then 't is certain that That Bishop if he makes a Separation is himself guilty of a Schism We will now proceed to consider in short the Duty of an ejected Bishop upon this Supposition That there are some of our late Bishops that still lay Claim to the Obedience of their People which as has been observ'd in the Beginning of this Treatise does not as yet sufficiently appear And for their sakes I speak it may it never appear We will suppose if they please that the Church ought not to submit to the present Possessor unless the ejected Bishop gives his Consent Let that be supposed Yet if the Church to avoid a Persecution has actually done it what then ought a good Bishop to do Let us consider a little what the consequences of a Schism may be To be engaged in a Schism is according to S. Cyprian and our Adversaries themselves to be out of the Church of Christ and to be in a State of Damnation And how can a good Bishop one that ought to lay down even his Life for his Flock see his People in a State of Damnation when by onely his communicating with his Successor they may be redeem'd This deserves to be seriously consider'd 'T is the Advice of S. Clement Bishop of Rome to some turbulent Persons of Corinth who disturbed the Presbyters of the Church that they should if they could not agree rather leave that place than disturb the Presbyters and hinder 'em in the Discharge of their Duty This place of S. Clement I formerly understood as if he had given that advice to the Presbyters themselves that they should rather withdraw than be the occasion of Schisms and Divisions and so easie it is to mistake it that it 's acknowleged by even some of my Adversaries that I rightly understood it But upon perusing S. Clement's Epistle a second time I agree with the learned Vindicator that this is his Meaning Vtinam mihi sic semper disputare contingat ut ad meliora proficiens deseram quod maâ—â— tenebam That I heartily say with S. Ierom. I could heartily wish that all were of the same Disposition Caeterum scimus quosdam I use S. Cyprian's words quod semel imbiberunt nolle deponere nec propositum suum facile mutare That the Clergy ought not to be unjustly disturbed is a thing we all agree in It is likewise certain that if they have Injury done 'em they ought to have Amends made ' em But the Question now is Whether if the State has unjustly deposed 'em and is resolv'd not to restore 'em and the Church for Peace-sake has thought fit to submit they that are injured ought not so to acquiesce as that all People may be united and the much greater Part retriev'd from the Spiritual Danger to which they are obnoxious I have produced in my Preface to the Baroccian Treatise some Examples to shew how tender good Bishops have always been of their Flock and the Church's Peace They deserve to be here also mention'd When S. Gregory Nazianzen was Patriarch of Constantinople and great Disturbances were rais'd in the Church on his account he freely surrender'd up his Right and in the General Council of Constantinople thus address'd himself to the Bishops 'T is a base and unworthy thing my Collegues and Co-pastors of the Flock of Christ for you who teach others Peace to stir up among your selves an intestine War For how shall you be able to reduce others to Concord who differ and disagree among your selves By the Trinity it self I beseech you to concert your Affairs peaceably and as becomes you And if on my account there be any Dissentions I am not better than the Prophet Jonas Throw me into the Sea and so shall you cease to be toss'd by the tempest of Tumults Whatsoever you shall think fit tho' I am not guilty of any thing I will willingly endure it if by that means there may be Concord preserv'd Depose me from my Throne Cast me out of the City This onely I desire that to speak in the words of Zacharias you would love Truth and Peace When Nectarius was ordain'd and fate as his Successor he address'd himself to him and desired him to take care against Hereticks As for my own private Troubles says he I do not so much as reckon 'em among Evils I regard onely the Afflictions of the Church When the African Church was broken in pieces by the Schism of the Donatist's all the Catholick Bishops of that Church to the number of near 300 made the Donatists this Offer That if they pleas'd all the Bishops of both Parties should resign their Bishopricks and new ones whom both Parties should acknowlege should be chosen in their places This Offer they publickly make in the first Conference of Carthage in their Epistle to Marcellinus the Emperor's Vice-gerent For why say they I should we doubt to offer up in our Redeemer the Sacrifice of such a Humility Did he descend into a Human Body from Heaven that we might be Members of him and shall we scruple to descend from our Thrones to preserve his Body from being torn in pieces by a cruel Division 'T is sufficient for us that we are faithfull and obedient Christians Let us therefore so continue We are ordain'd Bishops for the sake of the People of Christ That therefore which conduces to the peace of Christ's Church let us do according to the Duty of Bishops If we are profitable Servants how can we preferr our Temporal Honours to the Eternal Rewards of our Lord. The Episcopal Dignity will be more advantageous to us if by being resign'd it may gather together the Flock of Christ than if it disperses it by being retain'd For with what face shall we hope for those Honours which are promis'd by Christ in the World to come if our pretending to our Honours here in this World does hinder the Vnity of the Church Who can believe that these great Men if they had been unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority would therefore have broken the Peace of the Church and separated from the Communion of their Successors 'T is a Saying of S. Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria That Schism is more to be avoided than Idolatry it self because by avoiding Idolatry we consult onely our owâ— private Good but by avoiding Schism we consult the Good of all the whole Church This he writes to Novatian who had set up himself against Cornelius as Bishop of Rome And he tells him That if he was chosen against his Will as he had pretended he ought to shew it by resigning voluntarily That he ought to endure any thing that the Church of God might not be divided This Autority our Adversaries are pleas'd to urge for themselves But they do not consider how different their Case is from that of Cornelius They do not consider that Cornelius was never deposed was still in Possession still own'd by all the Churches of the World Novatian
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-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 Palebisca 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 with Death The Bishops however refused to subscribe and so he was made Pope without any consent of theirs But after he was Ordain'd says the Author of the Pontifical they subscrib'd for the sake of the Vnity of the Church and of Religion Tho' the Synod of C P. before whom the Patriarch Alexius was accused for his having been promoted to that Dignity by the bare autority of the Emperour without the Votes of the Clergy lookt upon his Promotion to be altogether unlawfull yet when he pleaded that he had Ordain'd many Bishops and that if they depriv'd him they must likewise deprive all those whom he had Ordain'd upon that bare Consideration because to Deprive so many was likely to occasion a great Disturbance in the Church they over-ruled the Accusation and determin'd nothing against him When Calendion was made Patriarch of Antioch by the Emperor Zeno and Ordain'd by Acacius the Patriarch of C P. tho' that was unlawfull by the Canons of the Council of Nice and directly contrary to the constant Custom of the Catholick Church yet because it was done as the Emperour and Acacius alleg'd to avoid Seditions in Antioch the Proceeding was approv'd of by Simplicius Bishop of Rome Tho' I wish says he that it had not been done yet I easily excused it because it was done through Necessity For that which is not voluntary i.e. that which is done onely for Convenience or Necessity 's sake cannot be imputed as a Fault These Examples and Autorities may serve to shew in general That there are no Laws or Customs of the Church so sacred but what our Wise Forefathers thought ought to be postpon'd to the present Welfare and Prosperity of it That the same was their Opinion in reference to our particular Case We shall hereafter shew in its due Place § 4. Our Proposition being thus establish'd on that sure Maxim acknowledg'd as has been shewn by the Antients That whatsoever is necessary for the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church that ought to be made use of provided that it is not in it self Sinfull and that 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 There are two Things which I am oblig'd to make out First That the Submitting to a Bishop put into the place of another unjustly Depos'd by the Civil Autority is not in itself
Sinfull And 2dly That the ill Consequences to which it is liable are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid § 5. First It is not in it self Sinfull For if it is so it must be so for one or more of these following Reasons Either first because it is forbidden by some express Law of God Or 2dly because it makes us Accomplices in the Injustice Or 3dly because of the Oath of Canonical Obedience which the inferior Clergy have taken to their Bishop and the inferior Bishops to their Archbishop Or lastly because as one of our Adversaries the learned Vindicator contends such a Bishop as is placed in the room of one Deposed by the Civil Autority is in reality no Bishop These Objections I shall consider distinctly § 6. First It is not against any Law of God For as to our Case the Scripture is altogether silent 'T is true it Commands us to be obedient to our Governors and that Command reaches as well to the Spiritual as to the Temporal But when there are two that stand Competitors and both claim our Obedience to which of those two our Obedience ought to be paid it leaves to our Wisdom to determine § 7. Neither 2dly does it make us Accomplices in the Injustice For if a Landlord be unjustly and invalidly dispossess'd of his Estate by an Incompetent Autority Who thinks the Tenant an Accomplice in the Injustice because he pays his Rent to the present Possessor Should the Clergy refuse to submit to the Bishops in possession it could onely serve to draw down Ruin upon themselves It cannot restore those whom the State has deposed It is not our Submitting to the present Possessors that ejects the former for they are already irretrievably Depos'd since the Supreme Power is peremptory against ' em That has publickly declar'd that whoever are our Bishops the old ones shall govern us no longer If we think the Proceeding unjust 't is enough that we remonstrate against it and express our dissatisfaction If that will not doe the Good of the Publick obliges us to be quiet § 8. Neither Thirdly is it sinfull on the account of the Oath of Canonical Obedience For that is taken not absolutely and unconditionally but with this Supposition That the Bishop to whom we take it has power to govern us If I take an Oath to be faithfull or obedient to a Governour whether Civil or Ecclesiastical I engage my self to him as a Governour that is as one that can govern If therefore he can no longer govern whatsoever the Impediment is my Obedience is no longer engag'd As it is in the State so it is in the Church The Oath that is taken to a Bishop as he is the Governour of a Church is not taken for the sake of the Bishop but for the Peace and good Order of the Church 'T is this was the Design of the Church when she order'd such an Oath to be taken When therefore the Oath tends no longer to the Good of the Church but notoriously to Schism Disorder and Confusion it cannot any longer oblige but is void of it self by virtue of the Church's Intent and Design in the first Institution of it It is further to be consider'd that particularly here in the Church of England the Oath of Canonical Obedience is always taken with this Supposition That the Civil Power as well as the Ecclesiastical do allow the Bishop to govern But let us suppose even that which in reason we ought not to suppose Let us suppose that the Bishop intended that the Oath should always oblige Whatsoever was the Intent of the Bishop That was not the Intent of the Church And it is the Intent of the Church not the private Intent of the Bishop that gives an Obligation to the Oath I add That should it be both the Intent of the Bishop and likewise the Intent of the Person who takes the Oath that it should always oblige should it run in these express words I will always adhere to you if Depos'd by the Civil Autority in opposition to him whosoever he be that shall be put into your place Should any one I say take such an Oath as that yet he cannot be oblig'd by it The Oath is in it self unlawfull 't is a Sin against the Publick repugnant to the Will and the Welfare of the Church It would be in effect to swear thus I will for your sake oppose the Welfare of the Publick and break the Vnion of the Church I will leave the Communion of the Church and adhere to you tho' I have not any Reason to do so besides this bare Oath To conclude Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's interest so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils is so far from being obliging that it would be a Sin to act according to it It is granted by our Adversaries that the Obligation of an Oath of Canonical Obedience ceases if a Bishop is depriv'd tho' never so unjustly by a Synod Now what is the Reason of that 'T is because to adhere to a Bishop when a Synod has fully deposed him and placed another in his See must occasion a Division in the Church and disturb the Publick If that is the Reason as no one can assign any other at least there can be none but what is grounded on that then the Reason is the same in both Cases and consequently in both Cases the Oath will be equally void 'T is in vain to allege That in the Case of a Synod we cease to be obliged by our Oath because every Bishop is suppos'd to have obliged himself to submit to the Determination of a Synod whether just or unjust and therefore when a Synod has Deposed him tho' by an unjust sentence his Place is truly void by virtue of his supposed Consent For suppose a Bishop should have always declar'd that he never would give his Consent that a Synod should have Power to Depose him by an unjust Sentence ought we not however to submit to the new Constituted Bishop Our Adversaries will tell us that we ought But why 'T is because the Necessity of Government and the Peace of the Church requires it Well then it is certain that it is not the Bishop's Consent but Necessity and the Good of the Publick that makes our Oath void Tho' in some Respects there is a great deal of Difference between what is done by a competent or a lawfull Autority and what is done by an incompetent or an unlawfull Autority yet as to our Acquiescence in a Case of Necessity such as is here supposed I can see no Difference at all The Obligation to acquiesce is the same in both Cases when in both Cases the Necessity is the same If a Lord be dispossess'd of his Mannor by an Incompetent Autority that cannot be resisted a Conqueror suppose or an unlawfull Court Who thinks the Tenant forsworn
for submitting to the new Possessor Who makes any difference there between a Competent and an Incompetent Autority And why is the Tenant in such a Case not forsworn If he cannot or ought not to oppose the Intruder yet ought he not at least to give up his Estate rather than submit and do Homage to the wrong Lord 'T will be granted I presume by our Adversaries that he is neither obliged to oppose the Intruder nor yet to give up his Estate But why does the Oath which he took to the rightfull Lord cease to oblige him 'T is because when he took the Oath he took it onely on this Supposition That the Lord was Possess'd of the Mannor The Peace and Tranquillity of the Publick and the Good of Tenants in general give that Restriction to the Oath If the Bishop of a Frontier Town will not own the Autority of a Conqueror and is therefore Deposed by that Conqueror I desire to know of our Adversaries whether the Clergy of that Town are perjur'd if they own that Bishop whom the Conqueror thinks fit to set over ' em If a Bishop should by the Civil Power be condemn'd to perpetual and close Imprisonment or be banish'd forever from his Country so as that it is impossible for him to perform the Duties of a Bishop or should he be carried away Captive we know not where or from whence we cannot redeem him What then Are we still obliged by our Oath because he was Deposed by no Synod When in the Beginning of the 3d. Century Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem had secretly withdrawn himself and no Body knew what was become of him left the Church should be without the Assistance of a Bishop there was presently a new one Ordain'd How their Bishop was lost they knew not 'T was enough that he was gone and did not any longer Officiate The Church says S. Chrysostom cannot be without a Bishop That he said to his People when he himself was to be carried away into Banishment and on that account he advises 'em to accept of another for their Bishop I easily foresee what will be the Reply of our Adversaries They will tell us That in such Cases we ought to presume that the Bishop gives his Consent that his Successor should be acknowledged That therefore the Oath does no longer oblige because there is a rational Presumption that the banish'd the imprison'd or the captive Bishop and He of the Frontier Town do remit the Obligation of it To this I answer 1. It is indeed to be presum'd that a good Bishop one that can say with S. Gregory then Bishop of C P. I seek not yours but you will readily forego his own Interest for the Welfare and Prosperity of his Flock And since our ejected Bishops who are I am fully perswaded very worthy and good Men and real Lovers of their People have never by any publick signification of their Will laid claim to the Obedience of their People and do not now exercise their Episcopal Power as before in reason we ought to presume that they give their Consent that their Successors should be acknowledged But 2dly let it be supposed that the outed Governor does expresly assure his Inferiors that he does not give his Consent but still lays Claim to their Obedience Suppose the conquer'd the banish'd the imprison'd or the captive Bishop should charge his People expresly upon their Oath never to accept of any other Bishop as long as by the common Course of Nature he himself may be supposed to be living or till they be assur'd he is dead Let this I say be supposed and easy it is to be supposed What must be done in such Cases Is the Church perjur'd if she accepts of another Will our Adversaries say that she is A hard Saying Who can bear it This Presumption of the ejected Governor's Consent is I know what is commonly alleg'd by some very learned and otherwise judicious Men as the true and the onely foundation of Acquiescence when the lawfull Governor is unjustly Depos'd by a Power incompetent But that that is not the true and the onely foundation these Difficulties which I have alleg'd do me-thinks abundantly demonstrate Other Men I must leave to their own ways of Thinking For my part I cannot imagine that the Welfare and Prosperity of Mankind does depend upon so ticklish and uncertain a Point as that of an ejected Governor's Consent That if he refuses to give his Consent all the Church or the Nation must be made a Sacrifice to him It is easy to discover upon how false a Principle that Notion is built It is grounded on this That the Oath that is taken to the Governor is taken onely for his sake when if the true End and Design of Government were duely and impartially consider'd it would be found as above I observ'd that the Oath that is taken to the Governor is taken not onely for his Good but chiefly for the Good of the Publick and that any Oath taken to a Governor that is notoriously and in a high degree repugnant to the Good and Prosperity of the Publick so as to be necessarily productive of intolerable Evils is in its own Nature void because by the Publick it was never design'd that in such a Case it should oblige By the Author of a Treatise entitled Vnity of Priesthood necessary to the Vnity of Communion there are two Examples produced to shew how observant the Antients were of their Oath of Canonical Obedience which the Author calls eminent Instances and proposes 'em to the Consideration of the Bishops of our Church and wishes they would seriously apply ' em The first is that of Ivo Bishop of Chartres in France who flourish'd about 600 years ago He being one of the Suffragans of the Archbishop of Sens was desired by the Bishop of Lyons who was likewise the Pope's Legate to assist him at the Consecration of the Bishop of Nivers but the Bishop of Nivers being a Suffragan to the said Archbishop of Sens and that Archbishop having never given his Consent that the Bishop of Lyons should Ordain a Bishop of his District Ivo refuses to assist at the Consecration And this is the reason he gives for it Because if he should engage in such an undertaking he should be unfaithfull to his own Metropolitan and betray the Privileges allow'd that Church by the Canons as a Metropolitical Church which by Oath he was oblig'd to maintain Reus sieret violatae sponsionis quam Sedi Metropolitanae secerat If the Archbishop of York had pretended to Constitute a Bishop of the Province of Canterbury without the Consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury and a Suffragan of the Province of Canterbury had assisted in that Ordination our Bishops would then have been able to apply this eminent Instance But as the Case stands they know not I believe how to do it And the Author is desired that he himself if he can would be pleas'd
to apply it The other Instance is that of the Bishops of our own Country in the Reign of William II. There arising a great Difference between the King and Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury about acknowledging the Pope Whether the Archbishop could lawfully do it without the King's Consent The Matter was referr'd to the Parliament and the Bishops being by the King requir'd to deprive the Archbishop they answer'd saith Eadmerus That that they could not do because he was their Metropolitan 'T is hard to conjecture what our Author intended by proposing this Example as worthy Consideration unless it be that an Archbishop of Canterbury should be now above all Deprivation He contends in his Treatise that a Bishop ought not to be Deprived but by Bishops and hereby producing this Example if he means any thing at all he intimates That an Archbishop cannot be Deprived by the Bishops his Suffragans because of their Oath of Obedience But whatever was our Author's meaning certain it is that it was not because of the Oath of Obedience that the Bishops refus'd to Deprive Anselm as the King would have had 'em but because they had at that time an Opinion amongst 'em that a Primate or Metropolitan could be judg'd and depriv'd by no one but the Pope So far were they from thinking themselves oblig'd by their Oath not to Deprive him that it 's very notorius that tho' he was not Depriv'd yet they threw off all Obedience and renounced their Subjection to him § 9. We are next to consider that Objection which is made by the learned Vindicator That a Bishop put into the place of another deposed by the Lay-power is in reality no Bishop If this is true then it must be granted that we cannot be oblig'd for the sake of Union and Peace to adhere to the present Possessor This indeed is the Difference between our Civil and our Ecclesiastical Governors The former are purely Governors and nothing more is required in them but to be capable of Governing The latter are not onely Governors but are likewise the Administrators of Sacraments and the sole Ordainers of the Clergy It is therefore necessary not onely that the Ecclesiastical Governor should be duly qualified for Government but that he should be likewise endued by God Almighty with the Power of Ordaining and of administring the holy Sacraments Thus much must be granted Let us now see what Argument the Vindicator can produce to degrade our present Possessors and to prove 'em no Bishops It is nothing but a Saying of S. Cyprian that is nothing at all to his Purpose The Saying is this That a second Bishop is no Bishop 'T is strange methinks that so great and so worthy a Man should pretend to raise so great and so extraordinary a Structure upon so weak a Foundation The Occasion of the Saying was this Novatian a private Presbyter had rais'd a Schism against Cornelius the lawfull Bishop of Rome he had got himself to be ordain'd Bishop tho' Cornelius had never been depos'd was still the Possessor and acknowledg'd the true and the onely Bishop of Rome by all the Churches of the World both the Western the Eastern and the African and Novatian was by all condemn'd as a rank and notorious Schismatick S. Cyprian who was always very zealous for the Unity of the Church thus expresses himself in his Epistle to Antonianus concerning him Cornelius says he being possess'd of the See according to the Will of God and confirm'd in it by the Consent of us all whoever would now be a Bishop of that See must needs be out of the Church neither can he have any Ecclesiastical Orders who does not continue in Vnity with the Church Whosoever he is whatsoever he may boast of himself or pretend to he is a prophane Person an Alien and not of the Church And since there cannot be a second Bishop where another is already in possession whosoever is made Bishop after another who ought to be alone he is not a second but none This is the place out of which the learned Vindicator is pleas'd to draw his Argument with how Logical an Inference the judicious Reader may see 'T is strange that That excellent Person should be so much blinded with Prejudice as not to be able to discover how vast a difference there is between the Case of our Present Bishops and that of which S. Cyprian discourses Had Cornelius been deposed by the Emperor for refusing to acknowledge his Autority we have all the reason in the world to believe That his Deprivation would have been lookt upon by S. Cyrrian as very reasonable and just But let us still grant as we first supposed in our Question That he ought not to have been deprived by the Emperor himself but by Bishops Yet if he had been deprived for refusing to acknowledge the Emperor's Autority or if he had been upon any other account so deprived by the Imperial Autority as that it would have been impossible for him to exercise his Episcopal jurisdiction Is it possible for any wise and unprejudiced Man to imagine That S. Cyprian would have thought so ill of Novatian and his Adherents as he did If an Enemy of the Roman Empire suppose the King of Persia should in S. Cyprian's time have taken a Frontier City and the Bishop of that City should have been deposed by him for refusing to submit to his Autority Who can believe that That great and wise Man S. Cyprian would have declared a new Bishop no Bishop and all his Adherents Schismatical That a second that is a Schismatical Bishop an Invader of a See already fill'd and possess'd is no Bishop is confess'd to be S. Cyprian's Doctrine But that our Bishops are in the Sence of S. Cyprian the Invaders of a See already fill'd and possess'd that they are secundi in his Sence is what we utterly deny Not a Word not a Hint in S. Cyprian from whence such a thing can be inferr'd The Vindicator may be pleas'd to consider that our present Possessors did not set up themselves in opposition to such as were possess'd of their Sees but before they pretended to be Bishops their Predecessors were made by the Supreme Civil Power uncapable of Governing i. e. were Depos'd Again he ought to consider that our present Possessors were so far from ambitiously invading like Novatian the Sees of others that they were all chose by their respective Churches according to the usual manner viz. in the same manner that their Predecessors themselves had been Let us hold up the Picture which the Vindicator has been pleas'd to draw to a true Light and then we shall the better see what a strange Figure it is The Vindicator's Enthymeme is this S. Cyprian says that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who ambitiously invades a See which another is fully possess'd of Therefore S. Cyprian thought that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who is chosen by the
Ordain'd in the room of Liberius Let us likewise hear S. Ierome concerning the same Matter Liberius says he being driven into Banishment on the account of his Faith all the Clergy engag'd themselves by an Oath not to receive any other Bishop But when Felix was Ordain'd their Bishop the greatest part of 'em broke their Oaths and were after a years time ejected together with Felix because Liberius to free himself from Banishment had subscrib'd to the Heresy of the Arians and had enter'd Rome as a Conquerour 'T was this general Compliance of the Clergy that excited the angry Laity to violate those Immunities and Privileges which had formerly been granted the Clergy of Rome This occasion'd a new Law for the Confirmation of those Immunities and Exemptions to secure the Clergy of that City from Indignities offer'd 'em by the Laity Which Law is now extant in the Theodosian Code directed by the Emperour Constantius to Pope Felix From these Relations of S. Ierome and the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus there are three Things to be observ'd 1. That the Clergy oblig'd themselves by an Oath not to accept of any other Bishop whilst Liberius was living Now what need had they to enter into such an engagement if in their Opinions and according to the Principles of those Times Whosoever should be put into Liberius's place whilst alive would on that account be no Bishop They knew of no such Doctrine 2. That tho' they had took an Oath and tho' Felix was Ordain'd by the Arians and tho' their Aflection for Liberius was great tho' all these things concurr'd to oblige 'em not to receive Felix for their Bishop yet because they knew him to be truly Orthodox and no promoter of the Arian Interest as they expected he would be whom the Arians should Ordain in Liberius's place they thought themselves oblig'd to act contrary to the Oath they had taken and to acknowlege him as their Bishop 'T was Orthodoxy they had regard to not by whom he was Ordain'd or in whose place he was substituted Their Love for Liberius was inferiour to their Love of the Church And as for their Oath when they took it they did it for the security of the Orthodox Faith When they saw that such a one was Ordain'd as they did not expect one whom they well knew to be no promoter of the Arian Belief they thought it no longer oblig'd ' em 'T is observable in the Third place That as almost all the Clergy submitted to Felix as their Bishop so after he was expell'd they still adher'd to him in opposition to Liberius This is clear not onely by the Testimony of S. Ierome who says they were ejected together with Felix but likewise by the more express words of Marcellinus and Faustinus Here possibly it may be objected If the Clergy thought themselves in Conscience oblig'd to submit to the present Possessor because he was Orthodox Why did they not leave Felix and return again to Liberius when he was again the Possessor The Reason is plain 'T was because Liberius in the time of his Banishment had subscrib'd to the Arians and they look'd upon him as no longer an Orthodox Bishop That Liberius did so is certain For tho' some of the Greek Writers as Socrates and Theodoret do not seem to have known any thing of it and tho' others amongst the Latins as Sulpitius Severus and Phaebadius make no mention of it yet 't is positively asserted by S. Ierome in the Words above cited and elsewhere as likewise by S. Hilary Philostorgius Sozomen and S. Athanasius And that indeed was the Reason why Felix was turn'd out and he again restor'd For eight years together they adher'd to Felix in opposition to Liberius i. e. during all the Life of Felix for so long Felix liv'd after Liberius was restor'd tho' some say he died in a short time after his Ejectment After Felix's Death being by that time better satisfied concerning Liberius's Faith that tho' he had apostatiz'd by subscribing to the Arians yet now again he was Orthodox they re-unite themselves to him He pardons them for their breaking their Oath as he call'd it they him for his Apostacy It is very remarkable that the famous Damasus who afterwards was himself Pope of Rome was one of those of the Clergy that submitted and adher'd to Felix At that time that Liberius was banish'd he was his Deacon and for some time he accompany'd him in his Banishment But tho' he lov'd him so well and tho' he himself had been sworn with the rest of the Clergy he left him however and return'd to Rome and there submitted to the new Bishop Felix This appears from the Testimony of the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus They add indeed that what he did was through Ambition But that is onely a malitious Insinuation which was very natural to them they being when they wrote the mortal Enemies of Damasus and engag'd in a Schism against him And indeed their whole Book is nothing but a Petition preferr'd to the Emperours against him With this Testimony of Marcellinus and Faustinus as to matter of fact agrees that Tradition of the Pontisical that Damasus was one of those Presbyters that buried the Body of Felix Hence likewise it came to pass That after the Death of Liberius that part of the Clergy that had formerly adher'd to Pope Felix chose Damasus Pope in opposition to Vrsinus or Vrsicinus This appears by the Testimony of an antient Register of the Roman Church as antient as those Times which Onuphrius Panvinius quotes and 't is likewise related by Marcellinus and Faustinus who give this account of that Affair Liberius say they being deceas'd the Presbyters and Deacons Ursinus Amantius and Lupus with the holy People who had continu'd firm to Liberius in his Banishment meet together and Ursinus is chose Bishop in the room of Liberius but the perjur'd Party so they speak as having been themselves Liberians and as being at that time the mortal Enemies of Damasus chose Damasus their Bishop in the room of Felix So firmly had Damasus and the rest of that Party adher'd to Felix that here they say 't was in Felix's room that Damasus was chose Bishop by that Party This I say is highly remarkable that not onely the much greater Part of the Clergy of Rome but likewise the famous and the learned Damasus did not at all doubt of the lawfulness of submitting to the present Orthodox Possessor tho' the Predecessor were never so unjustly depos'd by the Lay-power This was both the Opinion and the Practice of one who is wont to be call'd the Great the Pious and the Orthodox Damasus he that for his Piety has been all along honour'd by the Church as a Saint the Cleri speculúmque decúsque as a Modern Poet calls him That sanctus and beatus Damasus as S. Ambrose and S. Augustine call him That
cannot with any shew of Reason be question'd since 't was easy for the Author to know it by the publick Registeâ—s 5thly I observe that amongst all the antient Writers who have mention'd his succeeding Liberius tho' he governd above a year and tho' they generally mention that the Laity of Rome refus'd to communicate with him yet not a word in any that the Bishops of the District of Rome refus'd to own him for their Metropolitan Had the Bishops of his District refus'd to own him it must needs have made such a noise as that some one or other would have mention'd it 2. That our Felix Ordain'd many Bishops and others is apparent not only from the express Testimony of the Pontifical but likewise from Reason it self since he govern'd as I but now said above the space of a Year and Liberius was in Banishment above two Years Now that all those whom Felix had ordain'd were receiv'd and approv'd of by Liberius when he was agen restor'd is apparent from this That there is not a word in any Author of so much as a Question rais'd against 'em And of this Baronius himself tho' no great Friend of Felix's does not at all doubt I here observe farther First That the Schismatical Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus and the Writer of Onuphrius's Register who likewise liv'd in those days tho' they were all Vrsinians and hated all those that adher'd to Felix yet giving an account what became of the Clergy that adher'd to Felix they onely say that after the death of Felix they had their Perjury pardon'd by Liberius and so were restor'd to their former Stations in the Church They do not say that they were pardon'd or absolv'd for any Sin committed in receiving a second Bishop but that they were pardon'd for their Perjury The other it seems was not reckoned a sin by either Liberius or those Writers Secondly That it appears from the Historian Philostorgius that Felix after he was ejected was still accounted a Bishop Felix says he who in the absence of Liberius had been consecrated Bishop of Rome when Liberius was agen restor'd retir'd to another place enjoying indeed the Honour and Title of a Bishop but without any District There are some of the Moderns as Platina if I well remember and others who say That after he was depos'd at Rome he was made the Bishop of some other Place but that indeed is not true They seem to have been deceiv'd by those words of Theodoret 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. That the Church of Rome and withall the whole Western Church has all along own'd him for one of the true Bishops of Rome appears from all their antient Catalogues Martyrologies and Breviaries By all which it is manifest not onely that they have all along own'd him as a true Bishop of Rome but likewise that they have all along worship'd him as one of their Saints Vt verus Pontifex habetur says the Learned Papebrochius memoratus in omnibus Catalogis Breviariis Martyrologis haclenus in Ecclesia officio proprio colitur Hence it was that those Epistles were forg'd in his Name which are extant in Mercator amongst the Epistles which are forg'd in the Names of the rest of the Popes Hence likewise in the antient Collectors of Canons such as Ivo Carnotensis and Gratian there are extant certain Decrees in his Name as Authentick and good Law taken out of the aforesaid Epistles He is own'd as a Saint and true Pope by the Historians Martinus an Arch-bishop of Poland in the Thirteenth Century Marianus Scotus in the Eleventh Century Albo Floriacensis in the Tenth Anastasius the Librarian and the German Author of the Book de Vitis Pontificum attributed to Luitprandus Bishop of Cremona in the Ninth So likewise in the antient Martyrologies In the genuine Martyrology of our Venerable Bede near 1000 Years ago and in those of Florus and Wandelbertus he is mention'd In others more fully In the Roman publish'd by Baronius Sancti Felicis II. Papae Martyris In that of Vsuardus Natalis Sancti Felicis Papae qui à Constantio Augusto à sede suâ dejectus c. In that of Notkerus Nativitas sancti Felicis Papae Again Ejecit Constantius sanctum Felicem Vrbis Episcopum de sede Episcopatûs sui In that of Ado Arch-bishop of Vienna who flourished in the Ninth Century as did likewise Vsuardus and Notkerus Beati Felicis Pontificis Agen in the same words with Notkerus Ejecit Imp. Constantius c. Agen Depositus sanctus ac beatissimus Papa Felix In that of Rabanus Arch-bishop of Mentz who flourish'd in the beginning of the same Age Passio Felicis Papae Martyris In another ascrib'd to Bede and extant amongst his Works but not truly his S. Felicis Pontificis In the Sacramentarium of Pope Gregory the Great who flourish'd in the Year 590 Beati Felicis Martyris tui atque Pontificis intercessio gloriosa nos protegat To these I add the antient Pontifical which was writ as I said above 1150 Years ago about the Year 534 in which he is mention'd as a Saint and one of the true Popes And here agen I must repeat what has been already observ'd That so great was the Honour which the Church had for him in the time of Pope Damasus that 't is said by the Vrsinian Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus that Damasus was chose not into the room of Liberius but in Felix's place Tho' that cannot be true since as those Presbyters themselves attest those of the Clergy who chose Pope Damasus had after Felix's death been reconcil'd to Liberius and they did not pretend to chuse Damasus till after the decease of Liberius Yet I say it is manifest from that Insinuation that all Damasus's Party that is the Church at least the Clergy of the Church had still a great honour for Felix and still lookt upon him as one of their true Popes As he is own'd for a true Pope by the whole Western Church so likewise in the Eastern by Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople who flourish'd in the Year 806. and that too tho' Nicephorus well knew that he came into the place of Liberius when Liberius was unjustly depos'd by the Emperour In his Chronology as Liberius is reckon'd the 35th Bishop of Rome so our Felix is call'd the 36th To all this I add That among all the antient Writers who have mention'd our Felix his succeeding Liberius there is not so much as one that either says expressly or gives any Hint that upon that account it was not lawfull for the Church of Rome to submit to him or that upon that account he could not be a true Bishop The Schismatical Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus are the onely Writers that have any thing looking that way They say that the Clergy of Rome accepted of Pope Felix contra fas quod minimè decebat cum summo perjurii scelere But it
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-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
Argument proposed by Crakanthorp that he could not find the Life of Eutychius any where but in Surius who he thinks ought not to be trusted I onely observe that as it is generally receiv'd as genuine by the Learned so it carries with it as clear and manifest Characters of Genuineness as any Life extant Concerning the Author of it I have this to add That he was the same with that Eustratius whom Photius entitles Presbyter of the Great Church of Constantinople and whose Treatise concerning the state of the Dead he mentions which Treatise is now extant published by L. Allatius That he was the same I gather from hence that Eustratius the Presbyter who wrote of the State of the Dead not onely discovers as the Worthy and Learned Dr. Cave has observed that he lived in the time of the Patriarch Eutychius but expresses likewise a singular Affection and Veneration for him The geat Eutychius Archbishop of Constantinople that Holy and by me ever-to-be honour'd Person CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius tho' deposed by the Lay-power and tho' he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church I Have mention'd in the foregoing Chapter that Anastasius the Patriarch of Antioch was deposed by the Emperour Iustin the Younger It was done in the fifth Year of Iustin's Reign in the Year of Christ 570. And that it was done barely by the Emperour's Autority without any Synod may easily be gather'd from the account which Evagrius gives of it Iustin says he turn'd Anastasius out of the See of Antioch objecting against him that he had profusely squander'd away the sacred Money upon things not necessary and that he had likewise spoken reproachfully of him that being ask'd why he was so profuse of the sacred Money he answer'd down-right That therefore he had done it that it might not be took away by Justin that common Plague Now it was said that therefore Justin had a spite against Anastasius because when he demanded a summ of Money of him when promoted to the Bishoprick he refused to give it him There were besides the above-mention'd some other things objected against him by some that were willing as we may suppose to gratifie the Emperour in his design The same may be gather'd from the account we have in Theophanes That he was thrust out of his See through the Emperor Justin 's displeasure because he had spoken sharply against John Patriarch of Constantinople who had ordain'd John Patriarch of Alexandria and likewise against John of Alexandria himself Agreeably to this Iohannes Diaconus tells us that he was deposed Potestatibus And Pope Gregory the Great intimates the same thing when he says he was made Patriarch by God but deposed voluntate hominum Tho' such were his Deprivation and tho' as will by and by appear he never gave up his Right and tho' he was a great and admired Bishop of that Age so highly esteem'd and rever'd by all the Bishops of the Catholick Church as that when the Emperor Iustinian had sent about to all Bishops and requir'd 'em to subscribe to his new-fangled Heresie they all unanimously replied That they would follow the Example of Anastasius of Antioch Tho I say he was so great and admired a Person yet 1. I observe that there is not the least mention in any Author of any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by his Deprivation 2. It is certain that Gregory Abbot of Mount Sinai who succeeded him continued Patriarch of Antioch no less than 23 or 24 Years and that too tho' Anastasius was all that while living and was never deprived but died possess'd of the See And after his Death Anastasius was agen restor'd Nicephorus the Patriarch of Constantinople assigns him 24 Years Evagrius 23. 3. It appears from Evagrius that Gregory who accepted of his See was a Person of extraordinary Worth And from thence it appears That the greatest and the worthiest Men did not think it unlawfull or a disparagement to accept of the See of a Bishop deposed by the Lay-power 4. It appears likewise from Evagrius That he was not onely receiv'd as Bishop of Antioch but was highly beloved and honour'd Let us hear what Evagrius says After Anastasius says he Gregory was preferr'd to the Episcopal Throne whose glory according to the Poet is spread far and near He was for Vnderstanding and Vertue and all Accomplishments a very extraordinary Person and in any thing he undertook of an unconquerable Resolution fearless and undaunted and never yielding in any ill or unreasonable thing to the Supreme Powers So liberal and magnificent he was that as often as he came abroad a vast number of Persons besides his own proper Attendants were wont to wait on him And as soon as any perceiv'd him or heard that he was a coming they immediately flock'd in to attend him And so highly was he honour'd that the Honour which is usually paid to the Emperors themselves was less than that which was paid to him Evagrius adds much more in his praise and tells us That he was admired not onely by the Christian but likewise by the Persian Emperors c. He tells us likewise how by his great Autority he appeas'd a whole Army that mutinied against their Commanders In his Speech to that Army I am says he by the Grace of God a Bishop and have the power of binding and loosing both in Heaven and in Earth Evagrius adds That he appeased God by Prayers and Supplications This Action of the Patriarch Gregory is recorded likewise by another Historian of that Age Theophylactus Simocattes Philippicus says he was receiv'd by the Army Gregory the then Archbishop of Antioch having reconciled it to him 5. To this Patriarch our Historian Evagrius was himself Assessor or Chancellor Tho' it appears by that great Character which he gives the former Patriarch Anastasius that he highly honour'd and esteem'd him yet he readily acknowleges the present Possessor and acts as Assessor or Chancellor under him as the true Patriarch There was no one doubted of the lawfulness of it 6. He was likewise acknowleg'd by S. Symeon Stylites the latter of that name as appears from Evagrius who speaks of a Prophecy which
Treatises which Photius has given us a large account of abundantly testifie The fourth Saint is the Patriarch of Constantinople Iohn Nesteutes who is worshipt as a Saint by the Greek Church and had doubtless been worshipt in the same manner by the Latins if his styling himself Vniversal Bishop had not excited the Church of Rome against him which could never endure that any Bishop should pretend to be equal to the Pope of Rome This great Man was so far from being likely to comply for fear with what he thought unlawfull that there was not a Man in that Age more mortified to the World than he was When he was first made Patriarch it was utterly against his Will as we may learn from the Epistles of Pope Gregory the Great He was so given to Mortification and Fasting that from thence he had his Sir-name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He always went in a very mean Habit and was so far from being desirous of Riches that when he died he left behind him nothing but a wooden Bed on which he was wont to lie a woollen Coverlet of no value with a poor plain Cloak This account Theophylactus Simocattes a Writer of that Age gives of him Who adds That after his Death the Emperor Mauricius took this Bed Coverlet and Cloak of his and kept 'em as pretious Relicks preferring 'em before things of the greatest value and was wont in the Lent-time instead of his own rich Bed to make use onely of that as believing that that would convey to him Divine Grace This Patriarch says the same Author was a Person endow'd with the highest Degree of Divine Knowlege and advanced to the very heighth of Vertue c. Sophronius Patriarch of Ierusalem mentions one Iohn Patriarch of Constantinople Sir-named Cappadox from the Countrey where he was born whom he calls the Habitation of Vertue Some think him to be the same with our Iohn Nesteutes but in that I think they are mistaken for Iohn Nesteutes was never Sir-nam'd Cappadox He of whom Sophronius speaks was the Successor of Timotheus and the Predecessor of Epiphanius Patriarchs of Constantinople yet the great Elogium that he gives him makes nevertheless for our Cause For 't was he that communicated with Iohn Patriarch of Ierusalem who was put into the place of Elias unjustly deposed by the Emperor Anastasius and who himself had been Syncellus which before I had forgot to mention to Timotheus Patriarch of Constantinople who was put into the place of Macedonius unjustly deposed by the same Emperor See Page 134. and add that Paragraph here CHAP. XII S. Martin Pope of Rome being deposed without any Synod and banish'd by the Heretical Emperor Constans tho' he never resign'd yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome tho' at the same time they were zealous Asserters 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 IN the Year 642 Pyrrhus the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople is said to have been deposed by the Senate and People of Constantinople being suspected to have poison'd the Emperor Constantine the Son of Heraclius and Paul himself likewise a Monothelite being ordain'd in his stead was receiv'd as a true Patriarch by all the Monothelites But tho' it is generally said that the Patriarch Pyrrhus was deposed yet I find upon strict enquiry that he was not actually deposed but that being sure that he should be deposed to avoid greater Mischiefs he himself resign'd his Dignity This Instance therefore I pass by In the Year 654 S. Martin Pope of Rome was violently deposed by the Emperor Constans His Crime no other but that by a Synod call'd at Rome he had asserted the Orthodox Faith and had condemn'd the Heresy of the Monothelites whose Cause the Emperor had espous'd But that which they alleged against him was That he had enter'd into a Confederacy with the Saracens and others of the Emperors Enemies and had spoken somewhat I know not what to the dishonour of the Virgin Mary That there was no Synod concern'd in the Matter is very notorious Let us hear what he himself says of the Circumstances of his Expulsion in his Epistle to Theodorus Spudeus who had sent to him then at Constantinople about it He tells Theodorus That Calliopas the Hexarch of Ravenna came to Rome with his Army and together with his Souldiers enter'd into the Church where he himself lay sick before the Altar and there deliver'd to the Clergy the Presbyters and the Deacons the Emperor's Command by which he was declar'd unworthy to govern any longer and they were requir'd to elect a new Bishop in his stead Then they took him by violence and carried him away privately to a Ship and so after some time to Constantinople What happen'd to him at Constantinople and what became of him afterwards we learn from an Anonymous Author who was at the same time at Constantinople and sent a particular account of all things to Rome whose Epistle is in the Tomes of the Councils falsly ascribed to Anastasius Bibliothecarius who was onely the Translator He tells us that S. Martin was there tried by a Court of Judicature consisting of Senators of which one Troilus the Sacellarius a great Officer of the Emperor's Court was President By which he was condemn'd to die for conspiring as was prov'd by false Witnesses against the Government But afterwards by the Intercession of Paul Patriarch of Constantinople who tho' his Adversary and a Monothelite could not but pity him for the extremely barbarous Usage which he met with after his Condemnation his Life was spared And he was banish'd to Cherso a Town upon the Lake Meotis where he died The same account we have in his Life which is extant in Surius But that Life was compiled out of this Anonymous Epistle and out of the Popes own Epistles and the Pontifical not composed by a Writer who lived at that time as Surius imagined Those words from whence Surius gather'd that the Author lived at that time were injudiciously transcribed by the Compiler out of this Anonymous Author Tho' such were the Circumstances of S. Martin's Deprivation tho' he was deposed by the Lay-power and not onely so but likewise by such as were Hereticks tho' he was so much beloved by his Clergy as that when he was feiz'd by the Hexarch Calliopas some of 'em advised him to make opposition and others cried out that they would live and die with him tho' besides all this it is certain that he never resign'd nor gave his consent that the Clergy should choose another in his room which appears as well from the particular account which he himself gives of his being seiz'd and carried away as
that refused to Communicate with Atticus even after S. Chrysostom's Name was inserted in the Diptychs they refused to Communicate even with his Successor Sisinnius they refused likewise to communicate with Sisinnius's Successor Proclus But observe what follows when the Patriarch Proclus had ordered S. Chrysostom's Body to be brought to Constantinople and there to be honourably interred which was three and thirty Years after his Deprivation then the Breach was all made up they were all contented and submitted freely to Proclus What was this but to be governed by Passion What Alteration could be made in the Nature of the thing by bringing S. Chrysostom's Body to Constantinople 'T is moreover observable that the Ioannites of Constantinople fell off from the Communion of the Church before there was any one ordain'd in his place and before S. Chrysostom was carried away from Constantinople This appears from the Testimony of Socrates The Emperor says he sent Chrysostom word that himself could not go to Church if he who had been deposed by two Synods were there On that Account Chrysostom went no more to the Church Then all that were of his Party forsook the Church and celebrated the Feast of Easter in the publick Baths of Constantius With them there were many Bishops and Presbyters and other Ecclesiastical Persons who because they kept separate Meetings were call'd JOANNITES To all this I add that Sozomen tells us that the reason why the Ioannites refused to Communicate with Arsacius after Chrysostom was carried away and He made Patriarch was not because they thought it unlawful to Communicate with him but because in his Congregations there were some of Chrysostom's Deposers Among those that received Atticus into Communion upon his inserting S. Chrysostom's Name in the Diptychs was P. Innocent of Rome together with the rest of those Western Bishops who had been kept by his Autority from Communicating with Atticus P. Innocent in his Epistle to the Clergy and People of Constantinople had said that a Bishop unjustly constituted cannot be a Bishop but words are oftentimes rashly spoken 't is Practice that best expresses the true and genuine Sentiments of the Heart And the Pope's Practice was contrary to that Saying If Atticus was no Bishop because unjustly constituted how could he be a Bishop afterwards without a New Ordination yet afterwards he is own'd by the Pope and that too without being confirmed by any Council by Vertue of the Orders conferr'd upon him while Chrysostom was living I must here observe that the chief Reasons why the Pope declared so zealously for S. Chrysostom seems to be this because Theophilus of Alexandria his taking upon him to depose a Patriarch of Constantinople was a great Presumption and a Derogation from the Grandeur of the See of Rome The Pope therefore was obliged to oppose him And hence it came to pass that he only desired that S. Chrysostom's Name should be restored to the Diptychs For by that the Patriarch Atticus own'd that S. Chrysostom was not justly or validly deprived That was all the Pope aim'd at It is also observable that P. Innocent when he proposed that S. Chrysostom's Name should be restored to the Diptychs of the Church of Constantinople and of the other Churches of the East does not at all insist on this that Arsacius's Name who was made Patriarch while Chrysostom was living and died before him should be struck out No tho' such were his Circumstances yet the Pope was well contented that his Name should be recited in the Churches as one of the true Patriarchs of Constantinople 3. It is to be observed that a very great part of the Catholick Church receiv'd and communicated with Arsacius and Atticus tho' at the same time they own'd that S. Chrysostom was unjustly deposed and that too whilst S. Chrysostom was still living 1. Maximianus a Bishop of Macedonia one of S. Chrysostom's great Friends and one to whom he wrote some Epistles whilst he was in Banishment sent to P. Innocent to desire him to receive the Patriarch Atticus into Communion 'T is true this was after S. Chrysostom's Death yet it shews that he was not of Opinion that Atticus's Ordination was Null because ordain'd while Chrysostom was living 2. That the Patriarch Atticus was owned and received by all the African Church appears from the Code of the Canons of that Church Let us send says Alypius one of the Bishops of the Council of Africa to our most holy Brother the Bishop of Constantinople for a Copy of the Nicene Canons Accordingly they did so and the Patriarch Atticus's Answer to them is still extant The same Church in her Epistle to P. Celestine calls Atticus the venerable Bishop of Constantinople and Liberatus a Deacon of that Church where he mentions him gives him the Title of Beatus Atticus So by Marius Mercator who also seems to have been of Africa he is styled sanctae memoriae Atticus Episcopus again sanctus ille Vir. I Grant that these Testimonies of the Church of Africa were after S. Chrysostom's Death but withall it must be observ'd that as they shew that the Church allowed of his Ordination so it does not by any means appear that that Church was ever concerned for S. Chrysostom or ever declin'd Atticus's Communion whilst S. Chrysostom was living tho' it cannot be doubted but that they accounted S. Chrysostom unjustly deposed That the African Church did not side with P. Innocent against the Patriarch Atticus and those that Communicated with him appears moreover from a Decree of one of the Synods of that Church by which the Church orders that a Letter should be sent to P. Innocent to reconcile the two Churches of Rome and Alexandria that there might be Peace between 'em as the Lord had commanded This Decree was made in the Year 407. 3. 'T is expresly attested by Theodoret that the greatest part of the Eastern Bishops esteemed S. Chrysostom ' s Deprivation unjust yet did not break the Peace of the Church on his Account And this express Testimony I desire the Vindicator would be pleased to take notice of who tells us that he believes we can give no Instances of any who thought S. Chrysostom unjustly deprived but who were Joannites and therefore separated from the Communion of his Deprivers One would wonder how so learned a Man should be ignorant of a thing so obvious 4. 'T is asserted by S. Nicon who flourished above Seven hundred years ago in a Treatise concerning Schismaticks and Schism not yet published taken I suppose cut of his Pandects that the Monks of Egypt a vast Body of Men and exceedingly pious accounted S. Chrysostom's Deprivation unjust yet never separated from the Communion of their Patriarch Theophilus and consequently not from the Communion of Arsacius and Atticus Patriarchs of Constantinople In the same words S. Nicon plainly discovers what his opinion was He speaks of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation
on the account of his Faith because he was a great Enemy of the Arians and a great Defender of the Orthodox Faith Hence it is that he is wont to be honour'd with the Title of Martyr and Confessor Theodoret tells us that the Orthodox Bishops who were present in that Synod were against his Deprivation and perswaded him not to submit to the Sentence pass'd upon him Neither did he submit for those that had condemn'd him were forc'd to apply themselves to the Emperor to desire him to execute their Sentence and to banish him from Antioch Which was accordingly done Tho' Eustathius was so unjustly and invalidly deposed yet 1. I observe that the Orthodox Party of Antioch did not separate from his Successors because he had been invalidly deprived but because they accounted them Arians That this was the Cause of their Separation is expressly asserted by Theodoret. Having said that Eulalius Euphronius and Flaccillus were made Bishops of Antioch successively in Eustathius's room he adds All these were inwardly Arians and on that account the greatest part of the Orthodox both Clergy and Laity left the Churches and met together in Conventicles and were call'd Eustathians because they began after he was carried away Socrates tells us that after Eustathius was deposed there was a great Sedition in Antioch one part of the City being for Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea and others desiring that Eustathius should be restor'd He adds That Eusebius refusing to accept of the Bishoprick of Antioch the Seditions ceas'd No wonder if the People were for the restauration of their old Bishop since there was not any other then in his See No wonder if they were so much against Eusebius's being made Bishop since he as is very notorious was accounted an Arian 2dly I observe that Eustathius being in Banishment continu'd to take care of the Orthodox of Antioch as their Bishop as much as he could at so great a distance as long as those that were put into his place were Arians But as soon as Meletius an Orthodox Person was made Bishop in his room he peaceably gave over and never concern'd himself any more as a Bishop of Antioch 'T is observ'd by Photius Patriarch of Constantinople in a Treatise not yet publish'd that Meletius tho' he had receiv'd his Orders from Arians and tho' Eustathius was still living was however own'd by the Church as a true Patriarch of Antioch The holy Meletius says he was ordain'd Bishop of Sebastia by the Arians and by the Arians likewise was translated from thence to Berrhoea and afterwards to Antioch S. Eustathius being thrust out of that See for his Orthodoxy But nothing of all this prov'd a prejudice to him not his being translated from one See to another not his being advanced to Eustathius ' s Throne when he was banish'd for his Piety and still living nor his being ordain'd by Arians But because he adher'd to the Orthodox Faith he was readily receiv'd by the Church and is honour'd among the chief of the holy Fathers He it was that ordain'd Chrysostom Deacon and the great Basil Presbyter as we learn from Socrates ' s Ecclesiastical History and from S. Amphilochius ' s Oration concerning S. Basil. That S. Basil and S. Chrysostom were ordain'd by Meletius and that the old Patriarch Eustathius was living when Meletius was made Patriarch of Antioch is likewise observ'd by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise But that Eustathius was living when Meletius was made Patriarch of Antioch is positively denied by some of our Answerers I had observ'd in my Notes on that Treatise that Socrates and Sozomen expressly attest that Eustathius was alive in the third Consulship of Valentinianus and Valens i. e. A. D. 370. which was long after Meletius was made Patriarch that he had been recall'd from Banishment by the Emp. Iovian that he was on that Year at Constantinople where he Ordain'd Evagrius the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople in opposition to Demophilus the Arian and was agen banish'd by the Emperor Valens to Bizua in Thrace I observ'd that the Arguments produced by Baronius and Valesius to shew that Eustathius died before Valesius was made Patriarch and that Socrates and Sozomen mistook Eustathius of Antioch for Eustathius of Sebastia are not of so great weight as to be laid in the Balance against so express and particular an account as those Authors give us To this says one of our Answerers I must confess that Eustathius as the Editor observes against Valesius might have lived to the third Consulship of Valentinianus and Valens for then he had not been above 90 Years of Age. But is this the Argument of Baronius or doth Valesius produce no other Had he lookt into the Annals An. 370. he would have found that Baronius thought it absurd to imagin that the Orthodox Bishops and Catholick People of Antioch would have suffer'd Meletius or Paulinus to have sate in that Chair had Eustathius been alive That 't is incredible he should not repair to Antioch and appear in the Catholick Synod at that time and folly to fansie that Meletius and Paulinus would not have given place to him and to put an end to the Schism in that Church And Valesius proves from S. Ierom that Eustathius of Antioch was buried at Trajanople in Thrace to which place he was banish'd by Constantine and therefore could not be that Eustathius who was banish'd by Valens to Bizna in Thrace But these are Arguments not very favourable to the Editor's Designs and therefore must be shuffled over and conceal'd So that we have a full Testimony of Theodoret who wrote his History to supply the Defects and correct the Mistakes of Socrates and Sozomen and says that Eustathius was dead before Meletius was made Patriarch and likewise the Autority of S. Ierom against a senseless surmise of one single Socrates for Sozomen transcribes him who was neither so accurate nor judicious as either of the other two c. Thus much our Author But notwithstanding his Sufficiency and Confidence I still assert that Eustathius was living when Meletius was made Patriarch of Antioch First As for the Testimony of S. Ierom it might very well be so as he says and yet so as Socrates says too For Eustathius tho banish'd by Valens to Bizua might be buried at Trajanople And since that Eustathius whom Socrates mentions was banish'd into Thrace where S. Ierom and S. Chrysostom say Eustathius of Antioch lay buried even from thence it appears probable that it was the same Eustathius 2. The Autority of Theodoret is much less than that of Socrates That Eustathius was dead when Meletius was made Patriarch might be said onely by Conjecture But to tell such a particular Story as Socrates does concerning his being alive after that argues a particular Knowlege And as for Theodoret his being so much a better Historian than Socrates our Author might have learnt from Valesius
with Death The Bishops however refused to subscribe and so he was made Pope without any consent of theirs But after he was Ordain'd says the Author of the Pontifical they subscrib'd for the sake of the Vnity of the Church and of Religion Tho' the Synod of C P. before whom the Patriarch Alexius was accused for his having been promoted to that Dignity by the bare autority of the Emperour without the Votes of the Clergy lookt upon his Promotion to be altogether unlawfull yet when he pleaded that he had Ordain'd many Bishops and that if they depriv'd him they must likewise deprive all those whom he had Ordain'd upon that bare Consideration because to Deprive so many was likely to occasion a great Disturbance in the Church they over-ruled the Accusation and determin'd nothing against him When Calendion was made Patriarch of Antioch by the Emperor Zeno and Ordain'd by Acacius the Patriarch of C P. tho' that was unlawfull by the Canâ—ns of the Council of Nice and directly contrary to the constant Custom of the Catholick Church yet because it was done as the Emperour and Acacius alleg'd to avoid Seditions in Antioch the Proceeding was approv'd of by Simplicius Bishop of Rome Tho' I wish says he that it had not been done yet I easily excused it because it was done through Necessity For that which is not voluntary i.e. that which is done onely for Convenience or Necessity 's sake cannot be imputed as a Fault These Examples and Autorities may serve to shew in general That there are no Laws or Customs of the Church so sacred but what our Wise Forefathers thought ought to be postpon'd to the present Welfare and Prosperity of it That the same was their Opinion in reference to our particular Case We shall hereafter shew in its due Place § 4. Our Proposition being thus establish'd on that sure Maxim acknowledg'd as has been shewn by the Antients That whatsoever is necessary for the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church that ought to be made use of provided that it is not in it self Sinfull and that 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 There are two Things which I am oblig'd to make out First That the Submitting to a Bishop put into the place of another unjustly Depos'd by the Civil Autority is not in itself Sinfull And 2dly That the ill Consequences to which it is liable are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid § 5. First It is not in it self Sinfull For if it is so it must be so for one or more of these following Reasons Either first because it is forbidden by some express Law of God Or 2dly because it makes us Accomplices in the Injustice Or 3dly because of the Oath of Canonical Obedience which the inferior Clergy have taken to their Bishop and the inferior Bishops to their Archbishop Or lastly because as one of our Adversaries the learned Vindicator contends such a Bishop as is placed in the room of one Deposed by the Civil Autority is in reality no Bishop These Objections I shall consider distinctly § 6. First It is not against any Law of God For as to our Case the Scripture is altogether silent 'T is true it Commands us to be obedient to our Governors and that Command reaches as well to the Spiritual as to the Temporal But when there are two that stand Competitors and both claim our Obedience to which of those two our Obedience ought to be paid it leaves to our Wisdom to determine § 7. Neither 2dly does it make us Accomplices in the Injustice For if a Landlord be unjustly and invalidly dispossess'd of his Estate by an Incompetent Autority Who thinks the Tenant an Accomplice in the Injustice because he pays his Rent to the present Possessor Should the Clergy refuse to submit to the Bishops in possession it could onely serve to draw down Ruin upon themselves It cannot restore those whom the State has deposed It is not our Submitting to the present Possessors that ejects the former for they are already irretrievably Depos'd since the Supreme Power is peremptory against ' em That has publickly declar'd that whoever are our Bishops the old ones shall govern us no longer If we think the Proceeding unjust 't is enough that we remonstrate against it and express our dissatisfaction If that will not doe the Good of the Publick obliges us to be quiet § 8. Neither Thirdly is it sinfull on the account of the Oath of Canonical Obedience For that is taken not absolutely and unconditionally but with this Supposition That the Bishop to whom we take it has power to govern us If I take an Oath to be faithfull or obedient to a Governour whether Civil or Ecclesiastical I engage my self to him as a Governour that is as one that can govern If therefore he can no longer govern whatsoever the Impediment is my Obedience is no longer engag'd As it is in the State so it is in the Church The Oath that is taken to a Bishop as he is the Governour of a Church is not taken for the sake of the Bishop but for the Peace and good Order of the Church 'T is this was the Design of the Church when she order'd such an Oath to be taken When therefore the Oath tends no longer to the Good of the Church but notoriously to Schism Disorder and Confusion it cannot any longer oblige but is void of it self by virtue of the Church's Intent and Design in the first Institution of it It is further to be consider'd that particularly here in the Church of England the Oath of Canonical Obedience is always taken with this Supposition That the Civil Power as well as the Ecclesiastical do allow the Bishop to govern But let us suppose even that which in reason we ought not to suppose Let us suppose that the Bishop intended that the Oath should always oblige Whatsoever was the Intent of the Bishop That was not the Intent of the Church And it is the Intent of the Church not the private Intent of the Bishop that gives an Obligation to the Oath I add That should it be both the Intent of the Bishop and likewise the Intent of the Person who takes the Oath that it should always oblige should it run in these express words I will always adhere to you if Depos'd by the Civil Autority in opposition to him whosoever he be that shall be put into your place Should any one I say take such an Oath as that yet he cannot be oblig'd by it The Oath is in it self unlawfull 't is a Sin against the Publick repugnant to the Will and the Welfare of the Church It would be in effect to swear thus I will for your sake oppose the Welfare
of the Publick and break the Vnion of the Church I will leave the Communion of the Church and adhere to you tho' I have not any Reason to do so besides this bare Oath To conclude Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's interest so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils is so far from being obliging that it would be a Sin to act according to it It is granted by our Adversaries that the Obligation of an Oath of Canonical Obedience ceases if a Bishop is depriv'd tho' never so unjustly by a Synod Now what is the Reason of that 'T is because to adhere to a Bishop when a Synod has fully deposed him and placed another in his See must occasion a Division in the Church and disturb the Publick If that is the Reason as no one can assign any other at least there can be none but what is grounded on that then the Reason is the same in both Cases and consequently in both Cases tho Oath will be equally void 'T is in vain to allege That in the Case of a Synod we cease to be obliged by our Oath because every Bishop is suppos'd to have obliged himself to submit to the Determination of a Synod whether just or unjust and therefore when a Synod has Deposed him tho' by an unjust sentence his Place is truly void by virtue of his supposed Consent For suppose a Bishop should have always declar'd that he never would give his Consent that a Synod should have Power to Depose him by an unjust Sentence ought we not however to submit to the new Constituted Bishop Our Adversaries will tell us that we ought But why 'T is because the Necessity of Government and the Peace of the Church requires it Well then it is certain that it is not the Bishop's Consent but Necessity and the Good of the Publick that makes our Oath void Tho' in some Respects there is a great deal of Difference between what is done by a competent or a lawfull Autority and what is done by an incompetent or an unlawfull Autority yet as to our Acquiescence in a Case of Necessity such as is here supposed I can see no Difference at all The Obligation to acquiesce is the same in both Cases when in both Cases the Necessity is the same If a Lord be dispossess'd of his Mannor by an Incompetent Autority that cannot be resisted a Conqueror suppose or an unlawfull Court Who thinks the Tenant forsworn for submitting to the new Possessor Who makes any difference there between a Competent and an Incompetent Autority And why is the Tenant in such a Case not forsworn If he cannot or ought not to oppose the Intruder yet ought he not at least to give up his Estate rather than submit and do Homage to the wrong Lord 'T will be granted I presume by our Adversaries that he is neither obliged to oppose the Intruder nor yet to give up his Estate But why does the Oath which he took to the rightfull Lord cease to oblige him 'T is because when he took the Oath he took it onely on this Supposition That the Lord was Possess'd of the Mannor The Peace and Tranquility of the Publick and the Good of Tenants in general give that Restriction to the Oath If the Bishop of a Frontier Town will not own the Autority of a Conqueror and is therefore Deposed by that Conqueror I desire to know of our Adversaries whether the Clergy of that Town are perjur'd if they own that Bishop whom the Conqueror thinks fit to set over ' em If a Bishop should by the Civil Power be condemn'd to perpetual and close Imprisonment or be banish'd forover from his Country so as that it is impossible for him to perform the Duties of a Bishop or should he be carried away Captive we know not where or from whence we cannot redeem him What then Are we still obliged by our Oath because he was Deposed by no Synod When in the Beginning of the 3d. Century Narcissus Bishop of Ierusalem had secretly withdrawn himself and no Body knew what was become of him left the Church should be without the Assistance of a Bishop there was presently a new one Ordain'd How their Bishop was lost they knew not 'T was enough that he was gone and did not any longer Officiate The Church says S. Chrysostom cannot be without a Bishop That he said to his People when he himself was to be carried away into Banishment and on that account he advises 'em to accept of another for their Bishop I easily foresee what will be the Reply of our Adversaries They will tell us That in such Cases we ought to presume that the Bishop gives his Consent that his Successor should be acknowledged That therefore the Oath does no longer oblige because there is a rational Presumption that the banish'd the imprison'd or the captive Bishop and He of the Frontier Town do remit the Obligation of it To this I answer 1. It is indeed to be presum'd that a good Bishop one that can say with S. Gregory then Bishop of C P. I seek not yours but you will readily forego his own Interest for the Welfare and Prosperity of his Flock And since our ejected Bishops who are I am fully perswaded very worthy and good Men and real Lovers of their People have never by any publick signification of their Will laid claim to the Obedience of their People and do not now exercise their Episcopal Power as before in reason we ought to presume that they give their Consent that their Successors should be acknowledged But 2dly let it be supposed that the outed Governor does expresly assure his Inferiors that he does not give his Consent but still lays Claim to their Obedience Suppose the conquer'd the banish'd the imprison'd or the captive Bishop should charge his People expresly upon their Oath never to accept of any other Bishop as long as by the common Course of Nature he himself may be supposed to be living or till they be assur'd he is dead Let this I say be supposed and easy it is to be supposed What must be done in such Cases Is the Church perjur'd if she accepts of another Will our Adversaries say that she is A hard Saying Who can bear it This Presumption of the ejected Governor's Consent is I know what is commonly alleg'd by some very learned and otherwise judicious Men as the true and the onely foundation of Acquiescence when the lawfull Governor is unjustly Depos'd by a Power incompetent But that that is not the true and the onely foundation these Difficulties which I have alleg'd do me thinks abundantly demonstrate Other Men I must leave to their own ways of Thinking For my part I cannot imagine that the Welfare and Prosperity of Mankind does depend upon so ticklish and uncertain a Point as that of an ejected Governor's Consent That if he refuses to give his Consent all the Church or the
Nation must be made a Sacrifice to him It is easy to discover upon how false a Principle that Notion is built It is grounded on this That the Oath that is taken to the Governor is taken onely for his sake when if the true End and Design of Government were duely and impartially consider'd it would be found as above I observ'd that the Oath that is taken to the Governor is taken not onely for his Good but chiefly for the Good of the Publick and that any Oath taken to a Governor that is notoriously and in a high degree repugnant to the Good and Prosperity of the Publick so as to be necessarily productive of intolerable Evils is in its own Nature void because by the Publick it was never design'd that in such a Case it should oblige By the Author of a Treatise entitled Vnity of Priesthood necessary to the Vnity of Communion there are two Examples produced to shew how observant the Antients were of their Oath of Canonical Obedience which the Author calls eminent Instances and proposes 'em to the Consideration of the Bishops of our Church and wishes they would seriously apply ' em The first is that of Ivo Bishop of Chartres in France who flourish'd about 600 years ago He being one of the Suffragans of the Archbishop of Sens was desired by the Bishop of Lyons who was likewise the Pope's Legate to assist him at the Consecration of the Bishop of Nivers But the Bishop of Nivers being a Suffragan to the said Archbishop of Sens and that Archbishop having never given his Consent that the Bishop of Lyons should Ordain a Bishop of his District Ivo refuses to assist at the Consecration And this is the reason he gives for it Because if he should engage in such an undertaking he should be unfaithfull to his own Metropolitan and betray the Privileges allow'd that Church by the Canons as a Metropolitical Church which by Oath he was oblig'd to maintain Reus fieret violatae sponsionis quam Sedi Metropolitanae fecerat If the Archbishop of York had pretended to Constitute a Bishop of the Province of Canterbury without the Consent of the Archbishop of Canterbury and a Suffragan of the Province of Canterbury had assisted in that Ordination our Bishops would then have been able to apply this eminent Instance But as the Case stands they know not I believe how to do it And the Author is desired that he himself if he can would be pleas'd to apply it The other Instance is that of the Bishops of our own Country in the Reign of William II. There arising a great Difference between the King and Anselm Archbishop of Canterbury about acknowledging the Pope Whether the Archbishop could lawfully do it without the King's Consent The Matter was referr'd to the Parliament and the Bishops being by the King requir'd to deprive the Archbishop they answer'd saith Eadmerus That that they could not do because he was their Metropolitan 'T is hard to conjecture what our Author intended by proposing this Example as worthy Consideration unless it be that an Archbishop of Canterbury should be now above all Deprivation He contends in his Treatise that a Bishop ought not to be Deprived but by Bishops and hereby producing this Example if he means anything at all he intimates That an Archbishop cannot be Deprived by the Bishops his Suffragans because of their Oath of Obedience But whatever was our Author's meaning certain it is that it was not because of the Oath of Obedience that the Bishops refus'd to Deprive Anselm as the King would have had 'em but because they had at that time an Opinion amongst 'em that a Primate or Metropolitan could be judg'd and depriv'd by no one but the Pope So far were they from thinking themselves oblig'd by their Oath not to Deprive him that it 's very notorious that tho' he was not Depriv'd yet they threw off all Obedience and renounced their Subjection to him § 9. We are next to consider that Objection which is made by the learned Vindicator That a Bishop put into the place of another deposed by the Lay-power is in reality no Bishop If this is true then it must be granted that we cannot be oblig'd for the sake of Union and Peace to adhere to the present Possessor This indeed is the Difference between our Civil and our Ecclesiastical Governors The former are purely Governors and nothing more is required in them but to be capable of Governing The latter are not onely Governors but are likewise the Administrators of Sacraments and the sole Ordainers of the Clergy It is therefore necessary not onely that the Ecclesiastical Governor should be duly qualified for Government but that he should be likewise endued by God Almighty with the Power of Ordaining and of administring the holy Sacraments Thus much must be granted Let us now see what Argument the Vindicator can produce to degrade our present Possessors and to prove 'em no Bishops It is nothing but a Saying of S. Cyprian that is nothing at all to his Purpose The Saying is this That a second Bishop is no Bishop 'T is strange methinks that so great and so worthy a Man should pretend to raise so great and so extraordinary a Structure upon so weak a Foundation The Occasion of the Saying was this Novatian a private Presbyter had rais'd a Schism against Cornelius the lawfull Bishop of Rome he had got himself to be ordain'd Bishop tho' Cornelius had never been depos'd was still the Possessor and acknowledg'd the true and the onely Bishop of Rome by all the Churches of the World both the Western the Eastern and the African and Novatian was by all condemn'd as a rank and notorious Schismatick S. Cyprian who was always very zealous for the Unity of the Church thus expresses himself in his Epistle to Antonianus concerning him Cornelius says he being possess'd of the See according to the Will of God and confirm'd in it by the Consent of us all whoever would now be a Bishop of that See must needs be out of the Church neither can he have any Ecclesiastical Orders who does not continue in Vnity with the Church Whosoever he is whatsoever he may boast of himself or pretend to he is a prophane Person an Alien and not of the Church And since there cannot be a second Bishop where another is already in possession whosoever is made Bishop after another who ought to be alone he is not a second but none This is the place out of which the learned Vindicator is pleas'd to draw his Argument with how Logical an Inference the judicious Reader may see 'T is strange that That excellent Person should be so much blinded with Prejudice as not to be able to discover how vast a difference there is between the Case of our present Bishops and that of which S. Cyprian discourses Had Cornelius been deposed by the Emperor for refusing to acknowledge his
(d) Synesius Epist. 67. (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (g) S. Silverius levatus est à Theodato Tyranno sine deliberatione Decreti qui Theodatus corruptus pecuniâ datâ talem timorem induxit Clero ut qui non consentiret in ejus Ordinationem glâ—dio puniretur Qui quidem Sacerdotes non subscripserunt in eum secundum morem antiquum vel Decretum confirmaverunt ante Ordinationem Iam vero ordinato sub vi metu Silverio propter adunationem Ecclesiae Religionis postmodum sic subscripserunt Episcopi (h) Zonaras Annal. p. 190. (a) Simplicius Papa in Epist. ad Zenonem Imp. * By which it is enacted That all Bishops should be Ordain'd by Bishops of their respective Provinces Can. 4. (b) Epist. 16. ad Acacium Quod sicut non optavimus ficri ita faciles excusationi quam necessitas fecit exstitimus quia quod voluntarium non est non potest vocari in râ—atum * Euseb. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 10. * Orat. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * In those days the Pope's power of Ordaining Bishops in another District without the Consent of the Metropolitan was not own'd by the Western Church (a) Dolemus quod animo tuo Domine satisfacere non valemus Primas est non modo istius regni sed Scotiae Hiberniâ—e necnon adjacentium Infularum nosque Suffraganei ejus unde patet nos rationabiliter eum judicare vel damnare nullatenus posse etiamsi aliqua culpa in eo quâ—e modo non valet possit ostendi P 30. (b) They had before promis'd the King to Deprive Anselm but I know not how on a suddain they took up that Opinion which before was never heard of amongst the Bishops of England Protinus intellexerunt saith Eadmerus who was there present quod prius non animadverterunt nec ipsum advertere posse putaverant viz. Archiepiscopum Cant. à nullo hominum nisi à solo Papâ judicari posse vel damnari nec ab aliquo cogi pro quâvis calumniâ cuiquam eo excepto contra suum Velle respondere P. 29. (c) Ait Rex Quid igitur restat Si eum judicare non potestis nonne saâ—em omnis obedientiae fidem ac frarernae societatis amicitiam ei denegare potesâ—is Hot quidem inqulunt quoniam jubes facere possumus Properate igitur quod dicitis citiâ—â— facits ut cum viderit se à cunctis despectum ac desolatum verecumdetur ingemiscat se Urbanum me Domino suo contempto secutum Et quo ista securius faciatis En ego priúm in imperio meo penitùs ei omnem securitatem siduciam mei tollo ac deinceps in illo vel de illo nulla in causà considere vel eum pro Archiepiscopo aut Patre spirituali tenere volo Sociatis sibi Abbatibus adds Eadmerus Episcopi retulerunt Patri quod dixerat Rex suam pro voto illius abnegationem ingerentes Cum propterea answers the Archbishop quod me ad B. Petri Principis Apostolorum subjectionem ac fidelitatem teneo mihi omnem subjectionem fidem amicitiam quam Primati vestro Patri spirituali debetis abnegatis non reclè proceditis (a) Epist. 55. Quo gradu Cathedrâ—e Sacerdotalis occupato de Dei voluntate atque omnium nostrûm consensione firmato quisquis jam Episcopus fiâ—ri voluevit foris fiat necesse est nec habeat Ecclesiasticam Ordinationem qui Ecclesiae non tenet unitatem quisquis ille suerit multum de se licet jactans sibi plurimum vindicans profanus est alienus est foris est Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat factus est non jam secundus ille sed nullus est * The Roman Clergy for that reason deferr'd the Election of Cornelius above 16 Months as they tell S. Cyprian in a Letter but as soon as the Emperor had left Rome they chose Cornelius Bishop (a) After he had been High-priest 40 years viz. during all the Reign of King David (b) And the King pur Benaiah in the room of Ioab over the Host and Zadok the Priest did the King put in the room of Abiathar 1 Kings 11.35 (c) L. 20. c. 8. He does not speak thus in express Terms but to a considering Reader that knows the Story of Abiathar's being deposed by King Solomon it will plainly appear to be his meaning * Tho' Phineas's Posterity were put by when Ithamar's obtain'd the High-priesthood yet we ought not to conclude from thence as the Rabbies usually do That Phineas himself was deposed For it might be done after his death (d) Unity of Priesthood c. p. 34 35. The Crime being Capital and the High-priest the Criminal we may well conclude That before Solomon thrust him from the Priesthood the Sanhedrin had previously judg'd pass'd their Sentence upon him * 1 Kings 11.26 †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Antiq. l. 8. c. 1. ‖ Not as our English Author renders it p. 34. For since thou hast so offended me it is not convenient that thou shouldst be in honour with me (a) Mittens Benaiam cum jussit adduci ut in ejus judicio satisfaciret b Misit Benaiam qui citaret cum ad suum tribunal (c) See Exod. 21.14 (d) Admodum quoque rationi consentaneum est etiam Sadoci Pontificis Sententiam consensúmve intervenisse à Levitis enim Sacerdotibus maximam judiciorum partem fuisse tractatam ex pluribus locis Scripturae constat Annal. ad An. 3. Salomonis n. 15. (e) Probabile est Sadoc sententiam consensúmque intervenisse c. Comment in loc (a) Ad Ghanathoth ito tibi in domos tuas quia Vir obnoxius occasioni tu es sed hodie non occidam te quia c. (b) In Anathoth te recipe od agrum tuum quoniam homo es morte dignus bodie tamen non intersiciam te eò quod c. (c) Vade in Anathoth rus tuum fundi tui culture vâ—cato nâ—n homo es qui necem mereris veruntamen non occidam te quia c. (d) Vade in Anathoth ad agrum tuum equidem vir mortis es sed hodie te non intersiciam quia c. (e) Quanquam ejecit Salomon Abiathar ut non esset Sacerdos Domini Sadoc Sacerdotem posuit pro Abiathar sensus tamen fuerit ex Aulâ solùm Regis ejectum Abiatharem substitutum ei Sadocum in Sacerdotem Aulae ne ille sed hic fungeretur deinceps ibi juxta Domini Arcam Pontificis partibus quo ipso non prohibuit Salomon Abiathari Juum exequi munus in Tabernaculo Mosaico quod stabat in Gabaon ut exequntus illie fuerit antea Sadoc tanquam vicarius 1. Paralip 16.29 Nam profectò Rex pagum Anathoth non assignavit Abiathari in carcerem 3 Reg. 2.26 hinc is etiamnum postea vocatus
Silverius levatus est à Theodato Tyranno sine deliberatione Decreti qui Theodatus corruptus pecuniâ datâ talem timorem induxit Clero uâ— qui non consentiret in ejus Ordinationem gladio puniretur Qui quidem Sacerdotes non subscripserunt in eum secundùm morem antiquum vel Decretum confirmaverunt ante Ordinationem Iam verò ordinato sub vi metu Silverio propter adunationem Ecclesiae Religionis postmodum sic subscripserunt Episcopi (h) Zonaras Annal. p. 190. (a) Simplicius Papa in Epist. ad Zinonens Imp. * By which it is enacted That all Bishops should be Ordain'd by Bishops of their respective Provinces Can. 4. (b) Epist. 16. ad Acacium Quod sicut non optavimus fieri ita faciles excusationi quam necessitas fecit exstitimus quia quod voluntarium non est non potest vocari in reatum * Euseb. Hist Eccl. l. 6. c. 10. * Orat. 28 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 * In those days the Pope's power of Ordaining Bishops in another District without the Consent of the Metropolitan was not own'd by the Western Church (a) Dolemus quod animo tuo Domine satisfacere non valemus Primas est non modo istius regni sed Scotiae Hiberniae necnon adjacentium Insularum nosque Suffraganei ejus uâ—de patet nos rationabiliter eum judicare vel damnare nullatenus posse etiamsi aliquâ— culpa in eo quae modo non valet possit ostendi P. 30. (b) They had before promis'd the King to Deprive Anselm but I know not how on a suddain they took up that Opinion which before was never heard of amongst the Bishops of England Protinus intellexerunt saith Eadmerus who was there present quod prius non animadverâ—erunt nec ipsum advertere posse putaverunt viz. Archiepiscopum Cant. à nullo hominum nisi à solo Papâ judicari posse vel damnari nec ab aliquo cogi pro quâvis calumniâ cuiquam eo excepto contra suum Velle respondere P. 29. (c) Aiâ— Rex Quid igitur restat Si eum judicare non potestis nonne sakem omnis obedientiae fidem ac fraternae societatis amicitiam ei denegare potestis Hoc quidem inquiunt quoniam jubes facere possumus Properate igitur quod dicitis citiùs facite ut cum viderit se à cunctis despectum ac desolatum verecundetur ingemiscat se Urbanum me Domino suo contempto secutum Et quo ista securius faciatis En ego primiùm in imperio meo penitùs ei omnem securitatem siduciam mei tollo ac deinceps in illo vel de illo nedlâ in causâ confidere vel cum pro Archiepiscopo aut Patre spirituali tenere volo Sociâ—tis sibi Abbatibus adds Eâ—dmerus Episcopi retulerunt Patri quod dixerat Rex suam pro voto illius abnegationem ingerentes Cum propterea answers the Archbishop quod me ad B. Petri Principis Apostolorum subjectionem ac fidelitatem tenco mihi omnem subjectionem fidem amicitiam quam Primati vestro Patri spirituali debetis abnegatis non rectè proceditis (a) Epist. 55. Quo gradu Cathedrae Sacerdotalis occupato de Dei voluntate atque omnium nostriùm consensione firmato quisquis jam Episcopus fieri voluerit foris fiat necesse est nec habeat Ecclesiasticam Ordinationem qui Ecclesiae non tenet unitatem quisquis ille fuâ—rit multum de se licet factans sibi plurimùm vindicans profanus est alienus est foris est Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat factus est non jam secundus ille sed nullus est * The Roman Clergy for that reason deferr'd the Election of Cornelius above 16 Months as they tell S. Cyprian in a Letter but as soon as the Emperor had left Rome they chose Cornelius Bishop
THE CASE OF SEES VACANT By an Unjust or Uncanonical DEPRIVATION STATED In Reply to a TREATISE ENTITULED A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops c. TOGETHER WITH The several other Pamphlets lately publish'd as Answers to the BAROCCIAN TREATISE By HUMPHRY HODY D. D. Fellow of Wadh. Coll. in Oxford Abstineamus nos à Convitiis ne tempus inaniter impendamus ad id quod agitur inter nos potius advertamus S. Aug. Ep. ad Pascentium Comitem Non enim vincimur quando offeruntur nobis meliora sed instruimur maximè in his qua ad Ecclesia unitatem pertinent spei fidei nostra veritatem S. Cypr. LONDON Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCIII Imprimatur Geo. Royse R. R mo in Christo Patri ac D no D no Iohanni Archiep. Cantuar à Sacris Domest Decemb. 1. 1692. To the most Reverend Father in God JOHN By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY His GRACE Primate of all England and Metropolitan May it please your Grace THis Treatise being design'd for the Service of the Church as at present Establish'd I presume to make your Grace this humble offer of it It must be confest that the greatness of the Subject deserves a more able Manager but my Lord that favourable Acceptance with which you were pleas'd to honour the Baroccian Treatise has encouraged me to hope that your Grace will likewise be pleas'd to accept of these Endeavours and to excuse and pardon the Defects of Your GRACE'sMost dutifull Servant HVMPHRY HODY bestow'd upon it they are forced to confess by their Practice that it carries with it a great deal of Strength If to be opposed by seven several Answerers the latter not satisfied with what the former had urged be an Argument of Strength in a Treatise we may still believe and I hope it was so that the finding it out at this Juncture had something of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it I presume the Reader will expect I should give him some Account of these seven several Answers which have been publish'd against it I shall lay down the Titles of 'em in the same Order as they came to my hands 1. The Oxford Antiquity examin'd c. 2. An Answer to a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History translated from an antient Greek MS. in the Publick Library at Oxford by Humphry Hody B. D. c. 3. Epistola ad Humfredum Hody c. de Tractatu è Scriniis Baroccianis Bibliothecae Bodleianae eruto ab illo nuper edito conscripta 4. A farther Account of the Baroccian MS. lately publish'd at Oxford 5. Reflections on the Greek MS translated by Mr Hody This is not Printed but was put into my hands in a MS. 6. A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops asserting their Spiritual Right against a Lay-Deprivation against the Charge of Schism c. These six are professedly and entirely in Answer to the Baroccian Treatise But the Author of this last mention'd was I know not how so unhappy as to mistake the Question He writes against the Treatise as if the Design of it were to vindicate the Authority of the Civil Power in depriving Bishops But that is not the Design of the Treatise neither was it my Design in publishing it And from this strange Mistake it comes to pass that a great part of what that Author says is nothing at all to our Purpose 7. Vnity of Priesthood necessary to the Vnity of the Church with some Reflections on the Oxford MS. and the Preface annext The Vindication of the Autority of the Civil Power in Depriving a Bishop for Political Crimes I reserve for a particular Treatise My Business at present is to manage the last Proposition that advanced by the Baroccian Treatise In Reply to these several Answers I here present our Adversaries with an Impartial History of the Church's Behaviour throughout all Ages under Bishops put into the Places of others Deposed by a Lay or otherwise Invalid Sentence I grant at present that all Lay-Deprivations are invalid I suppose the worst in all Cases Suppose the Deprivation was not onely uncanonical but also unjust Suppose the Depriver not onely a Lay-man but doubly unqualified by being likewise a Heretisk Suppose besides that the ejected Bishop was deprived for adhering to the Truth and for opposing Vice or Heresy Notwithstanding all this I assert That if he was deprived by a Power irresistible a Submission to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable is lawfull and warranted by the general Practice of the Antients It is not my Design to detain my Reader long in a Preface Onely one or two things I desire of him If any thing here in this Treatise seem long and tedious to him I desire he would be pleas'd to consider that my Design was to make this Discourse as perfect as I could that so if possible it might put an End to this Controversie And if our Adversaries shall be pleas'd to publish a Reply to what is here written I desire he would seriously compare and weigh one Treatise with the other consider if the main and more Substantial Parts of this Treatise are answer'd then judge for himself and not expect that of Course there must be another Reply As I am not so vain as to think my self clear from Error so neither am I conscious to my self of having been so Careless and Indiligent as to think I am often mistaken I mean in things material I hate everlasting Wrangle And an Adversary that Cavils and excepts against things not material I shall think deserves a Reply as little as one that Rails 'T will be hard I know to perswade our Adversaries that the History I here present 'em is what I call it Impartial But this Assurance I give 'em I have written nothing but what I myself believe That may be perhaps they will say But you have not written all that you believe You have not told all you know Why truly as to that I know not what to answer Since the Judgments of Men are so extremely different as that some have fansy'd that the Canons I omitted when I publish'd the Buroccian Treatise are really a Part of that Treatise and ought to have been publish'd with it there is nothing so Impertinent but what some or other may fansie I ought to have mention'd I cannot promise but that there may be more Canons But least it should be suspected that tho' I have produced many Instances for the Cause I have undertaken to defend there are others as good and as many that make against us which I have designedly conceal'd I shall here make this solemn Declaration That if any of our Adversaries I speak to all in general but my Eye is particularly upon the learned Vindicator can produce me any one single Instance from the time of Aaron the first High-priest of the Iews to this very day of a High priest disown'd by the Iews or a
Bishop disown'd by the Generality of the Catholick Church for this Reason because put into the place of another deposed by the Civil Autority If they can shew me I say any one single Instance I shall own my self obliged for the Instruction I assure my Reader that after a nice and very Search I know not one Should our Adversaries be able to produce such an Example as I think they will never be able 't will advantage their Cause but little especially if it be one of the later Ages since it is not agreeable to the Practice of the Church in general But if they are not able to produce so much as one single Example how rashly have they acted who have separated themselves from the Church on such an account I conclude in the Words of Drusius which I here make my own Scripsi haec animo juvandi non laedendi Si laesi quempiam jam me poenitet Si offendi pias aures monitus lubenter mutabo Si erravi uspiam monstretur mihi error non ero pertinax ☞ Pag. 5. lin 40. Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's Interest so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils is so far from being obliging that it would be a Sin to act according to it Least that Proposition should be misunderstood after the words of very great Evils add I speak of Oaths of Canonical Obedience THE CONTENTS CHAP. 1. The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power demonstrated Objections answer'd No obligation to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience The Autority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleg'd by our Adversaries The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose Page 1. 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 Page 16. CHAP. III. That our Saviour himself and his Apostles acknowleged and communicated with those High-priests who were put into the Places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority as true High-priests Mr. Selden's Conjecture That in the Histories of the New Testament as often as there is mention made of the High-priest is to be understood not the High-priest properly so called but the Prince of the Sanhedrin confuted A Reply to an Answer of our Adversaries concerning the Reason why the Jews our Saviour and the Apostles submitted to the present Possessor Page 33. CHAP. IV. That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops if accounted Orthodox as were put into the Places of others deposed by the Secular Power tho never so unjustly No Examples either for or against us in the three first Centuries all the Emperors being then Heathens The Example of Felix II. Bishop of Rome the put into the place of Liberius unjustly deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Constantius and against Liberius's consent yet he 's own'd by all that accounted him Orthodox by the Roman Clergy among them by the famous Damasus who was afterwards Pope He is own'd as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the District of Rome His Ordinations are allow'd of as valid by even his Adversary Liberius He has been all along own'd by the Church as a Saint and true Pope Page 40. 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 claim'd 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 Theodolius's Ordinations are allowed of as valid § 3. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurus 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 Alexandria being deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperour Zeno though he still laid claim to the See yet Petrus Mongus his Successor is acknowledged by all that accounted him Orthodox by Acacius and Fravitas Patriarchs of Constantinople by Martyrius Patriarch of Jerusalem by almost all the Bishops of the Eastern Church That they who refused to communicate with Mongus viz. the Western Bishops the Bishops of Dardania c. did it only because they thought him a Heretick That Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople communicated with him till he found him to be a Heretick then forsook his Communion Pope Simplicius when he heard that Talaias was to be deposed was well enough satisfied till he understood that Mongus whom he accounted a Heretick was design'd for his Successor Whether Orthodox Bishops unjustly ejected by the Emperor be restor'd or new Orthodox Bishops be created he values not he only desires that they that are made Bishops should be Orthodox Pope Felix III. not at all concern'd for Talaias's being deprived without a Synod only dislikes that one whom he accounted a Heretick was constituted in his place § 5. Calendion Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Zeno without any Synod the Orthodox Bishops viz. Pope Felix III. Quintianus Asculanus Justinus Siculus Acacius Constantinopolitanus Antheon Arsinoites Faustus Apolloniates Pamphilus Abydensis Asclepiades of Trallium c. refuse to communicate with his Successor Petrus Gnapheus only because he was a Heretick take no notice of his being constituted in the room of one Unsynodically deposed and are ready to communicate with him as a true Patriarch of Antioch if he will but forsake his Heresy Page 57. CHAP. VI. Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox though at the same time they profess'd that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust and could never be induced by any Terrors to subscribe to it viz. by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium the Orthodox People of Constantinople by the great Abbots of Palaestine S. Sabas and S. Theodosius and by all Palaestine in general at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostacy of
the Patriarchs Flavianus and Elias confuted Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretick when they communicated with him They are Honoured by the Church as Saints Page 70. CHAP. VII Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Anastasius his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretick Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People though at the same time they hated him by the whole Church of Palaestine particularly the two great Abbots S. Sabas and S. Theodosius so famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Greek Church by all the whole Church ever since those Times The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript The old Patriarch Elias though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith continues however to communicate with those who acknowledged his Successor Page 81. CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him Page 90. CHAP. IX Macarius Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by the Emperour Justinian his Successor Eustochius is own'd as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholick Church After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperour and Macarius being restored is received by the Church According to our Adversaries Principles either Eustochius or Macarius after his Restauration was no true Patriarch yet the Church receiv'd both Page 97. CHAP. X. Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresie John sirnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room After John was consecrated Patriarch Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay Lords as Bishops not only of Ecclesiasticks as the Vindicator contends He actually lays claim to the See despises the Sentence of his Iudges as null and invalid because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him and Excommunicates them Notwithstanding all this his Successor because he prov'd Orthodox was receiv'd and own'd by all the Church as a true Patriarch He continu'd in the See near 13 years near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is own'd by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly belov'd John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him For what reason Anastasius Patriarch by Antioch reprov'd the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordain'd by him Anastasius did not refuse to communicate with him He is Honour'd by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint Tho' Eutychius lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and tho' he never resign'd but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch yet he liv'd quietly and never endeavour'd to make a Division in the Church Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretick confuted The Authority of the Life of Eutychius often quoted in this Chapter vindicated against the same Author Page 101. CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius though deposed by the Lay-power and though he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church Page 121. CHAP. XII S. Martin Pope of Rome being deposed without any Synod and banish'd by the Heretical Emperor Constans tho' he never resign'd yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome tho' at the same time they were zealous Assertors of the Orthodox Faith and had likewise a great love for S. Martin Eugenius is receiv'd and own'd by all as a true Pope and has been honour'd all along by the Church as a Saint S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope and prays to God for him as such Page 128. CHAP. XIII Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus his Successor Cyrus is receiv'd as a true Patriarch § 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus § 2. Page 135. CHAP. XIV An Account of the Schism between Photius and Ignatius Patriarchs of Constantinople Photius who was put into Ignatius's place when deposed by the Emperor no such Person as his Enemies report him By how great a Party he was receiv'd The reason why some refused to acknowlege him was not so much because he was so constituted as because he was a Neophytus and was besides ordain'd by a Bishop Excommunicated and in their Iudgments stood himself Excommunicated at that time Ignatius professes that if Photius had been one of the Church i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration he would willingly have yielded to him Ignatius values the Counâ—ils that condemn'd him no more than he did the Lay-power The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter His Errors concerning the Council call'd the First and Second A New account of the reason of that Title His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome call'd by P. Nicholas against Photius Photius after he was receiv'd by the Church and confirmed by a general Council is deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Leo yet his Successor Stephen is receiv'd by the Church Page 139. CHAP. XV. Nicolaus Mysticus Patriarch of Constantinople not deprived by a Synod as the Vindicator contends but by the Emperor Leo the Wise. § 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Besengarius yet his Successor Antony is own'd and receiv'd by the Church particularly by the Pope the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna and continued in the See many years § 2. Basilius Camaterus and Nicetas Muntanes Patriarchs of
Constantinople deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Isaacius Angelus yet no Division in the Church on their account § 3 4. The Patriarchs of the present Greek Church very frequently deprived by the Turk yet no Division in the Church As great Reason to submit to the present Possessor here as in the Greek Church The Necessity the same Page 170. CHAP. XVI The Sentence of an Uncanonical Synod esteemed by the Aâ—tients invalid S. Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople unjustly and invalidly deposed by a Synod He declares however at first against all Separation from the Church on his Account He afterwards yields to Resentment and refuses to Communicate with his Successors Arsacius and Atticus because they had been his Enemies and had a hand in his Deprivation The Joannites acted by their Passions not by Principles They separate from the Church not because there was another made Patriarch in S. Chrysostom's place but before that was done Arsacius being made Patriarch they refuse to Communicate with him not because he was put into S. Chrysostom's place but through Hatred against St. Chrysostom's Deposers because they frequented his Churches Pope Innocent of Rome not consistent with himself His Practice contradicts his Words He did not think Arsacius and Atticus no Bishops His Zeal for the Honour of his own See the chief Cause of his Opposing ' em He at last receives Atticus as a true Patriarch The Vindicator's Exception against the Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Baroccian Treatise confuted The Eastern Bishops refuse to separate from the Communion of the Church tho' S. Chrysostom laid Claim to his See and actually separated and tho' they esteemed his Deprivation invalid So did the Monks of Egypt The Testimony of S. Nicon out of a M.S. S. Nicon himself tho' he esteemed his Deprivation extremely unjust yet approves of those that did not separate on his Account S. Chrysostom takes it for granted as a thing of Course that all would immediately resolve to choose a new Patriarch in his room The Patriarch Atticus highly esteemed by the whole African Church The Ecclesiastical Historian Socrates disapproves of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation yet speaks of Arsacius and Atticus as of true Patriarchs Theodoret extremely offended at the Injustice of his Deposers yet reckons both Arsacius and Atticus among the Patriarchs of Constantinople They are both owned in all the Catalogues of the Patriarchs Their Ordinations never questioned by any Atticus praised by P. Celestine I. and owned to be a true Successor of S. Chrysostom Page 176. CHAP. XVII Deprivations by Heretical Synods invalid S. Eustathius Patriarch of Antioch deposed by an Heretical Synod he himself accounts his Deprivation invalid The Orthodox separate from the Communion of his Successors not because he was invalidly deprived but because they accounted them Hereticks Eustathius acts as Bishop of Antioch tho' in banishment as long as his Successors were Hereticks but as soon as Meletius an Orthodox Person was ordain'd his Successor he desisted and concern'd himself no more as Bishop of Antioch That he lived till Meletius was made Patriarch demonstrated against Baronius Valesius c. Why some of the Orthodox refused to submit to Meletius The Vindicator's Asseâ—rtion That none accounted Meletius on Arian whilst he was Bishop confuted The Schism between the Meletians and the Paulinists no Example against us § 1 2. The Instance of Maximus and Cyril of Jerusalem examin'd § 3. Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople deposed by an Heretical Synod yet Macedonius an Orthodox and a good Man accepts of his See tho' he own'd him to be the rightfull Patriarch Macedonius is receiv'd by the Catholicks tho' they loved Euphemius and accounted him unjustly deprived He is own'd by S. Elias Bishop of Jerusalem tho' Elias at the same time declared Euphemius's Deprivation unjust and refused to subscribe to it § 4. The Schisms of the Novatians Donatists and Meletians of Egypt no Examples against us § 5. Two Fragments of Photius out of a M S. § 1 3. Page 186. CHAP. XVIII The Conclusion Bishops deposed by the Civil Autority obliged even in common Charity to acquiesce But whether they acquiesce or not the Church is to submit to the present Possessor Page 196. The CASE of SEES Vacant by an Unjust or Uncanonical Deprivation Stated c. CHAP. I. The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power demonstrated Objections answer'd No obligation to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience The Authority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleg'd by our Adversaries The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose THE Doctrine maintain'd by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise is this That supposing a Bishop depriv'd without any Synod by the Civil Power is unjustly depriv'd yet neither He himself nor the People ought to separate from the Communion of his Successor provided that Successor is not a Heretick In answer to that Treatise it is alleg'd by some of our Adversaries That not onely Heresy but Schism likewise and Excommunication make a Person uncapable of being receiv'd as a Bishop It is manifest says one of our Answerers that the Principles advanced by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise make all Church-Censures ineffectual and expose the Church to all the Mischiefs of Erastianism For if a Prince should preferr an excommunicated Person to the See of the Bishop by whom he stands excommunicated supposing onely that he was not excommunicated for Heresy this Person tho' never so justly excommunicated must be own'd and obey'd instead of the Bishop who excommunicated him which lodges all Church-Power in the Prince and makes all Ecclesiastical Censures of no effect for the Benefit and Preservation of the Church whenever he pleases All this He very well knew was nothing at all to his Purpose and nothing against either ours or our Author's Cause But he likewise knew it would have been less to his Purpose to have told his Reader so To avoid all impertinent Cavil that we may not run off from the Scope and Design of our Writing I shall take leave to alter the last Clause of the Proposition thus Provided that Successor be in all other Respects such whose Communion no good Catholick can justly refuse § 2. Having laid down fairly our Proposition and secured it if that may be possible from all Cavil We will now proceed to demonstrate the Truth of it And this we shall do first from the Reasonableness of it and 2dly from the Autority and Practice of the Antients by which the Reasonableness of it will more certainly and evidently appear § 3. First from the Reasonableness of it And that is grounded on this certain and self-evident Maxim That whatsoever is necessary for the present Peace and Tranquillity of the Church that ought to be made use of provided it is not in it self sinfull and the ill Consequences which may possibly attend
Church according to the usual manner into the place of another whom the Civil Power will not suffer to govern any longer because he refuses to own its Autority I add That if a Bishop be a Secundus and no Bishop who is put into the place of one unjustly depos'd by the Civil Autority then it likewise must follow that he is a secundus and no Bishop who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly depos'd But this the learned Vindicator will neither himself grant neither does he I suppose believe that S. Cyprian thought so I say that must follow if we seriously consider the Matter For the onely good Reason assignable why in the former Case the Successor is a secundus and no Bishop is this Because the Predecessor has still a Right to the Bishoprick Now 't is certain that the Reason is the same in the latter Case For a Bishop whom a Synod has unjustly depriv'd has still as much Right to his Bishoprick as a Bishop invalidly depos'd by the Civil Autority For to me 't is absurd that any unjust Sentence should take away the Right tho' the Nature of Government requiring it it is oftentimes necessary that we should submit to such a Sentence And this if I am not mistaken is the common Sence of Mankind When a Bishop is unjustly depriv'd by a Synod we submit to his Successor not because we imagine that the other has no longer a Right but onely for Peace sake That a Bishop unjustly depriv'd by a Synod has still a Right to that Bishoprick as well as a Bishop deposed by an Incompetent Autority may be clearly demonstrated from this That after he is deprived he may be again restor'd and his Successor be deposed by Appeal to another Synod and yet the ejected Successor is accounted a true Bishop Now is that done justly or not There is no one will say it is not And yet it is impossible that the Successor should be justly deprived if the other had no Right To conclude That a Bishop who is put into the place of another unjustly deprived by the Secular Power is a real and true Bishop will by and by appear by the Opinion and the Practice of the Antients in general Let us now proceed to demonstrate that as the submitting to a Bishop whose Predecessor was unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority is not in it self a Sin so the ill Consequences to which it may be liable are either not so mischievous to the Church or not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid § 10. The Evils we endeavour to avoid are a Schism and a persecution two Evils as great as can possibly befall the Church And that those two very great Evils must needs be the certain and the immediate Consequences of a non-submission is too evident to any Considering Man to need any Proof If the ill Consequences to which a submission may be liable are so great as those two Evils but not so certain or if they are so certain but not so great it must then be granted that with respect to Consequences a Submission is more reasonable than a Non-submission Now if we consider those evil Consequences which may justly be charg'd upon the Submission we shall find that they are so far from being both so great and so certain that they are neither so great nor so certain as those two Evils which by a Non-submission must unavoidably be brought upon the Church So far indeed is the Principle which we maintain from being necessarily attended with any very ill Consequence that it is not easy to foresee any Consequence at all that is Evil. As it is for the Good the Peace and Prosperity of the Church that we think our selves obliged to comply upon occasion with the Necessity of Times So if ever the Civil Power which to fear in this Reign would be very unjust and unreasonable should pretend to break in upon the Essentials of the Church we should then be obliged not to yield to such Impositions â—â— the evil Day must needs come which God forbid we will keep it off as long as we can When it necessarily comes as now we shew our Prudence so we 'll prove our Fortitude Not to endeavour to escape from Damascus when a Basket is fairly offer'd would be Folly in an Apostle And to run on to Martyrdom when it honestly may be avoided is according to the Sanctions of the Primitive Christians a Sin Should a Person absolutely unqualified be imposed upon us for a Bishop we are not then to accept him If a Roman Decius would depose all our Bishops and not permit us to constitute others in their places that so he may destroy our Religion we are not then to regard either what he does or commands As the Romans upon the Martyrdom of Fabian tho' to avoid the Fury of a Persecution Propter rerum temporum difficultates we might possibly deferr the Election yet as soon as we thought it convenient we would choose a Cornelius Bishop notwithstanding the Tyrant's Decrees If an Heretical King Frazamund should command us not to Ordain any Bishops that so the Catholick Religion may of Course be rooted out and his Heresy onely prevail we would then no more value that Command than the Catholicks heretofore did but in spite of his Edict would get as many Bishops ordain'd as we thought convenient for the Church But how can our Case be compared with either of these Here is no forbidding Elections no deposing all Bishops in general no imposing unqualified Persons no destroying of Religion no advancing of Heresy The onely Question here is Whether Paul or Apollos may be follow'd when Cephas is in Prison and is render'd uncapable of acting as an Apostle Our Adversaries are resolv'd to have Cephas If they cannot have him they will neither have Christ. To us 't is altogether indifferent whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas as long as we have Christ. There is onely one Inconvenience that I can possibly foresee which can justly be charg'd on this Principle which we advance and that is this That by a Submission to the present Possessor the Civil Governor is like to be encouraged to tyrannize over the Church and to turn out such Bishops as he does not like whensoever he pleases tho' never so unjustly If that be the Objection of our Adversaries I answer First That the same Inconvenience is in all manner of Government By submitting to a Bishop who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly depos'd that Synod may be possibly encouraged to turn out others unjustly as many as it does not like tho' never so worthy Secondly That here in England it is not the Will of the Prince that can turn out a Bishop He has all the same Securities that another Subject can have and he cannot be deprived of his Bishoprick without a due Course of Law If they mean that the
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
to give an account of those Men who were at one certain particular time the great Officers under Solomon but to give an account likewise of those who at any time had been so This Explication may well pass for probable but the true one I take to be that of Serarius Menochius and Grotius who tell us That therefore he is join'd with Zadok in the Text above cited because tho' turn'd out of the Office yet he still enjoy'd the Name and Title of High-priest and was still highly honour'd as a Man of great Age and Dignity Thus 't is certain from Iosephus That in After-times when so many High-priests were deposed all they that were deposed enjoy'd still the Title as well as if they had been the Possessors And so it is now with the Patriarchs of Constantinople A fifth Evasion is that of Io. de Pineda and the Card. Bellarmin whom the Jesuits generally follow as Gretser Serarius A Lapide Becanus c. They own that Abiathar was completely deprived by King Solomon but say they he did not do it as King but by a particular Commission from God as a Prophet And this they prove from that Saying of the Scripture And Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being Priest unto the Lord that the word of the Lord might be fulfilled which he spake concerning the House of Eli in Shiloh In answer to this I observe first That till after this was done King Solomon had no Gift of Prophecy It appears from the Scripture that he was first inspir'd and made a Prophet when God appear'd to him in a Vision at Gibeon which was after the Deprivation of Abiathar 2dly If Solomon had deprived Abiathar to this end that he might fulfill that Prophecy God to Eli yet it would not thence follow That he did it as a Prophet He had heard of that Prophecy and so he might adventure of himself to fulfill it It appears from Abulensis that tho' in his time and before there were some of that Opinion That Solomon depriv'd Abiathar that he might fulfill the aforesaid Prophecy yet they never imagin'd that he did it as a Prophet by a special Commission from God they thought he did it of himself by his own bare Autority 3dly It does not appear by the Text that Solomon design'd by deposing Abiathar to fulfill that Prophecy of God For those words That the Word of the Lord might be fulfilled do onely shew that That was the design of Providence a common mode of Expression In the Hebrew it is ad implendum sermonem where ad says Grotius is onely 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neque enim hoc respiciebat Salomon So long before Grotius the great and judicious Abulensis a Bishop of their own Church It is said in the Gospel of S. Matthew that Ioseph came and dwelt in a City called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophets He shall be called a Nazarene That the Jews crucified Christ parting his Garments casting Lots that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Prophet They parted my Garments among them c. So S. Iohn The Souldiers said therefore among themselves Let us not rent but cast lots for it whose it shall be that the Scripture might be fulfilled which saith c. It is said in another place of S. Iohn that notwithstanding all the Miracles of Christ yet the Iews believed not on him that the Saying of Esaias the Prophet might be fulfilled which he spake Lord who hath believed our Report c. That when Pilate commanded the Iews to take Jesus and Judge him according to their Law they said unto him It is lawfull for us to put any man to death That the Saying of Jesus might be fulfilled which he spake signifying what death he should die Who so very injudicious as to inferr from these places that such was the End and Design of the Persons themselves Yet as well may we inferr that such was here the Design of the Persons themselves as that such was the Design of King Solomon deposing Abiathar I shall onely add That whereas some of the Iesuits do pretend to confirm their Opinion with the Autority of Theodoret and Procopius Gazaeus those Authors are so far from thinking that King Solomon depriv'd Abiathar as a Prophet that it does not appear that they thought he had any respect to that Prophecy They onely say That in depriving Abiathar he was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an Instrument or an Asier made use of by God for the fulfilling of his Prophecy The Jesuit Becanus not very well satisfied as it seems with this Answer of Bellarmin has besides another of his own He tells us That if King Solomon deposed Abiathar by his Regal Autority onely and was not inspired by God then he acted unlawfully for as he was King says he he was not a lawfull and a competent Judge Here now is a Man that speaks out This is home to our Purpose Let our Adversaries now take what Part they please If they grant that King Solomon did well then the Civil Power is a Competent Judge of a Bishop and may lawfully deprive him if he refuses to own its autority or for any other Criminal Cause for which he may by Bishops be justly deprived If with the Jesuit Becanus they say he did ill then 't is plain from the Scripture it self that the whole Nation of the Iews and God himself accepted of a High-priest who was put into the place of another invalidly deprived by the Civil Autority as a true High-priest § 4. For a great many Generations the High-priesthood continued in the Family of Zadok without the Deprivation of any We read of no one deposed by either the Regal or any other Authority till the time of Onias III. Sirnamed the Pious Of him we read in the Breviary of Iason of Cyrene viz. the 11. of Maccabees that he was deposed by King Antiochus Epiphanes by the means of a Bribe which his Brother Iesus call'd otherwise Iason had offer'd for the Honour who was thereupon placed in his room Iosephus in the 12th Book of his Antiquities says Antiochus conferr'd the High-priesthood on Iason after the death of Onias And again in his 15th Book he says that Iason himself was the first of all the High-priests he means after Solomon's time that whilst alive were depriv'd of their Dignity But in this Iosephus was mistaken as appears not onely by the express Testimony of Iason of Cyrene but likewise by that very particular account which he gives of Onias's Death several years after the Promotion and even after the Deprivation of Iason in the time of the High-priest Menelaus And Iosephus himself in another place viz. in his Book 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 has affirm'd the same thing that Onias was deposed by the King and Iason for Money promoted to the High-priesthood The contrary Custom
call'd as appears from the same Author and Ionathan was one that had formerly enjoy'd that Honour That Ionathan was not there mentioned before Ananias because he was his Superiour in some other Station suppose as Prince of the Sanedrin I inferr from hence that in another Place where Iosephus speaks of the same thing there is no mention at all made of Him but onely of Ananias who was High-priest properly so call'd He sent Ananias the High-priest and Ananus the Captain bound to Rome there to answer before Caesar for what had been done Another Example of this nature we have in the Scripture it self where Zadok the inferiour is mention'd before Abiathar the superiour High-priest And David call'd for Zadok and Abiathar the High-priests Hence some have imagin'd that Zadok even at that time was superiour to Abiathar But the reason why he is first mention'd is Because by being afterwards placed in the room of Abiathar and by being the first High-priest of the Temple and by having his Posterity establish'd in the High-priesthood he was at that time when that Book was written much more famous than Abiathar § 3. To what has been said concerning our Saviour and his Apostles that they acknowleged and communicated with the High-priests of that Age as true High-priests I add that it appears moreover from S. Iohn that Caiaphas was accepted and owned by God himself And one of them named Caiaphas being the High-priest that same year said unto them Ye know nothing at all nor consider that it is expedient for us that one man should die for the people and that the whole nation perish not And this spake he not of himself but being High = priest that year he prophesied that Iesus should die for that nation c. It appears from these words both that S. Iohn own'd him to be a true High-priest and that as High = priest he receiv'd from God the Power of Prophesying § 4. I shall here for the close of all take notice of an Answer which some of our Adversaries have been pleased to make when urg'd with these Examples of the Iews our Saviour and his Apostles Upon this account say they the Nation of the Iews our Saviour and his Apostles submitted to the present Possessor tho' put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Secular Autority because the Temple being in the power of the Secular Magistrate they could not perform the more Solemn Acts of their Religion unless they accepted of that High-priest whom the Secular Magistrate had set over the Temple To this I answer That if they had look'd upon the present Possessor to be no true High-priest their being confined to the Temple of Ierusalem could not have been any inducement to 'em to submit themselves to him and to communicate with him in the Sacrifices which he offered If the Secular Magistrate would shut up their Temple they were not oblig'd to have any Sacrifices or any High-priest at all And because they have now no Temple they have therefore no Priests or Sacrifices So if they had not been permitted to offer up their Sacrifices by a High-priest duly qualified they would not have thought themselves obliged to offer any Sacrifices at all any more than they would if he that was their Governour should have kept all lawful Sacrifices from 'em and allow'd 'em only Swine And how can we imagine that if God had not look'd upon those High-priests to be true and real High-priests he would ever have accepted of the Sacrifices which they offer'd or have sent down upon 'em as High-Priests his Spirit of Prophecy If a Swine had been offer'd would God have accepted that Sacrifice because the Civil Governour would permit no other to be offer'd CHAP. IV. That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops if accounted Orthodox as were put into the places of others deposed by the Secular Power tho never so unjustly No Examples either for or against us in the three first Centuries all the Emperors being then Heathens The Example of Felix II. Bishop of Rome tho put into the place of Liberius unjustly deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Constantius and against Liberius's consent yet he 's own'd by all that accounted him Orthodox by the Roman Clergy among them by the famous Damasus who was afterwards Pope He is own'd as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the District of Rome His Ordinations are allow'd of as valid by even his Adversary Liberius He has been all along own'd by the Church as a Saint and true Pope WHAT was the Practice of the Iews our Saviour and the Apostles in relation to the High-priests who were put into the places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority that they all along own'd 'em as true High-priests and that God himself approved of 'em we have shewn in the two foregoing Chapters I come now to shew in the third place That the same was the Practice of the Antient Christians throughout all Ages I mean the generality of 'em in every particular Age with respect to their Bishops provided only that they thought 'em upon no other account justly exceptionable For the three first Ages the Emperors were all Heathens and if they deposed any Bishops they did it to destroy Christianity and all Bishops in general It is not therefore to be expected that the three first Ages should afford us any Examples But as they afford us no Examples so neither can our Adversaries produce any one single Example of those Ages that makes for their Cause We can say says our Adversary the Learned Vindicator that even in the Age of St. Cyprian it is very notorious that they then own'd no such Power of the Secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely Spiritual Power and that the Church as a Society distinct from the State subsisted on their not owning it even as to a deprivation of their particular Districts and Jurisdictions It is notorious and as notorious as any one Tradition of the Catholick Church in those Ages not excepting that of the Canon of the New Testament it self that Christians then and not only then but in all the former Persecutions that had been from the times of the Apostles to that very Age did own themselves bound to adhere to their Bishops when it was notorious withal that those Bishops were set up and maintain'd against the consent of the Civil Magistrate It is as notorious also that this Adherence of theirs was not onely matter of Fact which is all our Adversaries pretend here but a Duty own'd by them as obliging in Conscience and as the Result of Principles Again says the Vindicator Till our Adversaries can disarm us of the Advantage we have from the Doctrine of the Catholick Church signified on occasion of these earliest Instances of Schism in S. Cyprian ' s Age their Author's Collection of later Instances were it never so pertinent to their purpose can do them no
Service Should a Person unacquainted with the Histories and Writers of those Times read what the Vindicator has here so positively asserted he could not but conclude that the three first Ages were full of Examples against us But they that are not utterly Strangers to the Practice and the Histories of those Ages know very well that all that the Vindicator lays down is unworthy of so learned a Man either utterly untrue or not in the least to his Purpose That the Christians of those Ages did not own any Power in the Secular Magistrate to deprive Bishops of their purely Spiritual Power is what we never denied That they ever disown'd the Power of the Secular Magistrate to deprive a Bishop of his particular District if he should refuse to acknowledge the Autority of that Magistrate or if upon any other Civil account he deserv'd to be depriv'd our Adversaries cannot demonstrate But it is not now our Business to inquire concerning that We are onely at present to inquire Whether ever they refus'd to submit to the present Possessor because his Predecessor was unjustly depos'd by the Secular Power That they were wont to adhere to their Bishops tho' set up and maintain'd against the Consent of the Civil Magistrate we acknowlege But what is that to our Adversaries Purpose If they still adher'd to their Bishops when the persecuting Emperors endeavour'd to root out Christianity by driving away the Bishops what is that to the Case now before us Should our Magistrates like the Persecutors of those Ages endeavour to destroy Christianity by depriving us of our Bishops and by suffering none to be substituted in their places then those Bishops would be our onely Bishops and as such we should still adhere to ' em If in those Ages the Emperours had onely deposed such Bishops as would not own their Autority or as otherwise deserved to be depriv'd and had suffer'd other Persons as worthy to be put into their Places who can doubt but that the Christians of those Ages would have done as we now do as was done in the very next Age and as the Iews had all along done I shall answer all that the Vindicator has said or ever will be able to say concerning the Practice of those Ages with this Challenge That he shew me any one single Instance of a Bishop disown'd by the Church in those three first Centuries for being put into the place of another depos'd by the Civil Autority If he cannot do that I shall onely desire him to produce the Autority of any one single Writer of those Ages that directly makes to this purpose That a Bishop so constituted ought not upon that account to be own'd Till that be done whatsoever he is pleas'd to allege I shall onely say this of him Magna dicit sed nihil probat § 2. The first Instance of an Orthodox Bishop put into the place of another Orthodox Bishop depos'd by the Civil Autority is that of Felix II. Bishop of Rome who in the Year CCCLV. was put Into the place of Liberius depos'd by the Emperour Constantius That Liberius was depos'd and banish'd by the bare Autority of the Emperour without any pretence to a Synod and that too very unjustly for no other Reason but because he was Orthodox and refus'd to comply with him in subscribing to the Condemnation of S. Athanasius Archbishop of Alexandria is manifest beyond all doubt from the Testimonies of all Historians Socrates Sozomen Theodores S. Athanasius himself Ammianus Marcellinus and others Felix who was put into his place tho' he was rejected by the much greater number of the Laity of Rome because he was Ordain'd by the Arians and because he was thought to favour that Party yet by all such as were satisfied that he was really Orthodox was own'd and receiv'd without any Regard had to the Lay and unjust Deprivation of Liberius Theodoret tells us that when he was at Church there were none of the People of Rome would go into it But what does he say was the reason It was not because Liberius had been deposed onely by the Civil Autority but because he communicated with the Arians After the great Liberius says he there was Ordain'd one of his Deacons nam'd Felix who indeed had continu'd firm in the Faith of the Nicene Fathers yet with those that endeavour'd to subvert it he freely Communicated And on that account there were none of the Inhabitants of Rome would go into the Church when he was there Should we grant what Theodoret says that none of the Inhabitants of Rome would communicate with him Yet this at least we have gain'd by his Testimony that they would not have refus'd if he had not communicated with Hereticks That the reason of the Peoples refusing to submit to Pope Felix was because they thought him a Heretick is expressly asserted by Freculphus Bishop of Lisieux who flourish'd in the Year 840. Liberius says he knew that the Clergy and the People of the City declin'd the Communion of his Successor Felix as being a Heretick If Freculphus did not write this from some antienter Historian as indeed he could not read so concerning the Clergy for that is very false as will by and by appear then by that Conjecture it appears that he did not think there was any other good Reason for which they might separate from him It appears likewise by the Testimony even of S. Athanasius that the reason of the People's Aversion to Felix was Because he was put in by the Hereticks and was himself thought one But the People says he well knowing the wickedness of the Hereticks did not suffer 'em Felix and his Ordainers to enter into their Churches but separated from their Communion That S. Athanasius thought Felix a Heretick is a thing not at all to be wonder'd at For he knew nothing of him and had never heard of him but as put by the Arians into Liberius's place And therefore it was natural for him to think him as the People of Rome did one of that Party But tho' the Generality of the People were so far possess'd with Prejudice against him through the great and extraordinary Affection which they had for Liberius as not to be capable of being convinc'd but that he must needs be an Arian Yet the Clergy of the City of Rome knew him to be throughly Orthodox and accordingly receiv'd him for their Bishop Let us hear what the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus say of it The same day say they that Liberius went away into banishment all the Clergy that is the Presbyters and the Archdeacon Felix and Damasus Liberius ' s Deacon and all that bare Office in the Church with one accord in the presence of the People oblig'd themselves by an Oath not to accept of any other Bishop as long as Liberius was living But the Clergy notwithstanding their Oath accepted of Felix the Archdeacon when
Vir laudabilis as he is call'd by Symmachus That mentis sanctissimae Vir as he is styl'd by the Emperour Gratian That Vir egregius eruditus in Scripturis That Ecclesiae Doctor as he is term'd by S. Ierome the most glorious Damasus as Theodoret calls him he that was adorn'd with all sorts of Vertue and was always ready to defend all true Apostolical Doctrines both by his Words and by his Actions as the same Author says of him He in a word whom the Emperour Theodosius by a Law makes the Rule and Standard of all Orthodoxy It may perhaps be objected That tho' our Damasus when he chiefly flourish'd was accounted so great and so worthy a Man yet in Felix's time he might be but a young Man and so his Autority will be much less considerable To this I answer That in the time of Pope Felix our Damasus was so far from being a young Man that when Felix was made Pope he was above fifty Years old and when Felix died to whom he had constantly adher'd he was above sixty And it was not full a Year after Felix's Death before he himself was advanc'd to the Honour of the Popedom This is manifest from hence That after he was made Pope viz. upon Liberius's Death in the Year 366 in the Month of October he liv'd according to those that say most but 18 Years and 2 or 3 Months more truly but 16 Years and yet when he died he was as S. Ierome his Familiar Friend attests about 80 Years of Age. He died as Marcellinus Comes witnesses in the Month of October when Antonius and Syagrius were Consuls that is in the Year 382. He was therefore 53 Years of Age when Felix was made Bishop and when Felix died he was in the 63d Year of his Age. Felix as is above said was promoted in the room of Liberius in the Year 355. and was again turn'd out upon the Restauration of Liberius somewhat less than two Years after Eight Years as has been already observ'd he liv'd after that and died on the 10th of the Kalends of December when Valentinian and Valens were Consuls i. e. in the Year 365. Liberius surviv'd Felix but about 10 Months for he died on the 8th of the Kalends of October in the Consulship of Gratian and Dagalaiphus i. e. the Year following This is plain from the express Words of the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus I need not add any thing to consute that Story which we find in two fabulous Lives of Pope Damasus That when Pope Liberius was banish'd he constituted our Damasus his Vicar to supply his place in his absence and that he accordingly did so till Liberius was restor'd If that be true then he did not adhere to Pope Felix But it needs but very little Judgment were there no good Autority for what we have here laid down to discover the falseness of that Monkish Story and 't is easie to shew how little the Writers of it knew relating to Liberius's Banishment I shall take it for granted that there is no one so Injudicious as to hearken to it I must here add That tho' our Authors when they speak of the People's Aversion to Felix are wont to make use of general Terms and tell us that all the People refus'd to communicate with him yet I do not believe that they ought to be understood strictly but onely of the much greater Part. That Felix had a very considerable Party not onely amongst the Clergy but likewise amongst the Laity seems to me very probable from hence That within a Year after Felix's Death when Vrsinus or Vrsicinus was chose Pope by the Liberians and Damasus by the Felicians there arose a great Contention not onely among the Clergy but likewise among the Laity and Damasus then had the greatest part of the People on his side and many of 'em were so zealous and violent for him as that much bloud was spilt This Schism and Contention seems to have proceeded partly from some former Heats and Sidings of the People I know that the Presbyters Marcellinus and Faustinus say that Damasus had brib'd the People with a great Summ of Money But that is onely a malicious Suggestion such as might be expected from Persons so much his Enemies I shall not take notice that in the Pontifical it is said That when Felix was Martyr'd there suffer'd with him multi Clerici Fideles not onely many of the Clergy but likewise many others of the Faithfull The Story of his being put to Death is too uncertain much more the Circumstances of it Yet at least this appears from that Story that amongst the Antients 't was believ'd that many of the Laity as well as of the Clergy adher'd to him Having thus shewn what Reception Pope Felix met with at Rome I shall shew in the next place that tho' he was made Bishop in the room of the unjustly deposed Liberius yet first the Catholick Bishops of his own district communicated with him and receiv'd him as their Metropolitan Secondly His Ordinations were receiv'd and allow'd of as valid by even his Adversary Liberius Thirdly The whole Western Church has all along own'd him as one of the true Bishops of Rome It cannot be expected but that he who was Ordain'd by the Arians in the place of one deposed for opposing the Arians and likewise communicated with the Arians should by many be both thought and spoken ill of But whoever they were that did not approve of our Pope Felix because they thought him an Arian or because he was ordain'd by the Arians or because he communicated with the Arians their Autority and Judgment make nothing at all against us He was thought as has been already observ'd not onely by the People of Rome but likewise by S. Athanasius an Arian So Socrates calls him expressly tho' he mentions with all that others affirm'd he was Orthodox So likewise S. Ierome in his Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers tho' indeed in Sophronius's Greek Translation of that Work the word Arian is not to be found From this ill Opinion that many had conceiv'd of him it came to pass that by some there was this false story rais'd concerning him That as soon as he was put by the Arians into Liberius's place he was punish'd by God with the loss of his Eyes and afterwards died of a Pestilential Disease This Story is told of him by the Author of that Life of S. Athanasius which is extant in Photius Hence likewise it was that the Writer of one of the Lives of Pope Damasius whom another follows in his Fiction invented that Story above mentioned that Liberius made Damasus his Vicar to oppose the Endeavours of the Arians during the time of his Banishment He had read in S. Ierome that Felix was ordain'd by the Arian Acacius so he himself writes and thence he concluded that Felix himself was an Arian Thence
he further inferr'd that some one was appointed by Liberius to oppose in his stead the endeavours of the Arians and who should that be but his Damasus Hence likewise it was that the Chronologer Marcellinus Comes thought he ought to be excepted out of the number of the Bishops of Rome That his thinking him an Arian was the reason of his excepting him may be gather'd from hence that he likewise excepts Liberius because he at last had subscrib'd to the Arian Belief In like manner S. Ierome calls S. Cyril of Ierusalem and Meletius of Antioch Hereticks and he will not allow 'em a place amongst the Bishops of those Sees because they were made Bishops by the Arians and at first seem'd to favour ' em Yet even in his Time almost all the Greek Church receiv'd 'em into Communion and very highly esteem'd 'em and now by both Churches they are honour'd with the Title of Saints By Optatus Melevitanus and S. Augustine where they reckon up the Successions of the Bishops of Rome our Felix is omitted But from thence it cannot be inferr'd that they did not own him as one of the Bishops of Rome For it is not their Design to reckon up all the Popes that had been but onely to shew for the Confutation of the Donatists that at Rome they had had a Succession of Bishops from the Times of the Apostles Since therefore Liberius was again restor'd and so was the immediate Predecessor of Damasus as he was the Successor of Iulius it was not at all for their purpose to make any mention of Felix It is not the business of Optatus says a learned Annotator to give us the Names of all the Popes but onely the Successions And it would have been ridiculous in him to have mention'd Felix as the Successor of Liberius since Liberius not onely out-liv'd Felix but likewise enjoy'd the Pontificate after his death Vpon this account likewise S. Augustine in his 165 th Epistle where upon the like occasion he reckons up the Successions of the Bishops of Rome makes no mention of Felix Thus the learned Meric Casaubon tho' he was not at all concern'd whether Felix were own'd as a true Pope or no. 'T is observ'd by Anastasius in his Edition of the Pontifical that the Time of Felix's Government is usually comprehended in that of Liberius Thus it is in the Catalogues of Kings if a King has Reign'd twice the Name of that King who Reign'd in the Time of the others Expulsion is very frequently omitted And this was the reason why Felix is omitted by Theodoret in that Catalogue of the Bishops of Rome which he has subjoin'd at the end of his History These things I thought fit to premise to prevent Mistakes and to cut off all Objections before-hand We will now proceed to the Things propos'd to be prov'd 1. That the Catholick Bishops of his District acknowleg'd him as their Metropolitan and that others likewise as many as had an occasion communicated with him may be prov'd by many Arguments First From the three Epistles which are extant in Isidorus Mercator one from S. Athanasius and the Synod of Alexandria to him in which he is own'd as true Bishop of Rome and address'd to as such another from him and a Synod at Rome in answer to that of S. Athanasius and a third from him and a Synod at Rome to the Church-Catholick For tho' it be certain that all those Epistles are altogether fictitious yet from them it is manifest that at that time in which they were written viz. about 900 Years ago it was taken for granted that Felix was generally own'd by all Catholick Bishops 2dly From the Autority of the Pontifical in which it is said that he call'd a Synod of 48 Bishops and condemn'd the Emperour Constantius and the Arians And this is affirm'd not onely in the Vulgar Pontifical ascrib'd to Anastasius but likewise in that which was publish'd in the time of the Emperour Iustinian the Elder above 1150 Years ago viz. about the Year 534. If it be doubted whether there were really such a Synod call'd by Pope Felix as the Pontifical affirms yet at least thus much must be granted that near 1200 Years ago there was an undoubted Tradition in the Church that the Bishops of the District of Rome acknowleg'd him for their Metropolitan But 3dly It appears from the Inscription which was found on his Body when that was took up at Rome in the Time of Pope Gregory XIII that there was such a Synod call'd by him The Inscription was this CORPVS S. FELICIS PAPAE ET MARTYRIS QUI DAMNAVIT CONSTANTIVM The aforesaid Pope Gregory XIII having order'd the Roman Martyrology to be review'd and corrected Baronius was very zealous to have our Felix omitted as doubting of his being a Martyr and because he thought that his being own'd as one of the true Popes might prove a good Argument against some Pretensions of the Church of Rome In this he was by many oppos'd especially by the Card. Iulius Antonius Sanctorius In the midst of this Contention the Body chanc'd to be found together with the Bodies of some other Saints by a Miracle say the Popish Historians and that put an end to the Controversy Tho' there 's no one more apt than my self to suspect the Integrity of Romanists in things of this Nature and tho' the time in which this Body was found is enough to make one suspect at first thought that the Inscription of that Body which was found was onely a pia fraus of the Cardinal Sanctorius's Party Yet if we feriously consider 't will be hard to think it an Imposture since all the great Men of Rome saw the Body amongst them Baronius who owns himself confuted by it 'T is true I do not believe that the being a second time baptiz'd was that for which Constantius was condemn'd by that Synod But that is not said in the Inscription and 't was onely the mistake of the Author of the Pontifical Neither do I believe that that Synod was call'd before Pope Felix was ejected I rather think that 't was after he was ejected and that it consisted of sâ—alâ— Bishops scarce so many I suppose as 48. as adher'd to him in the time of his Ejectment in opposition to the laps'd Liberius Neither Lastly do I believe that Felix was ever put to death The whole truth I take to be this He was therefore call'd a Martyr by his Adherents and so entitled in the above-said Inscription because he was ejected by the Hereticks and suffer'd much for his Faith and died a Confessor Hence afterwards arose that Tradition concerning his being put to death the Title of Martyr being understood by Posterity in the more common sence 4thly It is said in both the Pontificals as well the antient as that ascrib'd to Anastasius that Felix in his time Ordain'd 5 Deacons 21 Presbyters and 18 or 19 Bishops And the truth of this
that Catalogue of the Bishops of that See which is added at the end of the last Book Briccius is call'd the Fourth and Eustochius who succeeded upon his Death is call'd the Fifth Bishop from the first Institution of the See yet throughout the whole History Iustinian and Armentius are reckoned in the number For Perpetuus who succeeded Eustochius is call'd the Fifth Bishop after S. Martin Virus who was the 2d from Eustochius is call'd the 7th Bishop after S. Martin To him succeeded Licinius and him he calls the 8th Bishop after S. Martin Now unless Iustinian and Armentius are included in the Number Perpetuus will be only the 3d. Bishop after S. Martin Virus only the 5th and Licinius only the 6th Thirdly I observe that S. Briccius though he was so unjustly deposed by barely the Violence of the People and though he never had given up his right but had all along endeavour'd to recover it yet he himself own'd Armentius to be a true Bishop of Tours and calls him his Brother The Historian tells us that when he was sent back to Tours by the Pope to be restor'd as he lay at some distance from the City Armentius died and the death of Armentius being reveal'd to him by a Vision he thus cried out to his Company Arise quickly that we may go to the Funeral of our Brother the Bishop of Tours § 3. In the year 452. Iuvenalis being Patriarch of Ierusalem Theodosius a certain turbulent Monk and an Adversary of the Council of Chalcedon had by the slaughter of a great many Persons got himself to be ordained Patriarch of that See though Iuvenalis was still alive and had never been deposed by any Synod nor yet by the Emperour himself yet the only Objection that the Venerable the Great and Orthodox Abbot S. Euthymius made against him when urged to acknowlege him as Patriarch and to communicate with him was this That he had been guilty of many Murders and was likewise a Heretick God forbid says he I should approve of his Murders and ill Opinions Concerning Iuvenalis that he had not been Synodically deprived and that therefore it was not lawful to acknowledge a Successor not a word Theodosius had ordained many Bishops in the room of those Orthodox Bishops who were not yet returned from the Council and all places that were vacant he filled up After some little time he was deposed by the Emperour and Iuvenalis being restored was commanded by the Emperour to depose all those Bishops whom he had ordained But though he had usurpt the See after so barbarous a manner and though they that had been ordained by him were as uncanonically ordained as possibly they could be yet they who were Orthodox were still accounted true Bishops and if their Predecessors were dead were still continued in their Sees This appears from the Example of Theodotus Bishop of Ioppa who though he was ordained by him yet continued long after that time Bishop of that See and was owned as such by the Orthodox § 4. Timotheus Aelurus a notorious Eutychian Heretick who as such had been formerly condemn'd by a Synod of all the Bishops of Aegypt was in the year 457. the 1st of the Emperour Leo made Bishop of Alexandria by the People of that City Proterius the Orthodox Bishop being then living and in full possession of the See and ordained by only two Bishops and those besides Hereticks and as such judicially condemned Being made Bishop after this irregular manner his Predecessor Proterius was in a little time after murder'd as 't was thought by his procurement After some time he was deposed and banish'd by the Authority of the Emperour and the Judgment of the Bishops of the Catholick Church and an Orthodox Person Timotheus Salofaciolus was constituted his Successor After 18 years Salofaciolus was deposed by the sole Authority of the Heretical Usurper Basiliscus and Aelurus being recall'd from Banishment was again made Bishop of Alexandria Whilst he was at Constantinople with the Emperor Basiliscus Acatius the stout and Orthodox Patriarch of that City would not suffer him to enter into any of his Churches And why not Not because he was substituted in the room of one unjustly deposed by the bare Authority of Basiliscus but because he was a Heretick and a Murderer So Pope Simplicius in one of his Epistles to Acacius Thy constancy says he is praise worthy both in the sight of God and in ours in that thou wouldst not suffer that condemn'd Person to enter into any of the Churches of Constantinople not only because he was a Heretick but likewise because he was a Parricide § 5. In the year 482. Iohannes Talaias or Tabennesiotes an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria was deposed by the Emperour Zeno and Petrus Mongus one who had been formerly deposed from that See for being an Eutychian but had now subscribed to the Orthodox Faith and had been absolv'd by Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople was made Bishop in his stead The reason why Talaias was deposed was this There having been great Seditions rais'd at Alexandria in the elections of the Patriarchs the Emperour had been forc'd to deprive that Church and People of their ancient Right of Election and to take upon him to constitute their Patriarch himself The Patriarch Timotheus Salofaciolus being again restored to that See sends Talaias his Oeconomus or the Treasurer of the Church to Constantinople to the Emperour to thank him for his restoring him and withal to beg of him that after his Salofaciolus's Death the Church of Alexandria might have a free Election This the Emperour grants but suspecting that Talaias might have took upon him to negotiate this Affair that so he himself might obtain the dignity he made him take an Oath that he himself would never endeavour to obtain it Talaias returning home with the Emperour's Grant was after the Death of Salofaciolus chosen Patriarch by the Orthodox party and the Emperour disliking the Election deposed him as guilty of Perjury That Talaias was really guilty he himself would never acknowlege alleging that it was only because he was Orthodox that he was deposed But guilty or not guilty deposed he was and that too by barely the Emperour's Authority as appears from Evagrius Liberatus Diaconus and the Epistles of Pope Gelasius that he had been canonically chosen and ordain'd and to all intents and purposes fully confirm'd by the Catholick Bishops of the district of Alexandria is apparent from an Epistle of Pope Simplicius to Acacius as likewise from Liberatus Diaconus who tell us besides That he had sent about his Synodical Epistles and that after he was ejected he never surrendred up his Right but still laid claim to the See of Alexandria is what I need not endeavour to prove His fleeing to Rome to the Pope that so he might be restored by his means is notorious
So far was he indeed from resigning that after the death of the Emperour Zeno he applyed himself to the Emperour Anastasius and desired him to restore him Though Talaias had been thus Arbitrarily Deposed by the Emperor without any Synod and without any Trial or Hearing and had never surrender'd up his Right Yet I observe First That all they who thought his Successor Mongus a true and sincere Convert to the Orthodox Faith and in that respect sufficiently qualified very freely acknowleged him and Communicated with him 1. Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople did so though in all other Cases he had always shewn a great deal of Courage and Resolution and Zeal for the Orthodox Faith When the Usurper Basiliscus had Issued out a Decree against the Council of Chalcedon and in Obedience to that at least 500 Bishops had deserted the Orthodox Profession he stoutly stood up for the Faith and so briskly opposed him that the Tyrant was forced to recall his Edict At the same time when Aelurus the Heretical Patriarch of Alexandria would have gone to Church at Constantinople though supported and patroniz'd by the Emperor yet he would not permit him to enter into any Church there Upon this account as has been above observ'd his Constancy is highly prais'd by Pope Simplicius And by the same Pope he is elsewhere Intituled Probatissimus Sacerdos And even at that time that he Communicated with Mongus he retain'd the same Zeal and could never be persuaded to Communicate with one whom he himself thought an Eutychian or an Enemy of the Council of Chalcedon When Calendion the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was turn'd out by the Emperor and a Notorious Heretick Petrus Gnapheus was made Patriarch in his place there was nothing could ever persuade him to receive him into Communion and he joyn'd with Pope Felix III. to Depose him And the same Zeal he shew'd in Respect to Mongus himself For as soon as he had heard that Mongus had Condemn'd the Council of Chalcedon he sent away immediately to Alexandriae to enquire into the Truth of the Accusation Whether Mongus had really done so is uncertain Certain it is That he produced to Acacius's Messengers certain Acts to prove himself Innocent and that if he had appear'd to have been Guilty Acacius would have utterly rejected him If the Writers of the Church of Rome have Condemn'd Acacius as an ill Man and a Heretick we know that they did it not because he really was so but because he Communicated with Mongus whom the Popes of that time accounted and Condemn'd as a Heretick And we know very well why the Popes did so They knew that Mongus had subscribed to the Orthodox Faith and that he had been absolv'd by Acacius But because it was done by Acacius and not by the Pope they look'd upon that Fact as Derogatory to the See of Rome and therefore to maintain their own Grandeur they declar'd the Absolution of Mongus Invalid and that consequently he was still to be accounted a Heretick Then Acacius was Excommunicated by Pope Felix III. as one that Communicated with a Heretick so in shew but the true Reason was because he endeavoured to advance the See of Constantinople above that of Rome This Excommunication was the Reason why some later Writers even amongst the Greeks are wont to speak of Acacius as of one enclin'd to the Eutychians so besides a great many others Theophanes the Chronographer and the Patriarch Photius in a Treatise not yet Publish'd Though Acacius during all his Life-time and for many years after was highly honour'd by the Orthodox at Constantinople and by the generality of the Eastern Church as a great and truly Orthodox Patriarch and no notice at all was taken of the Pope's Excommunication yet at last after the Expiration of 37 years by the importunity of Pope Hormisdas that so the two Churches the Eastern and the Western might be Reconcil'd his Name was struck out of the Diptyâ—hs Then the Greeks began to imitate the Latins and to speak ill of him whom before they had deservedly Honour'd It is certain in a word that whatever Mongus in reality was in the life time of Acacius yet outwardly he seem'd to be Orthodox If he was in reality a Heretick that Acacius knew not and according to Facundus Aliud est si quisque simpliciter in Haeretico dolos suos occuliente fallatur ut eum putet Orthodoxum Et aliud si ipsammet ejus Haeresim agnitam sectetur atque defendat Non debet crimini deputari simplicium non intellecta versutia malignorum 2. So did likewise Fravites the Successor of Acacius As he took no notice of the Pope's Excommunication of Acacius so as soon as he was made Patriarch be sent away his Communicatory Letters to Mongus 3. So did likewise Martyrius the Orthodox Patriarch of Ierusalem who flourished in the time of Acacius With Mongus says Evagrius Communicated Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople and Martyrius the Patriarch of Jerusalem sent him his Synodical Letters 4. So did in a word all the Greek or Eastern Catholicks as many as thought him no Heretick not taking any notice at all of his being put into the place of another Deposed without any Synod This appears from the Epistles of Pope Gelasius 1. Omnes Pontifices Orientales So Gelasius says expresly who because it was done without the consent of the Popes his Predecessors and because he himself accounted Mongus a Heretick is very angry with 'em for it Neither were they compell'd to it by the Patriarch Acacius as Theophanes who liv'd at that time when Acacius was accounted a Heretick would needs persuade us For 't is plain from Pope Gelasius ad Episcopos Orientales that they all did it readily and that no one pretended that he had been compell'd to it Secondly I observe That among all those who refus'd to Communicate with Mongus there is no one said to have done so on the account of his being Constituted in the place of one Vnsynodically Deposed that their only Reason was because they accounted him a Heretick So Theophanes supposes of those Eastern Bishops and others who he says were compell'd by Acacius to receive Mongus into Communion 1. It is plain from the Epistle of the Bishops of Dardania to Pope Gelasius That that was their only Reason They only allege he was a Heretick say nothing of the vnsynodical Deprivation of his Predecessor 2. The same is intimated by Evagriut concerning Calendion the Patriarch of Antioch In his Letters says he to the Emperor Zeno and Acacius he call'd Peter Mongus an Adulterer saying That being at Alexandria he Anathematiz'd the Council of Chalcedon 3. Euphemius says the same Author being made Patriarch of Constantinople in the room of Fravitas deceased receiv'd the Synodical Epistle which Mongus had written to Fravitas and when he found that he Anathematiz'd the Council of Chalcedon
so he ventur'd to do as soon as Acacius was Dead which he dar'd not do before at least not publickly he was very much troubled and broke off from his Communion Hence it plainly appears that before that time he freely Communicated with him and that now he broke off upon only the account of Heresie yet how Orthodox a Person he was and how stout and couragious a Bishop is very Notorious That sufficiently appears from his Behaviour to Anastasius When being a great Person in the Court of the Emperor Zeno Anastasius had discover'd his Inclination to Eutychianism and did something prejudicial to the Cause of the Orthodox Euphemius the Patriarch thrust him out of the Church and threaten'd him that if he did not desist from his Practices he would shave his Head for him and deliver him up to the Mockeries of the Rabble When the same Anastasius was to be Crown'd Emperor in the room of Zeno he refus'd to give his consent till he had forced him to give him an Assurance under his Hand That he never would innovate in Matters of Religion And he afterwards so stoutly opposed him as to suffer Expulsion and Banishment 4. As it appears from Evagrius and others That the Proterians or the Orthodox of Aegypt acknowleged Mongus for their Bishop so we are told by Liberatus Diaconus that when it was Reported that he had Anathematiz'd the Council of Chalcedon they that believ'd he had done so separated from him Et his ita gestis abscesserunt quidam à Petri Communione Romam nuntiaverunt Papae Romae 5. When Pope Simplicias had receiv'd a Letter from the Emperor concerning his design to Depose Talaias he was so far well enough satisfied and nothing displeas'd him till Reading further in the Letter he found that a Heretick i. e. one whom he accounted a Heretick was design'd for his Successor This he owns in his Letter to Acacius When says he according to Custom I was about to send to John my Confirmatory Letters I receiv'd a Letter from the Emperor in which he declar'd him unworthy of the Dignity as being guilty of Perjury I forthwith slept and recall'd my Sentence of Confirmation least I should be judg'd to have acted rashly in opposition to so great a Testimony But this extreamly astonish'd me that in the same Letter he mentions that he thought fit to promote Peter in his room one who was ere while a Ringleader of the Hereticks and is still to be presum'd to be out of the Communion of the Church He adds That if Peter Mongus did 〈◊〉 to return to the Church he could not be made a Bishop till by Penance according to the Rules of the Church he had made ample Satisfaction That it was not safe for the Church that he should be promoted to that Bishoprick least by making a shew of being a Convert he should propagate his Heresie He begs Acacius to do his utmost endeavour with the Emperor that Mongus might not be made Bishop to intercede with him incessantly for the Catholick Faith that what was done in prejudice to it might be Revok'd Concerning the Unlawfulness of a Bishops succeeding another before that other was Synodically Deposed not a word The same Pope in another Epistle to Acacius which in order follows the former but was written before it and before these times just after the Emperor Zeno was restor'd upon the Expulsion of Basiliscus when the Heretick Timotheus Aelurus was made Bishop of Alexandria in the room of Timotheus Salofaciolus the Orthodox Patriarch whom Basiliscus had Deposed I say in that Epistle he desires Acacius to take care to intercede with the Emperor that the Heretical Bishops might be turn'd out and Banish'd and that either the ejected Orthodox Bishops might be Restored or at least new Orthodox Bishops be Created Quatenus his submotis atque in solitudinis perpetua relegatione damnatis Antistites Cathelici deceptis vel reddantur Ecclesiis vel creentur Whether old ones or new ones was to him altogether indifferent he only desired they should be Orthodox So as is above observ'd in the forgoing Section he highly extolls Acacius's Constancy in forbidding Aelurus to enter into any of his Churches because he was a Heretick and a Murderer takes no notice at all of his being put into the room of Salofaciolus Vnsynodically Deposed 6. Pope Felix III. in his two first Pathetical Epistles which he wrote in his own Name and the Name of a Synod of Rome to Acacius and the Emperor concerning the promotion of Mongus takes no notice at all of Talaias's being Deposed without a Synod He only complains that Mongus was a Heretick So likewise in his sixth Epistle to Acacius wherein he Excommunicates him and declares him Deposed the great Reason assign'd is because he continu'd to Communicate with the Heretick Mongus And though there are other pretended Crimes charg'd upon him yet concerning any Crime committed by him in Communicating with a Person put into the place of another Vnsynodically Deposed there is nothing alleged We may gather lastly from Evagrius That Talaias himself did not think it Unlawful for the People and Clergy of Aegypt to accept of another Patriarch if that other had been likewise Orthodox He flees says Evagrius to Rome and raises there very great Stirs affirming not that another could not be put into his place because he was not Deposed by a Synod but that it was for his defending the Council of Chalcedon that he was Deposed and that he that was Constituted his Successor was an Enemy to the Doctrine of that Council By these Allegations Simplicius Pope of Rome was so far moved as to write to the Emperor concerning him And the Emperor return'd him this Answer That 't was only for Perjury that he had been Deposed not on any other account 7. In the year 483. Calendion the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch was Deposed by the Emperor Zeno as suspected to have conspired against him with the Rebels Illus and Leontius That he was Deposed without any Synod is manifest from the express Testimony of Pope Gelasius I. Though Deposed in this manner yet his Successor Petrus Gnapheus a notorious Heretick was rejected by none of the Orthodox upon any other account but because he was a Heretick 1. Pope Felix III. in his two Epistles to Petrus Gnapheus in the latter of which he declares him Deposed and in another which he writes to the Emperor to desire that he might be Ejected takes no notice at all of Calendion no notice at all of his being Vnsynodically Deposed the only thing he objects against Gnapheus is his being a Heretick For this and for this alone he Deposes him and he plainly intimates that if he would forsake his Heresie there was nothing else to be objected against him He tells the Emperor That the Church had Deposed him because he was a Heretick and to him himself Forsake says he I beseech thee
this Error Thou art fallen do not lie as thou art Thou hast Sin'd do not continue to do so The Holy Church of God expects thee she desires to embrace thee a Penitent and a Convert to her Faith She cries out to thee by us Come to me all you that Labour c. God wills not most Honour'd Brother the Death of a Sinner but that he should be Converted and Live These Things I together with a Synod have written to thee Conjuring thee by God and the Holy Angels that thou Preach these Things and agree with us in the True Faith That so our Faith may remain Vnadulterated to the Glory of God The same is to be said of all those Bishops whose Epistles to Gnapheus are extant in the 4th Tome of the Councils not one takes notice of his being Invalidly Constituted in the room of Calendion Heresie is the only Thing they object that the only Thing they exhort him to forsake 2. Quintianus Asculanus Thou proceedest says he in thy Heretical Doctrines not withstanding the Admonitions of many Bishops and particularly Pope Felix who have exhorted thee to forsake 'em and to preach the Orthodox Faith Who can bear with thee whilst thou thus pervertest the Gospel of Christ Let thy Liturgy be as that of the Orthodox is without the addition of that Clause who wast Crucified for us and that punishment which is intended for thee shall be slopt If thou dost not do so there will be sent thee from Pope Felix a Deprivation 3. Iustinus Siculus Cease says he from this Wickedness and then thou wilt not be the cause of the Ruin of those that are more ignorant least our Pope Felix should according to the Canons pass Sentence upon thee Receive my Admonition as the Admonition of a Brother Extinguish the Pride of Hereticks and become a Pastor to thy Sheep not a Wolf c. 4. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople Walk says he and lead thy Flock in the high way in which the Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon walk'd that thou may'st be a true High-Priest of God 5. To the same purpose Antheon Bishop of Arsinoe and Faustus of Apollonius I have heard beloved says the latter from many Bishops That thou turn'st away from the Orthodox Faith and in all place they talk of it I therefore thought it necessary to enquire of thee thy self whether it be really so c. 6. Pamphilus Bishop of Abydus This Reprehension I send thee that returning to the true Faith thou may'st enjoy the Dignity of thy Throne But if thou dost not return to the Orthodox Faith I will Excommunicate thee 7. Ascelepiades Bishop of Trallium The whole World is offended at thy addition to the Trishagium and the Pastors of the Church are deservedly excited to pronounce an Anathema against thee Give us I beseech thee some little Signification of thy being Orthodox c. The only Person that takes any notice of his being irregularly Constituted is Flaccianus Rhodopensis and of him 't is uncertain whether when he says That Gnapheus was irregularly Constituted he had any respect to the Deprivation of Calendion For Gnapheus had been formerly deposed from the See of Antioch as a Heretick and therefore since he had never been absolv'd by the Church he might well be said even upon that account to have been irregularly promoted And to this Flaccianus seems to allude Whatever was his meaning he only barely mentions it does not offer it as a Reason why the Orthodox did not or ought not to Communicate with him He insists like the rest upon only his being a Heretick I am not ignorant that these Epistles of Pope Felix Quintianus Iustinus Acacius Antheon Faustus Pamphilus and Asclepiades to Petrus Gnapheus are lookt upon by some Learned Men not to be Genuine But I likewise know that that Opinion is by others opposed However it be This at least is apparent that he or they who wrote 'em and 't is certain that they are very ancient did not doubt of the lawfulness of Communicating with a Bishop who was put into the place of another unjustly Deposed by the Lay-Power provided he were not a Heretick or if he were would leave his Heresie and come over to the Orthodox Faith And here I must observe that the Epistle last quoted viz. That of Flaccianus is Condemn'd as Spurious by even those who will not yield that the rest should be thought so CHAP. VI. Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox though at the same time they profess'd that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust and could never be induced by any Terrours to subscribe to it viz by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium the Orthodox People of Constantinople by the great Abbots of Palaestine S. Sabas and S. Theodosius and by all Palaestine in general at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostacy of the Patriarchs Flavianus and Elias confuted Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretick when they Communicated with him They are Honoured by the Church as Saints IN the year 511 Macedontus the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was Deposed by the bare Authority of the Heretical Emperor Anastasius and that because he was Orthodox and refused to Condemn the Council of Chalcedon Though Macedonius was so unjustly Deposed yet Timotheus whom the Emperor had constituted in his place was receiv'd and acknowleged as true Bishop of Constantinople by all those that accounted him Orthodox This is one of the Examples produced by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise Evagrius says That the Patriarch Macedonius went away privately from the City of Constantinople by the perswasions of Celer the Captain of the Emperors Guards By which he means that the Captain of the Guards being commanded by the Emperor to carry him away into Banishment persuaded him to go away with him peaceably and privately for the avoiding of a Tumult That the Patriarch did not resign but was forced to go away and lookt upon himself still as the Rightful Patriarch is apparent from the express Testimony of several Authors and Evagrius himself in another place affirms That he was ejected The Emperor says Theodorus Lector supposing that Macedonius if he should have been judg'd would as innocent have been defended by the People sent him away by force to Chalcedon by Night and commanded him to be carried from thence to Euchaâ—â—a and the next day he made one Timotheus Patriarch in his stead Anastasius the Emperor says Victor Tununensis deposed Macedonius the Bishop of Constantinople by Violence and sent him away into Banishment because he refused to Condemn the Council of Chalcedon and in his stead he made the
joy to see him and receiv'd his Blessing So great an Honour was paid our Sabas though as to his outward appearance he was nothing else but a poor ragged old Man I pass by all these things But this the Reader is desired to take notice of and remember That by both the Churches as well the Western as the Eastern Theodosius and Sabas are both honoured with the Title of Saints They are not only Worshipt as Saints but in the Liturgies the Menology and the Anthology of the Greek Church they have as two of the Sancti majorum gentium their proper and peculiar Offices Let us hear a little those Elogiums and Praises which they give them not private Authors but the whole Greek Church in her sacred Offices most blessed Sabas says the Church in her addresses to that Saint The unextinguish'd Lamp of Continence the most refulgent Luminary of those that live a monastick life enlighten'd with love the unshaken Tower of Perseverance Holy Sabas the fiery Pillar of Vertues the light that guides those that sail on the Sea of the World to the Shoar of Heaven thou that opposest the Spirits of Error the pure Vessel of the Holy Ghost the conductor of Monastick Persons the exact measure of Temperance the most illustrious Example of Humility the perfect Rule of Virtue Much more of the like Nature the pours out in the Praises of that Saint and much of the same Nature she offers up to S. Theodosius Holy Father Divine Theodosius says she in a Prayer to him composed by Theophanes See likewise that Hymn which she Sings in Praise of him composed by Iohanne Damâ—sâ—enas Thus much I thought sit to say concerning those two great Men that the World may see what Examples those are which we follow 〈◊〉 it was not only the Church of Palaestine S. Sabas and S. Theodosius c. that acknowledged Iohn as true Patriarch of Ierusalem It appears from an Epistle of Iohannes Cappadoae Patriarch of Constantinople and the Synod of Constantinople that was call'd under him in the beginning of the Emperor Iustin viz. on the year 5'8 that the whole Greek Church acknowleged him The Latin Church at that time was broken off from the Communion of the Greek Church on the Account of Acacius formerly Patriarch of Constantinople That Epistle is extant in the Acts of the Council sub Mennâ and is directed to our Iohn Archbishop of Jerusalem and to the Metropolitans under him It begins thus Christ our God who has given from Heaven the Bond of Charity in Peace to Men that are of one Soul and of one Faith has Commanded that what is done by some should be Communicated to all c. I have therefore thought it necessary to signifie these things to your Holiness that by the assistance of the Holy Ghost you by knowing what has been done may be confirm'd in the Word of Truth The business of the Epistle is to let him and his Bishops know that Severns the Heretical Patriarch of Antioch had been Anathematiz'd at Constantinople c. and about the same matter there is another Epistle sent from the same Synod of Constantinople to Epiphanius Archbishop of Tyre There is extant in the same Acts of the Council sub Mennâ an Epistle of our John Archbishop of Jerusalem and the Synod of the three Palaestines to which besides the Archbishop himself there are the Subscriptions of 34 Bishops to the Patriarch of Constantinople in answer to that above-mention'd To my Lord and Fellow-Communicant the most Pious and Holy John and to the Holy Synod of Constantinople John by the Mercy of God Bishop of Jerusalem and the Holy Synod of the Three Palaestines now sitting in the Holy Places of Christ the God of all Things Health in the Lord. Neither can it be alleged That therefore the Patriarch and the Church of Constantinople acknowleged our Iohn of Ierusalem because at that time the old Bishop Elias was Dead For Elias Died in Banishment at a great distance from Constantinople the 20th of Iuly A. D. 518 ten days after the Emperor Anastasius and the Synod of Constantinople compleated that about which they write to Iohn of Ierusalem four days before viz. on the 16th of the same Month. And besides it is plain from the Words of the Epistle of the Patriarch of Constantinople to our Iohn of Ierusalem that before that time they own'd the latter as true Bishop of Ierusalem As our Archbishop Iohn was in his life time acknowleged by all the Church so he has been all along in the following Ages First Cyrillus Scythopolitanus who wrote his History of the Life of S. Sabas about Thirty three years after his Death speaks every where of him as of one of the true Bishops of Ierusalem and in one place he says that he was adorn'd with a Divine Prudence or Vnderstanding Secondly In the Constantinopolitan Council sub Mennâ which was celebrated in the year 536. where the Pope of Rome was concern'd as well as the Greek Church his Epistle to the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Patriarch's Epistle to him are recited in the same manner as the Epistles of other Orthodox Bishops are wont to be in the Councils and in the Acts of that Council he is Styled more than once Iohn Archbishop of Ierusalem of Holy Memory Thirdly the Author of the Synodicon speaking of that Synod of Monks which wrote that Epistle to the Emperor Anastasius in which the Eutychian Heresie is Anathematiz'd and the Emperor desired not to Depose their most Holy Archbishop Iohn gives it the Title of a Divine and Holy Synod Which shews that he very well approv'd of the Proceeding of those Monks as to their Acquiescence under Iohn their Archbishop Fourthly It is certain that the Names both of Iohn and Elias were continued all along in the Sacred Diptychs of the Church of Ierusalem This is expresly asserted not only by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise in the Words above Cited but likewise by Photius the Patriarch of Constantinople in a Treatise of his not yet publish'd His Words are express to our Purpose They are these Elias Bishop of Jerusalem being Banish'd from his Church by the Eutychians they made John Bishop in his stead who had promised to Communicate with Severus and to Anathematize the Fourth Council But he doing the contrary by the persuasion of S. Sabas and S. Theodosius was so far from being either punish'd or reprehended that to this very day he is Commemorated as a Saint together with Elias Neither did they who Communicated with him suffer any thing in their Reputation for doing so I shall conclude this Chapter with an Observation concerning the good old Archbishop Elias He though so Tyrannically deposed though deposed for adhering to the Orthodox Faith yet continu'd still to communicate with those who acknowleged his Successor Iohn This is plain from the Testimony of
to Vigilius in which he excommunicates him and degrades him from the Ministery for invading his See by Simony and he likewise excommunicates all those that adhere to him And to this Epistle and Sentence four other Bishops of Campania subscribe A second Epistle is from one Amator a Bishop to Silverius in which he condoles with him for the injuries which he had suffer'd and desires to know the circumstances of his Ejectment and a third there is from Silverius to Amator in Answer to his In this he tells Amator That Belisarius trapan'd him into the Palace and so detain'd him and sent him into Banishment But says he I do not therefore resign up my right to my See but together with such Bishops as I could gather together I have excommunicated those who did so to me To these Epistles I answer That they are all fictitious and forged by that idle and ignorant Impostor Mercator This appears from the Barbarousness of the Style in which they are writ from the falseness of the Stories contain'd in 'em and from their Date For whereas the 1 st is pretended to be dated in the Consulship of Basilius and the last in the 5th Consulship of Justinian when he was Consul together with Belisarius It is very certain First That Basilius was not Consul till two or three years after Silverius was deposed Secondly That Belisarius was never Consul after the year 535 which was two or three years before Silverius's Expulsion Thirdly That Iustinian was never a 5 th time Consul Fourthly That Iustinian and Belisarius were never Consuls together So ignorant an Impostor was that idle Fellow the Forger of those Epistles for further satisfaction the Reader is desired to consult Blondel his Pseudo Isidorus I shall only add that all those three Epistles are now rejected as Spurious by even the Papists themselves as particularly by the Jesuit Labbée in his Edition of the Councils It does not therefore appear that there was ever any the least Schism on the account of Silverius though the Cricumstances of his Ejectment and of Vigilius's Promotion were so extraordinary Such indeed were the circumstances both of the Ejectment of the former and likewise of the promotion of the latter so very extraordinary and provoking that it is to be admired that there was none and the Forger of those Epistles above mention'd had reason enough from the heinousness of the circumstances tho' not from Tradition or History to believe there might have been some Schism and accordingly to make Silverius and four other Bishops excommunicate Vigilius and his Adherents I here observe by the bye that he that forged those Epistle does not make Silverius complain of his being deposed without a Synod he does not make him excommunicate his deposers and Vigilius and his Adherents for that for he takes no notice at all of it but he makes him excommunicate his Deposers because they deposed him by Fraud and Treachery and he makes him excommunicate Vigilius and his Adherents because he had usurp'd his See by Simony 2. Baronius and out of him Binius who is every where the Transcriber of Baronius are willing to perswade the World that after the death of Silverius Vigilius resign'd the Popedom that so he might be new Chosen and that being new Chosen he was made a true Pope by virtue of his last Consecration not by virtue of his first A strange and prodigious Fancy Let us see what ground they have for it Their only Argument is this That in the Pontifical it is said that after the death of Silverius there was a five days vacancy in the See Now say they since Vigilius was made Pope before Silverius's death how there should be a Five days Vacancy after Silverius ' s death unless it was because Vigilius resign'd upon his death and was again chosen Pope after a Five days Vacancy we cannot imagine To this I answer 1. That had there been such a Resignation it must have been look'd upon as so extraordinary a thing as that some one or other would have mention'd it But Liberatus Diaconus who lived at that time and gives a particular account of the Deprivation and death of Silverius and of the Promotion of Vigilius makes no mention of any such thing So far is he from doing so that the contrary may easily be gather'd from what he says Having told his Reader that Vigilius to make good his Promise to the Empress had sent his Communicatory Letters to the Hereticks Theodosius Anthimus and Severus and confirm'd their Belief he subjoins Et haec Vigilius scribens Haereticis occultè permansit sedens And so he was continued in his See 2. It does not appear that the Author of the Pontifical meant that there was a Vacancy in the See of Five days after the death of Silverius He might only mean that there was a Vacancy of Five days between the Deprivation of Silverius and the Promotion of Vigilius 3. It is certain that the Author of the Pontifical writes very fabulously concerning Silverius and Vigilius and plainly discovers that he knew very little of the matter As for his cessavit Episcopatus dies 5. he had so much used his Pen to cessavit Episcopatus at the end of every Life that that comes in always of Course even then when 't is certain there never was any Vacancy Witness the cessavit episcopatus dies 7. between the death of Liberius and Felix II. and the cessavit episcopatus diebus 39. between the same Felix and Damasus Than which there can be nothing more false For Damasus did not succeed Felix but Liberius and Felix being put into Liberius's place was again turn'd out upon Liberius's Restauration without any manner of Vacancy So rather than a cessavit episcopatus should be wanting he adds in the Life of S. Fabian Et cessavit Episcopatus dies septem when we very well know that between the Martyrdom of S. Fabian and the Consecration of his Successor S. Cornelius there was a Vacancy of no less than a Year Four Months and Four Days Our Author knew nothing of the Business but a cessavit Episcopatus he would not be without 3. That Vigilius was own'd and acknowleged as a true Pope not only after the death of Silverius but likewise before appears 1. from hence That there is no mention in any credible Author of his being by any rejected on the Account of Silverius so far was he from being generally rejected 2. From an Epistle of Eutherius a Bishop as it seems of Spain to him wherein he desires his Opinion in some Points relating to the Church That there was such an Epistle written to him by Eutherius appears from Vigilius's Epistle in Answer to it and that it was written in a very little time after Vigilius was made Pope is apparent from the date of Vigilius's Answer for that is dated the 1 st of March in the Consulship of Volusianus and Ioannes i. e.
great Defender of the contrary Doctrine and had been himself condemned by Iustinian to be deposed on that account was so much prejudiced against Iohn as not to like that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be ordain'd by his hands This I say might have been Anastasius's Opinion and Prejudice Yet it is not certain that Iohn did actually subscribe Eustratius was his very great Enemy and the Author of the Synodicon might speak onely by Conjecture At least this is certain that if he ever subscribed he quickly retracted and prov'd a very Orthodox Patriarch This appears not onely from his continuing so long under an Orthodox Emperor and from his being so generally receiv'd but likewise by the Edict which was publish'd in the beginning of Iustin's Reign That Edict is not onely Orthodox in general but does likewise strike particularly at the Doctrine of the Aphthartodocetae by declaring That the Body of Christ was subject to all the Passions to which our Bodies are subject It cannot be doubted but that the Patriarch himself was the chief Promoter of this Edict and it 's very probable that he himself was the Composer of it That all subscribed to it is attested by Evagrius To this I must add That the Patriarch Photius mentions a Catechetical Oration which our Patriarch spoke and published on the First Indiction i. e. three Years after the beginning of Iustin's Reign in which he laid down matters of Faith Divinely as Photius says concerning the Holy Trinity and against which Ioannes Philoponus the Heretick wrote a Treatise Secondly If we suppose according to Valesius's Conjecture that the reason why Anastasius reprehended the two Patriarchs was because the Ordainer succeeded the unjustly deposed Eutychius yet from the words of Theophanes it cannot be inferr'd that he refus'd to communicate either with him or with the Patriarch of Alexandria whom he had ordain'd On the contrary it may be gather'd from Theophanes's words that he did not refuse their Communion For if he had refus'd their Communion Theophanes would have said so he would not have said onely that he reprehended ' em Besides if Anastasius was deposed for reprehending Iohn of Constantinople because put into Eutychius's place from thence it may be concluded that before that time which was near Five Years after the Expulsion of Eutychius he all along communicated with him For if the Emperor did so highly resent his reproving Iohn of Constantinople on that account he would doubtless have been deposed before that time if he had refused on that account to communicate with him But Thirdly It does not appear that was the Reason for which Anastasius reprov'd the two Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria It does not I say appear that it was as Valesius conjectures because Iohn of Constantinople by whom He of Alexandria was ordain'd was put into Eutychius's place There may be another Reason assign'd more probable than that 'T is expressly enacted by the General Council of Nice That all Metropolitans should be Consecrated by the Bishops of their own Province The Ordination of a Patriarch of Alexandria by the Patriarch of Constantinople was directly against that Canon and 't was lookt upon by the other Patriarchs as a great Presumption in the Patriarch of Constantinople to pretend to ordain another Patriarch This seems to be the thing which Anastasius who was a nice observer of all Rules so much disliked He reproved the one for taking so much upon him and the other for being ordain'd in a manner not agreeable to the Canons In the same manner before those times Simplicius Pope of Rome had reprov'd Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople for taking upon him to Consecrate Steven and Calendion Patriarchs of Antioch That this was the true Reason Theophanes himself seems to imitate if we duely consider his Words It is to be supposed that what was done as to that Ordination was done by the Emperor's Order And thence it came to pass that the Emperor so highly resented the words of Anastasius's Letter as reflecting no less upon himself than upon the two Patriarchs the Ordainer and the Ordained To this may be added That it is not probable that the Emperor Iustin should be so much displeas'd with Anastasius for reflecting on the Patriarch of Constantinople for his being put into Eutychius's place since it was not himself but Iustinian that deposed Eutychius and since as Eustratius affirms he had still a great Honour for Eutychius tho' he did not think fit to restore him as long as Iohn lived That Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch did not refuse to communicate with Iohn of Constantinople may be further confirm'd from this Consideration That Eustratius in the Life of Eutychius tho he mentions that he as well as Eutychius boldly opposed the Doctrine advanced by Iustinian and his Synod and suffer'd very much for doing so yet speaks not a word of his refusing to communicate with Eutychius's Successor And the same we may likewise gather from Evagrius He speaking of the Reasons why the Emperor Iustin deposed Anastasius makes no mention at all of his being deposed for either refusing to communicate with Iohn of Constantinople or for any severe words spoken against him on the account of his being constituted in Eutychius's place but he assigns other reasons for it And if Anastasius had refused to communicate with Iohn it cannot be supposed but that Evagrius who liv'd at that time and was Assessor to Anastasius's Successor would somewhere have mention'd it Fifthly As neither Evagrius nor Eustratius himself nor any other Author makes any mention of Anastasius his refusing to communicate with Iohn so neither is there mention any where made of any the least disturbance in the Church on his account No mention any where of any one person that declined his Communion Sixthly Tho' Eustratius for his Lord Eutychius his sake was a very bitter Enemy of Iohn's and speaks in his Life of Eutychius very virulently of him yet he no where speaks reflectingly of any for receiving him as Bishop of Constantinople His Life of Eutychius is an Oration made to the People in the great Church of Constantinople in praise of him And certainly if in those days it had been accounted unlawful to acknowledge a Bishop who was put into the place of another unjustly and uncanonically deposed he would in some manner or other have expressed his dislike of the Churches owning and receiving Iohn The same we may observe of the several other Authors who speak of Iohn and Eutychius There is not so much as one that either says expressly or intimates that the former ought not to have been receiv'd as Patriarch Seventhly It is certain that he was acknowleged as a true Bishop of Constantinople by the Church in all following Ages This appears not onely by his being spoken of as such by Evagrius Theophanes Nicephorus the Patriarch Nicephorus Callisti Zonaras Cedrenus c. but likewise from the Testimony of the Baroccian Treatise
he utter'd to the Patriarch Gregory and of Gregory's going to give him a visit in his sickness to take his leave of him before he died How holy a Man this Symeon Stylites was we may read at large in Evagrius He tells us That of all Men living in that Age he was the most holy And by both Churches he is to this day honour'd as a Saint by the Latin on the third by the Greek on the first of September 7. That he was generally own'd as Bishop of Antioch by the Bishops of the Catholick Church is apparent from his being tried as a Patriarch by a very great Council at Constantinople a Council in which all the Eastern Patriarchs were present either in their own Persons or by their Representatives The Case was this There happen'd a great Difference between him and Asterius the Comes Orientis who usually resided at Antioch and by the influence which the Comes had upon the People they were mightily excited against their Patriarch to that degree that they malitiously accus'd him for lying with his own Sister another man's Wife and as a Disturber of the Peace and Quiet of the City He appeal'd to the Emperor and a Council which accordingly was call'd at Constantinople where he made his Appearance and was acquitted and his Accuser was publickly whipt and banish'd That this Council was a very great and a General Council is attested by Evagrius who was there present as the Patriarch's Counsel and Advocate He says That all the Patriarchs were there present at the Trial either in their own Persons or by their Legates together with a great many Metropolitans and the Senators of Constantinople When he says that all the Patriarchs were there he means the Oriental Patriarchs For there is extant in Isidorus Mercator an Epistle from Pope Pelagius II. to the Bishops of that Council from which it may be gather'd That the Pope had no Legate there for he seems very angry that Iohn Nesteutes the then Patriarch of Constantinople who had call'd the Council by his own Autority and had usurpt the Title of Vniversal Bishop should pretend to do so and he declares That the Summons being unlawfull and derogatory to the Power of the See of Rome whatsoever was done in that Council should be null and of no force And tho' it be certain that this Epistle is spurious and Labbée himself confesses it yet 't is likewise apparent from the express words of Pope Gregory the Great that Pope Pelagius II. did not approve of the Synod And that he had no Representative in it may be collected from Pope Gregory's Words for he says That the Patriarch of Constantinople having in that Synod endeavour'd to usurp the Title of Universal Pope Pelagius as soon as he heard of it sent not to any Legate or Legates that he had sent to the Synod but to his Deacon who according to custom resided at the Emperor's Court as Apocrisiarius for the See of Rome and commanded him not to communicate with the Patriarch But nevertheless it is certain that Pope Pelagius himself as well as the other Patriarchs acknowleged Gregory as Patriarch of Antioch This appears from another Epistle of Pope Gregory the Great in which he says that Pope Pelagius did not declare all the Acts of the Synod of Constantinople void but onely that part which was concerning the Title of Vniversal which the Patriarch of Constantinople had usurpt and that he ratified what had been decreed concerning Gregory the Patriarch of Antioch 8. It is likewise very notorious that Pope Gregory the Great himself who succeeded Pelagius tho' the ejected Patriarch Anastasius was his dearly beloved Friend and tho' he lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and accounted him always the rightfull Patriarch of Antioch yet never separated from the Communion of his Successor Gregory but communicated always with him First That Pope Gregory lookt upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch of Antioch while Gregory was possess'd of the See and accounted his Deprivation invalid is apparent first from the Titles which he always gives him of Patriarch of Antioch Gregorius Anastasio Patriarchae Antiocheno 2. From his sending a Synodical Episle to him as well as to the rest of the Patriarchs when first he was made Pope 3. From his express Words to that purpose in an Epistle which he wrote him together with the Synodical one In which he tells him That he had sent a Synodical Epistle to him as well as to the other Patriarchs as looking upon him to be still a Patriarch as well as heretofore to be still what God Almighty had made him not what he was commonly accounted deposed Secondly That notwithstanding all this tho' such was his Opinion concerning the Nullity of Anastasius's Deprivation yet that he likewise communicated with Gregory Anastasius's Successor and acknowleged him as Bishop of Antioch is apparent from the Title of his Synodical Epistle For from that it is manifest that the Epistle was sent to Gregory as well as to Anastasius and the rest of the Patriarchs The Title is this Gregorius Ioanni Episcopo Constantinopolitano Eulogio Alexandrino Gregorio Antiocheno Ioanni Hierosolymitano Anastasio Patriarchae Antiocheno à paribus Tho' in order the Patriarch of Antioch was always mention'd before the Patriarch of Ierusalem as Gregory is here plac'd yet Anastasius he places below the Patriarch of Ierusalem because he was a Patriarch of Antioch de jure onely not in possession In another Epistle the Pope calls the Patriarch Gregory then deceas'd his late Brother and Co-bishop And in another agen he calls him venerandae memoriae Gregorium Episcopum Antiochenum This Example of Pope Gregory his owning both Gregory and Anastasius at the same time Non satis advertere videntur says the learned Annotator on his Epistles in the last Paris Edition qui ad summos juris apices de re qualibet decernentes SCHISMATIBVS contentionibus viam parant zelo PRAECIPITI NEC SATIS CAVTO 'T is worthy our Observation that among those who communicated with and acknowleged Gregory as Patriarch of Antioch there were no less than four who are honour'd by the Church as Saints 1. Symeon Stylites 2. Pope Gregory the Great 3. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria who was one of those Patriarchs that acquitted our Patriarch Gregory in the above-mention'd Synod of Constantinople These three are honour'd and worshipt as Saints by both Churches both the Greek and the Latin Of S. Symeon Stylites I have spoken already Of S. Gregory the Great there is no need I should say any thing he being so generally known Of Eulogius it is to be observ'd That as he was a very holy Man and a Saint in the Church's Calendar so he was likewise a very learned Man a zealous Defender of the Orthodox Faith and a great Opposer of Hereticks as his several learned
from those words in his Epistle which he wrote at least a Year and four Months after he was carried away from Rome where he mentions that the Emperor had commanded him to be carried to Constantinople and the Clergy to choose a new Pope Quod necdum aliquando factum est spero quod necdum aliquando fieri habet quia in absentià Pontificis Archidiaconus Archipresbyter Primicerius locum praesentant Pontificis Notwithstanding all this as soon as they understood that he was not acquitted at Constantinople but condemn'd and of consequence not like to return agen to his See they chose another in his place viz. Eugenius As for that which Baronius and his faithfull Echo Binius would needs perswade the World That Eugenius was not chosen as a new Pope but onely as S. Martin's Vicar That their design was that tho' he acted as Pope yet he should not be truly so till after S. Martin's Death is a trifling Evasion not grounded in the least on any Autority And I need not mention that S. Martin himself speaks of him as of his Successor not his Vicar How long Pope Eugenius govern'd before S. Martin's Death may be gather'd from S. Martin's Epistle but now cited and from the Anonymous Author That he was not made Pope when first the Clergy were commanded to choose a new one that is when S. Martin was carried away from Rome but after his arrival at Constantinople is plain from S. Martin's Words which I just now produced and likewise from an Epistle which he wrote to Constantinople from Cherso four Months after his arrival there and at least two Years and three Months after he was carried from Rome In which he speaks of his Successor as if he had but very lately heard the news of his being ordain'd in his room Pastorem qui eis nunc praesse MONSTRATVR It appears from that particular account which P. Martin gives in his Epistle that he was carried away from Rome the 19th Day of Iune and that he did not arrive at Constantinople till about a Year and three Months after that We are assured by the Anonymous Author that he arriv'd at Constantinople the 17th of September That the 93d Day after his Arrival he was tried and condemn'd That 85 Days after his Condemnation he was sent away towards Cherso and that he died the 16th of September Indict 14. i. e. in the Year 656. Whether the September on which he died were the next after his arrival at Cherso we cannot for certain determine There is extant in the Anonymous Author an Epistle which he wrote from Cherso to a Friend at Constantinople on the Month of September But however it is probable that he died on that same September a few days after he had written that Epistle And my Reason is Because the Anonymous Author who produces two Epistles which he wrote from Cherso within about four Months after his arrival there says nothing more of him but onely concerning his Death Had he lived a Year longer it is very likely that his Friends at Constantinople would have heard agen from him and our Author would have had more to write concerning him And that he died very soon after his arrival appears yet more probable from his weak and sickly condition and from the great Complaints which he makes concerning his misery and the want of subsistence at Cherso From these Considerations I inferr That he was carried away from Rome the 19th of Iune 654 and lived after that two Years and three Months That he was tried and condemn'd at Constantinople the 18th of Decemb. 655. And from hence it follows that Eugenius was chosen Pope about the Month of Ianuary 656 about eight Months before S. Martin's Death allowing about three Weeks or a Month for the carrying of the News of S. Martin's Condemnation from Constantinople to Rome If that may be relied on which the Author of the Pontifical says concerning a Vacancy of 28 Days it would then follow that Eugenius was made Pope the 16th of Ianuary But on that we cannot rely not onely because the words Cessavit Episcopatus dies 28 are wanting in some Copics but because that Author as I have already observ'd is wont to be very exact in assigning the Duration of Vacancies when we know he knew nothing of the matter What he says concerning the time of S. Martin's Deprivation that he was deposed on the 16th of September is an error occasion'd by his having heard that he died on that Day Eugenius being constituted Pope as he had been freely Elected by the Clergy so he was readily own'd and acknowleged by the People of Rome as a true Pope and that too tho' the People of Rome were at that time exceedingly zealous for all Orthodox Doctrines When Peter the Monothelite Patriarch of Constantinople had sent to Rome his Synodical Letters this happen'd while S. Martin was yet living in which the Doctrine of the Monothelites was pass'd by in silence and not condemn'd the whole Church utterly rejected 'em and would not suffer their Pope Eugenius to officiate at Divine Service till he had promis'd that he would never receive ' em Tho' so stout Asserters of Orthodoxy in opposition to the Emperor himself yet they never scrupled to submit to a Bishop who was put into the place of another unjustly deposed by the Lay-power and still living at least for ought they knew That Pope Eugenius was acknowledged by the Bishops of the Roman District is apparent as from the thing it self so likewise from hence That tho' he govern'd in all but a very little while not above two Years and eight Months yet there were 21 or 22 Bishops ordain'd by him as we are assur'd by the Author of the Pontifical Neither is there mention in any Author of any the least Disturbance in the Church on his account He was not onely own'd as a true Pope but was likewise after his Death honour'd by the Church as a Saint and so he has been all along to this day By the Author of the Pontifical he is said to be sanctitate praeclarior and in the Roman Martyrology we read Romae sancti Eugenii Papae Confessoris A Saint is deposed and a Saint accepts of his place It is here to be observ'd that many of the Greek Writers who were not well acquainted with the Affairs of the Latins make not Eugenius but Pope Agatho to succeed S. Martin tho' not onely Eugenius but Vitalianus likewise and Adeodatus came in between S. Martin and Agatho But 't is likewise to be observ'd that tho' they knew that P. Martin was unjustly deposed yet they speak of P. Agatho whom they took to be his Successor as of a true Pope and an excellent Man S. Martin says Theophanes being banish'd Agatho is ordain'd Pope of Rome who being moved with zeal towards God call'd a holy Synod and condemn'd the Heresy of the Monothelites
The Author of the Synodicon Martin the most holy Pope of Rome was banish'd to Cherso Agatho the most blessed Pope of Rome who was advanc'd to Martin 's Throne gather'd a holy Synod c. In the last place I add That S. Martin himself was so far from abhorring the Communion of his Successor Eugenius that he owns him as a true Pope and prays for him May God says that good Man in his last Epistle which he wrote from Cherso who wills that all Men should be saved and come to the knowlege of the Truth establish the hearts of the People of Rome in the Orthodox Faith through the Intercessions of S. Peter and confirm 'em against all Hereticks and Adversaries of the Church and make 'em immovable especially the Pastor who I hear presides now over ' em It appears from what has been observ'd concerning P. Gregory his looking upon Anastasius to be still the rightfull Patriarch of Antioch his giving him the Title of Patriarch and his sending him his Synodical Letters That Anastasius after his Expulsion had never given up his Right or resign'd And yet it appears that Anastasius the great Anastasius he to whom all the Bishops of the East paid so great a Deference never separated from the Communion of the Church but continued to communicate peacebly with it This appears from an Epistle of P. Gregory to Sebastian Bishop of Risinum in which the Pope says That he had written a Petition to the Emperor Mauricius to desire that Anastasius if he might not be restored to his See yet at least might be permitted to come to Rome and officiate there with him as a Bishop The same he says in an Epistle to Anastasius himself This Paragraph should have been placed at the End of the Eleventh Chapter at Page 127. 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. THE Emperor Iustinian Sirnam'd Rhinotmetus having commanded the General of his Army to slaughter the People of Constantinople and to begin with the Patriarch Callinicus the Patriarch was advised by Leontius and other great Men to endeavour to have the Emperor deposed and to excite the people against him by crying out This is the day which the Lord hath made He accordingly did so and the people accordingly took the Emperor and cut off his Nose and banish'd him to Cherso and made Leontius Emperor After three Years Leontius was deposed by Apsimarus and he after Seven Years was deposed by the ejected Emperor Iustinian Iustinian being restored this happen'd in the Year 703. commanded Leontius and Apsimarus to be put to death and the Patriarch Callinicus he deprived of his Sight and banish'd him to Rome and made one Cyrus a Recluse of Amastris who had foretold of his being to be restor'd Patriarch in his stead So Theophanes Glycas thus Justinian put Apsimarus together with Leontius to Death and Callinicus the Patriarch because he had opposed him in some Designs of his against the Church he deprived of his Sight and banish'd him to Rome and promoted Cyrus in the Greek Cyriacus a Recluse of Amastris in his stead because he had prophesied to him of his Restauration That Callinicus was deposed and banish'd without any Synod may be easily gather'd from the thing it self For doubtless the enraged and revengeful Emperor dealt with him as he did with the rest and did what he did in a Fury In a word adds Glycas just after the words produced he murder'd all like so many Sheep for he was all in a fury That he was deposed and banish'd by the Emperor is asserted likewise by Zonaras Cedrenus Nicephorus the Patriarch Ioel and Constantinus Manasses who tells us that before he was deprived of his Sight and banish'd he was exposed to the Boys as a laughing-stock to be abused by them Callinicus being thus deposed and banished the new Patriarch Cyrus was readily own'd as a true Patriarch by all Concerning any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by Callinicus's Lay-Deprivation not a single word in any Author This Instance the Author of the Baroccian Treatise takes notice of who observes not only that Cyrus was receiv'd by the Church but likewise that Callinicus never separated from the Church's and Cyrus's Communion by which he means That there was not any Schism headed by Callinicus as an Anti-patriarch And the silence of all Authors in general does sufficiently confirm what he says The Emperor Justinian says he Sir-nam'd Rhinotmetus coming the second time to the Throne deposed and banish'd unjustly the most holy Patriarch Callinicus and placed Cyrus a Recluse of Amastris in the See Now observe That Callinicus did not separate himself from the Church and from Cyrus upon the account of his unjust Deprivation and that Cyrus together with those he had ordain'd were receiv'd by the Church 'T is a vain thing for our Adversaries to allege that therefore probably Callinicus did not think fit to insist upon his Right because by being guilty of Treason he had forfeited his Life For whether Callinicus did insist upon his Right or not the Church did not care As soon as he was banish'd and Cyrus was constituted in his place they immediately submitted to the present Possessor Who can ever believe that the Church of Constantinople sent to Rome to know what the old Patriarch's Pleasure was Six years the Patriarch Cyrus enjoy'd the Dignity After that time there being another Revolution in the State Iustinian being kill'd and Philippicus advanced to the Imperial Throne he was deposed by the new Emperor What the reason was is not said but that we may easily guess at The Emperor Philippicus as soon as he came to the Throne call'd an Heretical Synod and condemn'd the Sixth General Council and preferr'd one Iohn a Monothelite to the Patriarchal Chair It is therefore likely that the Patriarch Cyrus was therefore deposed because he refused to comply with the Emperor in that Design The Patriarch Nicephorus intimates that Cyrus was turn'd out and Iohn made Patriarch before the meeting of that Synod § 2. After Iohn succeeded Germanus who was forc'd by the Emperor Leo Isaurus to resign his Bishoprick because he refused to condemn the Worship of Images After this time the Church of Constantinople were for many years Iconoclasts to the Church of Rome Hereticks to us Orthodox Anastasius succeeded Germanus and after his death Constantine was advanced to the Patriarchal Throne by the Emperor Constantius Copronymus The Patriarch Constantine after Twelve Years Government viz. in the Year 766. was deposed by the same Emperor The occasion and the manner is thus described by Theophanes On the Thirtieth day of August says he the Fourth Indiction
the Emperor raged with a great fury against his Name-sake the Patriarch and having found out certain Monks Clergymen and Laicks who were the Patriarch's intimate Friends he got 'em to allege against him that they had heard him speak against him to Podomagulus or Podopagurus a great Man whom the Emperor had just before put to death as accused of conspiring against him and sent 'em to the Patriarch's Palace there to witness it to his Face and the Patriarch denying it he made 'em swear by the Holy Cross that they had heard the Patriarch speak thus and thus reproachfully of him and sent some to seal up the Gate of his Palace and took him and banish'd him to Hieria and after that to the Prince's Island Theophanes adds That on the Sixteenth of November following the Emperor made Nicetas an Eunuch Patriarch in Constantine's room He further adds That on the 16 th of October next after that he sent for Constantine from the Prince's Island and having so scourg'd him as that he was not able to stand he commanded him to be carried into the Great Church and all the People of the City being gather'd together there was a Libel read publickly containing the Heads of all the Accusations that were brought against him and at the reading of every Accusation the Secretary who read it and stood by him struck him on the Face the Patriarch Nicetas sitting there in his Throne by him and seeing all that was done Then they went up into the Pulpit and the Patriarch Nicetas took the Libel and commanded some Bishops to take away his Patriarchal Cope from him and anathematiz'd him So giving him the nick-name of Scotiopsis they made him go out of the Church backward After this Relation Theophanes gives an account of his being put to death and how very inhumanely and barbarously they used him It appears from this exact and particular account that Constantine was never Synodically tried and condemned and that Nicetas was made Patriarch before he was condemn'd in the great Church and that when he was there condemn'd and deposed or degraded he was deposed or degraded by Nicetas himself who had been put into his place It likewise appears that he had never given up his Right since he still wore his Patriarchal Cope and was there deprived of it Nicephorus the Patriarch gives the same account of the Matter tho' not so particularly The Emperor says he suborn'd some of the Patriarch Constantine 's Acquaintance to depose upon Oath that they had heard him speak of the Conspiracy of Antiochus and Theophylactus They had been condemn'd together with Podopagurus And immediately sent him away as a banish'd Man to Hieria an Imperial Palace in Asia over against Constantinople and created Nicetas the Presbyter of the Church of the Apostles an Eunuch Patriarch All these things were done in the Month of August Indict 4. Not long after he sent for Constantine and commanded him to be carried to the Church and together with him he sent one of his own Secretaries with Accusations against him which the Secretary read before all the people there gather'd together striking him on the Cheek at the reading of every Accusation And then they went up into the Pulpit and deposed him the new Patriarch reading the Accusations at the Altar To the same purpose Zonaras Tho' such were the Circumstances of Nicetas's Promotion yet of any disturbance in the Church occasion'd by it not a Syllable in any Author He was readily own'd by all the Orthodox i. e. the Iconoclasts and govern'd no less than Fourteen Years as appears from Theophanes and Nicephorus Callisti The Patriarch Nicephorus in his Chronology allows him Fifteen Years If you find him call'd by any Author a Pseudo-Patriarch or the like it is onely by such as being themselves the Worshippers of Images accounted him so likewise his Predecessor himself a Heretick and on that account no true Patriarch CHAP. XIV An Account of the Schism between Photius and Ignatius Patriarchs of Constantinople Photius who was put into Ignatius's place when deposed by the Emperor no such Person as his Enemies report him By how great a Party he was receiv'd The reason why some refused to acknowlege him was not so much because he was so constituted as because he was a Neophytus and was besides ordain'd by a Bishop Excommunicated and in their Iudgments stood himself Excommunicated at that time Ignatius professes that if Photius had been one of the Church i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration he would willingly have yielded to him Ignatius values the Councils that condemn'd him no more than he did the Lay power The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter His Errors concerning the Council call'd the First and Second A New account of the reason of that Title His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome call'd by P. Nicholas against Photius Photius after he was receiv'd by the Church and confirmed by a general Council is deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Leo yet his Successor Stephen is receiv'd by the Church IT appears from what has been said in the foregoing Chapters that the Doctrine which we maintain is grounded on the earliest Antiquity and confirm'd by the Practice of the Church in the first 400 Years after the Emperors became Christian. We are now fallen into the Dregs of time says one of our Answerers speaking of the Seventh and the following Centuries years of Superstition Idolatry Dot age and Disorder and therefore tho' the Instances produced out of this Age were truly reported and pertinent to the Purpose they would not be fit Examples for us to follow Had our Author known that the Ages of which he gives this Character were the Ages that afford his Party their most considerable in themselves inconsiderable Precedents we should not I suppose have found him so ingenuous in his Confession and free of his Characters We are now fallen into the Dregs of time 'T is true and no wonder if the Spirit of Antiquity was so far lost as that some few Instances may be found in these times agreeable to the practice of our Adversaries But this is confess'd by them themselves that the Examples of these lower Ages that do not agree with the Practice of the former are not fit Examples for us to follow In the Year 858. there broke out a Schism at Constantinople between Ignatius deposed and Photius who was constituted in his place That the Reader may have a full and perfect view of all this Concern I will first present him with a short Historical and Chronological Account of the chief Transactions Secondly I will shew what manner of Man Photius was who accepted of Ignatius's See that he was a vertuous and pious Man Thirdly I will shew by how great and numerous a Party he was receiv'd Fourthly That they that separated from him did not
look upon him to be otherwise unexceptionable but separated from him for several Reasons From whence it appears that the Case is quite different from ours and no Example for our Adversaries In the Year but now mention'd Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople Son to a former Emperor Michael Rangabe was deposed by the Emperor Michael Sirnam'd the Drunkard because he refused to take the Emperors Sisters and his Mother and make 'em Nuns by force as the Emperor had commanded him This was the immediate Reason but he that excited the Emperor against him was Bardas the Emperor's Uncle whom the Patriarch had a little before Ex-communicated for living incestuously with his own Son's Wife Ignatius being thus deposed November 23. the famous Photius chief Secretary of State was on Christmas-Day ordain'd Patriarch in his stead Two Months or to speak exactly forty days after that Ignatius began to be persecuted and was Deposed and Anathematiz'd by his Successor Photius whilst absent at the Island Terebinthus to which he had been banish'd He was suspected to have conspired against the Emperor and on that account suffer'd very hard things but nothing could be made out against him From Terebinthus he was removed to Hieria from thence to Numera and on the Month of August after his Ejectment to the Isle Mitylene still suffering great Afflictions and Indignities Between this time and November following he was again Deposed and Anathematiz'd while absent by a Provincial Synod which Photius had call'd After this the Emperor and the Patriarch Photius send to Rome to Pope Nicholas to desire him to send some Legates to Constantinople to consult against the Iconoclasts intending by the concurrence of those Legates when they should be sent to ratifie what had been done against Ignatius The Pope receives his Letters and refuses to own him as the true Patriarch of Constantinople till by his Legates he had had a hearing of the whole Cause He sends his Legates Radoaldus and Zacharias both Bishops to Constantinople and there in the beginning of the Year 861. by a general Council of no less than 318 Bishops just the number of the Council of Nice Ignatius is again Condemn'd Deposed and Anathematiz'd The Crime alleged against him was That he had been made Patriarch by the Emperor 's bare Autority without the Suffrages of the Clergy and this was attested upon Oath by 72 Witnesses of whom there were some of the Order of Senators He appeals from the Council to the Pope and about Six months after he sends away privately one of his Friends by name Theognostus to the Pope to give him an Account of what had been done and to beg his assistance who resided at Rome as his Legate or Agent all the time of his Deprivation The Pope before this had had an Account of the whole Matter his Legates return from Constantinople with a Copy of the Acts of the Council he refuses to ratifie what they had done alleging that he had commanded that nothing should be decreed concerning Ignatius till they had given him a particular Account and receiv'd his Orders He sends away speedily to the Emperor and Photius to let 'em know that he did not give his Consent to what had been done requires that Photius should be deposed and Ignatius restored and because he was not obey'd in the Year 863. he calls a Synod at Rome by which he deposes Photius declares him a mere Lay-man and withal Excommunicated if ever he should pretend for the future to Act as Patriarch so as never to be capable of Absolution except at the point of Death The same Synod Excommunicates likewise the Emperor himself together with all the Senate if they refused to receive Ignatius and to reject Photius It likewise declares the Orders of all those whom Photius had ordain'd void In the same Synod Zacharias one of the Legates was Deposed and Excommunicated because he had concurr'd in the Deprivation of Ignatius and because the other Legate Radoaldus was not there present there was afterwards another Synod call'd at Rome on his Account in which as well as the former he refused to make his appearance but by this he was Deposed and Anathematized as his Collegue had been in the former In the Year 865. the Emperor sends his Holiness a very contemptfull and opprobrious Letter which provoked him to that Degree that the next Year after he sends an Epistle to Constantinople directed to the Bishops and Clergy of that District in which he requires that the Emperor should make him satisfaction by burning his Epistle In the same Epistle he exhorts 'em all to receive Ignatius as their Patriarch and sends 'em the Decrees of his Roman Synod In the latter end of the same Year viz. on the Ides of November 866. he sends about many Epistles to Photius himself to the Caesar Bardas to the Empresses Theodora and Eudoxia and to the Senate of Constantinople and he likewise sends to the Emperor exhorting him to send Ignatius and Photius both to Rome that he might sit Judge of their Cause But so far are all these efforts from prevailing that as Photius had been deposed by him so he pays him in his own Measures and the Emperor by his perswasions calls a General Council at Constantinople which Condemns Deposes and Anathematizes the Pope for certain Crimes charged upon him This Council sate about Midsummer 867. 'T was this I suppose that broke Pope Nicholas's heart for he died presently after On September 24. the same Year the Emperor Michael was kill'd by Basilius Macedo who the next day after deposed the Patriarch Photius and on the 23. of Novem. following restored Ignatius to his See after a Deprivation of Nine years Having done thus he summoned a General Council and sends away to Rome to Pope Nicholas to give him an Account of what he had done That Pope being dead his Successor Hadrian II. receives the Emperor's Letter he calls a Synod at Rome confirms the Decrees of Pope Nicholas's Synod against Photius and condemns the Acts of the late Constantinopolitan Council by which his Predecessor was deposed to be burnt by the common Hangman and sends his Legates to Constantinople by whom he requires that not a Copy of that Council should be preserv'd not an Iota under pain of Excommunication but all be burnt in the Presence of the General Council Two years before the Arrival of his Legates at Constantinople the Bishops were there gathered together at last they came and the Council began to sit Octob. 5. 869. It breaks up on the last of Febr. following and issues out this Decree against Photius That he never was nor is now a Bishop that all his Ordinations are absolutely Null and that those Churches which he or they whom he had ordain'd had consecrated should be consecrated again In fine they heap upon him a thousand Anathema's This is the Council which
Patriarch Photius refused to give it him calling him Murderer For which adds he the Emperor being angry called a Synod and deposed him pretending this reason that he had been uncanonically constituted For this Relation of Zonaras the Cardinal Baronius is very angry with him Haec Zonaras Schismaticus favens Schismatico novam inauditam fingens causam Photii ejectionis He calls him a Schismatick as being of the Greek Church which in Zonaras's time was in the Judgment of the Latins Schismatical But what if Zonaras was of the Greek Church why should he therefore invent such a Lye Against this Relation the Cardinal urges the Autority of the Emperor 's own Letter to Pope Nicholas or Hadrian and of Pope Hadrian's Epistle to him from whence he says it appears that the Emperor deposed Photius in obedience to Pope Nicholas's Decrees It is true that That was his Pretence and that is all that can be made out by the Epistles Here Zonaras tells us what excited him to make use of such a Pretence But it is not onely Zonaras as Baronius thought that gives this account of Photius's stout Behaviour towards the Emperor and that That was the reason of his being ejected The same is attested by the Chronographer Ioel and not by him onely but also by Leo Grammaticus who flourish'd above 100 Years before Zonaras and by Georgius Monachus And to these I add Georgius Hamartolus an Historian not yet publish'd who flourish'd at this very time and ended his History in the Beginning of our Emperor Basilius I shall close this Paragraph with the Testimonies of the Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus who highly praises our Patriarch not onely for his Wisdom but likewise for his Vertue and of Pope Iohn IX in his Epistle to the Emperor Basilius He there calls him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And then adds We have heard from almost all People that come from Constantinople to us that he is a Person adorn'd with Divine and Primitive Qualifications and excellent above all others for his Wisdom and Vnderstanding in Matters both Humane and Divine famous for all practical Vertues and an unblameable Observer of the Divine Commands And we think it not just that such and so great a Man should continue without Employment in the Church but that being exalted and shining in the Church he should act as a Bishop and Patriarch Thirdly In the Third place we are to enquire by whom and by how many the Patriarch Photius was receiv'd as Patriarch and by whom and by how great a Party rejected He himself complains in an Epistle to Bardas which he wrote some time after his Advancement that he was deprived of half his Jurisdiction but he ought not to be understood strictly but as the word is commonly used for a great part 1. He was received by even such Metropolitans as were Friends to Ignatius not induced thereunto by Hatred against Ignatius This appears from what Nicetas and others relate The Metropolitans says Nicetas who receiv'd him as Patriarch first made him give it under his hand that he would honour Ignatius as his Father and would do all things according to his Will and would not grieve him in any thing By another Author a great Enemy of Photius and his Party we find it related thus When first Bardas Caesar says he attempted to eject the Patriarch Ignatius Ignatius that he might not be driven out with Ignominy chose rather to recede of himself But the Bishops made a Protestation That if Bardas took upon him to depose him they would rather suffer the greatest Extremities than permit it to be done And thus they kept Ignatius from resigning But when Bardas afterwards had deposed him the Bishops join'd themselves with Bardas and so made themselves obnoxious to the Anathema which they had pronounced against themselves if they should permit Ignatius to be deposed Then Photius being by force thrust into the Throne the Bishops required him to give 'em an assurance under his hand that he would pay Ignatius all due honour c. Metrophanes Bishop of Smyrna another great Ignatian tells us That Photius being thrust into Ignatius 's Throne by Bardas all the Bishops rejected him and pitch'd upon three others as fitter to be chosen in Ignatius's room and in that mind continued for many days but at last the Generality of the Bishops were prevail'd with to accept of Photius all except five of which he himself was one He adds That he himself and the other four his Associates did at last comply when they saw that the Generality of the Bishops were resolv'd to accept of Photius When therefore says he he had given it under his hand that he would carry himself towards Ignatius as towards an unblameable Patriarch and neither speak any thing against him himself nor approve of any that should do so we received him being forced thereunto by the Emperor and Bardas A little while after he took away the Paper he had given us under his hand and deposed Ignatius At which time all the Bishops of the District of Constantinople being present anathematized Photius and pronounced him deposed in the Name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost and also anathematiz'd themselves if ever they should own him as Patriarch This Synod sitting for 40 days together in the Church of S. Irene Photius in the mean while by the assistance of Bardas gets a Synod together in the Church of the Apostles deposes Ignatius agen and anathematizes him For which we reprov'd him to his face and were therefore violently deposed and imprison'd together with Ignatius The same Author adds That Photius was condemn'd by Five Synods and the first of these Five he makes to be this at Constantinople and agen he says That it consisted of all the Bishops of the District of Constantinople All this that he says concerning the Synod of Constantinople is a very great Falsity so notorious an Untruth that I easily perswade my self that the Author of this Epistle was not Metrophanes the Ignatian Metropolite of Smyrna but some later Person who forged it in his Name And this may be confirm'd from other Errors of which he is guilty That there was no such Synod as he speaks of will be easily granted by those that have read Ignatius's Life written by Nicetas his Case presented by Theognostus to Pope Nicholas Pope Nicholas's Epistles the Acts of the VIII th General Council Anastasius Bibliothecarius his Preface to it Stylianus his Epistle to Pope Steven I. and the Anonymous Author de Perjuriis Photianorum who tho' they were all great Enemies to Photius yet make no mention of any such Synod Had Photius been condemn'd by any such Synod we should have had it every-where mention'd and alleged against him To this I add That it is not at all likely that the Emperor and Bardas would suffer such a Synod to sit 40 Days together
Synod is not to be reckon'd as one part of it but that it was so call'd because it met twice upon two different Matters One the Deprivation of Ignatius and the Other the Condemnation of the Iconoclasts and had two distinct Tomes containing the Acts and Decrees of the two distinct Sessions But how does this New Account appear to be true I gather what I have asserted from an Epistle of P. Nicolas to the Bishops and Clergy of the District of Constantinople He there says that after Ignatius had been condemn'd at Constantinople by the Synod in which his Legates Radoaldus and Zacharias presided the Emperor Michael sent him duo volumina quorum unum Depositionis Ignatii gesta continebat alterum autem de sanctis habebat Imaginibus acta In the same Epistle a little after he speaks of this Council as of two distinct Councils because of its two distinct Parts and two distinct Acta Alia illa concilia quae imminentibus illis Radoaldo Zacharia Legatis praesidentibus Constantinopoli celebrata sunt viz. tam id quod adversus Patriarcham Ignatium quam id quod pro sacris Imaginibus collectum est It appears from Theognostus that in that Session or Convention in which Ignatius was condemn'd there happen'd a great Disturbance and Swords were drawn and some wounded and this I suppose it was that occasion'd that Report mention'd and follow'd by Zonaras that therefore the first Convention broke up re infectâ because the Iconoclasts disturb'd 'em and Swords were drawn and many kill'd The first part of this Council consisted of Seven Actions as appears by Nicetas who gives an Account of 'em all as written in a Volume directed by Photius to the Western Emperor Ludovicus and in another which Photius kept himself both which were seiz'd by the Emperor Basilius and burnt at least one of 'em by the General Council that restored Ignatius That Copy which the Legates Radoaldus and Zacharias brought with 'em from Constantinople to Rome seems to have been preserved in the Library at Rome Certain it is that Anastasius Bibliothecarius quotes the Acts of that Session which condemn'd Ignatius as extant when he wrote which was some few years after Sicut in gestis Constantinopolitanis ab illis compilatis facile reperitur We are told by Nicetas that all this Volume of the Acts of the Council which condemn'd Ignatius was forged by Photius but that 's an idle and a foolish Calumny Theognostus tells us that the Patriarch Ignatius when he was brought before this Council alleg'd that before they took upon 'em to try him they ought to displace Photius else they could not be his Judges to which Radoaldus and Zacharias the Pope's Legates replyed That the Emperor would not permit it to be done Tho' they grant it to be agreeable to the Prescript of the Canons yet because the Emperor would not permit it they plead that Necessity as a sufficient excuse He also adds that the Metropolitans in that Council being ask'd by the Princes who sate there with 'em why they desired to have Ignatius again for their Patriarch since they did not in the beginning oppose his Deprivation they answer'd That two evils being proposed the Emperor's Displeasure and the Insurrection of the People they chose the least But do you say they who are about the Emperor restore our Patriarch to his Throne and we are ready to receive him Here it ought to be observ'd that tho' they still own'd that Ignatius was unjustly deposed tho' still they loved him so much as to desire he should be restored yet they own the present Possessor because the Emperor would not suffer Ignatius to Govern any longer Fourthly So great was the number of Bishops that receiv'd and acknowleged Photius that to the Decree of his Third Council which was call'd against Pope Nicholas there subscribed no less than about a Thousand the most numerous Subscription that ever was to any Council I do not suppose that there were so many Bishops present in the Council a great many of 'em I suppose were procured after the Council was broke up and so Nicetas seems to intimate But how does it appear that about a Thousand Bishops subscribed It appears from the express Testimony of Anastasius Bibliothecarius who was present in the 8 th General Council commonly so called where the Acts and Subscriptions of this Council were burnt Neither was it only the Bishops of the District of Constantinople that subscribed to that Council for the Bishops of that District were at most not above Five hundred there were therefore near Five hundred of the other Patriarchates And there were present in that Council Legates from the Three great Eastern Sees of Alexandria Antioch and Ierusalem who all subscribed to it I know that Anastasius pretends that almost all those Subscriptions were forged by Photius and that of all that great multitude not above Twenty one did really subscribe I know that it is commonly alleged by the Enemies of Photius as frequently in the Acts of the 8 th Council that Photius forged all the Acts of that Council all the Speeches recorded in those Acts together with all the Subscriptions but withal I know that there needs but very little Judgment to discover the falsity of that Allegation I know that they whose Names were subscribed in this Photian Council did generally deny before the 8 th Anti-Photian Council that they ever subscribed I know that the Metropolitans did so that Thomas Bishop of Tyre who represented the Patriarch of Antioch in this Council denyed that the Church of Antioch ever sent to or receiv'd any Letters from Photius that Elias who sate there as a Legate from the Patriarch of Ierusalem expresly affirms more than once that the Church of Ierusalem never receiv'd Photius that she never sent to him or receiv'd a Letter from him I know that he asserts this as before God and the Elect Angels Nay more I acknowlege that they who sate in this Photian Council as Legates from the three Eastern Patriarchs being call'd before the 8 th Anti-Photian Council did all deny that they were sent from their respective Churches as Legates that they own themselves to be mean Persons and that they were corrupted by Photius All this I acknowlege and this you will say is enough to prove our Patriarch Photius a very great Villain and to ruin the Autority of the Acts of his Council No such matter We need but consider the Circumstances of those times and then we may easily see that all that was denied was either through ignorance denied or for fear The Pope of Rome having been Condemn'd and Anathematiz'd by this Photian Council there was nothing to be expected from Rome by those over whom that proud and imperious Church had any power but utter Ruin Deprivation Anathema's all that ever she could inflict The Emperor Basilius having deposed the stout Patriarch Photius whom
at that time he mortally hated what now must be done that he may ingratiate himself with the Pope He had lately subscribed as Caesar to the Pope's Condemnation what shall he do to pacifie an implacable Pope 'T is no very difficult matter It is but to bring in the Acts of the Photian Council before a great Company as Nicetas tells us was done and there seem astonish'd at the strange Impostures of Photius His own Name subscribed He for his part knows nothing of it And what follows then a general Protestation of all There is no one forsooth of all those who saw their Names subscribed knows any thing of the matter Who dares to do it Thus after a general Subscription there follows a general Denial Thus the Eastern Churches for fear of the Roman Anathema's deny that they sent any Legates or acknowleged Photius as Patriarch and the Legates themselves are forced to say they were no Legates least by standing out in the Truth they should run themselves Headlong into inevitable ruin and expose themselves to the bitterest torments And here I cannot but observe that when Basilius and Leontius the Legates of Alexandria and Ierusalem were examin'd by the Anti-Photian Council and scrupled to Anathematize those who subscribed to the Photian Acts and had any thing to do in his Council the Popes Legates cry out to affright 'em to a Compliance Deliver 'em up to us that they may be carried to Rome This scar'd 'em quite out of their Honesty and so they pronounce the Anathema That what I have said is a true Account of the Matter they that are altogether disingaged from Prejudice will I sansie easily grant For how is it possible for an unprejudiced Man to believe that the great Photius would ever have dared to be Guilty of so gross an an Imposture so easie to be detected Who can believe that Photius never sent to the Eastern Patriarchs as the Legates in the 8th Council affirm It appears moreover from the Testimony of George who sate as Legate in our Photian Council from the Church of Antioch that there was a correspondence betwixt that Church and Photius whatever the Bishop of Tyre either through Fear or Ignorance asserts to the contrary Tho' the Legate George is forced to say that he was not sent from that Church as a Legate yet even that which he says is enough to prove that there was a correspondence I came says he to Constantinople tamummodo ut literarum delator à Constantino Oeconomo Antiochensium Ecclesiae there was no Patriarch of Antioch at that time and in the Vacancy the Oeconomus was the chief Person of the Church missus Ab eo enim missus sum ad Photium Michaelem Imp. causa benedictionis To this I must add that tho' the Pope after he had condemn'd Photius in his Synod at Rome sent about his Synodical Letters to all the Eastern Patriarchs yet 't is confess'd by the Ignatians themselves as by Anastasius Bibliothecarius That the Eastern Patriarchs were not any way active against Photius It moreover appears that during all the time of Ignatius's Deprivation the Eastern Patriarchs at least the Patriarch of Ierusalem had no correspondence with Ignatius This Theodosius Patriarch of Ierusalem confesses of himself in the Letter which he wrote him after his Restauration pretending to him then that the reason was because living under the Government of the Saracens he dared not write into those Parts What not in so long a time Fifthly That the Clergy in General the Senate and all the whole City of Constantinople receiv'd and submitted to Photius is confess'd by Baanes the Praepositus in the Presence of the 8 th Council So Nicetas says in the Life of Ignatius that P. Nicholas and his Synod Excommunicated Photius and his Adherents the Emperor and all the Senate And the Emperor Basilius tells P. Nicholas or Hadrian for he receiv'd the Epistle in the Epistle which he wrote to him against Photius That there were very few Bishops that adhered to Ignatius and did not own Photius How very few Bishops there were that adher'd to Ignatius may be gather'd from the Acts of the 8 th Council In the beginning of that Council all the Bishops that had adher'd to Ignatius are call'd in by the Legates of the Patriarchal Sees Ingrediantur Episcopi QVOT QVOT pro veritate Ignatio adjuncti depugnarunt then all are mentioned by Name and they amount to no more than twelve tho' in the whole District of Constantinople there were near upon Five hundred 'T is true I believe there might be some few more who were not then at Constantinople because Stylianus Bishop of Neocaesaria who was not one of those twelve but was present in the last Act of the Council affirms that he had constantly adher'd to Ignatius But it is not to be doubted but that all that possibly could took care to be present at Constantinople at the beginning of the Council It is here to be observ'd that even these few did not reject Photius but own'd him as Patriarch till he began to persecute Ignatius This may be gather'd from the Epistle of Metrophanes to Manuel Patricius already quoted Sixthly Neither was it only by the Eastern Bishops that Photius was receiv'd It appears moreover that tho' the Pope who was Patriarch of the West had condemn'd Photius by a Synod yet many even amongst the Latins themselves acknowleged him as Patriarch of Constantinople This I gather from what Nicetas Paphlago relates That Photius having with his Council condemn'd P. Nicholas sent to the Emperor of the Latins LVDOVICVS to desire him to eject him and this says Nicetas the Emperor readily compli'd with and promised to do What he adds concerning the Motive made use of by Photius that he promis'd to make Ludovicus and his Wife Ingelberta Emperor and Empress of Constantinople if he would do it that 's so idle and incredible a Story that there 's no one but may easily perceive it to be nothing but the issue of his Malice The Synod which concurr'd with P. Nicholas in condemning Photius at Rome is said by Nicetas to be a Synod of the whole Church in another place he calls it a Provincial Synod Pope Hadrian's Legates in the 8 th General Council affirm that it consisted of all the Western Bishops Archbishops Metropolitans and all the Clergy of Rome together with the Senate and Nobility In another place they tell us that Photius was condemn'd by P. Nicholas cum OMNIBVS occidentalibus Prâ—sulibus So the Emperor Basilius asserts that the Pope cum totâ Romanorum Ecclesiâ condemn'd him Metrophanes Bishop of Smyrna or whoever else was the Author of the Epistle inscribed to Manuel Patricius is more modest he only says that it was no small Synod So likewise is P. Nicholas himself in his Epistle to Ignatius in which he only says that
Eugenius were corrupted by Photius when sent by the Pope to Constantinople about another Business That after that Photius forged a Paper in the Names of Ignatius and his Adherents in which the Pope was desired to receive him On this account says he the Pope sent to Constantinople another Legate Peter who together with Paul and Eugenius proclaim'd him receiv'd by the Pope To all this I add That our Patriarch Photius has all along to this time been own'd by the Greek Church to have been a true Patriarch of Constantinople even before Ignatius's Death when he was Patriarch the first time This is manifest from hence that the above-mention'd Council which condemn'd all the Synods that were called against Photius as unjust is commonly own'd by the Greeks and called the 8 th General Council and that which the Latins are wont to call by that Title that in which Photius was condemned the Greeks take no notice of It appears moreover from hence That the Canons which were made by the Photian Council Entituled The First and Second by which Ignatius was condemned have been all along received by the Church as good Ecclesiastical Law and as such are illustrated with the Comments of the Greek Canonists Zonaras Balsamon c. and the Council it self is honoured with the Title of the holy and great Constantinopolitan Council First and Second It appears from what hath been said tho' it should be granted that the Ignatians refused to own Photius for this reason only because Ignatius was uncanonically deposed yet this Example would make more for us than for our Adversaries I come now in the Fourth place to shew That that was not the only Reason that Ignatius and his Adherents lookt upon Photius to be on other Accounts uncapable of being a true Patriarch and that they allege other Reasons for their separating from him Which are these 1. That he was a Neophytus that he was ordain'd Patriarch contrary to the Canons having gone through all the several Degrees in Six days time This is every where urged against him as a Reason why he ought not to be receiv'd as Patriarch by P. Nicholas in his Epistles who insists very largely upon it by the Synod of Rome under the other Roman Synod under P. Hadrian by the General Council of Constantinople by which he was condemned by the Patriarch Ignatius himself before the Council of Constantinople called First and Second and by Stylianus Neocaesariensis Anastasius Bibliothecarius in his Life of P. Nicholas where he mentions this Schism gives us only this Reason for it by which it appears that he lookt upon it to be at least the chief Reason if not the only One. In the holy Constantinopolitan Church says he there was a Schism viz. because the most reverend Patriarch Ignatius being ejected they substituted Photius a Lay-man ordained suddenly contrary to the Prescript of the Canons 2. That he was ordain'd by a Person not capable of Ordaining any one viz. Gregory Archbishop of Syracuse who say they was at that time deposed and stood Excommunicate and actually engaged in a Schism This Gregory of Syracuse had been first Deposed and Excommunicated by Benedict III. of Rome and a Synod so some say more truly by Pope Leo IV. and afterwards by Pope Benedict and being at Constantinople when Ignatius was first made Patriarch Ignatius refused to permit him to be present at his Consecration On that account he engaged in a Schism against him and was Excommunicated likewise by him When Ignatius was deposed the Synod that Elected Photius took off his Excommunication and restored him and all that were engaged with him to the Church but this Absolution Ignatius and his Party lookt upon as perfectly Null and consequently Photius was in their Judgment no Bishop This Reason why he ought not to be receiv'd as a Patriarch or Bishop is alleged by Pope Nicholas and very largely insisted on he alleges that Gregory standing thus Excommunicated Photius's Head was rather wounded than consecrated by that Imposition of hands and denies that he could be a Bishop being so ordain'd It is also urged by the Synod of Rome call'd by Pope Nicholas in its Decrees against Photius and by Stylianus Neocaesariensis It was alleged by Ignatius himself to the Council by which he was tried and condemn'd 3. That Photius himself was engaged in a Schism against Ignatius before he was ordain'd together with Gregory of Syracuse and together with him excommunicated by Ignatius This is urged as another Reason why he ought not to be own'd as a Bishop by Pope Nicholas and Ignatius himself and Metrophanes Bishop of Smyrna in the Eighth General Council and by the Author of the Appendix to the Greek Acts of that Council And this is the first Objection made against him in the Decrees of Pope Nicholas's Synod To all this I add and this I desire our Adversaries would be pleas'd to take special notice of That Ignatius when he was tried by the great Council of Constantinople freely professed before the Council That if Photius had not been out of the Church i. e. if he had not been a Schismatick and Excommunicate when he was made Patriarch he would not have opposed him but would willingly have pselded to him But an alien said he from Christ how shall I make a Pastor of the Sheep of Christ That Ignatius made this Delaration before that Council he himself witnesses or what is the same thing his Legate Theognostus for him in his case presented to Pope Nicholas And by its being there mention'd it appears he was still of that mind It is likewise attested by the Author of the Epistle entituled An Epistle of Metrophanes the Metropolite of Smyrna to Manuel Patricius That at that time that Photius was consecrated Patriarch the deposed Patriarch Ignatius gave his free consent that another should be chosen in his place provided he were of the Church not ingag'd in a Schism or Excommunicate Photius says that Author whilst he was a Lay-man separated himself from the Church and was excommunicated And whilst he was under those Circumstances he was nominated Patriarch by Bardas He then adds as has been already observ'd That the Bishops rejected him and pitched on three others but all save five were at last brought over to Photius Now says he when we perceived that the generality of the Bishops were corrupted we thought fit he either was or pretends to have been one of those five to restore him to the Church and to the Patriarch's Communion that we might not transgress the Patriarch's Commands who had commanded that we should chuse such a one Patriarch as was a Member of the Church It is natural for Readers to desire Variety and 't is irksome to be long on one Subject And they that are weary of being so long in the same Company may here if they please take
Michael you the Synod of Constantinople have deposed the Patriarch Ignatius and confirmed Photius in his See without the Autority of our Apostleship We give you to understand that we do not either receive Photius or condemn Ignatius And to the Eastern Patriarchs and Bishops in his Circular Epistle We require you says he not to give your Assent to the Synod called against Ignatius but to Act according to our Sentence And these things we write not fearing at all least we may have judged amiss For the See of S. Peter is not to be judged by any one except by him who gave Peter the Keys of the Kingdom And do you that you may observe the ancient Customs neither judge nor approve of any thing without our Autority We have now done with the Patriarch Ignatius but not yet with Photius He affords us another Example for tho' he was received by the Church and confirm'd by a General Council yet as soon as Leo Sapiens upon his Father Basilius's Death had obtain'd the Empire he was presently deposed a second time by the Imperial Autority He being thus deposed the Emperor's Brother Stephen was prefer'd to his See and was own'd and receiv'd by the Church This the Author of the Baroccian Treatise observes 'T is observ'd by the Vindicator in Answer to that Treatise that Photius was not deposed by the Emperor Leo but resigned And this he proves from an Epistle of P. Stephen V. ad Episcopos Orient in which the Pope says that in a Letter the Emperor had told him that Photius quietam vitam elegit Stylianus and a Synod had written to the Pope to acquaint him that Photius for certain Crimes was deposed by the Emperor Leo the Emperor in a Letter of his own had told the Pope that Photius had resigned this made the Pope write that Letter to Stylianus and the rest of the Bishops to know of him how it came to pass that they so contradicted one another Stylianus and the rest of those Bishops tell him in their Answer that they that own'd Photius as a Bishop had sent him word that he had resign'd but as for themselves they did not own him to have been ever a Bishop and therefore it was that they did not say he had resign'd This confirms what the Vindicator contends for But notwithstanding all this it is not true that Photius resign'd To me it is certain that he was turned out by the Emperor The Reason why the Emperor pretended to the Pope that Photius had resign'd was because he dar'd not tell him that he himself had deposed him That he knew the Pope would never approve of it being in the Judgment of the Popes of those times the Prerogative of the See of S. Peter to depose a Bishop And the reason why Stylianus and his Bishops writ after that manner in their Answer to the Pope was because if they had told the truth it was like to occasion a great Disturbance in the Church For the Pope had positively declar'd in his Epistle to 'em that he would not give his Consent that Photius should be turned out without his special Concurrence But this you will say is only Conjecture What greater Autorities have we that Photius was truly deposed I. Answer we have many 1. That Photius was deposed by the Emperor Leo is positively asserted by all Historians The Emperor says Joel for certain Reasons deposed Photius and made his own Brother Stephen Patriarch Glycas The Emperor Leo being resolved to be revenged on Santabarenus Bishop of Euchaita who had set his Father against him chuses first to depose the Patriarch Photius because it was likely he would take Santabarenus 's part for there was a report that Photius had conspired with Santabarenus to advance one of his own Family to the Empire Zonaras Leo as soon as he was made Emperor was forthwith bent upon revenge against Santabarenus But suspecting that the Patriarch Photius who was his Friend would take his part he invents Accusations against the Patriarch and thrusts him out of the Church and banishes him to the Monastery of the Armeniaci 2. By other Historians he is not only said to be deprived by the Emperor but there is likewise a particular Relation given of the manner And in one and the same Relation they all unanimously agree The Anonymous Continuator of the Emperor Constantinus Porphyrogennetus's History gives us this account of it The Emperor says he sent Andrew the Captain of his Guards with Joannes Hagiopolites to the Church of S. Sophia who there went up into the Ambo and in the hearing of all read the Accusations against the Patriarch Photius and expelled him out of his See and banished him to the Monastery of the Armoniani And the Emperor makes his own Brother Stephen the Syncellus Patriarch who was ordain'd by Theophanes Metropolitan of Caesarea and continued Patriarch Six years and Five months then died The Emperor says Leo Grammaticus sent Andrew the Captain of his Guard and Joannes Hagiopolites the Logotheta Dromi who went up into the Ambo of the Church and there read Accusations against Photius the Patriarch and deposed him and thrust him into the Monastery of the Armeniani and promoted his own Brother Stephen to the Throne who was ordain'd a little before Christmas by Theophanes the first Metropolitan of Caelarea and the rest of the Bishops The same Leo tells us that Photius died in Banishment The Emperor Leo says Georgius Cedrenus being come to the Throne immediately resolv'd to be reveng'd on Santabarenus and first of all he set upon Photius to depose him because he knew that if he continu'd Patriarch he would defend Santabarenus and besides there was a report that Photius had conspired with Santabarenus to destroy him and to advance one of his own Family to the imperial Throne He accordingly sent Andreas c. Having told us how he was deposed and banish'd agreeing exactly with the Authors already quoted he adds that Stephen was immediately constituted in his Room 3. It appears by the Minutes of the Tryal of Photius and Santabarenus which happened a little after Photius was ejected that Photius had never resign'd 'T was expected at that Tryal which by the by was onely before Lay-Lords That Santabarenus would have accused Photius of High Treason and he was ask'd by one of the Judges concerning a Promise he had made the Emperor to accuse him upon which he fell down upon his Knees before Photius with these words My Lord I conjure you by God to depose me and degrade me from my Priesthood and then let 'em punish me as a Malefactor for I never told the Emperor any such thing To which Photius made this Answer By the Salvation of my Soul my Lord Theodorus you are an Archbishop both in this World and in the World to come Thus the Continuator of Constantinus Porphyrogennetus Leo Grammamaticus and Cedrenus By
Santabarenus's desiring Photius to depose him it is very manifest that he accounted him his Patriarch and that Photius lookt upon himself as such may be gather'd from his Answer 4. It 's asserted by all the three Authors last quoted That the Emperor was extremely enraged at that disappointment because he could not get a sufficient Accusation against the Patriarch If he had resign'd what should make the Emperor so malicious against him The Accusations for which he had been deposed were thought insufficient the Emperor therefore endeavour'd to have other and greater things made out against him that he might not be accused of Injustice in deposing him 5. It appears from the Emperor 's own express words in his Speech which he made to Stylianus and other Bishops c. after he had deposed Photius that Photius did not resign but was properly deposed The Speech is recorded in the Appendix to the Greek Acts of the VIII Council The Author of that Appendix having first asserted in his own words That the Emperor expell'd Photius for his Crimes adds That having called Stylianus and many others whom Photius had persecuted together he spoke these words to 'em Our Imperial Majesty which proceeds from God having wellweighed and considered the matter has driven that wicked Man from his Throne and delivered you from your Persecution c. I take no notice of what the Vindicator says concerning the new Patriarch Stephen that since he was brought up and instructed by Photius it is not likely that he would have accepted of the See if Photius had not resign'd There is no strength in that Ambition or obedience to the Emperor his Brother might be a sufficient Motive By what I but now observ'd concerning Santabarenus it should seem that he did not at the time of that Tryal own the Patriarch Stephen But tho' He as Photius's Creature and very great Friend did not at that time own him yet certain it is that the Church in general did Hence in the Synodicon or Tomus Vnionis which was published in the Year 920. May the Memory of Ignatius Photius Stephanus Antonius Nicholaus the most holy Patriarchs be everlasting Whatsoever has been either written or spoken against the most holy Patriarchs Germanus Nicephorus and Methodius Ignatius Photius Stephanus Antoninus be Anathema 'T is true that there was some Schism on his Account may be gather'd from this very thing because his Name is in that Tome But then it does not appear that that Schism was occasioned by his being put into Photius's place We know that he had been ordain'd Deacon by Photius we likewise know that there were some in his time that refused to own any that had been ordain'd by Photius and this I take to be the true Reason why Stephen is mentioned in the Tome the rather because even his Successor Antonius whose Circumstances were not the same is likewise mentioned They were both I suppose disowned by such as did not allow of Photius's Ordinations We must not forget that Leo Grammaticus has told us that the Patriarch Stephen was consecrated Patriarch by the chief Metropolitan of the District and the rest of the Bishops i.e. by a great many I shall conclude this Chapter or rather Dissertation concerning Photius with the Testimony of Aretas Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia from which it may appear not only that he was accounted an excellent Man but that he was likewise violently deposed Aretas in an Oration which he made at the Sepulcher of Euthymius Patriarch of Constantinople who was deposed Twenty five Years after Photius's last Deprivation and was used so barbarously as that he died a little after O the Power says he of the High-priests of God That rejoicest with those that have suffered Injuries for the sake of Vertue that with Abel art obnoxious to Envy That as Jacob heretofore art constantly tormented by Competitors That art murder'd as James was for the sake of the Jews That with the holy Athanasius art thrust out of thy Throne With Paul Patriarch of Constantinople art adorned with the Schackles of Banishment and as this holy Patriarch by the Bonds of a Confessor That together with Nicephorus and PHOTIUS those most famous â—en art graced with Expulsions and Deaths CHAP. XV. Nicolaus Mysticus Patriarch of Constantinople not deprived by a Synod as the Vindicator contends but by the Emperor Leo the Wise § 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King 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 AFter the Death of the Patriarch Stephen Antonius Cauleas succeeded in the See of Constantinople and after his Death Nicolaus Mysticus or the Secretary of State was made Patriarch In his time the Emperor Leo contrary to the Canons of the Church married a fourth Wife for which he excommunicated him and because he refused to take off the Excommunication was deposed by him The Vindicator would needs perswade us that he was not deposed by the Emperor but by a Synod The Author he quotes for it is Eutychius or Said Ebn Batrick who is so far from affirming and likewise from intimating what the Vindicator contends for that he plainly intimates the contrary But whatever Authors the Vindicator thinks fit to make use of we know the Autority of Eutychius to be so contemptible and we know him to be so erroneous particularly in what he says relating to the Emperor Leo and the Patriarch Nicolaus That tho he makes directly against the Vindicator yet we scorn to produce him as a Witness Neither indeed have we need That the Patriarch Nicolaus was deposed by the Emperor is positively asserted by the Emperor's Son Constantinus Porphyrogennetus He says his Father deposed him as a Lyer and a perjur'd Man because he had several times promised and sworn that he would absolve him and yet refused to do it We have other very good and authentick Writers that give us so particular an account of the whole matter that there 's nothing can be more manifest than that there was not any Synod concern'd The Historian Leo Grammaticus after a Relation given us of the Emperor's being excommunicated adds That Samonas a very ill Man being made the Gentleman of the Bed-chamber the Emperor and He laid their Heads together to depose the Patriarch and sending for him on the first of February desired him to restore 'em to the Church Which when he refus'd to do they
order'd him to be put into a Boat and to be carried to Hieria from whence he went on foot through the Snow to Galacreni In his place Euthymius the Syncellus was ordain'd So word for word the Anonymous Continuator of Constantinus Porphyrogennetus And Georgius Cedrenus agrees exactly with ' em Neither does Zondras differ from ' em Samonas says he urged the Emperor to do many things against his Duty among other things to force the Patriarch to absolve him The Emperor therefore sending for the Patriarch desired to be absolv'd which the Patriarch refusing to do he was immediately carried over to Iria from whence they led him on foot to the Monastery in Galacrenae which he himself had built after he had govern'd the Church XI Years And Euthymius the Syncellus was made Patriarch But the Knot that the Vindicator would cut I will fairly untie for him The whole Truth is this The Patriarch Nicolaus was first deposed by the Emperor but before Euthymius was made Patriarch in his room he resign'd tho' he does not seem to have regarded his Resignation That he did resign I gather from the Oration which Aretas Archbishop of Caesarea spoke in praise of Euthymius which the Vindicator does not seem to have read But since of our own accord we give away this Example to what purpose has there been so much said concerning it To that I answer That I therefore thought fit to lay open this Error of the Vindicator not because I have thereby demonstrated a Truth For in a Treatise which should be Logical to endeavour to make out an impertinent Truth is to discover either want of Iudgment or want of Argument But because the Vindicator does not seem methinks to have discover'd any great Ingenuity in what he says concerning Nicolaus's Deprivation Since he thought fit to quote so bad an Author as Eutychius one that he himself perfectly contemns how came it to pass that he did not think fit to tell his Reader what the Authentick Greek Authors say It is certain he had read 'em But he knew not how to answer this Example without a little of Shuffle He knew that the good Greek Authors made directly against his Evasion The Cause I have undertaken to defend does not need any Disingenuities If it did I should leave it to some other to be its Vindicator § 2. In the Year 950 or 951 Ioseph by some call'd Gonfus Bishop of Brixia in Italy was deposed by the Tyrannical King Berengarius without any manner of Synod as Luitprandus Ticinensis who flourish'd immediately after in Berengarius's Court as his Secretary expressly attests Tho' Ioseph was thus deposed yet Antony whom the King made Bishop in his room was own'd and receiv'd by the Church This appears first from Luitprandus who says he was at that time Bishop of Brixia when he wrote his History Qui nunc usque superest By which he must mean that he still continued Bishop of Brixia to that time For if he had been deposed at that time he would have mention'd it not have used those words 2. From the Preface to the Decrees of the Synod of Augspurg held in the Year 952 in which our Antony Bishop of Brixia is reckon'd among the Bishops that sate in that Synod 3. From the Subscriptions of the Council of Ravenna held in the Year 967 in which we read Antonius Brixiensis Ecclesiae Episcopus consensi subscripsi 4. From the Subscriptions to Pope Iohn the thirteenth's Diploma against Heroldus Archbishop of Salisburg sent to the Bishops of that Council and by them subscribed among whom he is one § 3. In the Reign of Isaacius Angelus who was Emperor but nine Years began 1185 and ended 1194 there were at least three Patriarchs deposed without any Synod The Emperor Isaacius Angelus says the Author of the Baroccian Treatise finding Basilius Camaterus in the Patriarchal Chair deposed him without any just cause and promoted Nicetas the Chaplain of the Church to the See In Answer to this the Vindicator tells us That the Reason why he was deprived was a Matter of Ecclesiastical Cognisance and therefore 't is probable that he was deposed by a Synod But what says Nicetas Choniates in his History of Isaacius Angelus He plainly intimates the contrary that he was violently deposed by the Emperor As the violence says he and power of Emperor is not wont to be restrain'd till they have alter'd and chang'd all things both divine and human according to their pleasure so Isaacius when he came to the Crown deposed Basilius Camaterus from the Patriarchal Chair tho' he had been the chief Instrument in his promotion to the Imperial Crown The Reason pretended was That he had freed those noble Women from their confinement whom the late Emperor Andronicus had made Nuns against their Wills In his room he substituted Nicetas Muntanes the Chaplain of the great Church The same account we have in Nicephorus Callisti his MS. Catalogue of the Patriarch's of Constantinople He tells us that Basilius Camaterus was made Patriarch by Andronicus and deposed by Isaacius Angelus that he might not crown another Emperor after he had crownâ—d him But the Emperor's pretence says he was this That he had given a Lady who had thrown off her Nuns habit which she had been forced to put on his Benediction Of any Division in the Church on the account of this Deprivation there is no mention made And the same is true of the Instance following § 4. After a little time Nicetas himself was deposed as unfit to govern by reason of his Old age The Vindicator tells us from the Catalogue of Patriarchs that is extant in the Ius Graeco-Romanum that Nicetas resign'd But what says Nicetas Choniates a much better Author He tells us expressly that he was deposed by the Emperor against his will But neither says he did the Emperor suffer this Man so old as he was to die Patriarch but alleging that by reason of his age and simplicity he was not fit to be Patriarch he expell'd him the See against his will And that he did not resign may be confirm'd from Nicephorus Callisti his M S. Catalogue of Patriarchs For he mentions that his Successor Leontius resign'd but of Nicetas he says no such thing If he had known any such thing he would doubtless have mention'd it since he takes care to tell us that his Successor did so and since he takes care likewise to tell us that Theodosius Barradiotes Basilius Camaterus's Predecessor and several others did so I here observe that the Greek Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is used concerning the Patriarch Nicetas in the Catalogue of the Ius Graeco-Romanum tho' it properly denotes a Resignation yet was used sometimes for amisit he lost his Bishoprick It seems to be used in this sense by Nicephorus Callisti in his M S. Catalogue where he speaks concerning Dositheus Patriarch of
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
Church's Submission to Bishops put into the places of others deposed by the Secular Power I have brought it down from the first High-priest that ever was deposed by the Secular Power i. e. from the Reign of King Solomon to these very times and have shewed That the Behaviour of the Iews under their High-priests and of the Antient Christians under their Bishops was agreeable to the present Practice of our Church To make this History the more complete I shall now shew That the same was the general Practice of the Antients in respect to Bishops put into the places of others unjustly and uncanonically deposed by Synods where the Secular Power concurr'd as executing the Sentence of the Bishops I say where the Secular Power concurred in executing the Sentence of the Bishops for whatever the Vindicator and others are pleas'd to tell us concerning Synodical Deprivations it is easie to shew That the Antients never regarded the Decree or Sentence of an Vncanonical Synod if the Civil Governour did not force 'em to submit by taking upon him to excuse the sentence It is not every Synod that has power by the Canons of the Church to depose a Bishop and the Sentence of an Vncanonical Synod is by the Canons as invalid as if it were no Synod at all In the Fifth Canon of the General Council of Nice there is a plain Intimation that the Affairs of every Province ought to be managed by the Bishops of the respective Provinces and by the Second Can. of the General Council of Constantinople 't is expressly ordain'd That no Metropolitan should go out of his own District to concern himself in the Affairs of another District except in a General Council So when Theophilus Patriarch of Alexandria was accused to the Emperor Arcadius of certain great Crimes and the Emperor commanded him to make his Appearance at Constantinople to be tryed there by S. Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople he sent S. Chrysostom a Letter in which he alleged That he could not be Iudge of his Cause that the Affairs of every Province ought to be managed only by the Bishops of the respective Province And S. Chrysostom tells P. Innocent that when Theophilus came to Constantinople and the Emperor commanded him to call him before him as his Iudge he refused to do it because he knew that by the Canons he could not do it 'T was contrary to this Law of the Church that S. Chrysostom himself was deposed and that too by Theophilus himself who had pleaded that Law The Circumstances of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation were these Theophilus being at Constantinople instead of being judged by S. Chrysostom was encouraged by S. Chrysostom's Enemies particularly by the Empress Eudoxia to summon Him before him and to Depose him He packs a Synod consisting of Twenty nine Bishops of Egypt whom he brought with him and Seven others of other Countries and several malicious Accusations being preferred against him by his Enemies cites him to appear before he himself had cleared himself from the Crimes charged upon him which was contrary to all Canons and Laws S. Chrysostom sends him word that he was ready to appear before a lawful and impartial Synod but as for him he could not own him as his Judge because he was his profess'd Enemy had already drawn oft a part of his People from his Communion and had no Autority to sit as a Iudge out of his own District and besides was himself obnoxious Notwithstanding all this Theophilus and the Bishops that were with him pass upon him the Sentence of Deprivation And pursuant to that Sentence he is carried away from Constantinople but there being a great Tumult among the People by whom he was exceedingly admired he is presently recalled by the Emperor's Command and the Suffrages of Thirty Bishops He desires the Emperor to call a General Council that his Cause might be heard Theophilus flees away to Alexandria together with most of his Bishops But after a little time S. Chrysostom's Enemies prevail again They gather a Synod at Constantinople and depose him by a Canon of the Synod of Antioch for presuming to act as a Bishop after he had been deposed by a Synod He 's accordingly expell'd a Second time tho' there were present at that time at Constantinople no less than Forty Bishops that declared against those Proceedings among whom there were Seven Metropolitans He was carried away into Banishment in which he died Three years and Three Months after his Expulsion A little while after Arfacius Brother to Nectarius his Predecessor was ordain'd his Successor who died November 11. 405. after he had been Patriarch somewhat above a Year For S. Chrysostom was deposed Iune 20.404 To him succeeded Atticus S. Chrysostom being still living Such were the Circumstances of that great Man's Deprivation That the Emperor was not at all concern'd in it any otherwise than as he executed the Sentence of the Bishops he himself attests in his Epistle to P. Innocent And that he himself lookt upon it as absolutely invalid is notorious Let us now see what the Consequences were what was his Behaviour and what the Behaviour of the Church in relation to his Successors 1. It is to be observed that tho' he was so injuriously and provokingly dealt with tho' he accounted all the Proceedings against him perfectly invalid yet before he was carried away from Constantinople he absolutely declar'd against all Separation on his Account This appears from what has been already observ'd in the Prefaces to the Baroccian Treatise When he expected to be deposed Pray for me my Brethren says he to the Bishops his Friends and if you love Christ let no one leave the Church on my Account And so you may obtain Mercy When one of the Bishops complain'd of the loss the Church would have in his Deprivation It suffices Brother says he speak no more but as I said leave not your Churches For as the Gift of Preaching did not begin with me so neither will it end with me Again he charges 'em to continue in Communion with those that deposed him that they might not rend the Church When he was just agoing out of his Church to be led away into Exile he thus addrest himself to the Deaconnesses who were wont to attend there Come hither says he my Daughters and hear me I am I perceive to be your Patriarch no longer I have finish'd my Course and perhaps my Face you will never see any more This is that which I exhort you to do Let no one of you be drawn off from the Good-will to the Church which you have hitherto had And whoever shall be ordain'd Patriarch in my stead without his own seeking it by the Consent of all to him submit your Heads to receive his Blessing as to my self for the Church cannot be without a Bishop And by doing so you may obtain Mercy Remember me in your Prayers We
are told by some of our Answerers that S. Chrysostom looked upon himself as a dying Man when he used these words in taking his leave of the Bishops and of the Deaconesses and therefore they cannot import that he would have them submit to a Bishop who should succeed him during his Life But if they had duely consider'd the Words which he spoke to the Deaconesses they would easily have seen that what they say is not true And perhaps my Face you will never see any more What means the word perhaps if he verily expected a speedy Death 'T is as clear I think as the Sun from that single Word that he did not then certainly expect to be put to Death And it likewise appears from that Word that the Advice he gives the Deaconesses concerning their submitting to his Successor was intended as well for his own Life-time as otherwise Since he plainly intimates that he thought it doubtful whether they should ever see him again or not if he had only intended that they should submit to a Successor after his Death he would have plainly told 'em so As he takes care to tell 'em that the Bishop they ought to submit to should be one duely Elected so he would likewise have told 'em that it ought to be after his own Death This Answer it seems was not thought so sufficient but that some have thought fit to contrive another way to escape Perhaps says one of our Answerers those Speeches were not truly S. Chrysostom's but made in his Name by Palladius To this I answer 1. That if it were true that those Speeches were made by the Author not really spoken by S. Chrysostom yet this at least must be confess'd that the Author intended when he made those Speeches to make such Speeches as would be thought proper for so great a Man to speak such as should beget in his Reader a great Esteem and Veneration for S. Chrysostom This at least must be granted that in that Age in which the Author wrote it was thought a thing very Commendable not to assert ones Right so as to occasion a Schism But 2. there is not any reason to suspect that these Speeches were invented by the Author He speaks so particularly of things he tells ye the Name of the Bishop and the Names of the Deaconesses to whom he speaks and the whole Relation carries with it so great an Air of Truth that it cannot with any shew of Reason be call'd in Question Sure I am those Speeches were always understood by the Antients to be truly S. Chrysostom's own Nicephorus Callisti tells us that S. Chrysostom commanded the Bishops not to separate from the Communion of his Enemies and the Deaconesses to submit to his Successor and he highly praises him for it And George Patriarch of Alexandria in his Life of Chrysostom out of which Photius has given us some Excerpa mentions the same thing that he beg'd the Bishops not to make a Schism in the Church on his Account This was S. Chrysostom's Judgment whilst his Piety was too warm for his Resentment but the best of Men are not always consistent with themselves After he was carried away from Constantinople his Passions so far prevail as to make him Act contrary to his own Advice He separates from the Church and sends about Letters to encourage others to do so What the reason of this was is no hard matter to guess It appears by the Acts of the Synod ad Quercum by which he was deposed that Arsacius and Atticus had both been Witnesses against him Palladius assures us that Atticus was the Contriver of all that was done against him and Sozomen tells us that he was one of those that conspir'd against him And this in all Likelihood was the Cause why he would not yield to ' em He hated 'em as his Enemies and his Passions were too strong for his Piety He had own'd before that his Successors ought to be received but when he saw that such were made his Successors as had had a hand in his Deprivation and had been Witnesses against him when he saw that even Atticus himself his very great Enemy was made his Successor his Passions grew too strong for his Iudgment If the Epistle to Cyriacus were written by S. Chrysostom in whose Name it was published his Passions must needs be confessed by all to be very exorbitant I hear that that Dotard Arsacius whom the Empress has placed in my Chair persecutes those that will not Communicate with him and that many of them have died in Prison That Dotard But I am not willing to believe so ill a thing of S. Chrysostom as that he would suffer his Passion to break out after that manner and tho' Photius a great Critick quotes that Epistle as one of S. Chrysostom's yet I doubt not but they are in the Right who reject it as Spurious and of a Style quite different from S. Chrysostom's 'T is observed by one of our Answerers that there are so many Accidents which may make any Authors Style different at different times especially in his familiar Letters and those written in Banishment and perhaps under the Disorders of Sickness and Dangers which S. Chrysostom so often complains of that this censure from the Style must be the less certain especially since Photius did not discern it We grant that S. Chrysostom did not give up his Right to Arsacius there is no need therefore that our Author should defend that Epistle But if he will needs have it let him have it It will make more against his Cause than for it Only this I shall say that it is from the Style of those very Epistles which S. Chrysostom wrote in his Banishment in the very same Circumstances and about the same Concerns that I am fully convinced that that to Cyriacus is not Genuine Black and White are hardly more different And among all S. Chrysostom's Epistles there is not one that resembles it If Photius did not discern it 't was because he did not consider it 2. It is to be observed that they that adher'd to S. Chrysostom and refused to Communicate with his Successors Arsacius and Atticus were rather carried away by their Passions than governed by Conscience and Principles This appears from hence that tho' Atticus was constituted against S. Chrysostom's Will and tho' they themselves had separated from him and continu'd in their Separation long after S. Chrysostom's Death yet when Atticus had restor'd S. Chrysostom's Name to the Diptychs of the Church then almost all were well satisfied and Communicated with Atticus as a true Bishop How can this be Reconcilable to Principles How could the inserting S. Chrysostom's Name in the Diptychs make Atticus sit to be own'd as a Bishop if he was not qualified to be own'd before It is plain they were govern'd by their Love to S. Chrysostom not by Principles Others there were of the Ioannites
as extremely unjust yet highly approves of the Behaviour of the Monks of Egypt in not separating themselves from Theophilus's Communion Yet so holy a Man was he esteemed that he is worshipped by the Church both the Greek and the Latin as a Saint 5. When S. Chrysostom took his leave of the Deaconesses and charged 'em to submit to his Successor provided he were Elected by the Consent of all he plainly intimates that he did not think any would refuse to choose a new Bishop in his place because he was unjustly deposed It is plain from those words that he took it for granted that all would presently resolve to Elect another in his Room as a thing to be done of Course 6. Socrates the Ecces Historian tho' he takes part with S. Chrysostom as to the Equity of his Cause and condemns his Deposers as Acting unjustly and uncanonically yet at the same time approves very well of their new Patriarchs Arsacius and Atticus He says That Arsacius was a person of extraordinary mildness and govern'd peaceably Atticus he calls a pious and a prudent man and tells us that by those Qualifications he much increased the Church the Hereticks being brought over to it by his Management He spends in a word whole Chapters in his praise 7. The Historian Theodoret who was himself a Bishop and lived at that time tho' he extremely disapprov'd of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation as unjust and illegal yet he reckons not only Atticus who survived S. Chrysostom but likewise Arsacius amonst the Patriarchs of Constantinople viz. in the Catalogue of Patriarchs subjoyn'd to his History Bishops of Constantinople Ioannes Chrysostomus Arsacius Atticus Sisinnius They are reckon'd likewise as Patriarchs of Constantinople in all the Catalogues of the Patriarchs of that See in that of the Patriarch Nicephorus in that of Nicephorus Callisti not yet publish'd in that which is extant in the Ius Graeco-Romanum and in both those that are published in the beginning of the First Volume of the Byzantine Historians Yet 't is certain that when these Catalogues were written 't was a thing receiv'd as the Gospel it self That S. Chrysostom was unjustly and unlawfully deposed He is reckoned also as one of the true Patriarchs of Constantinople by Theophanes in his Chronography 8. 'T is well observed by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise that tho' it cannot be supposed but that the Patriarch Arsacius ordain'd several Persons Bishops and Presbyters yet it does not at all appear that any ever scrupled to receive any Persons on that account because by him ordain'd I shall conclude this Chapter with the words of P. Celestine I. concerning the Patriarch Atticus Atticus says he in his Epistle to the Patriarch Nestorius of holy Memory that Doctor of the Catholick Faith who was truly a Successor of the blessed Iohn Chrysostom as well in his Faith as in his See c. 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. ◠by 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 MS. § 1 3. THat the Deprivation of a Bishop by an Heretical Synod is absolutely null and invalid is a certain Maxim in the Law of the Church Yet this the Vindicator does not seem to take notice of If he can shew that a Bishop was deprived by Bishops he presently thinks himself secure without considering whether the Deprivers were Heretical or not S. Athanasius in his Epistle ad Solitarios where he tells us that the Emperor Constantius sent to Liberius Bishop of Rome to perswade him to subscribe to his Athanasius's Condemnation whom a Synod of Arians had deposed makes Liberius speak to the Messenger after this manner Let there be says he an Ecclesiastical Synod call'd and let the Hereticks be thrown out and let the Orthodox have freedom of Speech For they cannot be Members of a Synod who are not Orthodox in Faith neither ought any Iudicial Enquiry to be made concerning Actions till there has been an Enquiry concerning Faith For first all difference in Faith ought to be removed and then we may make an Enquiry into Actions These things have we learnt from our Fathers These things declare to the Emperor Thus when Macedonius the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople was depriv'd first by the Emperor Anastasius and afterwards by a kind of Synod which consisted of Eutychian Hereticks and some Bishops were sent to him with his Deprivation he askt 'em Whether they receiv'd the Council of Chalcedon For says he if Sabbatians or Macedonians should bring me a Deprivation ought I to receive it So he refused to receive it So far was the Church from allowing a Heretick to be a Iudge of a Bishop that she would not allow one to be a Witness against a Bishop 'T is expressly forbidden by the 6th Canon of the 2 d. General Council In the time of the Emperor Constantine Eustathius Patriarch of Antioch was deposed by an Heretical Synod upon an Accusation of Incontinence The Vindicator tells us that his Deposers tho' they secretly favour'd the Arians were not as yet declared an opposite Communion That is nothing to the purpose For 't is certain that for a great while together that Party were in a sort of Communion with the Catholicks and yet were accounted Hereticks That Eustathius was deposed by Hereticks such at least as refused to subscribe to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Doctrine of the Nicene Council is attested by S. Chrysostom Athanasius S. Ierom Sozomen the Patriarch Nicephorus and others who tell us not onely that he was deposed by Arians but likewise that he was deposed
himself that Socrates was particularly diligent in his Chronology 3. It is not onely Socrates and those that follow him that are Witnesses of what we assert I shall not urge the Autority of Photius nor that of the Life of S. Athanasius of Nicephorus the Patriarch of Nicephorus Callisti who as well as Sozomen seem to have borrow'd from Socrates But others there are who did not follow him 1. 'T is expressly asserted in the Menology of the Greek Church that our Eustathius was a hundred Years old when he died 2. 'T is likewise expressly asserted by Theodorus Lector who is follow'd by Theophanes that he died a hundred Years before his Body was translated from Philippi to Antioch by the Patriarch Calendion which was in the Year 482 or 483 Therefore according to Theodorus he died about the Year 382. To which time he might very well live since he was a hundred Years old when he died But to what purpose do I cite these Autorities when S. Chrysostom himself is my Witness Let us hear what he says of Eustathius in his Encomium He there plainly tells us not only that he was living when Meletius was ordain'd his Successor which I wonder that neither Baronius nor Valesius observ'd but likewise that he left off to concern himself as a Bishop of Antioch as soon as the Orthodox Meletius was ordain'd in his place God says S. Chrysostom permitted the Blessed Eustathius to be lead away into Banishment that he might make the strength of Truth and the weakness of Hereticks more manifest When he was to be carried away tho' he was to leave the City yet he would not cease to love you and he did not therefore look upon himself to be deprived of his Episcopal Office because he was thrust out of his Church But so much the more he apply'd himself to take care of you and calling you all together he exhorted you not to yield to the Wolfs or betray the Flock to ' em When they invaded the Sheep he did not leave 'em tho' he was not possessed of the Episcopal Chair But that his generous and Philosophical Soul did not value the Honours of a Governor he left to others but he bore the burden of a Governor being conversant among Wolfs In doing thus he formed all to the true Faith Neither did he desist till by the Providence of God the blessed Meletius came hither and received the whole Mass the one sow'd and the other reapt 3. I observe that tho' as S. Chrysostom witnesses Eustathius continued to Act as Bishop of Antioch yet as soon as Meletius an Orthodox Person was proposed to be Elected Bishop of that See the Orthodox Party very readily concurr'd and accepted of him tho' it does not appear that they knew that Eustathius would give his Consent How chearfully the Orthodox accepted of Meletius we may read in Theodoret. There were some of the Eustathius that stood out against him and refused to own him But their reason was because he had been ordain'd by Arians which that party accounted a just Cause of Separation and besides was by many accounted an Arian himself We are told by the Vindicator that the onely Reason why his Adversaries excepted against him was his being ordain'd by Arians But that is a very great Mistake That by some he was accounted an Arian even whilst he was Bishop of Antioch S. Basil complains S. Ierom himself expresly calls him a Heretick or Arian and so does the Author of the Chronicon Paschale § 2. After some time Meletius was by the Emperor Constantius banished and recalled together with the other Orthodox Bishops that had been banished by the Emperor Iulian. Before he return'd to Antioch Lucifer Calaritanus a great Zealot one that did not allow of any one whom the Arians had ordain'd had been there and had ordain'd a Presbyter of the Eustathians by Name Paulinus Bishop of Antioch This the greatest part of the Orthodox did not allow of but refused to receive him as their Bishop and when their Bishop Meletius returned adhered to him We are told by some of our Adversaries that this Example makes directly against us For say they Paulinus was possessed of the See of Antioch and was likewise Orthodox yet Meletius's Party did not receive him but waited for his Return and adhered to him But 't is strange that this should be urged against that Doctrine which we maintain I shall not mention that Paulinus was esteemed by some not Orthodox but a Sabellian neither shall I mention that his not allowing the Ordinations of the Meletian Clergy as being derived from the Arians was enough to make that Party oppose him I only observe that the Circumstances of his Promotion were extreamly different from those supposed in our Question 1. Lucifer Calaritanus had nothing at all to do with the See of Antioch What Autority had he to constitute a Bishop of Antioch Had Meletius been dead the Church of Antioch would not have been obliged to submit to Paulinus whom he made Bishop If an Outlandish Bishop that had nothing at all to do here should pretend to constitute an Archbishop of Canterbury in the room of a banished Archbishop who can imagine that by the Principles which we advance we should be obliged to receive him 2. Meletius was not at that time in Banishment not made uncapable of serving as a Bishop of Antioch He was so far from being made uncapable by any Sovereign Power that by the Emperor's Autority he had leave given him to return to his See and was as it were upon the Road. § 3. It 's alleged by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise That Maximus an Orthodox Bishop of Ierusalem was deposed by Acacius the Heretical Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine because he took part with S. Athanasius and established the Doctrine of the Homoousion That he being so deposed Cyrillus an Arian was constituted Bishop in his room but was afterwards own'd by the Church because he came over to the Orthodox Faith and is honoured by the Church as a Saint To this our Adversaries answer that Theodoret and S. Ierom attest that Maximus was not deposed but dead before Cyril was made Bishop of Ierusalem To which they might have added the Autority of the General Council of Constantinople in which it is declared that Cyril was made Bishop Canonically ordained by the Bishops of the Province On the other side it may be alleged that the Historian Socrates expresly affirms that Maximus was expelled and Cyril substituted in his room by the Arians Acacius and Patrophilus and that in this Socrates is followed by many by the Author of the Synodicon and by the Authors of the two Lives of S. Athanasius It is likewise attested by Theophanes that Maximus was deposed To which I shall add the Testimony of Photius out of a MS. Treatise which is directly
to our purpose S. Maximus says he the Confessor being expelled by the Arians for his Orthodoxy Cyril was by the Arians ordain'd in Jerusalem one of the Chief of the Arian Faction as Ecclesiastical Historians tell us But he coming over to the Orthodox Faith was not only receiv'd as a Bishop together with those whom he had ordain'd but is also honour'd by the Church as a Saint Concerning whom Gregory Nyssen in his Homily upon the Translation of the Body of S. Stephen the Proto-Martyr has these words Cyril repented and adhered to the Orthodox Faith He presided in the Second Council and was not excepted against either because he was ordained by Arians and had been an Arian himself or because he had usurpt the Chair of S. Maximus expelled in defence of the Homoousion and still living This Instance I leave to the Reader 's Judgment § 4. Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople was deposed by an Heretical Synod in obedience to the Heretical Emperor Anastasius The Emperor Anastasius says Theodorus Lector charged the Patriarch Euphemius with the Rebellion of the Isauri alleging that he had written Letters to the Rebels and called together those Bishops which were in Town who to gratifie the Emperor pass'd upon Euphemius the Sentence of Excommunication and Deprivation 'T is to be observ'd of this Synod that it was unlawful on two Accounts 1. It was only a Synodus 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. a few Bishops called together such as were then residing at Constantinople which by the Canons of the Church could be of no force at all for they require that a Synod should be at least Provincial The Vindicator says such a Synod was by the Canons of the Church sufficient and obliging till a greater number of Bishops could be perswaded to restore him By what Canons If the Law requires that all the Members of Parliament should be summoned and only some few are called tho' every one is truly a Member yet they cannot make a Parliament 2. It was an Heretical Synod Such a one to be sure it was For the true reason why the Emperor would have Euphemius deposed was because he knew him to be a stout Defender of the Faith If they had not been Men of his own Faith the Emperor would never have employ'd 'em in that Business and Theophanes expresly tells us that the Bishops that were about the Emperor were Hereticks That this Synod in particular was an Heretical Synod the Libellus Synodicus asserts I now observe 1. That Macedonius who was put into Euphemius's place and was really Orthodox tho' the Emperor I suppose thought him well inclin'd to his Party tho' he accounted Euphemius invalidly deprived and had with all a great Honour for him yet he freely accepted of the See and that too tho' he knew that Euphemius had never resign'd That he thought him invalidly deprived may be gathered from these words of Theodorus Lector The Emperor says he Commanded Euphemius to be banished to Euchaita who desired that Macedonius might give him his Word that he should not be injured on the way Macedonius therefore being permitted by the Emperor to pass his Word for his Security did a thing that deserves Praise He commanded his Deacon to take off his Episcopal Robe and so he went into the Baptisterium of the Church to Euphemius He took up Money likewise upon use and gave it him to sustain his Company If he had not thought him invalidly deposed he would not have shew'd him that kind of respect 2. That Macedonius being thus constituted was receiv'd as Patriarch of Constantinople by the Catholick Church This is too notorious to need any Proof I shall only observe that he is called by Zonaras a Holy Man and that the People of Constantinople submitted to him tho' they loved Euphemius so well and so much condemned the Proceedings against him as to raise a Sedition for his sake when first deprived 3. That when Macedonius sent his Synodical Letters to Elias Patriarch of Ierusalem Elias received him as Patriarch tho' at the same time he refused to subscribe to Euphemius's Deprivation Elias says Cyrillus Scythopolitanus refused to give his Consent to Euphemius ' s Deprivation but Macedonius he received into Communion when he found by his Synodical Letter that he was Orthodox So between Macedonius and Elias there was Concord 4. So far was Euphemius from cherishing any Animosity against his Successor Macedonius that after Macedonius was likewise banished they visited one another as Friends and were therefore both murdered by the Emperor's Command § 5. It 's alleged by one of our Adversaries that the Novatians the Donatists and the Meletians of Egypt were Schismaticks in the Opinion of the Church because the Bishops who first headed 'em were Second Bishops but this is easily answered For the Bishops whom they followed were not set up by any Sovereign coercive Power in the room of others deposed but were set up by inferior Persons against others possessed of the Sees I have already said that it is not every one whom a small tumultuous Party shall get to be ordain'd that ought to be received as a Bishop but that which we maintain is this That where the lawful Bishop is deposed by an Irresistable Party there the Successor may be acknowleged Here I cannot but take notice that before Majorinus the Head of the Donatists was made Bishop of Carthage by that Party Caecilianus who was first possessed of the See was deposed by a Synod of no less than Seventy Bishops yet was owned by the Catholick Church to have been all along the rightful Bishop even before he was confirmed by the Synods of Rome and Arles and the other Party was accounted Schismatical from the very beginning This our Adversaries who are pleased to Talk so much of Synods would do well to consider He never was thrust out of his See by the Civil Power and the Synod no Body valued tho' it was Orthodox he was therefore owned because he was still in Possession 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 I Have now done And from what has been said I think we may very well draw this Conclusion That supposing a Bishop deprived by the Secular Power is unjustly and invalidly deprived supposing likewise that he does not acquiesce but still lays claim to his Bishoprick yet the Church may lawfully and ought for peace sake to receive the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable I shall here take my leave of those Readers to whom I have hitherto directed my Discourse and address my self with all due Reverence and Respect to those reverend and worthy Persons whose Dissatisfactions have occasion'd the writing of this Treatise If the Church is not obliged to adhere to an ejected Bishop who refuses to acquiesce
being own'd but by a very small Party If Cornelius had been irreâ—â—ievably deposed by the Civil Power if Novatian had been chosen by the Church in his place and been own'd by almost all if such had been Cornelius's Case who can believe but that S. Dionysius who thought Schism worse than Idolatry would have exhorted him to acquiesce that so there might be an end put to the Schism Our Adversaries ought to consider that it is not the Cession of the Bishops now in Possession that can restore those that are deposed And 't is the Duty of every good Bishop to consider not what is his Right but what is likely to conduce to the Peace of the Church 'T is his Duty as S. Dionysius says to endure any thing that the Church of God may not be divided When Theodosius Bishop of Synada was deposed by the People and Agapetus the Bishop of the Macedonian Hereticks was upon his turning to the Orthodox Faith together with his Followers made Bishop in his stead he appealed to Atticâ—s the Patriarch of Constantinople but the Patriarch advising him to acquiesce and to prefer the Goâ—d of the Publick before his private advantage he contented himself with a private Life When Maximianus Bishop of Bagai in Africa was opposed by his People who were not willing to be under him he quietly gave up his Right and he is highly praised for it by S. Austin It is far more glorious says S. Austin on that occasion to give up ones Bishoprick for the securing the Church from Dangers than to take it upon one For he who does not unworthily defend the Honour he received plainly shews that he would have been worthy of it if the Church's Peace would have permitted him to keep it May Maximianus be repaid with that everlasting Peace which is promised the Church because he esteemed that not expedient for him which was not expedient for the Church Those many Examples of a peaceable Acquiescence which we have produced in the foregoing Discourse I shall not here repeat I shall not mention the Example of S. Elias Patriarch of Ierusalem nor that of Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople nor that of S. Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch nor those of S. Eustathius and Euphemius I shall not mention that Ignatius Patriarch of Constantinople declared that if Photius had been otherwise unexceptionable he would have yielded to him Neither shall I mention that S. Martin when in Banishment prayed for his Successor These and many more Examples of a peaceful and pious Acquiescence I leave to the serious Consideration of those that are concerned It 's alleged by the Author of a late Pamphlet Entituled Of Christian Communion to be kept on in the Vnity of Christ's Church that the ejected Bishops are not obliged to acquiesce but rather to Act still as Bishops because it is the Duty of all Bishops and Clergymen to stand to and preach up all good Doctrines but says he if they should resign there are some good Doctrines which in these times will not be defended This is the Summ of all that concerns us In answer to which I shall only desire the Author to consider that according to that Notion there is no Separation but what may easily be defended What Dissenter is there amongst us that can't make the same Plea I desire to be pardon'd for presuming to offer my Advice I can truly say of those reverend Men what S. Cyprian does of Maximus and his Associates who were ere-while Confessors and afterwards engaged in a Schism I am extreamly sorry that I cannot Communicate with those whom I had begun to love God grant that like Maximus and his Associates they that were lately our Confessors may be again united to the Church I cannot but grieve when I consider those Persons in a Meeting-House whom I so much loved and reverenced in the Tower FINIS ADDENDA P. 4. l. 12. after the words cannot be imputed as a fault add In an Epistle of P. Felix IX to the Emperor Basilius Macedo we have several other Autorities of the Antient Popes collected to shew That the Laws and Customs of the Church ought to give place to Necessity and Convenience When Necessity says Pope Gelasius does not require the contrary the Decrees of the Fathers ought to be observ'd So Pope Leo who adds But where there is Necessity and Force there let him that governs so order Matters as the Conveniency of the Churchrequires We ought to consider says Pope Felix That when there is a Necessity the Constitutions of the Fathers are oftentimes transgress'd To all which I add the Autority of Pope Pelagius II. For a Bishop to be translated from one See to another is directly against a Canon of the Council of Nice and for the observation of this Canon Pope Pelagius zealously contends yet he adds withal That if Necessity or the Good of the Church requires it it is lawful to act contrary to it and he says That they that think otherwise do not understand the Nature of the Laws of the Church They do not well understand says he the Ecclesiastical Rules who deny That it may be done for Conveniency or Necessities sake when the Publick Good or Necessity requires The Principal ERRATA are these PAg â—0 l. 24 25. and in several other places Sence for Sense p. 20. Note 1. l. 2. write occisioni p. 24. l. 2. in deposing p. 27. l. 2. had hid himself p. 34. l. 35. conclude from the words p. 37. l. 9 Thebuthi p. 45â— note 3. l. 4. constituto p. 51. l. 32. there are some p. 59. note 4. l 2. Viro. p. 61. l. 37. Gelasius That p. 62. l. 6. Epistles And. p. 63. l. ult occulente p. 64. l. 4. the Pope's excommunicating Acacius p 65. l. 9. broke off onely upon p. 61. l. 1. § 6. In the Year 483. p. 67. note 3. l. 18. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 68. l. 30. Apollonias ibid. note 1. l. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 69. l. 20. onely upon p. 71. l. 8. Theophanes The. p. 86. note 6. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 90. l. 29. confuted Though p. 91. l. 3. Diaconas Least p. 97. l. 31. p. 98. l. 33. Nicephorus the Patriarch p. 100. l. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 101. l. 26. who resided p. 105 l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 l. 33. Nicelas Paphlago p. 106 l. 27. Biclariensis l. 29. Faith Under p. 107. n. 3. l. 16. Patriarcham Const. p. 110 â— ult l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 118. l. 29. from him that before p. 121. l. 15. à Potestatibus p. 122. l. 2. was the great p. 130. l. 6. consederant l. 8. gestatorio p. 132. n. 1. l. 9. false and the business about which he writes was p. 137. l. 3. Constantinus Copr p. 139. l. 32. Characters We p. 140. n. 6. who says he had p. 141. n. 5. p. 150 n. 5. p. 152 c.
Nicolaus p 147. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 150. n. 4. l. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 188. n. 4. l. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 What Errors there may be in the following Pages which the Author has not seen the Reader is desired to correct THE CASE of SEES VACANT By an Unjust or Uncanonical DEPRIVATION STATED In Reply to a TREATISE ENTITULED A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops c. TOGETHER WITH The several other Pamphlets lately publish'd as Answers to the BAROCCIAN TREATISE By HUMPHRY HODY D. D. Fellow of Wadh. Coll. in Oxford Abstineamus nos à Convitiis ne tempus inaniter impendamus ad iâ— quod agitur inter nos potius advertamus S. Aug. Ep. ad Pascentium Comitem Non â—nim vincimur quando offeruntur nobis meliora sed instruimur maximè in his qua ad Ecclesia unitatem pertinent spei fidei nostrae veritatem S. Cypr. LONDON Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard MDCXCIII Imprimatur Geo. Royse R. R mo in Christo Patri ac D no D no Iohanni Archiep. Cantuar à Sacris Domest Decemb. 1. 1692. To the most Reverend Father in God JOHN By Divine Providence Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY His GRACE Primate of all England and Metropolitan May it please your Grace THis Treatise being design'd for the Service of the Church as at present Establish'd I presume to make your Grace this humble offer of it It must be confest that the greatness of the Subject deserves a more able Manager but my Lord that favourable Acceptance with which you were pleas'd to honour the Baroccian Treatise has encouraged me to hope that your Grace will likewise be pleas'd to accept of these Endeavours and to excuse and pardon the Defects of Your GRACE's Most dutifull Servant HVMPHRY HODY To the Reader THere are two things which they that separate from the Communion of the Church on the account of Bishops deposed by the Civil Autority are obliged to make out to justifie themselves from the Charge of Schism 1. That the Civil Power has no Autority in any Case whatever to deprive a Bishop of his See 2. That no Bishop that is put into the place of another deposed by an incompetent Autority ought to be own'd If they cannot make out both these Propositions they do nothing at all For if we may lawfully submit to a Bishop put into the place of another deprived by the Civil Power tho' the Civil Power had no Autority to deprive it must thence follow that They are guilty of Schism who separate from the Church on such an account because there is nothing can justifie a Separation from the Church when we may lawfully communicate with it But on the other Side the Case is quite different They that own the present Possessor in opposition to one deposed by the Civil Power are to justifie their Adherence to him obliged to make out but onely one thing Either 1. That the Civil Power may lawfully deprive a Bishop of his See for Crimes or reputed Crimes purely Political Such as are here supposed or 2. That if it cannot lawfully do so yet if it has actually done it and another unexceptionable on all other accounts is establish'd in the See it is lawfull for Peace-sake to own the Possessor This Advantage We have of our Adversaries The Baroccian Treatise which I lately publish'd is a Proof of the last Proposition It supposes that Bishops deprived uncanonically whether by Princes onely or by Synods it produces Examples of both kinds are unjustly and invalidly deprived yet shews that we ought not to separate on that account from the Communion of the Present Possessor Never was a poor Treatise more hardly and severely used by its Adversaries than that has been This was a Proposition that our Adversaries were not aware of They were therefore highly concern'd to employ all their Art to weaken the Autority of that Treatise But for all the hard Names they have so liberally bestow'd upon it they are forced to confess by their Practice that it carries with it a great deal of Strength If to be opposed by seven several Answerers the latter not satisfied with what the former had urged be an Argument of Strength in a Treatise we may still believe and I hope it was so that the finding it out at this Juncture had something of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it I presume the Reader will expect I should give him some Account of these seven several Answers which have been publish'd against it I shall lay down the Titles of 'em in the same Order as they came to my hands 1. The Oxford Antiquity examin'd c. 2. An Answer to a Treatise out of Ecclesiastical History translated from an antient Greek MS. in the Publick Library at Oxford by Humphry Hody B. D. c. 3. Epistola ad Humfredum Hody c. de Tractatu à Scriniis Baroccianis Bibliothecae Bodleianae eruto ab illo nuper edito conscripta 4. A farther Account of the Baroccian MS. lately publishâ—d at Oxford 5. Reflections on the Greek MS. translated by Mr. Hody This is not Printed but was put into my hands in a MS. 6. A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops asserting their Spiritual Right against a Lay-Deprivation against the Charge of Schism c. These six are professedly and entirely in Answer to the Baroccian Treatise But the Author of this last mention'd was I know not how so unhappy as to mistake the Question He writes against the Treatise as if the Design of it were to vindicate the Autority of the Civil Power in depriving Bishops But that is not the Design of the Treatise neither was it my Design in publishing it And from this strange Mistake it comes to pass that a great part of what that Author says is nothing at all to our Purpose 7. Vnity of Priesthood necessary to the Vnity of the Church with some Reflections on the Oxford MS. and the Preface annext The Vindication of the Autority of the Civil Power in Depriving a Bishop for Political Crimes I reserve for a particular Treatise My Business at present is to manage the last Proposition that advanced by the Baroccian Treatise In Reply to these several Answers I here present our Adversaries with an Impartial History of the Church's Behaviour throughout all Ages under Bishops put into the Places of others Deposed by a Lay or otherwise Invalid Sentence I grant at present that all Lay-Deprivations are invalid I suppose the worst in all Cases Suppose the Deprivation was not onely uncanonical but also unjust Suppose the Depriver not onely a Lay-man but doubly unqualified by being likewise a Heretick Suppose besides that the ejected Bishop was deprived for adhering to the Truth and for opposing Vice or Heresy Notwithstanding all this I assert That if he was deprived by a Power irresistible a Submission to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable
is lawfull and warranted by the general Practice of the Antients It is not my Design to detain my Reader long in a Preface Onely one or two things I desire of him If any thing here in this Treatise seem long and tedious to him I desire he would be pleas'd to consider that my Design was to make this Discourse as perfect as I could that so if possible it might put an End to this Controversie And if our Adversaries shall be pleas'd to publish a Reply to what is here written I desire he would seriously compare and weigh one Treatise with the other consider if the main and more Substantial Parts of this Treatise are answer'd then judge for himself and not expect that of Course there must be another Reply As I am not so vain as to think my self clear from Error so neither am I conscious to my self of having been so Careless and Indiligent as to think I am often mistaken I mean in things material I hate everlasting Wrangle And an Adversary that Cavils and excepts against things not material I shall think deserves a Reply as little as one that Rails 'T will be hard I know to perswade our Adversaries that the History I here present 'em is what I call it Impartial But this Assurance I give 'em I have written nothing but what I myself believe That may be perhaps they will say But you have not written all that you believe You have not told all you know Why truly as to that I know not what to answer Since the Judgments of Men are so extremely different as that some have fansy'd that the Canons I omitted when I publish'd the Baroccian Treatise are really a Part of that Treatise and ought to have been publish'd with it there is nothing so Impertinent but what some or other may fansie I ought to have mention'd I cannot promise but that there may be more Canons But least it should be suspected that tho' I have produced many Instances for the Cause I have undertaken to defend there are others as good and as many that make against us which I have designedly conceal'd I shall here make this solemn Declaration That if any of our Adversaries I speak to all in general but my Eye is particularly upon the learned Vindicator can produce me any one single Instance from the time of Aaron the first High-priest of the Iews to this very day of a High priest disown'd by the Iews or a Bishop disown'd by the Generality of the Catholick Church for this Reason because put into the place of another deposed by the Civil Autority If they can shew me I say any one single Instance I shall own my self obliged for the Instruction I assure my Reader that after a nice and very curious Search I know not one Should our Adversaries be able to produce such an Example as I think they will never be able 't will advantage their Cause but little especially if it be one of the later Ages since it is not agreeable to the Practice of the Church in general But if they are not able to produce so much as one single Example how rashly have they acted who have separated themselves from the Church on such an account I conclude in the Words of Drusius which I here make my own Scripsi haec animo juvandi non laedendi Si laesi quempiam jam me poenitet Si offendi pias aures monitus lubenter mutabo Si erravi uspiam monstretur mihi error non ero pertinax ☞ Pag. 5. lin 40. Whatsoever is notoriously repugnant to the Church's Interest so as to be necessarily productive of very great Evils is so far from being obliging that it would be a Sin to act according to it Least that Proposition should be misunderstood after the words of very great Evils add I speak of Oaths of Canonical Obedience THE CONTENTS CHAP. I. The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power demonstrated Objections answer'd No obligation to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience The Autority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleg'd by our Adversaries The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose Page 1. 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 Page 16. CHAP. III. That our Saviour himself and his Apostles acknowleged and communicated with those High-priests who were put into the Places of others unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority as true High-priests Mr. Selden's Conjecture That in the Histories of the New Testament as often as there is mention made of the High-priest is to be understood not the High-priest properly so called but the Prince of the Sanhedrin confuted A Reply to an Answer of our Adversaries concerning the Reason why the Jews our Saviour and the Apostles submitted to the present Possessor Page 33. CHAP. IV. That the Ancient Christians submitted all along to such Bishops if accounted Orthodox as were put into the Places of others deposed by the Secular Power tho never so unjustly No Examples either for or against us in the three first Centuries all the Emperors being then Heathens The Example of Felix II. Bishop of Rome the put into the place of Liberius unjustly deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Constantius and against Liberius's consent yet he 's own'd by all that accounted him Orthodox by the Roman Clergy among them by the famous Damasus who was afterwards Pope He is own'd as Metropolitan by the Bishops of the District of Rome His Ordinations are allow'd of as valid by even his Adversary Liberius He has been all along own'd by the Church as a Saint and true Pope Page 40. 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 claim'd 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 allowed of as valid § 3. Acacius Patriarch of Constantinople refuses to communicate with Timotheus Aelurus not because he was put into the place of Timotheus Salofuciolus unjustly deposed by
the Heretical Vsurper Basiliscus but because he was a Heretick and a Parricide § 4. Jo. Talaias the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria being deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperour Zeno though he still laid claim to the See yet Petrus Mongus his Successor is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox by Acacius and Fravitas Patriarchs of Constantinople by Martyrius Patriarch of Jerusalem by almost all the Bishops of the Eastern Church That they who refused to communicate with Mongus viz. the Western Bishops the Bishops of Dardania c. did it only because they thought him a Heretick That Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople communicated with him till he found him to be a Heretick then forsook his Communion Pope Simplicius when he heard that Talaias was to be deposed was well enough satisfied till he understood that Mongus whom he accounted a Heretick was design'd for his Successor Whether Orthodox Bishops unjustly ejected by the Emperor be restor'd or new Orthodox Bishops be created he values not he only desires that they that are made Bishops should be Orthodox Pope Felix III. not at all concern'd for Talaias's being deprived without a Synod only dislikes that one whom he accounted a Heretick was constituted in his place § 5. Calendion Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Zeno without any Synod the Orthodox Bishops viz. Pope Felix III. Quintianus Asculanus Justinus Siculus Acacius Constantinopolitanus Antheon Arsinoites Faustus Apolloniates Pamphilus Abydensis Asclepiades of Trallium c. refuse to communicate with his Successor Petrus Gnapheus only because he was a Heretick take no notice of his being constituted in the room of one Unsynodically deposed and are ready to communicate with him as a true Patriarch of Antioch if he will but forsake his Heresy Page 57. CHAP. VI. Macedonius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently Deposed by the Heretical Emperor Anastasius his Successor Timotheus is acknowleged by all that accounted him Orthodox though at the same time they profess'd that the Deprivation of Macedonius was unjust and could never be induced by any Terrors to subscribe to it viz. by Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem the Abbot of the Monastery of Studium the Orthodox People of Constantinople by the great Abbots of Palaestine S. Sabas and S. Theodosius and by all Palaestine in general at that time exceedingly flourishing for its zealous Profession of the Orthodox Faith The Calumnies of the Vindicator concerning the Apostacy of the Patriarchs Flavianus and Elias confuted Timotheus not known to them to be a Heretick when they communicated with him They are Honoured by the Church as Saints Page 70. CHAP. VII Flavianus Patriarch of Antioch being deposed by the Emperor Anastasius his Successor Severus is rejected by the Orthodox only because he was a Heretick Elias Patriarch of Jerusalem being violently deposed by the said Emperor his Successor John is immediately acknowleged by all the People though at the same time they hated him by the whole Church of Palaestine particularly the two great Abbots S. Sabas and S. Theodosius so famous for their Vndauntedness and Sanctity by Johannes Cappadox Patriarch of Constantinople and all the Greek Church by all the whole Church ever since those Tunes The Testimony of Photius Patriarch of Constantinople out of a Manuscript The old Patriarch Elias though so Tyrannically Deprived for adhering to the Orthodox Faith continues however to communicate with those who acknowleged his Successor Page 81. CHAP. VIII S. Silverius Bishop of Rome being violently deposed by Belisarius the Emperor Justinian's General his Successor Vigilius though put into his place so depriv'd though constituted by the bare Autority of Belisarius against the consent of the Clergy and though Silverius never gave up his Right is own'd and receiv'd by the 5th General Council and by all the Church as a true Pope He was generally own'd whilst Silverius himself was living Baronius's conjecture concerning his being again ordain'd after Silverius's Death confuted though for some time he communicated with Hereticks yet it was not known to the Orthodox who communicated with him Page 90. CHAP. IX Macarius Patriarch of Jerusalem being deposed by the Emperour Justinian his Successor Eustochius is own'd as a true Patriarch by the Fifth General Council and the whole Catholick Church After some time Eustochius himself is deposed by the Emperour and Macarius being restored is received by the Church According to our Adversaries Principles either Eustochius or Macarius after his Restauration was no true Patriarch yet the Church receiv'd both Page 97. CHAP. X. Eutychius Patriarch of Constantinople being violently deposed by the Emp. Justinian for refusing to subscribe to his Heresie John sirnamed Scholasticus is made Patriarch in his room After John was consecrated Patriarch Eutychius was condemned by an Assembly that consisted as well of Lay Lords as Bishops not only of Ecclesiasticks as the Vindicator contends He actually lays claim to the See despises the Sentence of his Iudges as null and invalid because they proceeded unjustly and uncanonically against him and Excommunicates them Notwithstanding all this his Successor because he prov'd Orthodox was receiv'd and own'd by all the Church as a true Patriarch He continu'd in the See near 13 years near 12 years under Justin the Younger an Orthodox Emp. He is own'd by the Church of Constantinople tho' at the same time Eutychius was exceedingly belov'd John an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria is consecrated by him For what reason Anastasius Patriarch of Antioch reprov'd the Patriarch of Alexandria for being ordain'd by him Anastasius did not refuse to communicate with him He is Honour'd by the Patriarch Photius with the Title of Saint Tho' Eutychius lookt upon his Deprivation as absolutely invalid and tho' he never resign'd but accounted himself still the rightful Patriarch yet he liv'd quietly and never endeavour'd to make a Division in the Church Dr. Crakanthorp's Opinion that Eutychius was deposed for being a Heretick confuted The Authority of the Life of Eutychius often quoted in this Chapter vindicated against the same Author Page 101. CHAP. XI S. Anastasius Senior Patriarch of Antioch being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justin Iunior tho' he never resign'd yet his Successor Gregory is own'd by all the Church He continued Patriarch till his Death for the space of 23 Years the old Patriarch Anastasius being all the while living Four Saints among those that lived at that time and communicated freely with him S. Symeon Stylites Iunior Pope Gregory the Great S. Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria S. John Nesteutes Patriarch of Constantinople Pope Gregory communicates with him as Patriarch of Antioch tho' at the same time he declares Anastasius's Deprivation to be invalid and looks upon Anastasius to be the rightfull Patriarch S. Anastasius though deposed by the Lay-power and though he had never given up his Right yet never left the Communion of the Church Page 121. CHAP. XII S. Martin Pope of Rome being deposed without any Synod
and banish'd by the Heretical Emperor Constans tho' he never resign'd yet Eugenius is chosen his Successor by the Clergy of Rome tho' at the same time they were zealous Assertors of the Orthodox Faith and had likewise a great love for S. Martin Eugenius is receiv'd and own'd by all as a true Pope and has been honour'd all along by the Church as a Saint S. Martin himself owns him as a true Pope and prays to God for him as such Page 128. CHAP. XIII Callinicus Patriarch of Constantinople being deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Justinianus Rhinotmetus his Successor Cyrus is receiv'd as a true Patriarch § 1. So likewise is Nicetas who was put into the place of the Patriarch Constantine deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Constantinus Copronymus § 2. Page 135. CHAP. XIV An Account of the Schism between Photlus and Ignatius Patriarchs of Constantinople Photius who was put into Ignatius's place when deposed by the Emperor no such Person as his Enemies report him By how great a Party he was receiv'd The reason why some refused to acknowlege him was not so much because he was so constituted as because he was a Neophytus and was besides ordain'd by a Bishop Excommunicated and in their Iudgments stood himself Excommunicated at that time Ignatius professes that if Photius had been one of the Church i. e. if he had not been an Excommunicated Person at the time of his Consecration he would willingly have yielded to him Ignatius values the Councils that condemn'd him no more than he did the Lay power The Vindicator in an Error concerning that Matter His Errors concerning the Council call'd the First and Second A New account of the reason of that Title His Error concerning the Greatness of the Synod of Rome call'd by P. Nicholas against Photius Photius after he was receiv'd by the Church and confirmed by a general Council is deposed by the bare Autority of the Emperor Leo yet his Successor Stephen is receiv'd by the Church Page 139. CHAP. XV. Nicolaus Mysticus Patriarch of Constantinople not deprived by a Synod as the Vindicator contends but by the Emperor Leo the Wife § 1. Joseph Bishop of Brixia in Italy deposed without any Synod by King Berengarius yet his Successor Antony is own'd and receiv'd by the Church particularly by the Pope the Synods of Augspurg and Ravenna and continued in the See many years § 2. Basilius Camaterus and Nicetas Muntanes Patriarchs of Constantinople deposed without any Synod by the Emperor Isaacius Angelus yet no Division in the Church on their account § 3 4. The Patriarchs of the present Greek Church very frequently deprived by the Turk yet no Division in the Church As great Reason to submit to the present Possessor here as in the Greek Church The Necessity the same Page 170. CHAP. XVI The Sentence of an Uncanonical Synod esteemed by the Antients invalid S. Chrysostom Patriarch of Constantinople unjustly and invalidly deposed by a Synod He declares however at first against all Separation from the Church on his Account He afterwards yields to Resentment and refuses to Communicate with his Successors Arsacius and Atticus because they had been his Enemies and had a hand in his Deprivation The Joannites acted by their Passions not by Principles They separate from the Church not because there was another made Patriarch in S. Chrysostom's place but before that was done Arsacius being made Patriarch they refuse to Communicate with him not because he was put into S. Chrysostom's place but through Hatred against St. Chrysostom's Deposers because they frequented his Churches Pope Innocent of Rome not consistent with himself His Practice contradicts his Words He did not think Arsacius and Atticus no Bishops His Zeal for the Honour of his own See the chief Cause of his Opposing ' em He at last receives Atticus as a true Patriarch The Vindicator's Exception against the Translation of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Baroccian Treatise confuted The Eastern Bishops refuse to separate from the Communion of the Church tho' S. Chrysostom laid Claim to his See and actually separated and tho' they esteemed his Deprivation invalid So did the Monks of Egypt The Testimony of S. Nicon out of a MS. S. Nicon himself tho' he esteemed his Deprivation extremely unjust yet approves of those that did not separate on his Account S. Chrysostom takes it for granted as a thing of Course that all would immediately resolve to choose a new Patriarch in his room The Patriarch Atticus highly esteemed by the whole African Church The Ecclesiastical Historian Socrates disapproves of S. Chrysostom's Deprivation yet speaks of Arsacius and Atticus as of true Patriarchs Theodoret extremely offended at the Injustice of his Deposers yet reckons both Arsacius and Atticus among the Patriarchs of Constantinople They are both owned in all the Catalogues of the Patriarchs Their Ordinations never questioned by any Atticus praised by P. Celestine I. and owned to be a true Successor of S. Chrysostom Page 176. CHAP. XVII Deprivations by Heretical Synods invalid S. Eustathius Patriarch of Antioch deposed by an Heretical Synod he himself accounts his Deprivation invalid The Orthodox separate from the Communion of his Successors not because he was invalidly deprived but because they accounted them Hereticks Eustathius acts as Bishop of Antioch tho' in banishment as long as his Successors were Hereticks but as soon as Meletius an Orthodox Person was ordain'd his Successor he desisted and concern'd himself no more as Bishop of Antioch That he lived till Meletius was made Patriarch demonstrated against Baronius Valesius c. Why some of the Orthodox refused to submit to Meletius The Vindicator's Assertion That none accounted Meletius an Arian whilst he was Bishop confuted The Schism between the Meletians and the Paulinists no Example against us § 1 2. The Instance of Maximus and Cyril of Jerusalem examin'd § 3. Euphemius Patriarch of Constantinople deposed by an Heretical Synod yet Macedonius an Orthodox and a good Man accepts of his See tho' he own'd him to be the rightfull Patriarch Macedonius is receiv'd by the Catholicks tho' they loved Euphemius and accounted him unjustly deprived He is own'd by S. Elias Bishop of Jerusalem tho' Elias at the same time declared Euphemius's Deprivation unjust and refused to subscribe to it § 4. The Schisms of the Novatians Donatists and Meletians of Egypt no Examples against us § 5. Two Fragments of Photius out of a M S. § 1 3. Page 186. CHAP. XVIII The Conclusion Bishops deposed by the Civil Autority obliged even in common Charity to acquiesce But whether they acquiesce or not the Church is to submit to the present Possessor Page 196. The CASE of SEES Vacant by an Unjust or Uncanonical Deprivation Stated c. CHAP. I. The Reasonableness of submitting to the present Possessor if otherwise unexceptionable tho' the Predecessor was unjustly or invalidly deposed by the Secular Power demonstrated Objections answer'd No obligation
to the contrary by the Oath of Canonical Obedience The Autority of S. Cyprian unreasonably alleg'd by our Adversaries The Vindicator's Notion of Heresy not at all to his Purpose THE Doctrine maintain'd by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise is this That supposing a Bishop depriv'd without any Synod by the Civil Power is unjustly depriv'd yet neither He himself nor the People ought to separate from the Communion of his Successor provided that Successor is not a Heretick In answer to that Treatise it is alleg'd by some of our Adversaries That not onely Heresy but Schism likewise and Excommunication make a Person uncapable of being receiv'd as a Bishop It is manifest says one of our Answerers that the Principles advanced by the Author of the Baroccian Treatise make all Church-Censures ineffectual and expose the Church to all the Mischiefs of Erastianism For if a Prince should preferr an excommunicated Person to the See of the Bishop by whom he stands excommunicated supposing onely that he was not excommunicated for Heresy this Person tho' never so justly excommunicated must be own'd and obey'd instead of the Bishop who excommunicated him which lodges all Church-Power in the Prince and makes all Ecclesiastical Censures of no effect for the Benefit and Preservation of the Church whenever he pleases All this He very well knew was nothing at all to his Purpose and nothing against either ours or our Author's Cause But he likewise knew it would have been less to his Purpose to have told his Reader so To avoid all impertinent Cavil that we may not run off from the Scope and Design of our Writing I shall take leave to alter the last Clause of the Proposition thus Provided that Successor be in all other Respects such whose Communion no good Catholick can justly refuse § 2. Having laid down fairly our Proposition and secured it if that may be possible from all Cavil We will now proceed to demonstrate the Truth of it And this we shall do first from the Reasonableness of it and 2dly from the Autority and Practice of the Antients by which the Reasonableness of it will more certainly and evidently appear § 3. First from the Reasonableness of it And that is grounded on this certain and self-evident Maxim That whatsoever is necessary for the present Peace and Tranquillity of the Church that ought to be made use of provided it is not in it self sinfull and the ill Consequences which may possibly attend it are either not so mischievous to the Church or at least not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid That this was a Maxim of the Antients We shall easily find if we please but to cast our eyes back upon their Times and consider those Methods which were wont to be made use of in the Church We shall find that in all manner of Cases They always preferr'd the Peace and Tranquillity of the Church to all other Things the Essentials of Religion excepted There was no Custom or Law of the Church so sacred and inviolable but what they readily sacrificed whensoever Necessity requir'd to the Peace and Tranquillity of it If the exact Observation of the receiv'd Customs and Canons of the Church was not like to conduce to the present Peace and Tranquillity of it they were readily superseded and Necessity and Convenience became the onely Legislators To preferr a Rule of the Church to the Welfare and Prosperity of it and to stand to the Saying of a Father in Opposition to a Law of Necessity is a sort of Theological Pedantry which They were not guilty of They were wont to consider like truly Wise men the Circumstances and the Exigencies of the Times and they knew that those Customs and Canons of the Church which were proper in the Times of Peace could never indispensably oblige in Times of a different Complexion To prevent or to heal the Diseases of the Church they acted like Philosophers not like Empericks consider'd what ought to be done in this and that particular Case what was truly expedient not what had been prescrib'd when the Symptoms were not the same Tho' of all the General Councils there was none so rever'd as the Nicene and tho' among all the Canons of that Council there was none so Religiously and so Universally observ'd as that which makes it unlawfull for any one City to have two Bishops and altho' that had always been a Rule of the Catholick Church long before the time of that Council yet S. Augustine and all the other Catholick Bishops of Africa thought fit to propose that Expedient to their Adversaries the Donatists for the putting an End to their Schism And the same Expedient was proposed by Meletius Bishop of Antioch to the anti-Anti-bishop Paulinus for the putting an End to that Schism that was between them Thus when Queen Chrodielde of France had made the Bishops Theodorus and Proculus Archbishops of Tours together the whole Gallican Church because they were both very old and so the Inconvenience of suffering it was not like to be so great as that of opposing the Queen very freely acknowedg'd ' em And tho' it is expresly forbidden by the aforesaid Council of Nice and likewise by the more antient Canons or Rules of the Church That one Bishop alone should Ordain another and three at least are positively requir'd by that Council how great soever the Necessity may be tho' it were moreover unlawfull for any one to be Ordain'd a Bishop without the Consent of the Metropolitan and a Bishop so Ordain'd is declar'd by that Council uncapable of governing as a Bishop Yet when Siderius had been ordain'd Bishop of Palehisca by the single Bishop of Cyrene a bold and resolute Man one who often transgress'd the Orders of his Superiors and that too without the knowledge of S. Athanasius the Metropolitan because of the badness of the Times it being in the Reign of the Arian Emperor Valens Athanasius allow'd of his Orders and because he was Orthodox he was so far from depriving him of his Bishoprick that he preferr'd him to a greater He yielded saith Synesius to the Necessity of the Times 'T is a Saying of the same Author himself a Bishop and a very great Man where he speaks concerning that Matter viz. in one of his Epistles to the Patriarch of Alexandria Theophilus In dangerous Times it is necessary not to observe Rules Tho' nothing was more unlawfull than to be made a Bishop Simoniacally or by the meer Force of the Lay-power and tho' as the Author of the Pontifical attests Silverius obtain'd the Popedom of Rome by both those unlawfull Means yet after he was Ordain'd the Peace of the Church requiring it he was own'd and receiv'd by all He had given a Summ of Money to the Tyrant Theodatus the King of the Goths and the Tyrant threaten'd that whosoever refus'd to consent to his Election should be punish'd
Autority we have all the reason in the world to believe That his Deprivation would have been lookt upon by S. Cyprian as very reasonable and just But let us still grant as we first supposed in our Question That he ought not to have been deprived by the Emperor himself but by Bishops Yet if he had been deprived for refusing to acknowledge the Emperor's Autority or if he had been upon any other account so deprived by the Imperial Autority as that it would have been impossible for him to exercise his Episcopal Jurisdiction Is it possible for any wise and unprejudiced Man to imagine That S. Cyprian would have thought so ill of Novatian and his Adherents as he did If an Enemy of the Roman Empire suppose the King of Persia should in S. Cyprian's time have taken a Frontier City and the Bishop of that City should have been deposed by him for refusing to submit to his Autority Who can believe that That great and wise Man S. Cyprian would have declared a new Bishop no Bishop and all his Adherents Schismatical That a second that is a Schismatical Bishop an Invader of a See already fill'd and possess'd is no Bishop is confess'd to be S. Cyprian's Doctrine But that our Bishops are in the Sence of S. Cyprian the Invaders of a See already fill'd and possess'd that they are secundi in his Sence is what we utterly deny Not a Word not a Hint in S. Cyprian from whence such a thing can be inferr'd The Vindicator may be pleas'd to consider that our present Possessors did not set up themselves in opposition to such as were possess'd of their Sees but before they pretended to be Bishops their Predecessors were made by the Supreme Civil Power uncapable of Governing i. e. were Depos'd Again he ought to consider that our present Possessors were so far from ambitiously invading like Novatian the Sees of others that they were all chose by their respective Churches according to the usual manner viz. in the same manner that their Predecessors themselves had been Let us hold up the Picture which the Vindicator has been pleas'd to draw to a true Light and then we shall the better see what a strange Figure it is The Vindicator's Enthymeme is this S. Cyprian says that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who ambitiously invades a See which another is fully possess'd of Therefore S. Cyprian thought that he is no Bishop but a Schismatick who is chosen by the Church according to the usual manner into the place of another whom the Civil Power will not suffer to govern any longer because he refuses to own its Autority I add That if a Bishop be a secundus and no Bishop who is put into the place of one unjustly depos'd by the Civil Autority then it likewise must follow that he is a secundus and no Bishop who is put into the place of another whom a Synod has unjustly depos'd But this the learned Vindicator will neither himself grant neither does he I suppose believe that S. Cyprian thought so I say that must follow if we seriously consider the Matter For the onely good Reason assignable why in the former Case the Successor is a secundus and no Bishop is this Because the Predecessor has still a Right to the Bishoprick Now 't is certain that the Reason is the same in the latter Case For a Bishop whom a Synod has unjustly depriv'd has still as much Right to his Bishoprick as a Bishop invalidly depos'd by the Civil Autority For to me 't is absurd that any unjust Sentence should take away the Right tho' the Nature of Government requiring it it is oftentimes necessary that we should submit to such a Sentence And this if I am not mistaken is the common Sence of Mankind When a Bishop is unjustly depriv'd by a Synod we submit to his Successor not because we imagine that the other has no longer a Right but onely for Peace sake That a Bishop unjustly depriv'd by a Synod has still a Right to that Bishoprick as well as a Bishop deposed by an Incompetent Autority may be clearly demonstrated from this That after he is deprived he may be again restor'd and his Successor be deposed by Appeal to another Synod and yet the ejected Successor is accounted a true Bishop Now is that done justly or not There is no one will say it is not And yet it is impossible that the Successor should be justly deprived if the other had no Right To conclude That a Bishop who is put into the place of another unjustly deprived by the Secular Power is a real and true Bishop will by and by appear by the Opinion and the Practice of the Antients in general Let us now proceed to demonstrate that as the submitting to a Bishop whose Predecessor was unjustly deposed by the Civil Autority is not in it self a Sin so the ill Consequences to which it may be liable are either not so mischievous to the Church or not so likely to happen as the Evils we endeavour to avoid § 10. The Evils we endeavour to avoid area a Schism and a Persecution two Evils as great as can possibly befall the Church And that those two very great Evils must needs be the certain and the immediate Consequences of a non-submission is too evident to any Considering Man to need any Proof If the ill Consequences to which a submission may be liable are so great as those two Evils but not so certain or if they are so certain but not so great it must then be granted that with respect to Consequences a Submission is more reasonable than a Non-submission Now if we consider those evil Consequences which may justly be charg'd upon the Submission we shall find that they are so far from being both so great and so certain that they are neither so great nor so certain as those two Evils which by a Non-submission must unavoidably be brought upon the Church So far indeed is the Principle which we maintain from being necessarily attended with any very ill Consequence that it is not easy to foresee any Consequence at all that is Evil. As it is for the Good the Peace and Prosperity of the Church that we think our selves obliged to comply upon occasion with the Necessity of Times So if ever the Civil Power which to fear in this Reign would be very unjust and unreasonable should pretend to break in upon the Essentials of the Church we should then be obliged not to yield to such Impositions If the evil Day must needs some which God forbid we will keep it off as long as we can When it necessarily comes as now we shew our Prudence so we 'll then prove our Fortitude Not to endeavour to escape from Damascus when a Basket is fairly offer'd would be Folly in an Apostle And to run on to Martyrdom when it honestly may be avoided is according to the Sanctions of the Primitive Christians a Sin Should
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.