there was no High-priest put into the room of another unless deceased after that some began to be constituted whilst their Predecessors were living What is said by some of the Rabbies concerning the Deprivation of Phineas the Grandson of Aaron was altogether unknown to Iosephus neither does it concern the Subject of this Treatise he being depriv'd if at all by God's immediate Act. It 's alleged by one of our Adversaries that Abiathar was not deposed by the Autority of the King but by that of the Sanhedrin or great Council And this he endeavours to evince from these two Considerations 1. Because it is said by the Rabbies that in Capital Causes it was lawfull onely for the Sanhedrin to judge the High-priest 2. Because Iosephus the Historian says of Ioab That before the King sent Benaiah to fall upon him he first sent him to fetch him from the Altar in order to bring him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the Seat of Iudicature there to plead his Cause And if this Formality says our Author was used towards Joab before ever the Command was given to have him slain it 's probable â—he like was used towards Adonijah the King's Brother before he was slain and the like also to Abiathar before he was thrust from the Priesthood At present it is not my Business to assert the Autority of the Civil Power in depriving a Bishop or to shew that the Kings of Iudea had Autority to deprive a High-priest I suppose at present That the Deprivation of Abiathar by King Solomon was irregular and unlawfull and am onely to demonstrate That de facto he was deposed by the bare Autority of the King Now a thousand such little Nothings as our Author's Presumptions and Conjectures from what is related by Iosephus concerning Ioab I shall fully and unanswerably confute by producing the Words of the Scripture Now therefore as the Lord liveth says King Solomon which hath established me and set me on the Throne of David my Father and who hath made me a house as he promised Adonijah shall be put to death this day And King Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the Son of Iehoiada and he fell upon him that he died And unto Abiathar the Priest said the King Get thee to Anathoth unto thine own Fields for thou art worthy of death but I will not at this time put thee to death because thou barest the Ark of the Lord God before David my Father and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my Father was afflicted So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord. So likewise Iosephus And sending for Benaiah the Captain of his Guard he commanded him to go and slay his Brother Adonijah And calling to him the Priest Abiathar Thy bearing the Ark says he with my Father and those things which thou suffered'st in his service deliver thee from death but this punishment I inflict upon thee because thou tookedst part with Adonijah Stay thou not here nor come into my sight any more but go unto thy own Country and there live till the time of thy death For having thus sinn'd thou art not worthy to continue in Dignity as High-priest And thus for the aforesaid Cause the Family of Ithamar was deprived of the Honour of the High-priesthood Whatsoever was done to Ioab 't is as clear and apparent as the Sun That what was done to Adonijah and Abiathar was all done on a suddain without any manner of Judicial Process in the Sanhedrin by the bare Autority of the King But neither is it true that Ioab was ever cited to plead his Cause in the Sanhedrin For first Iosephus himself does not say so as our Author imagins For by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is not meant the Court of the Sanhedrin that is wont to be called by Iosephus not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the King 's own Tribunal where he himself sat Iudge and so 't is understood by both the Latin Translators Epiphanius Schol. and Gelenius 2. Even that which Iosephus does say is not true as appears by the words of the Scripture which Iosephus follows and mistakes Then tidings came to Ioab for Ioab had turned after Adonijah tho' he turned not after Absalom and Ioab fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord and caught hold on the Horns of the Altar And it was told King Solomon that Ioab was fled unto the Tabernacle of the Lord and behold he is by the Altar Then Solomon sent Benaiah the Son of Iehoiada saying Go fall upon him And Benaiah came to the Tabernacle of the Lord and said unto him Thus saith the King Come forth And he said Nay but I will die here And Benaiah brought the King word again saying Thus said Ioab and thus he answered me And the King said unto him Doe as he said and fall upon him It is said expressly that the King sent Benaiah not to cite him to the Tribunal but immediately to fall upon him These Words Iosephus who oftentimes mistakes the true Sence of the Scripture by trusting too much to his Memory had forgot And because he remember'd that Ioab was commanded to come forth he therefore rashly conjectured that he was commanded to come to the Tribunal When the Reason why he was commanded to come forth was onely this Because it was thought not proper to shed his bloud at the Altar Much like the aforesaid Evasion of our English Author is that of the Jesuits Salianus and Menochius who would needs perswade us that what was done was not done by King Solomon alone but that Zadok likewise the Priest pass'd his Sentence upon Abiathar and condemn'd him to be
to give an account of those Men who were at one certain particular time the great Officers under Solomon but to give an account likewise of those who at any time had been so This Explication may well pass for probable but the true one I take to be that of Serarius Menochius and Grotius who tell us That therefore he is join'd with Zadok in the Text above cited because tho' turn'd out of the Office yet he still enjoy'd the Name and Title of High-priest and was still highly honour'd as a Man of great Age and Dignity Thus 't is certain from Iosephus That in After-times when so many High-priests were deposed all they that were deposed enjoy'd still the Title as well as if they had been the Possessors And so it is now with the Patriarchs of Constantinople A fifth Evasion is that of Io. de Pineda and the Card. Bellarmin whom the Jesuits generally follow as Gretser Serarius A Lapide Becanus c. They own that Abiathar was completely deprived by King Solomon but say they he did not do it as King but by a particular Commission from God as a Prophet And this they prove from that Saying of the Scripture And Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spake concerning the House of Eli in Shiloh In answer to this I observe first That till after this was done King Solomon had no Gift of Prophecy It appears from the Scripture that he was first inspir'd and made a Prophet when God appear'd to him in a Vision at Gibeon which was after the Deprivation of Abiathar 2dly If Solomon had deprived Abiathar to this end that he might fulfill that Prophecy God to Eli yet it would not thence follow That he did it as a Prophet He had heard of that Prophecy and so he might adventure of himself to fulfill it It appears from Abulensis that tho' in his time and before there were some of that Opinion That Solomon depriv'd Abiathar that he might fulfill the aforesaid Prophecy yet they never imagin'd that he did it as a Prophet by a special Commission from God they thought he did it of himself by his own bare Autority 3dly It does not appear by the Text that Solomon design'd by deposing Abiathar to fulfill that Prophecy of God For those words That the Word of the Lord might be fulfilled do onely shew that That was the design of Providence a common mode of Expression In the Hebrew it is ad implendum sermonem where ad says Grotius is onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neque enim hoc respiciebat Salomon So long before Grotius the great and judicious Abulensis a Bishop of their own Church It is said in the Gospel of S. Matthew that Ioseph came and dwelt in a City called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets He shall be called a Nazarene That the Jews crucified Christ parting his Garments casting Lots that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet They parted my Garments among them c. So S. Iohn The Souldiers said therefore among themselves Let us not rent but cast lots for it whose it shall be that the Scripture might be fulfilled which saith c. It is said in another place of S. Iohn that notwithstanding all the Miracles of Christ yet the Iews believed not on him that the Saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled which he spake Lord who hath believed our Report c. That when Pilate commanded the Iews to take Jesus and Judge him according to their Law they said unto him It is lawfull for us to put any man to death That the Saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die Who so very injudicious as to inferr from these places that such was the End and Design of the Persons themselves Yet as well may we inferr that such was here the Design of the Persons themselves as that such was the Design of King Solomon deposing Abiathar I shall onely add That whereas some of the Iesuits do pretend to confirm their Opinion with the Autority of Theodoret and Procopius Gazaeus those Authors are so far from thinking that King Solomon depriv'd Abiathar as a Prophet that it does not appear that they thought he had any respect to that Prophecy They onely say That in depriving Abiathar he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Instrument or an Asier made use of by God for the fulfilling of his Prophecy The Jesuit Becanus not very well satisfied as it seems with this Answer of Bellarmin has besides another of his own He tells us That if King Solomon deposed Abiathar by his Regal Autority onely and was not inspired by God then he acted unlawfully for as he was King says he he was not a lawfull and a competent Judge Here now is a Man that speaks out This is home to our Purpose Let our Adversaries now take what Part they please If they grant that King Solomon did well then the Civil Power is a Competent Judge of a Bishop and may lawfully deprive him if he refuses to own its autority or for any other Criminal Cause for which he may by Bishops be justly deprived If with the Jesuit Becanus they say he did ill then 't is plain from the Scripture it self that the whole Nation of the Iews and God himself accepted of a High-priest who was put into the place of another invalidly deprived by the Civil Autority as a true High-priest § 4. For a great many Generations the High-priesthood continued in the Family of Zadok without the Deprivation of any We read of no one deposed by either the Regal or any other Authority till the time of Onias III. Sirnamed the Pious Of him we read in the Breviary of Iason of Cyrene viz. the 11. of Maccabees that he was deposed by King Antiochus Epiphanes by the means of a Bribe which his Brother Iesus call'd otherwise Iason had offer'd for the Honour who was thereupon placed in his room Iosephus in the 12th Book of his Antiquities says Antiochus conferr'd the High-priesthood on Iason after the death of Onias And again in his 15th Book he says that Iason himself was the first of all the High-priests he means after Solomon's time that whilst alive were depriv'd of their Dignity But in this Iosephus was mistaken as appears not onely by the express Testimony of Iason of Cyrene but likewise by that very particular account which he gives of Onias's Death several years after the Promotion and even after the Deprivation of Iason in the time of the High-priest Menelaus And Iosephus himself in another place viz. in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has affirm'd the same thing that Onias was deposed by the King and Iason for Money promoted to the High-priesthood The contrary Custom
call'd as appears from the same Author and Ionathan was one that had formerly enjoy'd that Honour That Ionathan was not there mentioned before Ananias because he was his Superiour in some other Station suppose as Prince of the Sanedrin I inferr from hence that in another Place where Iosephus speaks of the same thing there is no mention at all made of Him but onely of Ananias who was High-priest properly so call'd He sent Ananias the High-priest and Ananus the Captain bound to Rome there to answer before Caesar for what had been done Another Example of this nature we have in the Scripture it self where Zadok the inferiour is mention'd before Abiathar the superiour High-priest And David call'd for Zadok and Abiathar the High-priests Hence some have imagin'd that Zadok even at that time was superiour to Abiathar But the reason why he is first mention'd is Because by being afterwards placed in the room of Abiathar and by being the first High-priest of the Temple and by having his Posterity establish'd in the High-priesthood he was at that time when that Book was written much more famous than Abiathar § 3. To what has been said concerning our Saviour and his Apostles that they acknowleged and communicated with the High-priests of that Age as true High-priests I add that it appears moreover from S. Iohn that Caiaphas was accepted and owned by God himself And one of them named Caiaphas being the High-priest that same year said unto them Ye know nothing at all nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation perish not And this spake he not of himself but being High = priest that year he prophesied that Iesus should die for that nation c. It appears from these words both that S. Iohn own'd him to be a true High-priest and that as High = priest he receiv'd from God the Power of Prophesying § 4. I shall here for the close of all take notice of an Answer which some of our Adversaries have been pleased to make when urg'd with these Examples of the Iews our Saviour and his Apostles Upon this account say they the Nation of the Iews our Saviour and his Apostles submitted to the present Possessor tho' put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Secular Autority because the Temple being in the power of the Secular Magistrate they could not perform the more Solemn Acts of their Religion unless they accepted of that High-priest whom the Secular Magistrate had set over the Temple To this I answer That if they had look'd upon the present Possessor to be no true High-priest their being confined to the Temple of Ierusalem could not have been any inducement to 'em to submit themselves to him and to communicate with him in the Sacrifices which he offered If the Secular Magistrate would shut up their Temple they were not oblig'd to have any Sacrifices or any High-priest at all And because they have now no Temple they have therefore no Priests or Sacrifices So if they had not been permitted to offer up their Sacrifices by a High-priest duly qualified they would not have thought themselves obliged to offer any Sacrifices at all any more than they would if he that was their Governour should have kept all lawful Sacrifices from 'em and allow'd 'em only Swine And how can we imagine that if God had not look'd upon those High-priests to be true and real High-priests he would ever have accepted of the Sacrifices which they offer'd or have sent down upon 'em as High-Priests his Spirit of Prophecy If a Swine had been offer'd would God have accepted that Sacrifice because the Civil Governour would permit no other to be offer'd CHAP. IV. That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops if accounted Orthodox as were put into the places of others deposed by the Secular Power tho never so unjustly No Examples either for or against us in the three first Centuries all the Emperors being then Heathens The Example of Felix II. Bishop of Rome tho put into the place of Liberius unjustly deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Constantius and against Liberius's consent yet he 's own'd by all that accounted him Orthodox by the Roman Clergy among them by the famous Damasus who was afterwards Pope He is own'd as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the District of Rome His Ordinations are allow'd of as valid by even his Adversary Liberius He has been all along own'd by the Church as a Saint and true Pope WHAT was the Practice of the Iews our Saviour and the Apostles in relation to the High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority that they all along own'd 'em as true High-priests and that God himself approved of 'em we have shewn in the two foregoing Chapters I come now to shew in the third place That the same was the Practice of the Antient Christians throughout all Ages I mean the generality of 'em in every particular Age with respect to their Bishops provided only that they thought 'em upon no other account justly exceptionable For the three first Ages the Emperors were all Heathens and if they deposed any Bishops they did it to destroy Christianity and all Bishops in general It is not therefore to be expected that the three first Ages should afford us any Examples But as they afford us no Examples so neither can our Adversaries produce any one single Example of those Ages that makes for their Cause We can say says our Adversary the Learned Vindicator that even in the Age of St. Cyprian it is very notorious that they then own'd no such Power of the Secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely Spiritual Power and that the Church as a Society distinct from the State subsisted on their not owning it even as to a deprivation of their particular Districts and Jurisdictions It is notorious and as notorious as any one Tradition of the Catholick Church in those Ages not excepting that of the Canon of the New Testament it self that Christians then and not only then but in all the former Persecutions that had been from the times of the Apostles to that very Age did own themselves bound to adhere to their Bishops when it was notorious withal that those Bishops were set up and maintain'd against the consent of the Civil Magistrate It is as notorious also that this Adherence of theirs was not onely matter of Fact which is all our Adversaries pretend here but a Duty own'd by them as obliging in Conscience and as the Result of Principles Again says the Vindicator Till our Adversaries can disarm us of the Advantage we have from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church signified on occasion of these earliest Instances of Schism in S. Cyprian ' s Age their Author's Collection of later Instances were it never so pertinent to their purpose can do them no
continu'd still Bishop of Poictiers what is that to the Cause now before us since there was not any Orthodox Person made Bishop in his stead So far was he from having an Orthodox Person for his Successor that while he was in Banishment he had not any Successor at all He was never deposed but barely banish'd and accordingly after four years time he was again restor'd CHAP. V. The Catholicks of Alexandria reject Lucius because he was an Arian not because his Predecessor Peter was unjustly deposed by the Emperor Our Adversaries Doctrine not known to the said Peter § 1. S. Briccius of Tours deposed by the People Yet Justinian and Armentius his Successors are own'd as true Bishops of Tours Armentius is own'd as true Bishop by S. Briccius himself though he had never given up his Right but had always claimed it § 2. S. Euthymius refuses to communicate with Theodosius Patriarch of Jerusalem because he was a Heretick and had embrued his Hands in the Bloud of many Persons not because the Patriarch Juvenalis whose See he had usurpt was still living Theodosius's Ordinations are allow'd of as valid § 3. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurns not because he was put into the place of Timotheus Salofaciolus unjustly deposed by the Heretical Vsurper Basiliscus but because he was a Heretick and a Parricide § 4. Jo. Talaias the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexand. being deposed by the bar◠Authority 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 Constantinop 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 for sook 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 Emperour 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 Emperour 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 IN the year CCCLXXI Peter tho Successor of S. Athanasius in the See of Alexandria because he was Orthodox was violently deposed by Palladius the prefect of Aegypt and the High-Treasurer Magnus by the order of Valens the Arian Emperour and Lucius an Arian was made Bishop in his place That there was not any Synod concerned in his deprivation is plain beyond all controversy from what is related by Theodoret Socrates Sozomen and by Peter himself in that Epistle which he wrote to the Catholick Church concerning his Deprivation Though Peter was in this manner deposed yet the Catholicks of the Church of Alexandria did not upon that account keep off from Lucius's Communion but only upon the account of his being a Heretick This I gather from those words of Theodoret But the People having been nourished with the Doctrine of Athanasius when they saw that quite contrary Food was offer'd them kept off from the Churches Not a word any where that the unjust deprivation of Peter was one of the Causes of their Separation And Peter himself in the aforesaid Epistle though with a great deal of Rhetorick he endeavours to set forth the Crimes of Lucius and to excite all the Church to whom he writes to the greatest abhorrence of his Actions yet he does not raise this Objection against him that he was thrust into the Throne whilst he himself was yet living He only complains 1st That he was a Heretick and 2d That he was made Bishop without any Regular and Customary Proceedings That he had bought the Bishoprick like a secular Office with Money was created Bishop neither by a Synod of Orthodox Bishops nor by the Votes of the lawful Clergy nor by the Postulation of the People as the Laws of the Church required There were with him no Bishops no Presbyters or Deacons no multitudes of People no Monks going before him singing Hymns He thought as it seems that there was no thing more requir'd for the making his Successor true Bishop of that See but Orthodoxy and a Regular Election § 2. In the year CCCCXXXV S. Briccius Archbishop of Tours the Successor of S. Martin was deposed after he had been Bishop above 32 years by the Inhabitants of that City They suspected him to be guilty of Incontinence and although it was only a suspicion yet out he must go In his Room they plac'd one Iustinian who shortly after dyed then they made one Armentius their Bishop who continu'd in that See till he died for near the space of seven years In the mean time Briccius remained at Rome there making his complaint to the Pope and endeavouring to be restor'd So far was he from consenting to the consecration of Armentius I here observe that the Historian Gregory who was one of the Arch-bishops of that See and flourish'd in the year 573. when he treats of this Affair makes no manner of mention of any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by this injustice not a word to the contrary but that Armentius was readily acknowleged by all of that district and by all the Bishops of France Had there been any disturbance he could not but have known it and if he had known it he would not have fail'd to have mentioned it for he himself very highly resents the injustice which the holy Briccius suffer'd He tells us that Iustinian's dying so soon was a Iudgment of God upon him He thinks it so because as he himself relates God had wrought certain Miracles by the hand of Briccius to convince the People of his Innocence yet they would not be convinc'd and notwithstanding those great Miracles turn'd him out and made Iustinian their Bishop I observe in the 2d place that the Historian who himself as I said was Bishop of that See and moreover a Saint reckons Iustinian and Armentius in the Catalogue of his predecessors the Arch-bishops of Tours For though in
might not seem to have been deposed without some cause When the Patriarch understood that they had broken into his Palace and carried away and imprison'd some of his Servants after he had made an end of Divine Service and had administer'd the Sacrament he staid in the Chancel for he was told by some that if he went out of the Church it might cost him his Life there being some arm'd Men that expected his coming forth On this account he stood still before the Altar after he had dismiss'd the People array'd in his proper Vestments till the third hour of the Night still holding up his Hands to Heaven and beseeching God to preserve the Orthodox Faith and the Church in Tranquillity When he had done praying the Monks and Priests that were with him advis'd him to eat somewhat which when he had done and had slept a little there came in upon him that great wild Beast Aetherius with a great company arm'd with Swords and Clubs who took him and carried him away to a Monastery call'd Choracudin where after he had stay'd one day because 't was a miserable poor place his Adversaries took pity on him for even his Enemies themselves admir'd his Vertue and order'd him to be carried to the Monastery of the Holy Virgin which was near Chalcedon And without examining whether he had been justly or unjustly depos'd they irregularly ordain'd another in his stead and eight days after that they appointed a Court of Iudicature consisting of Bishops and Princes who cited him after he had been already depos'd and condemn'd without any Examination to plead his Cause before 'em and to answer to the Charge that was brought against him The Accusations brought against him were these ridiculous ones That he had fed deliciously upon small Birds and that he had pray'd many hours together upon his Knees together with others more ridiculous than these When those Bishops and Noblemen who were sent to him from the Court of Iudicature to require him to make his appearance came to him To whom says he are ye come What Title do you give me They answer'd being compell'd by Truth that of our Lord and Father Who says he is your Lord and Father We are come answer'd they as it were chastis'd by some invisible Powers to our Patriarch the Lord Eutychius I am says he a Patriarch by the Grace of God and no Man shall take away this Dignity from me Who is he whom you have constituted in my place They being not able to answer to these things return'd as bassl'd to those that sent ' em But the same Court or Assembly acting contrary to all Canons sent according to the prescription of the Canons a second and a third Citation to him To which he answer'd If I am to be judg'd according to the Canons let my Clergy and my Patriarchal Dignity be restor'd me and then I will make my Defence and will produce for Witnesses even my accusers themselves The Court having receiv'd this Answer did nothing agreeable to Reason but pass'd such a Sentence upon him as was worthy of them Which being done he denounced upon all them a Sentence of Excommunication till such time as they should repent and correct what they had done The Court have pass'd their mock Sentence upon him that they might seem to have done justly what they did unjustly for the same Men were both his Accusers and Iudges they remov'd him from the place where he was to an Island call'd the Prince's Island Where after he had continu'd under a Guard for three Weeks 't was decreed by the same Iudges that he should be carried to Amasea there to live in the Monastery which he himself had built Which accordingly was done It is here expressly said that the Court by which he was condemned consisted partly of Bishops and partly of Lay-Lords or Princes In the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Latin Translation which the Vindicator read Coacto conventu Episcoporum Principum Concerning these Principes what they were the Vindicator has these words What the Greek word was here says he we know not nor therefore can we determine whether the Princes were Chorepiscopi or Prefects of Monasteries who by this time began to take upon 'em in Affairs relating to Ecclesiastical Cognisance as having very considerable Ecclesiastical Bodies under 'em who would be concluded by their Suffrages Certainly they were Ecclesiasticks For in the Synods of those times tho' there were present Secular Persons to represent the Emperor yet they never used to Vote Onely they took care that all things should be fairly manag'd and made their Reports to the Emperor accordingly And indeed the Secular part of the Deprivation had already been perform'd in sending the Patriarch into Exile Nor was it requisite by the Lex Regia as it was call'd in those times that the Emperor should have any concurrence of Council for Affairs of this nature It was therefore undoubtedly a Synod and is own'd for such in the Greek Synodicon And accordingly they send their Summons to Eutychius by persons of their own rank Bishops and Princes which was the way of Synods not of Imperial Councils In answer to all this least the Learned Vindicator should be apt to fansie that what he says is not confuted by the Greek Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 least he should perswade himself that by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here in this place may be understood Ecclesiasticks I shall desire him to consult Dufresne's Glossaries From them he may be convinc'd that by the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not any Ecclesiasticks but only Lay-Governours and Noblemen or the Grandees of the Emperor's Court are to be understood So the Nobles were simply entitl'd and their Ladies were called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Order of Noblemen was call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And Latin Historians when they mention the Lora's of the Constantinopolitan Court are wont to call 'em Archontes Ex quo câ—im in Aegyptum descenderant ejus imperatoris Constantinopolitani Archontes says Gulielmus Tyrius Romanae Constantinopolitanae dignitatis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. Principes says Luitprandus A hundred Examples are produced by the Learned Dufresne and a thousand more might be easily produced if need were I shall onely advise my Reader that in the Acts of the Councils the Lay-Lords or Noblemen who sate in the Councils together with the Ecclesiasticks are wont to be distinguished from the Ecclesiasticks by this Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon not all the Nobles that sate in that Council but onely some few of the great Officers of the Court have the honour of that Title and by that are distinguished as well from the Senate which was likewise present in that Council as from the Bishops or Ecclesiasticks In the Second Council of Nice the Two great Temporal Lords that sate there
Ierusalem his being translated from the See of Ierusalem to that of Constantinople and of his being deposed at Constantinople because Translations from one See to another were repugnant to the Canons 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which Nicetas Choviates expresses after this manner He was deposed says he at Constantinople and suffer'd in the same manner with Aesop ' s Dog being deprived of the See of Constantinople and losing likewise that of Jerusalem which was then possess'd by another § 5. After these times we read of no Patriarch deposed by the Emperor 's bare Autority as long as Constantinople was in the hands of the Christians For Leontius Nicetas's Successor was not barely deposed by the Emperor but after he was deposed resign'd What the Condition of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and the other Eastern Patriarchs has all along been and is to this day under the Turks that there are few Patriarchs of Constantinople that die possess'd of their See few that are not depriv'd by the Grand Seignior's bare Autority is too notorious to be prov'd We have reason to believe that for these 230 Years from the time of Ioasaphus Cusas the third Patriarch after Constantinople was taken by the Turks who was deposed by the Sultan Mahomet the Great there has been no space of time without several Patriarchs alive together And 't is very notorious that in the Years 1669 and 1670 there were no less than four or five Patriarchs of Constantinople living The Examples of these Patriarchs of the present Greek Church I do not here mention as if I thought they deserved for their Learning or Wisdom to be Guides and Patterns to the Bishops of England But this is the use I would make of it I would fain know of our Adversaries Whether they think an ejected Patriarch of Constantinople would do well if after he was deposed he should separate from the Communion of his Successor and make a Division in the Church I can hardly believe but that such a Separation would be condemn'd by even our Adversaries themselves And how then can they justifie their own Separation they who refuse to communicate with their Successors because they themselves are deposed by the Secular Power There is one Question more to which I desire a positive Answer It is certain that when the Patriarch of Constantinople is deposed by the Sultan the Church submits immediately to the Successor without asking the Old Patriarch's leave Whether he will give his Consent or not she is not at all concern'd Now this is the Question I would ask Is the Greek Church therefore Schismatical If the ejected Patriarch should actually lay claim to his See would the Church be Schismatitical for adhering to the present Possessor If they say it would not Why then are We Schismaticks in adhering to our present Possessors Will they say that the Greeks lie under a greater Necessity So one of our Adversaries seems to intimate I cannot see says he that either the Case of the Jews in our Saviour's time or the Case of the present Greek Church runs parallel to ours for the Jews for many years before had been under the Roman Yoke and so have the Greeks for many Centuries of years under the Turks both despoil'd of their Rights and Customs and so far at Mercy that it was well for the Jew that he could have any Priest and for the Greeks that they have any Christianity But our Author does not consider that the Question may be ask'd as well concerning those Iews who first submitted to a High-priest put in by the Romans and concerning those Greeks who first submitted to a Patriarch ordain'd in the place of another deposed by the Turk as concerning the Iews in our Saviour's time or the Greeks of these times Neither does he consider that the lastingness of an Oppression adds nothing at all to the strength of a present Necessity If Necessity will excuse an Action a hundred Years after the beginning of an Oppression 't would as well excuse in the very beginning of it 'T is as strong in the beginning as afterwards But the Iews says our Author were at the Mercy of the Romans and the present Greeks are at the Mercy of the Turks We grant it and that 's the Necessity we plead How does that make our Case not to be parallel Is not the Church of England as much at the Mercy of the King and Parliament here as the Iews were at the Mercy of the Romans or as the Greeks are at the Mercy of the Turk Is not the King and Parliament as powerfull here as the Romans in Iudaea or the Grand Seignior at Constantinople If Necessity will excuse them our Necessity is the same and that will justifie us 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 Barroccian 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 I Have now concluded my History of the
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
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
a Person absolutely unqualified be imposed upon us for a Bishop we are not then to accept him If a Roman Decius would depose all our Bishops and not permit us to constitute others in their places that so he may destroy our Religion we are not then to regard either what he does or commands As the Romans upon the Martyrdom of Fabian tho' to avoid the Fury of a Persecution Propter rerum temporum difficultates we might possibly deferr the Election yet as soon as we thought it convenient we would choose a Cornelius Bishop notwithstanding the Tyrant's Decrees If an Heretical King Frazamund should command us not to Ordain any Bishops that so the Catholick Religion may of Course be rooted out and his Heresy onely prevail we would then no more value that Command than the Catholicks heretofore did but in spite of his Edict would get as many Bishops ordain'd as we thought convenient for the Church But how can our Case be compared with either of these Here is no forbidding Elections no deposing all Bishops in general no imposing unqualified Persons no destroying of Religion no advancing of Heresy The onely Question here is Whether Paul or Apollos may be follow'd when Cephas is in Prison and is render'd uncapable of acting as an Apostle Our Adversaries are resolv'd to have Cephas If they cannot have him they will neither have Christ. To us 't is altogether indifferent whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas as long as we have Christ. There is onely one Inconvenience that I can possibly foresee which can justly be charg'd on this Principle which we advance and that is this That by a Submission to the present Possessor the Civil Governor is like to be encouraged to tyrannize over the Church and to turn out such Bishops as he does not like whensoever he pleases tho' never so unjustly If that be the Objection of our Adversaries I answer First That the same Inconvenience is in all manner of Government By submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly depos'd that Synod may be possibly encouraged to turn out others unjustly as many as it does not like tho' never so worthy Secondly That here in England it is not the Will of the Prince that can turn out a Bishop He has all the same Securities that another Subject can have and he cannot be deprived of his Bishoprick without a due Course of Law If they mean that the King and tâ—â— Parliament may by that be encouraged to Depose our Bishops at pleâ—â—ure 〈◊〉 Supposition will be wild and extravagant For who can imagine that they can ever concurr for the Deprivation of a Bishop but upon a very extraordinary Occasion There is nothing can be more manifest than that this Inconvenience is not so likely to happen as those Evils we endeavour to avoid These are certain and present That onely possible But Thirdly should we grant what in reason cannot be granted that it is as likely to happen yet how great is the Difference Should the State here or in other Countries one single absolute Governor be supposed to be so very dissolute as to turn out frequently the Bishops of the Church without any just Cause yet who can look upon that Mischief to be comparable to that of a Schism and aâ— Persecution What can the suffering of a few particular Men be when compared to the Peace and Tranquillity of the whole Church besides Our Adversaries may be pleas'd to consider That it was not for the Bishops that the Church was establish'd but the Bishops were appointed for the sake of the Church It is not therefore the Welfare of the Bishops as the Bishops are these or those Men much less of some few particular Bishops but the Welfare of the whole Church in general that is chiefly to be regarded § 11. And thus I hope I have sufficiently made out what I proposed to prove That the submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority is neither in it self a Sin nor liable to ill Consequences so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid or if so likely to happen not so great and pernicious to the Church as those are From whence it necessarily follows That such a Submission is in it self highly reasonable Which was the first Proposition we proposed to be demonstrated I come now to the Second General proposed to be made out That such a Submission is agreeable to the Practice of the Antients § 12. But before I put an end to this Chapter and proceed to the Proof of this last Proposition there remains yet one thing more to be consider'd and that is the Imputation of Heresy which the learned Vindicator is pleas'd to fix upon us Any Opinion says the Vindicator on account of which Men separate from their Ecclesiastical Governors is Heretical tho' it be not in its own nature so And such an Opinion is not Heretical onely when Men designedly separate from others on that very account because they are not of that Opinion but also when they venture on such Practices on account of that Opinion wherein others cannot communicate with 'em for that very reason because they cannot join with 'em in that Opinion Then plainly the differing in such Opinions makes a difference of Communion unavoidable and therefore the Opinions themselves in such a Case as this is are Signals of different Communions which will come under the Charge of Heresy His meaning is that We maintaining this Opinion That the Civil Power has Autority to depose a Bishop for a Political Crime or if it has no such Autority when once it has deposed a Bishop it is lawfull to acknowledge the Successor and in consequence of that Opinion submitting now to the present Possessors are therefore Hereticks because He and his Party cannot join with us in that Practice as being of the contrary Opinion Here it comes into my mind what S. Ierom somewhere says That he that can with Patience hear himself call'd Heretick is no good Christian. This is true of those Heresies which were so in the Opinion of the Antients But in this Case we dare to be patient Ego tibi Haereticus tu mihi That 's all the Return we shall make The Vindicator in consequence of his Opinion that the Civil Autority has no power to depose a Bishop and that if a Bishop is so deposed his Successor ought to be rejected tho' otherwise never so worthy adheres to the Bishops deprived and disowns those that are put into their places In this Practice of the Vindicator we cannot join with him and for that very reason because we cannot join with him in his Opinion And what now follows from our Author's Notion of Heresy but that he himself is a Heretick It is nothing at all to our Purpose But for his own sake I shall here take upon me to add with a
does not appear from these words that they thought it was a Sin to receive a Bishop when the other had been unjustly depos'd They onely seem to reflect upon their being forsworn so they afterwards say that Liberius pardon'd their Perjury and do not take notice of any other Sin pardon'd If they meant any more it is not at all to be wonder'd at in regard that Felix was ordain'd by the Arians and 't is certain that the said Presbyters were great Admirers of Lucifer Calaritanus and did not allow of a Bishop ordain'd by the Arians I add That whatsoever their Opinion might be it deserves not at all to be regarded since what they write is directly against Pope Damasus who was one of that Party And since when they wrote they were Schismaticks and had never any regard to the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church It appears in particular of the Historian Sozomen that he never knew any thing of our Adversary's Doctrine He says that when Liberius was restor'd he and Felix were Co-bishops of Rome But Felix says he after Liberius was join'd with him liv'd but a little while and Liberius alone govern'd the Church And this indeed happen'd by God's particular Providence lest the See of Peter should be dishonour'd by being govern'd at the same time by two Bishops which is both repugnant to the Vnity and against the Laws of the Church Tho ' this be not altogether true as to matter of fact yet from what he says it is easy to discover that this was his opinion That Felix was a true Bishop and that it was lawfull to acknowlege him as such Yet no one more tender of the Church's Honour than he as appears from these same Words Tho' we have been a long while in the Company of Pope Felix and the Reader I presume begins to grow weary of it Yet before we shake hands there must one thing more be clear'd 'T is said in the Pontifical that when Liberius was depos'd 't was by his own Advice that Felix was made Bishop in his room In this the Pontifical is follow'd by several of the Moderns in particular by Antoninus Archbishop of Florence who tells us That either Liberius resign'd and so together with others chose Felix for his Successor or else he made him his Vicar-General to supply his place in his absence If any thing of this be true then all that we have hitherto said makes nothing for our purpose It therefore highly concerns us to lay open the falseness of that Story We shall do it with a great deal of ease and that from these Considerations First That the Clergy of Rome when Liberius was about to leave the City engag'd themselves to him by an Oath not to accept of any other Bishop whilst he was alive and that when they did accept of Felix they were lookt upon as perjur'd This is expressly attested by S. Ierome the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus and the Writer of the Register quoted by Onuphrius who all liv'd at that time Secondly That the same S. Ierome and likewise Ruffinus and Socrates and S. Athanasius himself expressly affirm and others plainly intimate that Felix was put into Liberius's Place by the Arians Thirdly That Liberius being agen restor'd Felix with all those of the Clergy that had submitted to him were with violence expell'd and Liberius enter'd Rome as a Conquerour So S. Ierome affirms and with him agree the Pontifical it self Theodoret Socrates Onuphrius's Register and the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus To conclude That Story of the Pontifical that Liberius consented to the making of Felix Pope is by Baronius himself rejected as not in the least to be hearken'd to The falseness of it seems to have been discover'd by Platina himself and long before him by the Author of the Book De Vitis Pontificum ascrib'd to Luitprandus who tho' in other things they follow the Pontifical and say as that does that the Sacerdotes call'd a Synod and made Felix Bishop yet they leave out those words Cum Consilio Liberii I shall onely add That if Liberius gave his Consent to the Election of Felix then Felix was the rightfull and the onely Bishop Since therefore Liberius was again receiv'd and own'd by the Catholick Church when Felix was depos'd by the Emperour 's bare Autority we should if we granted that Story to be true onely change one Instance for another not lose one And thus have we done with the famous Example of Felix and Liberius An Example which our Adversaries as I found after this was written are so unhappy as to allege for their Cause They tell us that Felix was rejected by the Catholicks of Rome So the Author of the Further Account of the Baroccian MS. and the Author of the Vnity of Priesthood c. Once more says the latter and then most or all my Instances will be review'd and made good and that relates to Liberius and Felix Liberius was banish'd and Felix his Deacon was made Bishop in his stead A man saith Sozomen always reported to be firm to the Nicene Faith and as to matters of Religion altogether blameless And yet when Liberius was re-call'd from Banishment Felix was forc'd to retire nay the People of Rome tho' requested thereunto by the Emperour would not so much according to Theodoret as suffer him to remain Co-partner with Liberius in the Bishoprick From whence it is evident let Mr. Hody say what he will to the contrary that there is something more requir'd in a new Bishop than barely to be Orthodox 'T is impossible but these Authors must have known at least something of what has been above demonstrated But they did not think that it would be for their profit to let their Readers know all To confirm our Assertion says the Author first quoted that the Antients thought it unlawfull to submit to the present Possessor when the Predecessor was deposed by the Emperour you may command a great many Instances from the Churches of France Italy Asia Egypt and the like at present I shall onely produce that of Felix and Liberius I am sorry those many Instances of France Italy Asia Egypt c. were conceal'd by our Author What sort of Instances they are we may guess by that of P. Felix which as one of his best he thinks fit to produce When he shall be pleas'd to draw out the rest of his Artillery I dare engage they will either appear to be nothing at all but Wood or may easily be turn'd against him I expect the former in regard that to prove his Assertion he produces the Example of S. Hilary Bishop of Poictiers who says he was banish'd by the Emperour Constantius yet was still own'd as Bishop of that See And that he proves from those words of his in his Book which he wrote to the Emperour Licet in exilio permanens Ecclesiae adhuc per Presbyteros meos Communionem distribuens If S. Hilary