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
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
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
Notion 'till they had refused to communicate with us So dangerous a thing it is First to do a thing rashly and then to hunt for a Reason If this Plea of our Author is good I would very fain know how any Separation can be proved to be unlawfull Let our Author stand out a little and dispute with our old Dissenters He asks a Dissenter why he separates from the Church The Dissenter tells him 't is because the Church is Heretical But why Heretical Because she thinks it lawfull to oblige her Members to the use of Ceremonies and pursuant to that Opinion she actually imposes the use of ' em In the use of these Ceremonies says the Dissenter we cannot join with you and for that very reason because we cannot join with you in this Opinion That the Church has power to impose upon its Members the use of Ceremonies And because we cannot join with the Church in this Opinion and Practice upon that very account the Church is Heretical Thus according to our Author 's own Plea but the Plea would be vain and Illogical § 14. But this is not all We are not onely Hereticks upon that account but as the Vindicator contends we are Hereticks likewise as Heresy signifies an erring even in Fundamentals He affirms that our Opinion is a fundamental Error because as he says it is utterly destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society distinct from the State To maintain this Opinion That for Political Crimes a Bishop may be lawfully Depriv'd by the Civil Autority Or this That supposing he cannot be lawfully so depriv'd yet if he is deprived it is lawfull for Peace-sake to submit to his Successor How that is destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society I for my part cannot perceive To me 't is much more apparent that to advance this Opinion That a Bishop cannot be deprived by the Civil Autority for any Crime whatsoever is destructive of all Civil Government which as well as the Ecclesiastical is of God's Institution He therefore that advances that Notion advances a very dangerous Notion But it is not my Business at present to engage in these Disquisitions I shall onely make bold to ask the Vindicator a few Questions If he thinks that Opinion concerning the Power of the Magistrate a fundamental Heresy and enough to justify the present Separation how came it to pass that he did not leave the Communion of those whom he knew to be the Maintainers of that Opinion before this time I will ask him one Question more If the late Bishops should be again restor'd would he then refuse to communicate with those who advance that Opinion If he would not then it is certain that he does not think that enough to justify the present Separation One more and then I have done I desire to know if our Author knows none of his own Communion who themselves acknowledge the Power of the Supreme Civil Governor to depose a Bishop for Political Crimes 'T is strange if he should be ignorant of what every body knows And it is to be believ'd that the Fathers themselves of his own Communion at least some of 'em agree with us in this Opinion which the Church of England has all along to this time accounted Orthodox tho' the Vindicator is pleas'd to declare it a Heresy But enough and too much of these Matters We will leave our much honour'd Adversary to invent some other new Notion more consistent and more usefull for his Cause And will now proceed to enquire how Heretical our Forefathers were in thinking it lawfull to adhere to the present Possessor and in acting accordingly CHAP. II. That the Iewish High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly Deposed by the Civil Autority were all along own'd and receiv'd as true High-priests An Account of all those High-priests from the Reign of King Solomon to the Destruction of Jerusalem The Instance of Abiathar and Zadok nicely examin'd The Practice of the Jews and God's Approbation of such High-priests a sufficient Warrant to us TO make it appear that the general Practice of the Antients throughout all Ages was agreeable to ours I shall first shew That the same was the Practice of the Iews throughout all Ages in reference to their High-priests whom S. Cyprian and others of the Fathers are wont to compare to our Bishops Secondly I shall shew That our Saviour himself and his Apostles acknowledged and communicated with the High-priests of the Iews as true High-priests tho' put into the places of others unjustly turn'd out by their Governors By which they seem to instruct us what we ought to doe in relation to our Bishops or High-priests And Thirdly I shall shew That the same has been all along the general Practice of the antient Christians § 2. I begin with the Iews But before I proceed to Examples I think it convenient to prevent an Objection that may possibly be made This perhaps may be the Plea of our Adversaries in answer to the Examples of the Jewish High-priests That the Office of a Bishop amongst us is of a nature much more Spiritual than the Office of those High-priests To that Plea I answer That he that considers the true and full Import of the Question now before us will find it to be no other than this Whether a Person duly invested with an Ecclesiastical Office of God's own Institution and Ordinance being Deposed by the Lay-power any other can lawfully succeed in that Office Now as to God's particular Institution and Appointment whatsoever otherwise the Difference may be which 't is needless for us to contend about it is certain that the Jewish High-priests were rather superior than inferior to our Bishops 'T was by God himself and that too in a very extraordinary manner that the Office of the High-priest was instituted and it was from God alone that he receiv'd his Autority If therefore a Person was accepted of by God as a true and real High-priest tho' put into the room of another Deposed by the Civil Autority then a Bishop likewise may be truly a Bishop and accordingly ought to be receiv'd tho' put into the place of a Bishop deposed by that Power To this I add That the Annual Expiation for the Sins of the whole People was to be perform'd by the High-priest This was the chief of the federal Rites of that Religion and that to which our Saviour's offering himself up a Sacrifice is particularly compared in the Epistle to the Hebrews And this they did ex opere operato so that it was of the greatest Consequence to the Iews to have this Divine Institution perform'd by one appointed to it by God And tho' no provision was made for Cases of Necessity yet Necessity was understood to be a provision for itself And it is certain these Annual Expiations were accepted of God till our Saviour's days for that is a certain Consequence of their being still in Covenant
by the same Valerius Gratus who advanced in his stead Eleazar the Son of Ananus but now mentioned Him likewise after a years time he deposed and promoted Simon the Son of Camith After one year he likewise removed Simon and in his place he substituted Iosephus who was Sir-named Caiaphas Caiaphas was removed by Vitellius the Roman Prefect of Syria and Ionathan another Son of Ananus was advanced to the Honour of the High-priesthood The same was likewise the Fate of Ionathan For he after some little time was removed by the same Governour and his Brother Theophilus was promoted in his stead He continued after that a worthy Patriot and at last was murther'd by the Roman Governour Felix Theophilus was displaced by King Herod Agrippa and Simon who was sirnamed Cantharas the Son of Simon Boethus succeeded him Him Agrippa likewise deposed and promoted Matthias a fourth Son of Ananus and Brother to the High-priests Theophilus Ionathan and Eleazar The King was desirous that Ionathan should be re-invested with the Honour as more worthy of it than Simon Cantharas but Ionathan begged to be excused and recommended to him his Brother Matthias By his Answer alone we might judge how far the Iews were from thinking it unlawfull to succeed one unjustly or arbitrarily deposed by the Civil Governour I am obliged says he to your Majesty for your Good-will to me in making me the offer of so great an Honour but I think it sufficient that I once wore those sacred Robes which I cannot now receive with the same Holiness as heretofore I did since God has judged me unworthy of ' em He adds that if the King required him he would tell him who was far more worthy of the Honour than himself That his Brother Matthias was more innocent and free from all sort of guilt or Imputation whom therefore he would recommend to him as fit to be preferred to the Dignity Matthias was himself displaced by the same Prince in his room there was substituted Elioneus sirnamed Cantharas the Son of Cantharas Elioneus was removed by Herod the Brother of King Agrippa and to him succeeded Iosephus the Son of Canei or Camydus more truly Camithus the same I suppose with Camith above mentioned Iosephus was depos'd by the same Herod and succeeded by Ananias the Son of Nebedeus he of whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles as sitting chief Judge in the Cause of St. Paul Ananias was sent bound by Numidius Quadratus the Roman Prefect of Syria to the Emperour Claudius at Rome there to answer for a Tumult which had been rais'd between the Iews and Samaritans Upon that account I suppose he was depos'd That he was depos'd is manifest and he flourish'd after that at Ierusalem till the beginning of the War with the Romans at what time he was murther'd by the Seditious In his room succeeded Ismael the Son of Phabei the same I presume with Phabi promoted by King Agrippa the younger He was sent by the Iews Embassadour to the Emperour Nero upon a difference which happen'd between them and the King There being detain'd as a Hostage the King promoted in his stead Iosephus sirnam'd Cabei Him he likewise deposed and preferred Ananus the Son of Ananus This Ananus it was that condemned St. Iames the brother of our Saviour with others to be stoned Upon which account he was after three months deposed by the same Prince He continued after he was deposed a very great man amongst the Iews and was one of their chief Commanders in the time of their Wars with the Romans and was killed at last by the seditious Zealots highly praised by Iosephus as the chief of all the High-priests of that time for his Justice Love of his Country and other excellent Qualities Iesus the Son of Damneus who succeeded in the High-priesthood upon the ejectment of Ananus was deposed by the same King Agrippa the younger and succeeded by Iesus the Son of Gamaliel He likewise was deprived by the King and the Honour was conferred on Matthias the Son of Theophilus In whose time there broke out that War in which Ierusalem was destroyed by the Romans § 8. This is the Account which Iosephus has delivered down to us of the several Revolutions in the Jewish Pontificate from the beginning of the Reign of King Herod As he himself does not give us the least Hint That he thought that they who succeeded upon an unjust or a lay-deprivation was no true High-priest but speaks of 'em always as as true and real High-priests as any other so it plainly appears from him That that was likewise the Sense of all the Nation of the Iews How arbitrarily or unjustly soever the Predecessor was deposed both the Priests and the People submitted to the present Possessor And He who had been unjustly deposed tho' he came himself regularly to the Honour which some few of 'em did yet raised no disturbance on the account of his Ejectment but remained at Ierusalem a Member of the Church and peaceably communicated with his Successor in the Offices of the Temple and the Sacrifices made to God Iesus the son of Damneus was the onely High-priest that expressed his Resentments with any thing of undecency Of him 't is related by Iosephus that when he was deposed his Resentment was such that it caused a great Animosity between him and his Successor to that degree that both going guarded by a company of audacious young men they themselves not onely proceeded to publick Revilings but their Attendants likewise threw Stones at one another This Iesus did as is manifest not for any thing of Conscience but purely through Ambition and Regret for he himself had been promoted to the High-priesthood when another had been as unjustly deposed § 9. I must not forget to mention that in the time of the Wars with the Romans that wicked and seditious Party who called themselves the Zealots having fortified themselves in the Temple and excluded Matthias the High-priest together with all the true Patriots who were by far the majority chose by lot one Phannias a wretched Country-fellow for High-priest pretending though falsly that that was the ancient method of Election and that therefore Matthias was not regularly constituted This was highly resented and very deservedly by all the orderly Party both the Priests and the People were extremely provoked at so daring an Extravagance How extremely flagitious and wicked those Zealots were who took upon 'em to tyrannize and exclude Matthias and the much major part of the People we may learn from Iosephus throughout his whole History of the Iewish Wars and how highly all â—resented that audacious Fact of theirs in pretending of themselves to elect â— High-priest and such a one too as was altogether unworthy the same Author largely relates So great an Impiety says he was to them a mere Sport and
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
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
Cyrillus Scythopolitanus who tells us That near three years after he was banish'd a little before he fell sick and died S. Sabas and Euthalius the Governor of those Monasteries which he had built at Iericho when he was Archbishop and another Abbot went to Aila where he lay confin'd in banishment to give him a visit Though S. Sabas and the rest had immediately acknowleged his Successor as soon as he was deposed though they still adher'd to that Successor as the true Archbishop of Ierusalem and though Euthalius had been in a particular manner obliged to Elias by being constituted by him the Governor of his own Monasteries yet the good old man takes no notice at all of it but as Cyrillus says receiv'd them with joy kept them several days with him and communicated daily with them CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him IN the year 538 Silverius Pope of Rome was deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Iustinian's General then in Italy being accused of a design to betray the City of Rome to the Goths and Vigilius was made Pope in his stead There being a suspicion says Procopius Caesariensis that Silverius the Bishop of the City intended to deliver up the City to the Goths Belisarius sent him away immediately into Greece and a little after made another Bishop in his stead by name Vigilius To the same purpose the Continuator of Marcellinus Comes ' s Chronicle and Paulus Diaconus least any one should suspect that though he is said to be deposed by Belisarius yet it was not barely by his Autority but by a Synod of Bishops I shall here present the Reader with that particular Account of the whole Proceeding which we find in Liberatus Diaconus who flourish'd at that time He tells us That Pope Agapetus being dead and Silverius being chosen by the City of Rome in his stead the Empress perswaded Vigilius Agapetus's Deacon who was at that time at Constantinople to enter into a secret Engagement That if he should be made Pope he would condemn the Council of Chalcedon and communicate with the Hereticks Theodosius Anthimus and Severus and confirm their belief by an Epistle He having engaged himself to do so she writes a Letter by him to Belisarius requiring him to depose Silverius and to make Vigilius Bishop in his room Belisarius to fulfill the Empress's Will and for the lucre of a summ of Money which Vigilius had offer'd him gets Silverius to be accused as having written to the Goths and engaged to deliver up the City into their hands And 't is reported saies Liberatus that one Marcus and one Iulianus forged Letters in his name to that purpose Now Belisarius and his Wife had privately perswaded Silverius to do the same thing which the Empress had engaged Vigilius to do but he refused and betakes himself to a Church Belisarius sends a messenger to him to invite him again to the Palace he accordingly goes relying upon an Oath which was made him that he should have leave to return He returns again to the Church and again is commanded by Belisarius to come to the Palace but he would not go out of the Church well knowing that some evil was design'd him At last he yielded to go and commending himself and his cause to God by Prayer he went thither He enter'd in alone and was afterwards never seen by those that attended him Another day Belisarius call'd together the Presbyters and the Deacons and all the rest of the Clergy and commanded them to choose another Pope Which when they scrupled to do and some laugh'd at the command Vigilius was by his order ordain'd Pope Now Silverius being banish'd to Patara a City of Lycia the Bishop of that City addressed himself to the Emperor and reason'd with him concerning the Expulsion of Silverius telling him that there were many Kings in the World but but one Pope the Head of the Church of the whole World This the Popes at that time had pretended to be and their Flatterers humour'd them in it By this the Emperor was induced to recall Silverius and gave order that those Letters which were produced against him should be enquired into That if it could be proved that he wrote them he should be banish'd to any City they should think fit but if they appear'd to be false he should be restored to his See This news being carried to the Empress she endeavoured to prevent Silverius's return to Rome but she could not prevail and Silverius was brought back to Italy by the Emperor's command Now Vigilius being terrified at his coming least he should lose his See required Belisarius to deliver him up into his hands telling him that if he did not do so he should not be able to pay him that fumm of Money which he had promis'd him Sâ— Belisarius gave him up into the hands of Vigilius's Servants who carried him into the Isle Palmaria where in their custody he died of want This is the account which Liberatus has given us and the same account as to the main we have in the Pontifical It appears from hence That Silverius was not onely deposed without any Synod but likewise by an inferior Person not by the order of the Sovereign Power that besides that he was deposed very unjustly and tyrannically without any formal Tryal and lastly that Vigilius was made Pope without any Election expresly against the consent of the Clergy of Rome by the bare Arbitrary Power of Belisarius Though such were the Circumstances of Silverius's deprivation though after his deprivation he never gave up his right and though Vigilius was besides that so uncanonically constituted yet because he appear'd to be Orthodox he was own'd and acknowleged by all by the People of Rome even though they very much hated him for his Cruelty to his Predecessor and for other ill Actions and by all the Catholick Church particularly by the 5 th General Council He govern'd as long as he liv'd near 18 years and to this day is reckon'd by all as one of the true Popes of Rome I need not produce the Autorities of any of the Antients to prove that he was generally acknowleged it being a truth so notorious But there are four things which I must not omit taking notice of 1. That there is extant in Isidorus Mercator an Epistle of Silverius supposed to be then in banishment
their leave of Ignatius and turn to the other fresh Company But for those who are not weary of this Entertainment I shall add these following Remarks 1. I observe that Ignatius and his Adherents did no more regard the Determinations of Synods than they did the Imperial Autority When the Suffrages of a Council were once gain'd says the worthy and learned Vindicator what Arts soever those were that were used to gain 'em Photius had then some appearance of Right till Ignatius could relieve himself by another and a greater Council That was a lawful way of recovering it by the very Canons However Photius could in the mean time plead the Canons of his own Council which condemned Ignatius and forbad the Clergy and Bishops to separate from their present Patriarch that none ought to separate from himself thus Synodically setled nor to joyn with Ignatius thus Synodically condemned till himself were condemned and Ignatius resetled by a greater and a more numerous Synod Till P. Nicholas says the Vindicator a little after had restored Ignatius by a greater Synod than that was that condemned him how good soever his Tible was yet the Guilt of Schism had been imputable to Ignatius if he had made a Separation or intruded himself into his own Throne before a Synod had restored him Nay by the Antiochian Canon he had forfeited all Pretensions of having the merit of his Cause consider'd if he had challenged any Duty from his Clergy and People before a Synod had restor'd him He adds that by the Canons of the Church a Provincial Synod of Rome could not condemn or restore a Patriarch of Constantinople and therefore the Synod called at Rome by P. Nicholas how numerous soever it might be could not have any Autority to depose Photius and restore Ignatius that Photius therefore was the Canonical Patriarch of Constantinople till he was deposed by a Synod called at Constantinople that was greater than that which deposed Ignatius The Synod says he by which Ignatius was to be relieved was to be another and that a greater Synod in the same Constantinople and till he could get such a Synod on his side himself had been responsible for the Schism that must have followed on his claiming his Right Thus much the Vindicator And thus tho' he does not know it he perfectly condemns Ignatius and all his Adherents as men not regarding the Rules of Ecclesiastical Government but hurried away by their own Passions to Schismatical Proceedings We do not find says he that Ignatius made any stir after he was deposed by a Synod of Constantinople till he was restored Conciliarly in the same place where he had been deprived No Then sure he never could find that he made any stir at all There is nothing can be more notorious than that Ignatius never paid any deference to the Autority of those Synods that condemned him That he lookt upon himself as Patriarch as well after he was condemned by Synods as before appears First from hence That after he had been condemned by a Provincial Synod when he was summoned to appear before the General Council called First and Second he asked those that summoned him under what Character they would have him appear as a Bishop as a Priest or as a Monk And when it was told him that he might appear as himself in his own Conscience thought fit he put on his Patriarchial Robes and was going to the Council in 'em till Messengers from the Emperor met him and commanded him to put 'em off or it should cost him his Life This Account we have in his Life 2. When he made his appearance before that Council he declared against their Autority and positively told 'em that they could not be his Iudges except they first deposed Photius This his Legate Theognostus attests in his Case presented to Pope Nicholas 3. After he was condemned by this great Council he still continued to suffer the same Afflictions and Torments as before and why was he still tormented and persecuted but because he was still the same Man A Description of what he suffered even after he was deposed by that Council you may see at large in his Life Theognostus likewise speaks of ' em So P. Nicholas's Synod alleges in its Decrees against Photius that he still continued to that very time to torment Ignatius and to depose and punish those Bishops that would not joyn with him So likewise P. Nicholas in his XIth Epistle to Photius 4. As soon as the Emperor Basilius had deposed Photius tho' Photius as yet had never been condemned by a Council call'd at Constantinople nor yet by any called any where else that was greater than that which had confirmed him Ignatius readily accepts of the See and not only so but condemns and rejects both Photius and all those whom he had Ordained as no Bishops 5. So far were the Ignatians from regarding the Autority of Synods that even after Ignatius's Death tho' Photius had been again confirmed by a General Council of no less than 373 Bishops yet they still continued their Schism and refused to Communicate Nay even after Photius was a Second time deposed and even after his Death some of 'em still refused to receive those whom Photius had Ordain'd And the Schism does not seem to have been perfectly ended till the Tomus Vnionis or Synodicon was published in the Year 920. by which there was an end likewise put to several other Divisions in the Church Secondly I observe that Ignatius and all his Party were great betrayers of the Privileges of the Constantinopolitan See That he might regain his See he cared not for the Honour of it but Acted very unworthily of a truly great Man and appeals from the Council of Constantinople to the Pope of Rome Thus betrays the Honour of his See and Acts quite contrary to the Canons of the II. General Council by which it is Enacted That the Affairs of every Province shall be managed by a Synod of that same Province Thirdly In the Third and last place it is to be observed that the Reason why the Popes of Rome engaged so zealously against Photius and for the ejected Ignatius was chiefly because they thought it concerned the Honour of their See The Pope took upon him to be the chief Judge in Causes relating to Bishops and to suffer the Emperor to Depose a Patriarch was to give away forsooth his own Super-eminent Prerogative That all the Proceedings of the Popes in this Matter were grounded chiefly on their Pride and Ambition may be easily gather'd from their so frequently inculcating their Prerogative of being the ultimate Judges of all Bishops in the Epistles which they wrote concerning this Business from their so frequently inculcating That a Bishop ought not to be deposed by any Autority whatever whether Imperial or Synodical without the Consent of the See of S. Peter Because says P. Nicholas in an Epistle to the Emperor
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
pace maximi â—iri 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 onely 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 Use he would make of it What is his Design in advancing it The Use 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 Notion 'till they had refused to communicate with us So dangerous a thing it is First to do a thing rashly and then to hunt for a Reason If this Plea of our Author is good I would very fain know how any Separation can be proved to be unlawfull Let our Author stand out a little and dispute with our old Dissenters He asks a Dissenter why he separates from the Church The Dissenter tells him 't is because the Church is Heretical But why Heretical Because she thinks it lawfull to oblige her Members to the use of Ceremonies and pursuant to that Opinion she actually imposes the use of ' em In the use of these Ceremonies says the Dissenter we cannot join with you and for that very reason because we cannot join with you in this Opinion That the Church has power to impose upon its Members the use of Ceremonies And because we cannot join with the Church in this Opinion and Practice upon that very account the Church is Heretical Thus according to our Author 's own Plea but the Plea would be vain and Illogical § 14. But this is not all We are not onely Hereticks upon that account but as the Vindicator contends we are Hereticks likewise as Heresy signifies an erring even in Fundamentals He affirms that our Opinion is a fundamental Error because as he says it is utterly destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society distinct from the State To maintain this Opinion That for Political Crimes a Bishop may be lawfully Depriv'd by the Civil Autority Or this That supposing he cannot be lawfully so depriv'd yet if he is deprived it is lawfull for Peace-sake to submit to his Successor How that is destructive of the Church as the Church is a Society I for my part cannot perceive To me 't is much more apparent that to advance this Opinion That a Bishop cannot be deprived by the Civil Autority for any Crime whatsoever is destructive of all Civil Government which as well as the Ecclesiastical is of God's Institution He therefore that advances that Notion advances a very dangerous Notion But it is not my Business at present to engage in these Disquisitions I shall onely make bold to ask the Vindicator a few Questions If he thinks that Opinion concerning the Power of the Magistrate a fundamental Heresy and enough to justify the present Separation how came it to pass that he did not leave the Communion of those whom he knew to be the Maintainers of that Opinion before this time I will ask him one Question more If the late Bishops should be again restor'd would he then refuse to communicate with those who advance that Opinion If he would not then it is certain that he does not think that enough to justify the present Separation One more and then I have done I desire to know if our Author knows none of his own Communion who themselves acknowledge the Power of the Supreme Civil Governor to depose a Bishop for Political Crimes 'T is strange if he should be ignorant of what every body knows And it is to be believ'd that the Fathers themselves of his own Communion at least some of 'em agree with us in this Opinion which the Church of England has all along to this time accounted Orthodox tho' the Vindicator is pleas'd to declare it a Heresy But enough and too much of these Matters We will leave our much honour'd Adversary to invent some other new Notion more consistent and more usefull for his Cause And will now proceed to enquire how Heretical our Forefathers were in thinking it lawfull to adhere to the present Possessor and in acting accordingly * An Answer to a Treatise out of Eccles History c. in the Preface * S. Cypr. Ep. 55. ad Anton. Ergo ille evangelii vindex ignorabat unum Episcopum esse oportere in Ecclesiâ Catholicâ says Cornelius Bishop of Rome in his Epistle to Fabius of Antioch Ap. Euseb. Hist. l. 6. c. 43. concerning Novatian To have two Bishops in one and the same City is adversum fas Sacerdotii singularis says Pacianus Epist. 3. ad Sympronianum Novatianum (a) Collat. Carthag 1. c. 16. (b) Theodoret Hist. Eccl. l. 5. c. 3. (c) And by the Synod of Sirmium to the Clergy and People of Rome in the Case of Felix and Liberius as Sozomen says l. 4. c. 15. but that Synod not was not Orthodox but Arian (a) Grâ—g Turon Hist. l. 10. c. 31. (b) Can. 4. (c) Can. 6.
But then on the other side how Eustochius Patriarch of Ierusalem should be deposed on that account by the Emperour when none of the other Foreign Patriarchs were deposed and at least a Year or two before even the Patriarch of Constantinople himself was deposed I cannot easily imagine And besides it is likely that Eustratius who lived at Constantinople in those times and wrote the Life of the Patriarch Eutychius who was deposed for not subscribing to the Emperour's Doctrine would have spoken somewhere of the Patriarch of Ierusalem his having been deposed on the same account especially since he mentions that Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch was on that account extremely persecuted by the Emperour and upon the brink of Deprivation As for the Reason given by Theophanes that I am sure is false For it appears by the express Testimony of Cyrillus Scythopolitanus that the Neolauritanâ— were expell'd by the Emperour 's own Command because they refused to anathematize Origen Didymus and Evagrius according to the Decree of the Fifth General Council Macarius being restored upon the Ejectment of Eustochius was own'd and receiv'd by all as Patriarch of Ierusalem and enjoy'd the Honour till he died which was four Years Iohannes Moschus tells us of one Iulianus a Monk of Palaestine who doubted for some time whether or no he ought to communicate with the Archbishop Macarius and went to S. Symeon Stylites the latter of that Name to ask his Advice desiring to know how he ought to carry himself towards a Brother who had committed Fornication and towards one who by Oath had engaged himself to his Party S. Symeon answer'd Do not separate thy self from the holy Church for by the grace of our Lord Iesus Christ the Son of God she is not amiss The reason why the Monk scrupled to communicate with Macarius was because he thought him an Origenist Whether it happen'd before he was deposed or after he was restored is uncertain I believe it was before he was deposed In the Life of S. Gregory Bishop of Agrigentum he is honour'd with the Title of Saint is said to have the Gift of Prophecy and to have ordain'd S. Gregory Deacon But this Life tho' it be quoted by Baronius c. as true is nothing but the Forgery of Metaphrastes and all those Stories are notorious Lyes For in the same Life it is said that S. Gregory was made Bishop of Agrigentum after the time of the Sixth General Council in which the Patriarchs Sergius Pyrrhus Paulus and Cyrus were condemn'd as Monothelites which Council was call'd in the Year 681 near 120 Years after the Death of our Patriarch Macarius However from hence we may gather what opinion Posterity had of that Patriarch Concerning any Schism occasion'd by Macarius when he was deposed or afterwards by Eustochius not a word in any Author CHAP. X. Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresie John sirnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room After John was consecrated Patriarch Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay-Lords a Bishops not only of Ecclesiasticks as the Vindicator contends He actually lays claim to the See despises the Sentence of his Iudges as null and invalid because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him and Excommunicates them Notwithstanding all this his Successor because he prov'd Orthodox was receiv'd and own'd by all the Church as a true Patriarch He continu'd in the See near 13 years near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is own'd by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly belov'd John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him For what reason Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch reprov'd the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordain'd by him Anastasus did not refuse to communicate with him He is Honour'd by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint Tho' Eutychius lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and tho' he never resign'd but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch yet he liv'd quietly and never endeavour'd to make a Division in the Church Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretick confuted The Authority of the Life of Eutychius often quoted in this Chapter vindicated against the same Author IN the Year 565 Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople whom I mention'd in the foregoing Chapter was deposed by the Emp. Iustinian and Iohn formerly an Advocate afterwards a Presbyter of Antioch whom resided at that time at Constantinople as Apocrisiarius for the Church of Antioch the same with him whose Collection of Canons is extant in the Bibliotheca Iuris Canonici was advanced to the See This Instance the Author of our Baroccian Treatise takes notice of In the Reign says he of the Emp. Justinian Eutychius of Amasia being constituted Patriarch of Constantinople a Man holy and belov'd of God was unjustly deposed and expell'd the City and John was preferr'd to the See But Eutychius did not upon that account separate himself from the Communion of John and both therefore were receiv'd by the Church The Collector of the Synodicon tells us that the Emp. called a Synod and deposed Eutychius because he refused to subscribe to the Doctrine maintain'd by that Synod i. e. because he refus'd to subscribe to the Heresie of the Aphthartodocetae who thought our Saviour's Humane Nature incorruptible which the Emp. and his Synod maintain'd The truth is this He was first banished by the Emp. and after his Successor was ordain'd he was condemn'd by a Synod or Assembly consisting partly of Bishops and partly of Lay-Lords Evagrius passes over this business too slightly and only says That he was expell'd for what or whether by a Synod or not he does not acquaint us That he was depos'd by the Emperor is expressly asserted by Victor Tun. Theophanes Nicephorus the Patriarch Glycas Zonaras Cedrenus Nicephorus Callisti and so the Emp. Basilius intimates of whom not one makes any mention of a Synod A particular and exact account of the whole matter we have in his Life which was written by Eustratius commonly but erroneously call'd Eustathius who was one of his Presbyters and a constant Attendant upon him both before and in his Banishment The Life is extant not onely in Latin as the Vindicator believ'd but likewise in Greek And this is the Account he gives us The Emp. says Eustratius desired him to subscribe to the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae which when he refused to do he was perswaded by some of his Nobles and by certain Priests to depose him which accordingly he did For on S. Timothy 's Day as Eutychius was officiating in the Church of Hormisdas his Palace was violently enter'd by a Captain together with his Souldiers who seiz'd his Servants designing to make 'em witness something against him that he
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