Selected quad for the lemma: cause_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
cause_n	bring_v	church_n	great_a	1,628	5	2.8346	3	false

Text snippets containing the quad

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

AN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OUT OF Ecclesiastical History Translated from An Ancient Greek MANUSCRIPT in the Publick Library at Oxford BY HVMFRET HODY B. D. c. And Published under the Title of The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the New BISHOPS TO SHEW That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick To which is added The CANONS in the Baroccian Manuscript Omitted by Mr. HODY LONDON Printed and are to be sold by J. Wells near S. Paul's Church-Yard 1691. THE PREFACE THat a Separation is always unreasonable on one side or the other is without all question but that it is unreasonable to separate from New Bishops that are placed in the Sees of Bishops who are uncanonically deposed for this Cause only that they are in Possession upon what Reason and Justice soever of the said Episcopal Sees is very strange Doctrine and such as was never I think heard of in the Church of England till this Treatise was published For in the Sense of the Catholick Church in her Canons and Constitutions the New Bishop himself in such a Case makes the Separation and to continue Communion with the true Bishop is not to separate from the wrongful Possessor but to keep our former Place and Station to adhere to the Right and not to follow those who have set themselves up in opposition to it But the Doctrin which this Anonymous Greek Author is brought to vouch for to the World is of such a pernicious Nature and if it be allowed must have such destructive Consequences in the Church that I cannot but think that all Men who have a sincere Love for the Church of England whatever their Opinions may be in other Matters will not be ill pleased to see it proved that there is no Example to be found of this in the Practice of the Greek Church till it was reduced to so low and deplorable a Condition as to be no longer a Pattern for Imitation but a Caution rather for us to beware of those things which brought the Greeks into that Distress under which they have so long groaned And if we will but give our selves the least leisure to consider what is then that can bring more certain and speedy Ruine upon a Church than to act by such a Principle as makes all Ecclesiastical Authority have its sole and entire dependance upon external Force and Power and upon the casual Success and Events of things For if when the Civil Magistrate shall displace a Bishop for any frivolous cause or for no Cause at all but with the greatest and most apparent Injustice all Christians shall be obliged in Conscience to submit to the Intruder if he be but Orthodox and not to adhere to their lawful Bishop this utterly destroys all Church Authority and gives it up wholly into the Power of the Magistrate who may set up what Bishop he pleases provided they be no Hereticks and change them as often as he pleases and the Clergy and People shall be bound in Conscience to take no further notice of the dispossessed but to live under the new ones be they never so many and never so bad in all Acts of Communion and Obedience Now unless the Church can be ruined by nothing but Heresie or there be nothing that can render a Bishop unqualified for his Station but Heresie it is evident that this Doctrine leaves it at the Mercy of the Prince whether there shall long be any Church in his Dominions It is manifest that these Principles make all Church Censures ineffectual and expose the Church to all the Mischiefs of Erastianism For if a Prince should prefer an excommunicated Person to the See of the Bishop by whom he stands excommunicated supposing only that he was not excommunicated for Heresie this Person tho never so justly excommunicated must be owned and obeyed instead of the Bishop who excommunicated him which lodges all Church Power in the Prince and makes all Ecclesiastical Censures of no effect for the Benefit and Preservation of the Church whenever he pleases A Schismatical Prince by this Doctrine may set up Schismatical Bishops and the Church will have no Remedy against them For instance if Constantine had been a Novation or Donatist he might have deposed the Rightful Bishops and have set up Novations or Donatists in their stead if those Sects were then only Schisms and they were no more at first But whoever can imagin that the Clergy and People of that Age would have communicated with them and have deserted their true Bishop may indeed believe all that our Author has said Tho the truth is according to his Principles no Prince can be a Schismatick because he may make what Bishops he pleases and so can make what Church he pleases and it will be the Duty of Christians to communicate not with their Bishops but with their Prince or which is the same thing with what Bishops he appoints A Popish Prince might set up Popish Bishops amongst us for he could never want Men who at least upon as good Grounds and from as good Authorities as those upon which this Doctrine is propounded to us would prove that Popery is no Heresie A Prince of a Latitudinarian Faith may by these Principles give us Socinian Bishops For the Disciples of Episcopius and Curcellaeus will undertake to prove that the Points in Controversie are not of necessity to Salvation and do not consequently involve the Assertors of them in Heresie And if a Prince should design never so well for the Glory of God and the Interest of Religion yet how easie it is for Princes to be mistaken and misled in things of this nature we may see in Constantine himself who was deceived by the Arians into a good Opinion of them after the Council of Nice even to the sending St. Athanasius away from his See tho he took care to keep it void from him till his return to prevent a Schism which by the Practice of the Church could not otherwise have been avoided But this is most of all remarkable in the unhappy Reign of Constantius who certainly was a very Devout Prince and had very good intentions in calling so many Synods and therefore the Fathers often mention him with Respect and with great Compassion but was miserably deluded and imposed upon by the Arians and persuaded to banish all the Orthodox Bishops and fill up the Sees with those of their own number But we must observe that tho Constantius believed that the Arians were not Hereticks but Orthodox and died in his err●r as S. Athanasius declares tho S. Gregory Nanianzen and Theodor●t say the contrary and therefore cannot be supposed to want any inclinations to Depose Athanasius by his own Power and the Arians wanted no Malice against Athanasius nor no Authority with the Emperour to put him upon it yet because according to the Doctrine professed on both sides this could not be done

was forced to relax his Rigour and to Register the name of S. Chrysostom in the Diptycks of the Church endeavouring by this means to bring over the Joannites as they were called who asserted his Cause And when S. Chrysostom had been so long time dead and this Right had been done to his memory it is no wonder that Atticus and Sisinnius should have the Titles of Patriarchs given them and that the Council of Ephesus should take no notice of the Injustice that S. Chrysostom had had done him when both He and those that had done it were dead and their names were read together in the Diptycks when the Joannites had had this satisfaction given them and there was no Man now alive who could pretend any injury done him by the Promotion of the present Patriarch it could not become the Wisdom and the Charity of a General Council to revive the memory of a thing which after so long a time could admit of no Remedy but what might be of worse Consequence and might increase and prolong the Divisions which now were much abated and soon after ceased The Western Churches had long before Theod. l. 5. c. 34. the Council of Ephesus renewed Communion with the Eastern when once S. Chrysostom's name was written among the names of the other Patriarchs deceased For they never took any notice of Arsacius at all and rejected all the Messages that Atticus sent to get himself acknowledged by them till he had made this amends to the Memory of S. Chrysostom But as Theodorite observes these Bishops who were thus injurious to S. Chrysostom were otherwise excellent Men and there was nothing else to be found in them which might deserve the Churches Censure and therefore after the Church had been satisfied as to this matter they were mentioned with those Titles that were due to their Station and to their Vertues For the Titles which Celestine gives to Atticus Conc. Ephes Part 1. col 353. 361. and Sisinnius in his Epistle to Nestorius are only such as suppose their names to be written in the Diptycks among the other Patriarchs and that they were assertors of the Catholick Faith he supposes Atticus at last to have been the Rightful Patriarch and consequently Sisinnius who succeeded him by a Canonical Election to have been so too and he highly commends both of them for their zeal in maintaining the true Faith which Nestorius the next in Succession had so shamefully betrayed Atticus after the death of S. Chrysostom and Sisinnius who succeeded him were in their times the only Patriarchs of Constantinople and tho Arsacius and Atticus had not come in regularly yet it was in the Power of the Church upon due satisfaction made for the sake of Peace and Order to pass by such a defect and dispense with it and when Atticus had Registred S. Chrysostom's name in the Diptycks as Rightful Patriarch this was in effect to acknowledge himself to have been an Usurper during his life which was accepted of by the Church as a sufficient Declaration of his Repentance and as it has been already shewn Hereticks themselves upon their Repentance were to be received not only to Lay Communion but according to their Order and Degree in the Church If our Author could have shewn that Celestine had said as much of Arsacius as he has done of Atticus and Sisinnius that had been to his purpose because S. Chrysostom survived Arsacius but it is acknowledged that after the death of S. Chrysostom Atticus was at last Rightful Patriarch and owned by the Western Church for such What is added of Maximian and Proclus that they were acknowledged as Rightful Patriarchs by the Church needs no other Answer than what has been already given for if Atticus were Rightful the rest who succeeded him were such too if no other exception lay against them than that concerning what had been done to S. Chrysostom But besides Maximian was Conc. Eph●s Part 3. col 10●● made Patriarch in the room of Nestorius in the General Council of Ephesus and this surely was enough to purge all defects in the Succession of the Patriarchs of Constantinople For where a General Council does not only approve of but appoint the Successor of a Bishop Deposed for Heresie it can no longer be pretended that there remains any defect upon the account of injustice done to a Patriarch who had been so long dead for if the Succession had been interrupted till now from the time that S. Chrysostom was Deposed yet this would put it in its due course again Proclus who is next mentioned and was next in Succession to Maximian had been bred up under S. Chrysostom and could little suspect that he should ever have been reckoned among his uncanonical Successors for as Atticus had inserted his name among the other Patriarchs so Proclus was zealous to make him Socr. l. 7. c. 45. all the further reparation that could be made by causing his Body to be removed to Constantinople and there interr'd with all the Honours of a Funeral solemnity If Severianus Bishop of Gabala Pag. 4. and Acacius Bishop of Berrhea being afterwards discovered to Pope Innocent were neither deposed nor reprehended by him The reason must be that that Pope did not assume to himself so much as his Successors have done but said he would procure a General Council to be called to redress the Grievances of the Greck Church upon this account and at the same time denies all Authority in Arsacius as being an Intruder Nay in an (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Innocentii Epist apud Sozom. lib. 8. c 26. Epistle written to the Emperour Arcadius he Deposed Arsacius after his death or declared him never to have been Patriarch and commanded his name to be razed out of the Diptycks and in the same Epistle Excommunicated Arcadius himself and the Em●ress Eudoxia and both Deposed and Anathematized and Excommunicated Theophilus of Alexandria I will not suppose that this Epistle Biondell Pseudo Isid p. 562 Georg. Alex. vit Chrys c. 68 Mich. Glyc An. Part 4 p. 259. Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. Cedren p. 332. Conc. Tom. 2. Col. 1310. to Arcadius deserves much Credit for it is rejected by Blondel because Georgius Alexandrinus is the first that produces it from whom Glycas and Nicephorus had it and before them both Cedrenus made mention of it And whereas Pope Innocent in this Epistle wherein S Chrysostom is mentioned as already dead threatens Eudoxia the Empress with Punishments in this World as well as in the World to come it is noted in the Margin over against this Epistle in Labbe's Edition of the Councils that Eudoxia died before S. Chrysostom which is a plain intimation that the Epistle is Spurious But I produce this Epistle to observe that if it could pass for Authen●ick in the several Ages in which these Authors lived it is in vain to endeavour to make it be believed that the Practice of the Greek Church

writing Legends and has altogether as much foundation in History as that For the Historians only say that the Emperor caused his Eyes to be put out and then banished him to Rome but what became of him there or with whom he communicated they do not inform us The next Instance which he dwells Pag. 11. longer upon than any other in his whole Treatise is nothing at all to his purpose For what if Theodorus Studites were in fault for separating from the Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus because they had admitted Joseph the Steward of the Church to Communion who had officiated in an unlawful Marriage How does this prove that although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick Were Tarasius and Nicephorus Intruders Or did Theodorus separate upon that account No such thing is pretended but Joseph had been guilty of a scandalous and wicked Action and yet was suffered to continue in Communion and hereupon Theodorus withdraws himself from the Church for which he is blamed and very justly But this only shews that private Christians ought not to forsake the Church tho the Discipline of it should not be so duly administred as they could wish but must take care of their own Duty tho the Church Governours should be negligent of theirs After so much said in so short a Pag. 17. Book beside the Subject he at last comes again to the Point but falls upon such an Example as is alone enough to disparage his whole Performance with any one almost that has ever heard of the Names of Ignatius and Photius For what can be more notorious than that Ignatius did not Communicate with Photius after he was displaced and Photius got into the See can we imagin he Communicated with one by whom he stood himself Excommunicated with one who was Excomunicated by his best Friend and Advocate Pope Nicholas and who in return had Excommunicated the said Pope (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Constantinopol 4. Col. 1268. For Photius had not been Consecrated forty days before he openly Deposed and Anathematised Ignatius as we have it related in an account that Ignatius sent to Pope Nicholas to acquaint him how Photius had dealt with him Ignatius was soon after sent into Nicet vit Ignat. p. 1222. Banishment where he was kept under so close Confinement that he was not suffered to perform any part of his Function and as he was not allowed to stir out so no body was permitted to come to him And if there be any thing of certainty in all the History of those affairs nothing can be more certain than that Ignatius and Photius did not hold Communion with each other for nothing occurs more frequently than the Anathema's which they pronounced one against the other But all the Reason our Author seems to have in this and some other Instances to conclude that the Deposed Patriarch did not refuse Communion with the Intruder is because both their names were read in the Diptycks whereas this one instance of Ignatius and Photius is enough to convince us that this is no good Argument for it is certain that these two Bishops did not hold Communion with one another yet after these differences were composed which had been occasioned in the Church by setting up Photius both their names were Recorded in the Diptycks and probably neither Party being to be wrought upon to recede from their Pretensions in behalf of the Patriarch whose Right they had maintained this was found to be the only Expedient to do the same honour to both of them which might without difficulty be agreed to since the Synod which restored Photius after the death of Ignatius had cancelled all the Acts against Photius of that Council which Deposed him and restored Ignatius and this Council which restored Photius is by the Greeks reckoned the eighth General Council Concerning the Deposing of Photius P. 18 19. a second time and the Deposing of Nicholas Zonaras whom our Author Zon. Tom. 3. p. 113. quotes says nothing from which it may be collected that Photius continued Communion with Stephen and Nicholas with Euthymius who were put into their rooms But because Zonaras says nothing to the contrary he concludes that they did hold Communion with them which is a very fallacious way of arguing to make Inferences from a Negative without any other Reason or Circumstance especially in so short an account as Zonaras gives of these things who only says in as few words as he can well express himself in that the Emperour picking a quarrel with the Patriarch sent him into a Monastery and appointed his Brother Stephen to be Patriarch and that Nicholas was likewise put into a Monastery and Euthymius constituted Patriarch in his stead And the same Author in S. Chrysostom's Case takes no notice of that separation which was occasioned by his Banishment for thirty five years together in the Church which the more ancient Historians inlarge so much upon and set forth in so many particulars And to be convinced that nothing ought to be concluded from the silence especially of these latter Historiars and Annalists we need only compare what these write with the account which Theodorite and Socrates and Sozomen give of the same Actions and when it is notorious that they commonly omit things as material as those they take notice of nothing more need be said to shew how little regard is to be had to their omission of things it is well if we may depend upon what they relate but to say such a thing never was because they do not relate it is such a way of arguing as only betrays the weakness of the Cause and shews how great want there is of better Arguments And as for the Ordinations of Euthymius Pag. 20. which he says were not rejected after Nicholas was restored again I have shewn how insignificant an Argument that is when even after Hereticks were received into the Church upon their Conversion their Orders were not disallowed But his account of Cosmas Atticus 〈◊〉 is the boldest stroke we have had yet for when Nicetas Choniates whose Authority he alledges says in express terms (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Nice● Choniat de Imperat. M●nuel lib 2. p. 54. that he Excommunicated some of the Courtiers and the Synod too which Deposed him this Author has the confidence to quote Nicetas to vouch for him that Cosmas Atticus never separated from the Communion of his Deposers But we have had experience enough of our Author by this time not to wonder much now at whatever he is pleased to say Of the Deposing the Patriarchs Basilius Pag. 21. Camaterus and Nicetas we have only a bare Narrative in Nicetas Choniates but upon the Promotion of Dositheus in the room of Leontius he expresly says that the chief Bishops looking upon his Translation from Jerusalem to Constantinople to be contrary

he was conscious to himself of nothing for which he ought to be Deposed or thrust out of his See Just before his second Banishment he speaks to Olympias the Deaconess with some others saying I see the things concerning me have an end I have finished my Course and probably you will never see my face more this one thing I desire of you that none of you omit your accustomed Good-will and attendance upon the Church and whoever shall be Ordained without his own seeking and (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. p 90. against his desire by a general consent that you would obey him as you would do me for the Church cannot be without a Bishop It is evident both from the Words themselves and from the Circumstances in which he spoke them that S. Chrysostom both times looked upon himself as a dying Man when he used these words in taking his leave of the Bishops and of the Deaconesses and therefore they cannot import that he would have them submit to a Bishop who should succeed him during his life But if we allow the words their utmost Latitude and take them in the greatest extent that they will possibly admit of they can amount to no more than this not that they should submit to any Bishop who should succeed him whilst he was living but to one who should not be desirous or fond of it but should come in against his own inclinations and by an unanimous consent by which we can understand no less than that he means one who was not of the Party against him nor had any hand in thrusting him out and if such an one were chosen unanimously who was a friend to his Cause and lamented the great injustice done him and who unwillingly and upon necessity only could be prevailed upon to fill the See and who therefore must have been as willing to have given way to him as the true Patriarch if ever he should have returned if such an one were chosen and such an one he must he if he were chosen by general consent for never any Bishops departure was more grievous to all but the Faction that Deposed him than S. Chrysostom's was then according to this Sense of his words he advises them not to divide the Church upon his account but to joyn in Communion with such a Bishop since this was the only means to preserve the Churches Peace Which is a conditional Resignation or a Declaration that he would forgoe his own Right upon condition that such a Bishop were chosen as he there mentions But if we suppose this to be S. Chrysostom's meaning the See was disposed of to men who were very far from being such Bishops as he exhorted them to submit to For all his Friends endured great hardships under Arsacius and Atticus had been Pallad p. 95. Soz. lib. 8. ● 27. Phot. Bibli Cod. 277. the chief Incendiary against him And this is the excuse which Photius makes for some Expressions that seemed to him a little too severe which S. Chrysostom used concerning Arsacius in an Epistle to Cyriacus And to be convinced that S. Chrysostom did not design that they should submit to any Bishop that should be set up we need only consider that these very Persons to whom he gave this in charge never would submit either to Arsacius or Atticus at least during his Life but suffered all that they could do to them rather than they would comply and S. Chrysostom wrote many Epistles to these very Bishops and Deaconesses to comfort and support them under the severe afflictions which they endured upon this account And when Palladius himself and so many other Bishops with the rest of the Clergy suffered so much in S. Chrysostom's Cause as is mentioned in his Life it is past all belief that neither any of the rest nor Palladius who is supposed to be the Author of this account of his Life and was one of those Bishops to whom S. Chrysostom gave these directions should call to mind what he had said to them but the Bishops as well as Deaconesses should with one consent act contrary to what S. Chrysostom in his last words required of them and should either mistake him or forget what he had said or should choose to suffer any thing rather than observe his advice and do what he had told them was their Duty But as his Friends could not have so little respect for him or so little care of themselves as to forget so soon what it would have been so much for their own ease and safety to remember so he would not have failed in some one of his Epistles at least to put them in mind of it and would never have let them suffer so much contrary to that Duty which his last words inculcated to them taking no care afterwards to remind them what God and the Church required of them If he had never heard of their condition or had never had an opportunity to write to them about it it is scarce possible they should misunderstand him so as to run themselves into such needless and indeed sinful sufferings but when he held a Correspondence with them in his Banishment and wrote so often upon this very Subject it is incredible that they should suffer for not doing that which he had exhorted them to do and that he among all his Consolations should forget that which would alone have given them effectual and present relief and should omit to tell them that they suffered when they needed not and in a Cause in which they could not suffer with a good Conscience But this is not all S. Chrysostom Chrysost Epist 26. 27. does not only omit to tell them that they needed not and ought not to suffer but applauds them for suffering in so good a Cause and exhorts them to perseverance and applies those Scriptures to them which pronounce blessings upon those who suffer for Righteousness sake He tells them they ought not to value their lives in Ep. 36. 46. 71. 90. such a Cause being certain of a reward in Heaven He (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Ep. 83. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ep. 85. extols the Apostolical Courage and Constancy of the Bishops and Clergy who were in Prison and compares them to S. John Baptist both in their Sufferings and in the justness of their Cause and represents it as a more glorious thing to suffer so much and so long for the Vindication of the Primitive Constitutions and Discipline than it was for him to be beheaded for telling Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his Brother Philip's Wife S. John Baptist suffered but once but he bids them say we are ready to suffer ten thousand Deaths rather than comply with the Vsurper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He exhorts the Ep. 99. Bishop and Clergy of Scythopolis to avoid as to their own Honour and the Benefit of the Church they had already done all those