Constantius Lucifer Calaritanus coming to Antioch Consecrated Pauâ—inus Bishop of that City which when he saw the Orthodox Bishops and particularly Eusebius of Vercelles disapprove of it gave the first occasion to Lucifer to begin that Sect which from him took its denomination Meletius at his return from Exile under Julian finds Socr. l. 3. c. 9. Sozom. l 5. c. 13. the Church of Antioch divided into three Parties one that followed Euroius the Arian Bishop another that Communicated with Paulinus and a third that adhered still to himself as their lawful Bishop the Arians had possessed themselves of all the Churches within the City but one of the small Churches which they allowed Paulinus so that he was forced to hold his Assemblies without the Gates Meletius suffered a second Banishment under Valens and when he was restored by Gratian Paulinus being then Ancient Socr. l. â— c. 5. those who were of Meletius's Communion endeavoured to have the difference so Composed that both he and Paulinus might together Preside in that See But Paulinus refused to agree to it alledging that Meletius had received his Ordination from Arian Bishops Upon this the People were in a Ferment and caused Meletius to resume the Throne in one of the Churches without the City This bred great contentions between the Parties but at last they came to this agreement That whosoever of these two Bishops should die first the survivour should be the sole Bishop of the See and there being six Men then in Antioch who upon the Death of them might probably make pretensions to the Succession they were all sworn to this Agreement And thus the difference was Composed only the Luciferians would by no means be prevailed with to Communicate with him but set up separate Congregations Thus it was according to the account Socrates gives of this Matter but as Theodorite relates it Sapores whom the Emperor had sent to inspect and regulate this Business seeing the great equity and condescension of Meletius put him into Possession Theod. l. 5. c. 3. of the Bishoprick for he makes no mention of any Agreement between him and Paulinus but only says that Meletius had the See delivered up to him and Paulinuus remained Bishop only of that Party which adhered to him This being the case since Meletius was so eminent a defender of the Orthodox Faith as he is confessed by all to have been and had twice suffered Banishment for it and during his first Banishment had one irregularly placed in his See and did afterwards notwithstanding so great a Provocation use all the Condescension that could be expected in such a Case it could be no just Prejudice against him that he was at first made Bishop by the Arians or rather by the Semi-Arians or Acacians who upon occasion would subscribe Scer l. 3. c. 25. the Nicene Creed and pretended to have no exceptions to the Doctrines contained in it but were for taking away the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as not being found in Scripture as if the difference had been only in Terms contriving in the mean time all the ways possible to undermine the Faith by their own Expositions But it does not appear that Meletius ever was an Arian himself on the contrary the Orthodox Fathers never mention him but with the greatest commendations and he seems to have been imposed upon by the Acacians and Semi-Arians for a while who disguised and dissembled their Opinions For when he was called to give an account of his Faith in the presence of Constantius himself in the Synod Theod. l. 2. c. 31. at Antioch he declared himself to the entire satisfaction of the Orthodox Bishops and it was no more than they expected from him and were before well assured of which made them so desirous to have him advanced to the See of Antioch And tho Socrates Socr. l. 2. c. 44. says that Meletius subscribed the Form of Faith which Acacius produced in the Synod of Selencia yet this seems to be a mistake which perhaps the partiality which he plainly enough discovers for Paulinus might betray him to for Meletius's name is not to be found among the Subscriptions to the Creed of Acacius set down in Epiphanius Epiphan Haer. 73. Now it was determined in this Case in a Council at Alexandria (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Athanas Epiâ—t ad Ruhnianum inter ejus op Tom. 2. p. 40. apud Conc. Nicen. 2. Act. 1. Col. 75. that the worst of Hereticks the very Principal and Leading Men among them upon the renouncing their Errors and reconciling themselves to the Church by Repentance should be received to Communion tho not to Officiate as Clergymen but the less culpable who had been abused and misled were likewise to be permitted the Exercise and Administration of their Function Which is no more than was practised in the Council of Nice it self towards the Arian Bishops who renounced their Heresie and signed the Nicene Creed as S. Hierom urges in his Dialogue Adversus Luciferianos where he disputes this point at large This was Conc. Nic. Can. 8. Socr. l. 1. c. 9. Vales de Schism Donatist all along the Practice of the Church towards the Arians and Novations and Donatists and the Meletians who were so denominated from Meletius the African Bishop to admit of their Orders upon their Reconciling themselves to the Church and thus it was confirmed and established in the Council of Nice And to the determinations of this Council of Alexandria Lucifer Calaritanus himself had Socr. l. 3. c. 9. Sozom. l. 5. â— 13. given his assent by his Deacon whom he had sent thither for that purpose and (b) Assensus est huic sententiae Occidens per tam necessarium concilium Satanae faucibus mundus â—reptus est Hieron adv Luciferian all the Western Church approved of this Decree as the only Remedy against the Arian Heresie For the true Reason why the Western Bishops espoused the Cause of Paulinus against Meletius was not for any Objection they had against his Ordination which was made an Objection by none but the Luciferians but because he had been represented in the West as an Heretick as S. Basil complains and Basil Ep. 321. 349. as it appears from S. Hierom's two Epistles to Damasus wherein he desires to know of him with whom he should Communicate at Antioch and Paulinus was thought little better of in the East for receiving to Communion the Associates of Marcellus But Meletius â—d Epist 74. Epiphan Haer. 77. was received as Patriarch of Antioch in the General Council of Constantinople and dying there S. Gregory Nyssen in the presence of that Venerable Assembly celebrated his memory with the highest Praises in his Funeral Oration And upon his death Flavianus was by unanimous consent chosen Epist Synod C. P. apud Theod. l. 5. c. 9. Socr. l. 5. c. 15. Bishop of Antioch and the choice confirmed in that
was forced to relax his Rigour and to Register the name of S. Chrysostom in the Diptycks of the Church endeavouring by this means to bring over the Joannites as they were called who asserted his Cause And when S. Chrysostom had been so long time dead and this Right had been done to his memory it is no wonder that Atticus and Sisinnius should have the Titles of Patriarchs given them and that the Council of Ephesus should take no notice of the Injustice that S. Chrysostom had had done him when both He and those that had done it were dead and their names were read together in the Diptycks when the Joannites had had this satisfaction given them and there was no Man now alive who could pretend any injury done him by the Promotion of the present Patriarch it could not become the Wisdom and the Charity of a General Council to revive the memory of a thing which after so long a time could admit of no Remedy but what might be of worse Consequence and might increase and prolong the Divisions which now were much abated and soon after ceased The Western Churches had long before Theod. l. 5. c. 34. the Council of Ephesus renewed Communion with the Eastern when once S. Chrysostom's name was written among the names of the other Patriarchs deceased For they never took any notice of Arsacius at all and rejected all the Messages that Atticus sent to get himself acknowledged by them till he had made this amends to the Memory of S. Chrysostom But as Theodorite observes these Bishops who were thus injurious to S. Chrysostom were otherwise excellent Men and there was nothing else to be found in them which might deserve the Churches Censure and therefore after the Church had been satisfied as to this matter they were mentioned with those Titles that were due to their Station and to their Vertues For the Titles which Celestine gives to Atticus Conc. Ephes Part 1. col 353. 361. and Sisinnius in his Epistle to Nestorius are only such as suppose their names to be written in the Diptycks among the other Patriarchs and that they were assertors of the Catholick Faith he supposes Atticus at last to have been the Rightful Patriarch and consequently Sisinnius who succeeded him by a Canonical Election to have been so too and he highly commends both of them for their zeal in maintaining the true Faith which Nestorius the next in Succession had so shamefully betrayed Atticus after the death of S. Chrysostom and Sisinnius who succeeded him were in their times the only Patriarchs of Constantinople and tho Arsacius and Atticus had not come in regularly yet it was in the Power of the Church upon due satisfaction made for the sake of Peace and Order to pass by such a defect and dispense with it and when Atticus had Registred S. Chrysostom's name in the Diptycks as Rightful Patriarch this was in effect to acknowledge himself to have been an Usurper during his life which was accepted of by the Church as a sufficient Declaration of his Repentance and as it has been already shewn Hereticks themselves upon their Repentance were to be received not only to Lay Communion but according to their Order and Degree in the Church If our Author could have shewn that Celestine had said as much of Arsacius as he has done of Atticus and Sisinnius that had been to his purpose because S. Chrysostom survived Arsacius but it is acknowledged that after the death of S. Chrysostom Atticus was at last Rightful Patriarch and owned by the Western Church for such What is added of Maximian and Proclus that they were acknowledged as Rightful Patriarchs by the Church needs no other Answer than what has been already given for if Atticus were Rightful the rest who succeeded him were such too if no other exception lay against them than that concerning what had been done to S. Chrysostom But besides Maximian was Conc. Ephâ—s Part 3. col 10â—â— made Patriarch in the room of Nestorius in the General Council of Ephesus and this surely was enough to purge all defects in the Succession of the Patriarchs of Constantinople For where a General Council does not only approve of but appoint the Successor of a Bishop Deposed for Heresie it can no longer be pretended that there remains any defect upon the account of injustice done to a Patriarch who had been so long dead for if the Succession had been interrupted till now from the time that S. Chrysostom was Deposed yet this would put it in its due course again Proclus who is next mentioned and was next in Succession to Maximian had been bred up under S. Chrysostom and could little suspect that he should ever have been reckoned among his uncanonical Successors for as Atticus had inserted his name among the other Patriarchs so Proclus was zealous to make him Socr. l. 7. c. 45. all the further reparation that could be made by causing his Body to be removed to Constantinople and there interr'd with all the Honours of a Funeral solemnity If Severianus Bishop of Gabala Pag. 4. and Acacius Bishop of Berrhea being afterwards discovered to Pope Innocent were neither deposed nor reprehended by him The reason must be that that Pope did not assume to himself so much as his Successors have done but said he would procure a General Council to be called to redress the Grievances of the Greck Church upon this account and at the same time denies all Authority in Arsacius as being an Intruder Nay in an (h) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Innocentii Epist apud Sozom. lib. 8. c 26. Epistle written to the Emperour Arcadius he Deposed Arsacius after his death or declared him never to have been Patriarch and commanded his name to be razed out of the Diptycks and in the same Epistle Excommunicated Arcadius himself and the Emâ—ress Eudoxia and both Deposed and Anathematized and Excommunicated Theophilus of Alexandria I will not suppose that this Epistle Biondell Pseudo Isid p. 562 Georg. Alex. vit Chrys c. 68 Mich. Glyc An. Part 4 p. 259. Niceph. l. 13. c. 34. Cedren p. 332. Conc. Tom. 2. Col. 1310. to Arcadius deserves much Credit for it is rejected by Blondel because Georgius Alexandrinus is the first that produces it from whom Glycas and Nicephorus had it and before them both Cedrenus made mention of it And whereas Pope Innocent in this Epistle wherein S Chrysostom is mentioned as already dead threatens Eudoxia the Empress with Punishments in this World as well as in the World to come it is noted in the Margin over against this Epistle in Labbe's Edition of the Councils that Eudoxia died before S. Chrysostom which is a plain intimation that the Epistle is Spurious But I produce this Epistle to observe that if it could pass for Authenâ—ick in the several Ages in which these Authors lived it is in vain to endeavour to make it be believed that the Practice of the Greek Church
AN ANSWER TO A TREATISE OUT OF Ecclesiastical History Translated from An Ancient Greek MANUSCRIPT in the Publick Library at Oxford BY HVMFRET HODY B. D. c. And Published under the Title of The Unreasonableness of a Separation from the New BISHOPS TO SHEW That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick To which is added The CANONS in the Baroccian Manuscript Omitted by Mr. HODY LONDON Printed and are to be sold by J. Wells near S. Paul's Church-Yard 1691. THE PREFACE THat a Separation is always unreasonable on one side or the other is without all question but that it is unreasonable to separate from New Bishops that are placed in the Sees of Bishops who are uncanonically deposed for this Cause only that they are in Possession upon what Reason and Justice soever of the said Episcopal Sees is very strange Doctrine and such as was never I think heard of in the Church of England till this Treatise was published For in the Sense of the Catholick Church in her Canons and Constitutions the New Bishop himself in such a Case makes the Separation and to continue Communion with the true Bishop is not to separate from the wrongful Possessor but to keep our former Place and Station to adhere to the Right and not to follow those who have set themselves up in opposition to it But the Doctrin which this Anonymous Greek Author is brought to vouch for to the World is of such a pernicious Nature and if it be allowed must have such destructive Consequences in the Church that I cannot but think that all Men who have a sincere Love for the Church of England whatever their Opinions may be in other Matters will not be ill pleased to see it proved that there is no Example to be found of this in the Practice of the Greek Church till it was reduced to so low and deplorable a Condition as to be no longer a Pattern for Imitation but a Caution rather for us to beware of those things which brought the Greeks into that Distress under which they have so long groaned And if we will but give our selves the least leisure to consider what is then that can bring more certain and speedy Ruine upon a Church than to act by such a Principle as makes all Ecclesiastical Authority have its sole and entire dependance upon external Force and Power and upon the casual Success and Events of things For if when the Civil Magistrate shall displace a Bishop for any frivolous cause or for no Cause at all but with the greatest and most apparent Injustice all Christians shall be obliged in Conscience to submit to the Intruder if he be but Orthodox and not to adhere to their lawful Bishop this utterly destroys all Church Authority and gives it up wholly into the Power of the Magistrate who may set up what Bishop he pleases provided they be no Hereticks and change them as often as he pleases and the Clergy and People shall be bound in Conscience to take no further notice of the dispossessed but to live under the new ones be they never so many and never so bad in all Acts of Communion and Obedience Now unless the Church can be ruined by nothing but Heresie or there be nothing that can render a Bishop unqualified for his Station but Heresie it is evident that this Doctrine leaves it at the Mercy of the Prince whether there shall long be any Church in his Dominions It is manifest that these Principles make all Church Censures ineffectual and expose the Church to all the Mischiefs of Erastianism For if a Prince should prefer an excommunicated Person to the See of the Bishop by whom he stands excommunicated supposing only that he was not excommunicated for Heresie this Person tho never so justly excommunicated must be owned and obeyed instead of the Bishop who excommunicated him which lodges all Church Power in the Prince and makes all Ecclesiastical Censures of no effect for the Benefit and Preservation of the Church whenever he pleases A Schismatical Prince by this Doctrine may set up Schismatical Bishops and the Church will have no Remedy against them For instance if Constantine had been a Novation or Donatist he might have deposed the Rightful Bishops and have set up Novations or Donatists in their stead if those Sects were then only Schisms and they were no more at first But whoever can imagin that the Clergy and People of that Age would have communicated with them and have deserted their true Bishop may indeed believe all that our Author has said Tho the truth is according to his Principles no Prince can be a Schismatick because he may make what Bishops he pleases and so can make what Church he pleases and it will be the Duty of Christians to communicate not with their Bishops but with their Prince or which is the same thing with what Bishops he appoints A Popish Prince might set up Popish Bishops amongst us for he could never want Men who at least upon as good Grounds and from as good Authorities as those upon which this Doctrine is propounded to us would prove that Popery is no Heresie A Prince of a Latitudinarian Faith may by these Principles give us Socinian Bishops For the Disciples of Episcopius and Curcellaeus will undertake to prove that the Points in Controversie are not of necessity to Salvation and do not consequently involve the Assertors of them in Heresie And if a Prince should design never so well for the Glory of God and the Interest of Religion yet how easie it is for Princes to be mistaken and misled in things of this nature we may see in Constantine himself who was deceived by the Arians into a good Opinion of them after the Council of Nice even to the sending St. Athanasius away from his See tho he took care to keep it void from him till his return to prevent a Schism which by the Practice of the Church could not otherwise have been avoided But this is most of all remarkable in the unhappy Reign of Constantius who certainly was a very Devout Prince and had very good intentions in calling so many Synods and therefore the Fathers often mention him with Respect and with great Compassion but was miserably deluded and imposed upon by the Arians and persuaded to banish all the Orthodox Bishops and fill up the Sees with those of their own number But we must observe that tho Constantius believed that the Arians were not Hereticks but Orthodox and died in his errâ—r as S. Athanasius declares tho S. Gregory Nanianzen and Theodorâ—t say the contrary and therefore cannot be supposed to want any inclinations to Depose Athanasius by his own Power and the Arians wanted no Malice against Athanasius nor no Authority with the Emperour to put him upon it yet because according to the Doctrine professed on both sides this could not be done
they were forced to be at all that trouble to get a Synod of their own Party to effect it But if it be left to the Arbitrary Will of the Prince to Depose the Orthodox Bishops at his Pleasure and supply the vacancies with any whom he thinks fit and their Dioceses must be obliged in Conscience to acknowledge them he will be sure in a short time to have such Bishops as shall determine that only to be Heresie which he will have to be so and it is a vain thing to say that Heretical Bishops must not be promoted or that they must not be obeyed for in a little time by this Doctrine there will be nothing reputed Heresie nor Schism but to hold a different Opinion and a different Commanion from that of the Prince But to come nearer home this Doctrine denies the Church a Power which is granted to be in all other Societies own no Head but of their own choosing or who is otherwise regularly set over them according to their Charter or Constitution and it seems if King James had put in new Bishops against the consent of the Chapters the Dioceses would have been obliged to obey them though the Fellows of Magdalen College in Oxford were bound in Conscience not to acknowledge a President who was forced upon them against their Statutes It may perhaps be said that we are secured from all the inconveniences that would follow from this Doctrine inasmuch as by the Laws of the Land no Bishop can be forced upon us by the King but he must be chosen by the Chapter of the Cathedral Church of the Diocese to which he is nominated But first if this Doctrine be calculated only for our own Church and we must be governed by a different Rule from the rest of the Catholick Church why then is the Practice of the Greek Church brought to recommend it to us But if this have been the Doctrine and Practice of all Churches we are not to imagine that the Laws of the Land can make it no sin but a Duty to separate from intruding Bishops when the Laws of God and of his Church enjoyn the contrary For the Laws of our Country must cease to oblige us in Conscience when they are inconsistent with the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages and if these have been always the Principles and this the Practice of the Church as it is now pretended to own the present Bishop whoever he be if he be no Heretick I doubt it will be in vain to alledg the Laws of the Land against an Intruder when he is once in Possession as long as he can keep his Possession but we must have Bishops de Facto and must be bound in Conscience to submit to them by whatever ill means they came in at first But suppose that the Laws of the Land would be a security to us as they have hitherto been and will be still if we retain our old Principles yet how can we be sure that the Laity will be more tender of the Honour and welfare of the Church than the Clergy themselves are And that if the Clergy give up the Ecclesiastical Authority they will not be willing to consent to it and be contented that a Prince should be absolute in Ecclesiastical Affairs if he will but act according to Law in Civil But whatever security there may be from the Secular Power to the Church since it is incorporated into the State yet by these Principles the Church could not have supported it self against the Attempts of Schismaticks before the Emperours became Christians and if the Civil Government should withdraw its Protection it is plain this Scheme leaves the Church no Power to defend it self against the Vsurpation of one Bishop upon another for by this Model of Church-Government if a Bishop get into Possession of anothers Diocese by any way whatsoever whether by the Secular Power or by any other means provided he be no Heretick he is from thence forth to be looked upon as the true Bishop notwithstanding any Canon of the Church against his Vsuâ—pation So that this Notion does effectually dissolve all Church-Government and leaves no Power and Authority in the Church to preserve it self but leaves it at the Mercy not only of the Civil Magistrate but of any Invader who is no Heretick or does not appear to be such Novatian if he could have got into Possession of the Episcopal Throne must by these Principles have been submitted to as Bishop of Rome than which nothing can be more absurd or more contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in all Ages And if the Cause of the New Bishops can be defended by none but such Principles it is plain that it is not to be defended at all for we must not contradict the Doctrine of the Church in all Ages to serve a present Turn nor maintain the Church in this Age so as to have no Church left for the next But I shall not here undertake further to shew how dangerous and destructive these Principles are to the Church of England and to Religion in general much less is it my business to state the Case now in Controversie I intend only to pursue the Author of this Treatise through his Discoveries which he pretends to make in Ecclesiastical History and if I can shew that this Greek has put a fallacy upon us I hope we shall not suffer our selves to be cheated by the impertinent and false Stories of an obscure Writer of no Name nor Authority but who appears to have lived in the most decayed and worst State of the Greek Church when their Sermons were nothing but ill digested Rapsodies which both for their Stile and Sense will scarce endure the Reading their Ecclesiastical Histories nothing but Legends of Miracles and all their Histories both Ecclesiastical and Civil full of such idle Stories as most Men are ashamed to tell after them and when by their Vices and Ignorance they had rendred themselves ripe for that Destruction which soon after came upon them It is to those Ages that we owe the loss of so many of the Works of the Fathers of the First Centuries and the Corruption of others to Countenance the Tenets and Practices of their own times and it is no wonder that when their Bishops were so often Deposed at the pleasure of the Emperour upon frivolous or rather upon very unjust pretences some should endeavour to make it believed that such Proceedings must be acquiesced in according to the Practice of former Ages in the like cases when the decay of all sound Knowledge and true Religion and of all good Orders and Discipline both in Church and State was so great and their Divisions so incurable which were principally occasioned or extremely heightened by the frequent changes of the Patriarchs that they at last brought utter ruin upon the Empire and subjected the Church to the Arbitrary Pleasure of the Grand Seignior And it is
worth our observation that notwithstanding it had been so customary for the Emperors in the Greek Church to Depose their Bishops yet after the Thirteenth Century and how long after we cannot tell it was matter of dispute in that Church whether they ought to Communicate with the new Bishops so that this Author 's whole Book is a contradiction to his very design in writing it for if they had constantly for so many Ages submitted to the Intruding Bishops as often as they were put up how came there at that time to be any doubt about it Or how could it then be necessary to prove with so much Pains and Formality that which he would make us believe had been the constant Practice of their Church in every Age If what he says had been true it could have needed no Proof to them and since he was forced to be at so much Pains to prove it to the Greeks themselves that this had ever been the Practice of their own Church it is a good Argument to us that it was not the Practice of it for if it had been all along practised no Man almost among them could have been ignorant of it since according to his own account there was scarce any Age but afforded too many Instances of the Removal of Bishops Considering all this I wonder that the learned Writer of the Preface should tell us that this Author is so unexceptionable a Judg to appeal to for I should be very sorry if any exception should lye against the Authors of our own time that does not lye against this Yes says he Surely no uncharitable Aspersions of time-serving courting Preferment or the like that might be cast upon any that should write now in this Cause can take place against this Author so remote from the present Age and Controversie I hope uncharitable Aspersions will take place neither against this Author nor any other but it is too much to persuade us that Clergy men were never swayed by Interest till now of late this would be too great a Satyr upon the present Age and would betray too great ignorance of all that are past for there is nothing more notorious than that mankind have had the same Passions and Frailties in all Times and if we were to search for Examples of Prejudice and Deceit and Persidiousness and all manner of ill Practices we should no where sooner find them than in those degenerate Ages of the Church And he tells us that our Author probably was one of the Bishops that assisted at the new Patriarchs Consecration for whose sake all this was written so that the Case was the same and the Controversie the same and the difference is only in Time and Place and perhaps in some other as inconsiderable Circumstances But I shall apply my self to the Greek Author and in Answer to him shall consider all that is said in the Preface to strengthen and support his Authorities from Antiquity AN ANSVVER TO A TREATISE OUT OF Ecclesiastical History c. I Shall follow our Author in his own way tho he does not always proceed according to order of Time which is no Argument of his Skill or Exactness but shews that he took up his Materials as he found them and placed them without any great Care or Method And to shew his Judgment we shall see he has sometimes brought Instances which are nothing to his purpose He begins with S. Chrysostom and Pag. 1. in the first place would insinuate that he was Uncanonically Ordained having received the Order of Deacon by the hands of Meletius who was placed by the Arians in the Sea of Eustathius Bishop of Sebastia in Armenia and was afterwards Translated to Antioch whilst Eustathius was yet living and he observes that Meletius notwithstanding was removed to Antioch by the joynt consent of both the Orthodox and Arian Bishops and that both S. Basil and S. Chrysostom were Ordained Deacons by him By all this we are given to understand that Eustathius of Sebastia had great wrong done him and that Meletius being besides made Bishop by the Arians could never become a lawful Bishop As to the first point Eustathius was condemned in two Synods for his ill Tenets and Practices He was first Socrat. l. 2. c. 43. Deposed by his own Father Eulalius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia and was afterwards condemned in a Synod at Gangre in Paphlagonia because after he was Deposed he had done many things contrary to the Canons He had forbidden to Marry and commanded to abstain from Meats he had caused several Men and their Wives to depart from each other those who would not come to Church he had persuaded to Communicate in their Houses He made several Servants leave their Masters upon pretences of Piety He were the Habit of a Philosopher which was the misdemeanor his Father at first Deposed him for and had introduced a new kind of distinct Habit for all of his own Sect. He caused Women to be Shorn He declared against the set Fasts of the Church and appointed his Followers to Fast on Sundays He would not so much as admit any Prayers to be made in the Houses of married Persons and commanded all to avoid as a thing abominable the Benediction and Communion of a Priest who had a Wife tho he had married her before he entred into Orders and he both did and taught many other things of like nature Sozomen relates that besides his being Sozom. l. 4. c. 24. Deposed at Caesarea in Cappodocia and at Gangre he was Excommunicated by a Synod at Neocesaria in Pontus and Deposed by Eusebius Bishop of Constantinople for his Treachery in some business that he had been entrusted with and was Convicted of Perjury in a Synod of Antioch To all this I need not add that he was an Arian and renounced the Nicene Creed which he had once professed and that S. Basil often complains of his Basil Ep. 72 73 74. 78 79. 196. false and perverse dealing and besides says that it was reported of him that he had reordained some of his Proselites tho he could scarce believe it since no Heretick was ever known to dare to do it These certainly are Crimes which would justifie his being Deposed and it could be no fault in Meletius to preside in the See of a Bishop who for so just Reasons was condemned in several Synods and had had Anathema pronounced against his Doctrines The Second thing viz. Thâ—t Meletius was Consâ—â—râ—ted by the Arians was indâ—ed a great objection against him and had like to have been of very 〈◊〉 â—onsequence to the Church of Antiâ—â—h For tho Meletius had shewn himself a zealous and learned Assertor of that Orthodox Faith and was highly esteemed by the Orthodox Bishops who were mightily satâ—sfied with his Promotion to the See of Antioch yet there was a Party of Men who still retained a Prejudice against him upon the account of his Consecration and during his Banishment under
General Council tho Paulinus was yet living who thereupon nominated Euagrius for his Successor but he dying soon after Paulinus no other Bishop was chosen in his room But the state of this Controversie as it lay between the Meletians and Luciferians is a direct confutation of the whole design of this Authors Treatise For if all Christians are obliged to look no further than to the Bishop in Possession Paulinus was put into possession of the See of Antioch whilst Meletius was in Banishment and he at his return was forced to hold his Assemblies without the City yet the Meletians never thought this any Reason for their compliance nor did the Adherents of Paulinus ever urge it upon them they urged that Meletius had been made Bishop by Arians and that Plea was over-ruled by the determination of a Council held at Alexandria whereas if our Authors notion had then been good Doctrine it must soon have decided the Question for no Man could deny but Paulinus was actual Bishop in the absence of Meletius which was a better pretence than if he had been turned out to make way for him and so it is impoâ—sible but this Argument must have been insisted upon if this had been then an approved Doctrine and it had been at least a good Argument in the Eastern Church where our Author would make us believe it was always the Custom to Communicate with the Bishop for the time being however he came to be so and it is incredible that in so weighty a Controversie which was so long depending no Man should once think of the thing which could alone decide it when it was so obvious to all capacites and is supposed to have been received into the constant Practice of the Church in all such cases St. Chrysostom himself after the Socr. l. 6. c. 3. death of Meletius for three whole years would not Communicate with either side and at last as all but Socrates testifie was ordained Presbyter by Flavianus that is he espoused the cause of the Meletians and took directly the contrary side to that which he ought to have taken by these Principles For it was a received Maxim that regularly there could be but one Bishop of one Church at the same time for if a Bishop appointed his own Successor and took him in his life time for an Assistant to him this was an extraordinary case and he retained the Authority still to himself or it was at his own choice whether he would part with any of it and if the Bishop in Possession were to be the one Bishop Meletius had been precluded by Paulinus when he reâ—urned from Banishment and Paulinus was afterwards left in Possession upon the death of Meletius 'T is plain then that this Doctrine was unknown to the whole Church at that time and particularly to S. Chrysostom upon whose account this is brought and whose Case comes now to be considered The Author observes that upon the Pag. 2. Deposing of S. Chrysostom Arsacius was placed in his See who in fourteen months time must be supposed to Oâ—dain Bishops Priests and Deacons or if he did not yet Atticus succeeded him whilst S. Chrysostom was yet alive and in Exile Atticus sat as Patriarch twenty years and yet all his Ordinations were never questioned but were received by the Church as if they had been Canonical Atticus was succeeded by Sisinnius and he by Nestorius and both Atticus and Sisinnius were owned as Patriarchs by Celestine Bishop of Rome in an Epistle to Nâ—storius and in the General Council of Ephesus no exceptions were made to the Promotions of the Patriarchs of Coâ—stantinople only Nestorius himself was Deposed for Heresie To enforce all this yet further the Writer of the Preface cites some passages out of the life of S. Chrysostom written by Palladius to shew what the Opinion of that Father was in his own Case and how far he was from insisting upon any Right he had to be acknowledged still as Patriarch when he was once Deposed For says he S. Chrysostom advised and charged the Bishops his Friends more than once That as they loved Christ none of them should leave his Church upon his account That they must keep Communion with his Deposers and not rend and divide the Church And he enjoyned some devout Women that attended there that as they hoped to obtain Mercy from God they should pay the same Service and Good will to his Successor by a fair Election that they had done to himself for the Church could not be without a Bishop But this notwithstanding upon examinatioâ— we shall find that S. Chrysostom was clearly of another mind than he is here represented to be of and that there is nothing in his Case which will in the least favour this Authors Doctrine I have already observed how much contrary S Chrysostom acted to these Principles in the case of Meletius and I shall now make it appear that he was evidently against them in his own The account Palladius gives us is Palâ—aâ—vit Châ—â—â— p. â—â— this S. Chrysostâ—m before his first Banishment when he perceived what violent Methods his Adversaries would take spoke to the forty Bishops who were met with him That as they loved Christ none of them would leave his Church upon his account For says he I am nâ—w ready to be offered and the time of my departure is at hand in S. Paul 's words I shall undergo many Sufferings I see and so depart this life And afterwards To me to live is Christ and to die is gain and am I better than the Patriarchs Ib. p. 68. than the Prophets and Apostles that I should be immortal From whence it is plain that he was very apprehensive that his Enemies had a design upon his life and that they would not suffer him to live much longer (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Pallad pâ—g 68. For it was commonly reported that he was to be beheaded At this one of them expressed how much they were troubled for the Desolation and Confusion that would befal the Church when wicked Men should Usurp the Government of it Upon which he again exhorts them not to forsake their Churches For says he Preaching did not begin with me nor Ib. p. 69. will it end with me did not Moses die And was not Joshua appointed to succeed him Did not Samuel die And was not David anointed Jeremiah departed this life but did he not leave Baruch behind Elijah was taken up into Heaven but then did not Elisha Prophecy S. Paul was beheaded but did he not leave Timothy Titus Apollos and innumerable others behind him When he had said this â—ulysius Bishop of Apamea in Bithynia puts him in mind that if they retained their Churches they must be forced to Communicate and to Subscribe to the Deposing him to which S. Chrysostom answers that he would have them hold Communion to prevent a Schism in the Church but by no means to Subscribe for
he was conscious to himself of nothing for which he ought to be Deposed or thrust out of his See Just before his second Banishment he speaks to Olympias the Deaconess with some others saying I see the things concerning me have an end I have finished my Course and probably you will never see my face more this one thing I desire of you that none of you omit your accustomed Good-will and attendance upon the Church and whoever shall be Ordained without his own seeking and (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ibid. p 90. against his desire by a general consent that you would obey him as you would do me for the Church cannot be without a Bishop It is evident both from the Words themselves and from the Circumstances in which he spoke them that S. Chrysostom both times looked upon himself as a dying Man when he used these words in taking his leave of the Bishops and of the Deaconesses and therefore they cannot import that he would have them submit to a Bishop who should succeed him during his life But if we allow the words their utmost Latitude and take them in the greatest extent that they will possibly admit of they can amount to no more than this not that they should submit to any Bishop who should succeed him whilst he was living but to one who should not be desirous or fond of it but should come in against his own inclinations and by an unanimous consent by which we can understand no less than that he means one who was not of the Party against him nor had any hand in thrusting him out and if such an one were chosen unanimously who was a friend to his Cause and lamented the great injustice done him and who unwillingly and upon necessity only could be prevailed upon to fill the See and who therefore must have been as willing to have given way to him as the true Patriarch if ever he should have returned if such an one were chosen and such an one he must he if he were chosen by general consent for never any Bishops departure was more grievous to all but the Faction that Deposed him than S. Chrysostom's was then according to this Sense of his words he advises them not to divide the Church upon his account but to joyn in Communion with such a Bishop since this was the only means to preserve the Churches Peace Which is a conditional Resignation or a Declaration that he would forgoe his own Right upon condition that such a Bishop were chosen as he there mentions But if we suppose this to be S. Chrysostom's meaning the See was disposed of to men who were very far from being such Bishops as he exhorted them to submit to For all his Friends endured great hardships under Arsacius and Atticus had been Pallad p. 95. Soz. lib. 8. ◠27. Phot. Bibli Cod. 277. the chief Incendiary against him And this is the excuse which Photius makes for some Expressions that seemed to him a little too severe which S. Chrysostom used concerning Arsacius in an Epistle to Cyriacus And to be convinced that S. Chrysostom did not design that they should submit to any Bishop that should be set up we need only consider that these very Persons to whom he gave this in charge never would submit either to Arsacius or Atticus at least during his Life but suffered all that they could do to them rather than they would comply and S. Chrysostom wrote many Epistles to these very Bishops and Deaconesses to comfort and support them under the severe afflictions which they endured upon this account And when Palladius himself and so many other Bishops with the rest of the Clergy suffered so much in S. Chrysostom's Cause as is mentioned in his Life it is past all belief that neither any of the rest nor Palladius who is supposed to be the Author of this account of his Life and was one of those Bishops to whom S. Chrysostom gave these directions should call to mind what he had said to them but the Bishops as well as Deaconesses should with one consent act contrary to what S. Chrysostom in his last words required of them and should either mistake him or forget what he had said or should choose to suffer any thing rather than observe his advice and do what he had told them was their Duty But as his Friends could not have so little respect for him or so little care of themselves as to forget so soon what it would have been so much for their own ease and safety to remember so he would not have failed in some one of his Epistles at least to put them in mind of it and would never have let them suffer so much contrary to that Duty which his last words inculcated to them taking no care afterwards to remind them what God and the Church required of them If he had never heard of their condition or had never had an opportunity to write to them about it it is scarce possible they should misunderstand him so as to run themselves into such needless and indeed sinful sufferings but when he held a Correspondence with them in his Banishment and wrote so often upon this very Subject it is incredible that they should suffer for not doing that which he had exhorted them to do and that he among all his Consolations should forget that which would alone have given them effectual and present relief and should omit to tell them that they suffered when they needed not and in a Cause in which they could not suffer with a good Conscience But this is not all S. Chrysostom Chrysost Epist 26. 27. does not only omit to tell them that they needed not and ought not to suffer but applauds them for suffering in so good a Cause and exhorts them to perseverance and applies those Scriptures to them which pronounce blessings upon those who suffer for Righteousness sake He tells them they ought not to value their lives in Ep. 36. 46. 71. 90. such a Cause being certain of a reward in Heaven He (e) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c Ep. 83. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Ep. 85. extols the Apostolical Courage and Constancy of the Bishops and Clergy who were in Prison and compares them to S. John Baptist both in their Sufferings and in the justness of their Cause and represents it as a more glorious thing to suffer so much and so long for the Vindication of the Primitive Constitutions and Discipline than it was for him to be beheaded for telling Herod that it was not lawful for him to have his Brother Philip's Wife S. John Baptist suffered but once but he bids them say we are ready to suffer ten thousand Deaths rather than comply with the Vsurper 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He exhorts the Ep. 99. Bishop and Clergy of Scythopolis to avoid as to their own Honour and the Benefit of the Church they had already done all those
who had filled the Ep 126. World with Confusions and had brought such divisions into the Church and he writes to the Bishop of Jerusalem to the same purpose and almost in the same words In his Epistle to Cyriacus (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ep. 143. I have heard says he of * Or that Dotard for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies the Dotage of old Age. that vain Man Arsacius whom the Empress has placed in the Episcopal Throne that he has afflicted the Brethren and the Virgins who would not Communicate with him and many of them have died in Prison for my sake For he is a Wolf in Sheeps clothing and has the Habit of a Bishop but is an Adulterer for as a Woman is called an Adulteress who is married to another Man whilst her Husband is living so he is not a Carnal but a Spiritual Adulterer for he has usurped my See whilst I am alive It is doubtful I confess whether this Epistle to Cyriacus be genuine for it is rejected both by Mr. Hales and Mr. Boys in their Notes upon it and these expressions concerning Arsacius are alledged by Mr. Hales as one reason why he thinks it cannot be S. Chrysostom's but Mr. Boys says he should the rather be inclined to think it genuine because of these expressions and he answers all the other Objections against it rejecting it himself only upon the account of the Style I shall only say that there are so many Accidents which may make any Authors stile 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 Stile must be the less certain especially since Photius could not discern but that it was genuine tho he took notice of this very passage concerning Arsacius and defends it But suppose it not to be genuine yet it is very ancient and was written probably by one who lived in S. Chrysostom's time and was not unacquainted with his sense of these things S. Chrysostom having put another Bishop Ep. 148. in mind of the reward which he would certainly receive for his sufferings in another World takes off that Objection which might be made from the smalness of their number and tells him that if they would shew themselves couragious they would be too hard for those who were more in number and boasted themselves in their wickedness that God would be their help and assistance if they would but do their Duty and that they were ingaged in a Cause which concerned all the Churches in the World But that which yet further shews S. Chrysostom's Ep. 13. ad Oâ—â—mp mind in this matter is that the Bishop whom he had Consecrated and sent to the Gothes being dead he takes care to provide another Bishop for them and is very sollicitous that one should not be Ordained and sent thither by Arsacius or Atticus so that he not only looked upon himself as the only rightful Patriarch but acted as such in his Banishment We see that S. Chrysostom was very far from advising or so much as conniving at a compliance with the Usurpation of the Bishop that had possessed himself of his See He commended and encouraged those that would not Communicate with him he comforted them with the expectation of Rewards in Heaven for whatever they could suffer here in a Cause which was so pleasing to God and upon which depended the good of the whole Christian Church he called Arsacius by name a Wolf in Sheeps clothing if the Epistle to Cyriacus be genuine and took upon himself Episcopal Authority even in his Exile he encouraged all every where to stand out against the Usurper by his Epistles which he sent to the Eastern Bishops and to those of the West to the Bishops Priests and Deacons who were imprisoned and to persons of both Sexes and of all Orders and Degrees for the greatest part of his Epistles are upon this Subject and yet there is not one word of submission or compliance but the most earnest and passionate Exhortations to the contrary from all the motives which he could use that concern either this or another life And there is much more to the same purpose in (g) Chrys 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 19. 23. a Discourse which he wrote in his Exile to remove the scandal some took by reason of the Persecution the Church then lay under The Author of the Preface confesses that the Western Churches did a Tâ—eod â— 5. c. 34. long time refuse Communion with some Bishops that had conspired against S. Chrysostom He should have said as Theodorite whom he quotes soon after does that they would not hold Communion with the Bishops of Egypt and of the East nor with those upon the Bosphorus and of Thrace till they had Registered the name of S. Chrysostom among the rest of the Patriarchs deceased But he says that in this case the renouncing Communion was only as it were a breaking off a Correspondence Suppose it were no more yet it cannot be shown that it was ever thought lawful for one Patriarch to break off Correspondence thus with another but upon such Reasoâ—s as would justifie a separation in Bishops from their own Patriach But it was not bâ—rely a not Corresponding with Aâ—sacius and Atticus for the Western Church not only espoused S. Chrysostom's Cause but did approve of the proceedings of those who suffered for it and were not backward to declare that they had done well in not Communicating with the new Patritriarchs Sozom. l. 8. c. 26. Pallad p. 214 c. they denyed that these had any Episcopal Authority or ought to be owned as Patriarchs during the life of S. Chrysostom But most of the Eastern Bishops would not renounce Communion though they would not be accessary to that unjust Deprivation This I confess Theodorit says and it is no wonder that in the East many who declared for the Justice of S. Chrysostom's Cause and against the proceedings of of his Enemies should be wrought upon by Terrors and Punishments whereas those in the West acted unanimously being under no such hard Circumstances to awe them to a compliance And this makes S. Chrysostom in one of his Epistles purposely take off that Objection from the smalness of their number But though the Bishops in the East did not so generally refuse to Communicate with the Deposing Bishops as they did in the West yet that very many did refuse to do it is evident for the Prisons were filled with them and many of these who refused were Bishops of the chiefest Sees for the Bishops of Jerusalem and Thessalonica and in general the Chrys Ep. 26 27. 126. Bishops of all Macedon were of the number besides many others of lesser Note or whose Sees are not mentioned But Atticus at last began to relent Socr. l 7. c. 25. or
was all along such as our Author pretends for when Men would impose any Spurious writing upon the World they cannot hope to make it be received for genuine but by giving it as near a Resemblance to Truth as they can devise and that commonly they do by copying out some of the Customs of their own time for what Men see done in one Age they are the more easily induced to think was done before but it is too impudent a Forgery to invent a writing which contains things plainly contrary to the Practice both of their own and all foregoing Ages a Mâ—n can never expect to be believed in such a Story or that any will venture to repeat it after him So that we must conclude that this Epistle was agreeable to the Practice of the Church in Georgius Alexandrinus's time who lived in the seventh Century and that Glycas in the twelfth and Nicephorus in the fourteenth saw nothing absurd in it but as Blondel has observed that part of it which concerns the Excommunication of Arcadius and Eudoxia is not mentioned by Cedrenus which makes him suspect it was foisted in after his time for all Forgeries as they are designed commonly to serve some turn or other so they seldom fail to be suited to the abuses of the times in which they are made But it is confessed that not only Pope Innocent but the whole Western Church did refuse Communion with the Deposing Bishops and it is further observable that when after the death of Flavianus Bishop of Antiâ—ch who had not consented to the Deposing of S. Chrysostom Porphyrius suceeeded Sozom. l. 8. c. 29. him who agreed to it many of Syria broke off Communion with that Church Our Author next observes that P. 5 6. whereas Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephâ—sus absolved Euâ—yches and Deposed Flavianus and then murthered him and Consecrated Anatolius in his room none of those Bishops who concurred and acted with Dioscorus in the unjust ejectment of Flavianus and the unlawful Ordination of Anatolius in his place were rejected in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon only Eutyches and Dioscorus that persisted in their Heresie For that Holy Synod concerned not it self about the Ordinations of uncanonical and illegal Patriarchs but only required of every one the Profession of the Orthodox Faith By this representation of the Case he would have it believed that no Objection was made against the Bishops who concurred with Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephesus for having concurred with him but that the Profession of the Orthodox Faith was only required of them and so they were forthwith received by the Council Which is so far from being true that tho they had owned their fault in Deposing Flavianus Patriarch of Constantinople and Eusebius Bishop of Dorylaeum and were as forward as any to make Profession of the true Faith yet it was moved in the Council of Chalcedon by the Judges or Officers sent by the Emperour to inspect and regulate the Proceedings there that Juvenalis Bishop of Jerusalem Thalassius Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra Eustathius Bishop of Berytus and Basil Bishop of Seleucia in Isauria (i) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Chalced. Act. 1. Col 323. Euagr. lib. 2. c. 18. p. 313. should be put under the same Censure with Dioscorus Patriarch of Alexandria and should according to the Canons be deprived of their See's which was assented to by the Bishops of the East who said it was a just (k) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. Conc. Châ—â—c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euagr. ib. Sentence they agreed that it was just to reject those Bishops whose names I have now recited and who are the same that onâ— Author by name sets down as not rejected in the fourth General Council only he has left out Eusebius Bishop of Ancyra and inserted Photius Bishop of Isauria in Epirus or as the Publisher has Corrected it Photius Bishop of Tyre If he means they were not finally rejected he says true but then he ought not to have concealed that they were not received in the first Actions of that Council nor upon what grounds they were at last admitted but these are such as will not be at all serviceable to his Cause They took their places indeed among the rest of the Bishops at the opening of the Council but so did Dioscorus himself too tho it was objected against by the Bishop of Rome's Legats who were over-ruled it being thought reasonable that they should retain their Places till their Cause was heard for to displace them before might seem to be a Prejudging them But upon examination it appeared that the case of these Bishops could deserve nothing but commiseration from the Council some of them S. Basil of Seleucia by name had Conc. Chald. Coâ— 137. 229. made profession of the true Faith in the Synod of Ephesus it self wherein Dioscorus presided and at last what they did in concurrence with him was by compulsion for they were surrounded with armed Soldiers who offered violence to them and forced them to Subscribe a Blank Paper which was afterwards filled up (l) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Euagr. ib. p. 311. Conc. Chald. Act. 1. Col 129. 251. as they pleaded for themselves and as Eusebius Bishop of (m) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dioâ— Euagr. p 314 Con. Chal Act. 3. Col. 382. Dorylaeum likewise testified So that when this affair came again under debate the Council was very compassionate to these offending Bishops in consideration of the hard Circumstances in which the Offence (n) Câ—nc Chaâ—ced Act. â— Col. 509. Eâ—â—â— ib. p. 324. was committed and therefore they desired that they might be suffered to receive tâ—e Five Bishopâ— as Members of the Council and the Emperour being first acquainted with their request by his permission they were restored What then can we conclude from hence more than that the Authority of a General Council may be sufficient upon so reasonable Motives to restore Bishops who by the Canons have forâ—eited their Sees But it is a very wrong account of this matter to say barely that none of those Bishops were reâ—ected in the fourth General Council of Chalcedon for they were rejected at first or else there would have been no debate concerning their Case when once they would Subscribe the Orthodox Faith but tho they profered to do this they had like to have lain under the same condemnation with Dioscorus so far as it concerned his being Deposed from his See and it was upon considerations peculiar to their Case and which in all equity ought to be admitted of in abatement to the Rigour of the Letter of the Canons that they were at last accepted for if there had been no more in their Case than what our Author has thought fit to take notice of they had as it appears been absolutely rejected But he says that Anatolius was uncanonically advanced to the See of Constantinople and
the Synod concerned not it self about such Matters requiring only of every one the Profession of the Orthodox Faith He seems to suppose here that Anaâ—olius was constituted Patriarch by Dioscorus in the second Council of Ephesus in the room of Flavianus Liberat. Breviar c. 12. which cannot be true for he was not Patriarch till after the death of Flavianus and Flavianus died in Prison after the Synod If it had been otherwise Leo Bishop of Rome could not have been uncertain as he writes to (o) De Ordinatione ejus qui Constantinopolitanae Ecclesiae coepit praesidere nihil interim in alterutram partem temerè rescribendum putavi non dilectionem negans sed manifestationem Catholicae veritatis expectans Epist Leon. ad Theodos Conc. Chalc. Col. 59. Theodosius he was whether the Promotion of Anatolius were uncanonical or no it being notorious that all must be uncanonical which was done in prejudice to an Orthodox Patriarch's Right by an Heretical Bishop in an Heretical Synod And besides if he had been made Patriarch in the second Council of Ephesus he had been Deposed by the Council of Chalcedon in which himself presided for all the Acts of that Council of Ephesus Euagr. ib. p. 328. are declared void in the General Council of Chalcedon excepting only the Ordination of Maximus Bishop of Antioch But because this Author says that that Holy Synod concerned not it self about the Ordinations of uncanonical and illegal Patriarchs I shall bring a remarkable instance to shew that that Council did concern it self about uncanonical Ordinations which may convince us that if Anatolius had been uncanonically Ordained it would have been insisted upon For there was at that time a contest between Bassianus and Stephanus concerning the Bishoprick of Ephesus and the Council upon examination finding that the Pretensions of both of them were contrary to Conc. Chal. Act. 11 12. the Canons Deposed them both and appointed a third Bishop to be Consecrated tho Bassianus had been in Possession of that See four years which shews how little our Author's Principles were thought of in that Council And to make it yet further manifest how little this Author knew of the Council of Chalcedon when he says that only Eutyches and Dioscorus were rejected there who persisted in their Heresie Anatolius expresly declared in the Council that Dioscorus was not Deposed for Heresie but because he Euagr. l. 2. cap 18. p. 327. had Excommunicated Leo Bishop of Rome and had refused to appear when he was thrice summoned The next Instances which he brings Pag. 6. are in Reign of the Emperour Anastatius who he says Deposed three Patriarchs of Constantinople which when he proceeds to give an account of he insists upon his Deposing of Euphemius and Macedonius only saying that the great Elias Bishop of Jerusalem Pag. 7. imbraced the Communion of all these three Patriarchs when all were alive together that is he embraced the Communion of Euphemius Mâ—cedonius and Timotheus the two last being preferred to that See contrary to the Canons but if Timotheus was uncanonically Deposed too as he said why did he not inform us how he behaved himself towards his Successor tho indeed it is to little purpose to concern our selves what uncanonical Bishops did for they could have no pretence to break off Communion from their Successors who came in by as good a Right as they had done themselves However he tells us that when Asâ—atius had Deposed Euphemius because he would not embrace the Heresie of the Acephali and Anathematize the the fourth General Council and Communicate with Severus Bishop of Antioch and had set up Macedonius in his room Euphemius did not depart from the Communion of his unlawful Successor because he held the Catholick Faith and so likewise that Macedonius when he was Deposed for the same Reasons held Communion with Timotheus who succeeded him because he was Orthodox He says that Elias Bishop of Jerusalem held Communion in like manner with all these three Patriarchs and that when the same Emperour had Deposed and Banished the said Elias because he would not be brought over to his Heretical Opinions and constituted John in his place Elias continued Communion with him because he proved Orthodox as did likewise the two famous Monks Theodosius and Sabas I answer it does not appear whether Euphemius did Communicate with his two Successors or not but it is this Authors custom to make his advantage of the silence of Historians and to conclude that the Deposed Bishops did Communicaâ—e with their Successors only because the Historians do not positively say the contrary whereas no such thing ought to be concluded as I shall afterwards shew Aâ—d it is not pâ—obable that Eupâ—â—miâ—s did Communicate with Macedonius for Euphemius had lately assembled a Synod purposely to confirm the fourth General Council whereas Macedonius Subscribed Zeno's Henoticon the design of which was to lay aside the Authority of the fourth General Council which was next to the condemning it But supposing thâ—t Euphemius did Communicate with both his Successors as Cyrillus of Scythopolis informs us Elias did yet if we consider the extraordinary Circumstances of that time and the peculiar Reasons that might induce them both to it this will not prove the general Assertion which this Author lays down That not one of those Bishops that were unjustly deposed did ever separate himself from the Communion of the Church upon the account of his being depâ—sed provided that he that was uncanonicalâ—y promoted after him was Orthodox But this will only be an Exception to the general Practice and so will prove the quite contrary to what he would prove by it The Church at that time was miserably Sabae Vit. per Cyrill Sâ—ythop c. 50. Euagr. l. 3. c. 30. over-run with Heresies and Schisms and the Emperor himself being a zealous Heretick the Othodox Bishops weâ—e forced to be contented to submit to great Inconveniencies and not to insist upon their Right and Authority so they could but secure an Orthodox Succession in their Sees they saw it was impossible for them to keep in themselves and the next thing they desired was to have an Orthodox Successor who probably never would have been prevailed with to assume the Throne without the rightful Patriarchs consent and when he was in it still owned the former as him who had the just Title to it Which might make Euphemius when he was to be sent into Banishment desire that Macedonius would undertake for his safe conduct and when Macedonius by the Emperors leave went to give him assurance of it he commanded his Deacon Theodor. Lect. l. 2. first to take off his Episcopal Robe and so he went into the Baptistry to Euphemius and besides borrowed Money to present him with for himself and his Attendants This is a sufficient evidence both of his respect for Euphemius and of his acknowledging him to have the Authority still notwithstanding his own
advancement to the See And in these Cases it was scarce greater force upon the Bishop that was deposed than upon him that was promoted but they by consent did what they saw most advantageous for the Church iâ— those difficult Circumstances thinking it no time for the Orthodox to divide from one another when their Number was so small in compaâ—ison of the Hereticks who had a zealous Emperor at the head of them The case was the same in the Deprivation Vit. Sabae c. 56. of Elias Bishop of Jerusalem John his Successor had promised the Emperor to anathematize the Council of Chalcedon but was prevailed upon by the Orthodox to make profession of the True Faith for which he was cast into Prison and was to have been banished but the Sabas and the rest of the Monks petitioned the Emperor to keep him in the See knowing that it was impossible to get Elias restored and that if John were cast out for being Orthodox the next in Succession must of consequence be an Heretick This then only proves that there has been such a Case when to prevent Heresies in the Church Bishops have resigned their Sees or at least have consented that others should succeed them but this is so far from being an Argument that in all Cases and without their consent an Usurper ought to be communicated with in prejudice to the Authority of the true Bishop that it plainly proves the contrary St. Gregory Nazianzene for the like Reasons resigned the Bishoprick of C. P. saying that he was contented to be the Jonas who should be thrown over-board to allâ—y the Storms that threatned the Church But can we from hence conclude that Nectarius his Successor would have been owned by the Church as Patriarch of C. P. if St. Gregory had not resigned Or must we not rather conclude that the Church would never have acknowledged him And like this seems to have been the Case of the Jews under the Romans the High Priest by right of Succession receding and being glad upon any terms to preserve the true Religion and Worship of God rather than with the whole Jewish Nation to be deprived of it under Heathen Governours Hitherto our Author has spoken only of the Patriarchs of C. P. excepting that he occasionally mentioned Meletius upon the account of St. Chrysâ—stom and Elias on occasion of Euphemius But after he has proceeded thus far he takes a large step back again to inform us that St. Cyrill Bishop of Jerusalem came into that See contrary to the Canons being by Arians put into the room of Maximus who was thrust out for having taken part with St. Athanasius Now St. Cyrill says he was notwithstanding upon his Conversion to the Orthodox Faith acknowledged for Patriarch of Jerusalem and even Maximus himself did not withdraw from Cyrill's Communion For the proof of all this he refers to the Life of St. Athanasius whereas Vit. Athan. p. 48. the Author of his Life only says that Acacius and Patrophilus thrust Maximus out of the See of Jerusalem and placed Cyrill there but says nothing of Maximus's holding Communion with Cyrill afterwards Yet he saying nothing to the contrary our Author takes it for granted that Maximus did communicate with Cyrill whereas he mentioning Maximus upon the account only of St. Athanasius had no occasion to take any further notice either of him or of Cyrill than St. Athanasius was concerned in Socr. l. 2. c. 38. it I confess Socrates agrees with this anonymous Authour of the Life of St. Athanasius in relating that Maximus was turned out of his Bishoprick Hieron in Chron. by Acacius and Patrophilus to make way for Cyrill But St. Hierom on the contrary says that Maximus was dead before St. Cyrill came into his See and Theodorite (p) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. lib 2 c. 2. that Maximus being translated to an immortal Life Cyrill succeeded him who was a vigorous defender of the Catholick Faith and to put this matter out of all diâ—pute besides St. Hierom and Theodoret we have the express Testimony of the (q) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Synod Ep. Conc. C. P. apud Theod. lib. 5. c. 9. General Council of C. P. that he came in câ—nonically being ordained by the Bishops of the Province and had in divers places signalâ—zed himself in maintaining the Catholick Faith against the Arians But there being one Cyrill an Arian who soon after Maximus was made Bishop of Jerusalem and was the next Bishop but one to St. Cyrill the great Uncertainty and Confusion that there is in the Catalogue of the Bishops of this See at that time as may be seen by comparing the different accounts of their Names in St. Hierom Epiphanius Hieron in Chron. Epiphan Haer. 66. Niceph. and Nicephorus might easily occasion the Aspersions which have been cast upon this Father by some Writers who supposed St. Cyrill the Arian was that Cyrill who was next in Succession to Maximus But it is abundantly * See the Life of S. Cyrill by Dr. Cave sufficient in his Vindication that a general Council by their united Suffrages have attested both to his being Orthodox and to the Canonicalness of his Consecration But I must not omit here to take notice that tho Socrates and the Author of the Life of St. Athanasius do both say that Cyrill was made Bishop of Jerusalem by Usurpation during the Life of Maximus yet they mention this as done under Constantius and it is a Mistake peculiar to our Author to place it under the Reign of Constantine the Great in contradiction to all History The Author now returns again to Pag. 9. Constantinople and says that when Eutychius was deposed from that See and John preferred to it in the Reign of Justinian Eutychius continued to communicate with John Which he could bring no Proof of but there is undeniable Proof of the contrary For Eustathius who was an Eye Witness to all this business and a constant Attendant upon Eutychius (r) Subjecit omnes canonicis paenis donec resipiscerent Vit. Eutychii c. 5. Auctore Eustathio Presbytero Domestico familiari has left it written in his Life that Eutychius pronounced Excommunication against the Synod which was called to depose him till they should repent of it and restore him All that he says concerning Anthimus Pag. 9. Sergius and others whose Ordinations tho they were Hereticks were allowed of as valid needs no Answer enough having been already said on that Point in the Case of Meletius Callinicus he acquaints us after he Pag. 10. was deposed by Justinian Rhinotmetus did not depart from the Communion of Cyrus who was appointed his Successor He might as well have said that Callinicus saw and conversed with Cyrus after the loss of his Eyes when he was as far from him as Rome is from Constantinople For this had Cedren p. 446. Theophan p. 313. Niceph. Constantinop p. 28. been more agreable to the way of
writing Legends and has altogether as much foundation in History as that For the Historians only say that the Emperor caused his Eyes to be put out and then banished him to Rome but what became of him there or with whom he communicated they do not inform us The next Instance which he dwells Pag. 11. longer upon than any other in his whole Treatise is nothing at all to his purpose For what if Theodorus Studites were in fault for separating from the Patriarchs Tarasius and Nicephorus because they had admitted Joseph the Steward of the Church to Communion who had officiated in an unlawful Marriage How does this prove that although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick Were Tarasius and Nicephorus Intruders Or did Theodorus separate upon that account No such thing is pretended but Joseph had been guilty of a scandalous and wicked Action and yet was suffered to continue in Communion and hereupon Theodorus withdraws himself from the Church for which he is blamed and very justly But this only shews that private Christians ought not to forsake the Church tho the Discipline of it should not be so duly administred as they could wish but must take care of their own Duty tho the Church Governours should be negligent of theirs After so much said in so short a Pag. 17. Book beside the Subject he at last comes again to the Point but falls upon such an Example as is alone enough to disparage his whole Performance with any one almost that has ever heard of the Names of Ignatius and Photius For what can be more notorious than that Ignatius did not Communicate with Photius after he was displaced and Photius got into the See can we imagin he Communicated with one by whom he stood himself Excommunicated with one who was Excomunicated by his best Friend and Advocate Pope Nicholas and who in return had Excommunicated the said Pope (s) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Conc. Constantinopol 4. Col. 1268. For Photius had not been Consecrated forty days before he openly Deposed and Anathematised Ignatius as we have it related in an account that Ignatius sent to Pope Nicholas to acquaint him how Photius had dealt with him Ignatius was soon after sent into Nicet vit Ignat. p. 1222. Banishment where he was kept under so close Confinement that he was not suffered to perform any part of his Function and as he was not allowed to stir out so no body was permitted to come to him And if there be any thing of certainty in all the History of those affairs nothing can be more certain than that Ignatius and Photius did not hold Communion with each other for nothing occurs more frequently than the Anathema's which they pronounced one against the other But all the Reason our Author seems to have in this and some other Instances to conclude that the Deposed Patriarch did not refuse Communion with the Intruder is because both their names were read in the Diptycks whereas this one instance of Ignatius and Photius is enough to convince us that this is no good Argument for it is certain that these two Bishops did not hold Communion with one another yet after these differences were composed which had been occasioned in the Church by setting up Photius both their names were Recorded in the Diptycks and probably neither Party being to be wrought upon to recede from their Pretensions in behalf of the Patriarch whose Right they had maintained this was found to be the only Expedient to do the same honour to both of them which might without difficulty be agreed to since the Synod which restored Photius after the death of Ignatius had cancelled all the Acts against Photius of that Council which Deposed him and restored Ignatius and this Council which restored Photius is by the Greeks reckoned the eighth General Council Concerning the Deposing of Photius P. 18 19. a second time and the Deposing of Nicholas Zonaras whom our Author Zon. Tom. 3. p. 113. quotes says nothing from which it may be collected that Photius continued Communion with Stephen and Nicholas with Euthymius who were put into their rooms But because Zonaras says nothing to the contrary he concludes that they did hold Communion with them which is a very fallacious way of arguing to make Inferences from a Negative without any other Reason or Circumstance especially in so short an account as Zonaras gives of these things who only says in as few words as he can well express himself in that the Emperour picking a quarrel with the Patriarch sent him into a Monastery and appointed his Brother Stephen to be Patriarch and that Nicholas was likewise put into a Monastery and Euthymius constituted Patriarch in his stead And the same Author in S. Chrysostom's Case takes no notice of that separation which was occasioned by his Banishment for thirty five years together in the Church which the more ancient Historians inlarge so much upon and set forth in so many particulars And to be convinced that nothing ought to be concluded from the silence especially of these latter Historiars and Annalists we need only compare what these write with the account which Theodorite and Socrates and Sozomen give of the same Actions and when it is notorious that they commonly omit things as material as those they take notice of nothing more need be said to shew how little regard is to be had to their omission of things it is well if we may depend upon what they relate but to say such a thing never was because they do not relate it is such a way of arguing as only betrays the weakness of the Cause and shews how great want there is of better Arguments And as for the Ordinations of Euthymius Pag. 20. which he says were not rejected after Nicholas was restored again I have shewn how insignificant an Argument that is when even after Hereticks were received into the Church upon their Conversion their Orders were not disallowed But his account of Cosmas Atticus 〈◊〉 is the boldest stroke we have had yet for when Nicetas Choniates whose Authority he alledges says in express terms (t) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceâ— Choniat de Imperat. Mâ—nuel lib 2. p. 54. that he Excommunicated some of the Courtiers and the Synod too which Deposed him this Author has the confidence to quote Nicetas to vouch for him that Cosmas Atticus never separated from the Communion of his Deposers But we have had experience enough of our Author by this time not to wonder much now at whatever he is pleased to say Of the Deposing the Patriarchs Basilius Pag. 21. Camaterus and Nicetas we have only a bare Narrative in Nicetas Choniates but upon the Promotion of Dositheus in the room of Leontius he expresly says that the chief Bishops looking upon his Translation from Jerusalem to Constantinople to be contrary
to the Canons (u) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id de Jaac lib 2. p. p 260. held separate Assemblies Our Author has observed that in the space of nine years the Emperour Isaacius Angelus made five Patriarchs successively who were all alive together but he might have spared his Admiration that they did not separate from one anothers Communion for if this had been the approved and constant Practice of the Church as he pretends what great matter of Admiration could it be that five Patriarchs should do as all their Predecessors had done in the like Case Bâ—t the only wonder is how this Author comes to know that they did not separate when the Historian whom he quotes says no such thing It is plain indeed that if the Emperour had but any pretence and it was hard if he could find none the Greek Church in these Ages was so low and the Clergy of so base and abject Spirits that they were prepared to comply with any thing and if they expressed their Resentments it was in such a manner as could become the Zeal only of these degenerate times Thus when Euthymius was Deposed to make Cedren p. 607. way for the Restauration of Nicholas to his See again the Clergy who were of Nicholas's Party fell upon Euthymius like mad Men and beat him with their Fists and plucked him by the Beard and flung him down calling him Usurper and Adulterer and if it should be granted that Men who could shew such barbarous usage should notwithstanding keep in Communion with the Usurper whom they could think to deserve such usage from them I suppose their exampâ—e will be thought of no better Authority in the one than in the other But upon the whole matter after a full examination of all the Instances which this Author has brought to maintain his Assertion I must conclude in contradiction to it that very few if any Examples can be produced of Bishops who were unjustly Deposed that did hold Communion with the Intruders and that therefore upon the account of any thing which is offered in this Treatise a Separation is not Unreasonable REMARKS UPON THE Greek and Latin Edition SInce my writing this I have met with the Greek and Latin Edition of this Author and besides Mr. Hody's Preface there are some few things in the Book it self further to be observed In the English Preface to this Treatise we are told that there is no Name prefixt before it nor any Characters in it that may lead us to a probable Conjecture about the Author But Mr. Hody in his Preface to the Greek and Latin Edition thinks he has discovered the Author to be Nicephorus Gallistus that which he grounds his Conjecture upon is that this Discourse is in the same Volume with several other Manuscripts which have the Name of Nicephorus Callistus to them but he does not acquaint us that this is written in the same hand with the rest nor that it has the least Connexion or Affinity with them nor that all the other Tracts in that Volume have his Name before them and when the other Treatises have his Name prefixed and this has it not it is most probable that this is not his for if it were it would bear his Name as well as the rest Indeed if some of the most remarkable Tracts only had his Name to them and others which were known to be his were among them without his Name it would not be unlikely that this might be his too but when the rest have his Name and this has none what can be more reasonably concluded from it than that there was as much cause why his Name should be omitted in this as why it was preâ—â—xt before the â—est Mr. Hody himself observes that there is no eâ—â—ct agreement in the Catalogue of the Patriarchs of C. P. by Nicephorus and the account of them in this Author But there is a much greater and more obvious Difference between them than that for Nicephorus Callistus writes in an easie flowing stile and with great Elegancy considering the Age in which he wrote but our Author is heavy and unpleasant and scarce able to express that little he has to say and the best thing that can be said of his stile is that it is as good as the Subject deserves and it is great pity that such Stuff should be put into any better Language But there is another Difference between these two Authors yet more remarkable for Nicephorus giving an account of (a) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Niceph. lib. 13. cap. 20. St. Chrysostom's parting Words to his Friends makes their holding Communion with the succeeding Bishop to depend wholly upon his Permission he says that St. Chrysostom did an extraordinary thing which was without example and had something more than Humane in it when he gave leave to his Friends to live in communion with Bishops by whom he had been so ill used Whereas our Author makes it not to depend upon any Permission of the rightful Bishop but to be the constant practice of the Church and the indispensable Duty of all Christians to submit to every Intruder if he be no Heretick But if there were as much reason to believe that Nicephorus Callistus was the Author of this Treatise as there is to think that he was not yet his Name would give no great Credit to it but a Suspicion rather that it is not to be credited For excepting Malela lately published by Mr. Hody there is scarce any Author more fabulous than Nicephorus But this Manuscript outgoes even Malela and may have the Reputation of being the worst Greek Author extant 'till Mr. Hody is pleased to publish some other Both the Latin and the English Preface suppose this Tract to have been a Sermon or Homily or at least as it is added in the Latin to have been a Lecture in the Schools of some Professor of History because in two places he bespeaks his Auditor and not his Reader I have no mind to maintain a Controversie about a thing of no moment but this Reason does not satisfie me for I find that (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. Her 64. n. 5. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Epiph. de Mensur Ponderib n. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ib. n. 17. Epiphanius addresses himself to his Auditors in his Book against Heresies tho no Man can therefore imagin that that Book consists of as many Homilies as he treats of Heresies and he writes in the same manner in his Book of Measures and Weights tho it appears that that Book was neither an Homily nor a Lecture I rather believe that Copies of Books being dear and scarce before the Invention of Printing it was customary to recite other Discourses as well as Homilies or Lectures and that therefore such Expressions might either be used at first by the Author or be afterwards inserted by him that recited it Besides the stile of this Treatise does
not seem at all like to that of an Homily for their Homilies after the decay of Learning were full of Hyperboles Antiâ—heses Tautologies and frequent Repetitions of the same Words and all the Affectations of a false Eloquence but our Author uses few Words without any shew of Eloquence or pretence to it for to do him right he seems to have understood his own Talent better than to pretend to any thing in that way Having said thus much of the Author Mr. Hody comes now to give an account of his Reasons for the Publication and here he informs his Reader in very tragical Terms that the Church of England being all in Flames he for our comfort has found out this new Engine to quench the Fire I desire to be as apprehensive of the Mischiefs of Schism as any Man and therefore must beseech all Christians seriously to consider whether this Treatise be not more likely to promote Schisms in the Church than to prevent or remove them His next business is to set down some Examples from Antiquity which he puts our present Bishops in mind it is their duty to follow The first is that of S. Chrysostom but he has said no more of him than we had before in the English Preface excepting that he has framed a new Speech for him which makes me begin to suspect that perhaps Palladius took the same liberty that Mr. Hody has done for Declamations are as usual and altogether as proper in a Dialogue as in a Preface His next Instance is of St. Augustin and the rest of the African Bishops in the Conference at Carthage (c) lib. de Gestis cum emerito The account S. Augustin gives us is this that before they held this Conference with the Donatists the Catholick Bishops made a Proposal that if the Donatists could convince them that they were in the wrong they would be contented to be received by the Donatists not as Bishops but to Lay-Communion only as private Christians but the Donatist Bishops if they were convicted of Error should be permitted upon their Repentance to preside in the same Sees together with the Catholick Bishops and the Survivors to be the sole Bishops of the Sees or if it would not be approved of that there should be two Bishops at once of the same Church that both the Catholick and Donatist Bishops should resign and that new Bishops should be appointed in all such Churches where the Donatists had their Bishops as well as the Catholicks And St. Augustin says that of almost Three Hundred Bishops thâ—re were but Two who made any scruple or demur upon it all besides were earnest and zealous for this Expedient and these Two were soon brought over to be of the same mind with the rest This is the full of what St. Augustin relates and I need not tell the Reader tho I must tell Mr. Hody that it is nothing to the present Subject But it is observable that the Schismatical Bishops were so refractory in the Conference at Carthage that they gave little encouragement for the Rightful Bishops to make any such Proposals to Intruders afterwards St. Gregory Nazianzen's Case has been spoken to already And as for the Advice which St. Dionysius of Alexandria gave to Novatian when he pretended that he was unwillingly made Bishop that this would be best seen by his desisting from his Vsurpation it is admirable Advice and I hope all will take notice of it who are concerned Another Citation he produces from the first I pistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians to shew that that Father exhorted the Presbyters who were ordained by the Apostles themselves rather to recede from their Right when they were â—urned out by a Faction than to occasion any Division in the Church But it seems plain to me that St. Clement gives this Admonition not to the Rightful Presbyters but to those who had stirred up and fomented the Differences For not long before he exhorts (c) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 51. all who had been the principal Authors and Abettors of Sedition and Dissention to regard the common Good more than their own private Interest for those who lived in Charity would rather condemn themselves than destroy the Order and Discipline of the Church and it was better for Men to confess their Sins than to harden their Hearts as Corah and his Associates did who raised a Sedition against Moses and as Pharaoh and the Egyptians had likewise done Then he exhorts them to the Confession of c. 52. their Sins from several Passages out of the Psalms and afterwards sets before them the Example of Moses who in a c. 53. wonderful Extasie of Zeal and Charity for the People who had sacrificed to the molten Calf desired rather to be himself blotted out of God's Book than that they should perish and then says that if there were any among them of a generous and charitable and c. 54. truly Christian Spirit he would depart and go whither they pleased if so be the People would live quietly and peaceably under the Presbyters constituted over them And besides c. 55. the Example of Moses he proceeds to take notice that among the Gentiles themselves Kings and other Magistrates had often exposed their own Persons to danger and ruin for the Preservation of their People and others had left their Countrey rather than they would be the occasion of any disturbance in it nay that many Christians had to his own knowledg delivered themselves up into Captivity to redeem others and many had sold themselves for Slaves to feed others with the Price of their own Servitude And among the Jews Judith and Esther refused no Dangers for the Deliverance of their Nation (d) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. c. 56. Let us then says he pray for those who are in fault (*) So it must be translated if we read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is in the Text and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as it is by conjecture only put in the Margin that Meekness and Humility may be given them that they may yield not to us but to the Wâ—ll of God And because this might seem a hard saying to many and too difficult to be put in practice he shews them that they ought patiently to receive Admonition and to submit to that Correction and Chastisement which God should be pleased to inflict either by his own Hand upon them or by the Discipline of the Church You therefore that have laid the Foundations of Sedition submit your selves to the Presbyters in order to your Repentance and be humble c. 57. and learn to be obedient laying aside the proud and boasting Arrogance of your Tongue for it is better to be one of the little ones who are approved of in the Flock of Christ than by aspiring too high to fall short of your hope or * 16 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 marg to be cast out of the Fold
The Force of St Clement's Discourse seems to be this that if Moses was so indulgent and affectionate towards the People who had sinned so heinously against God this ought to be a powerful Motive to those who had been themselves criminal to resign up all particular Interests for the Peace of the Church and if it had been so usual for the most innocent and worthy Persons to sacrifice their own Safety and Honours to the publick it might much rather be expected from such as had themselves given the first occasion to the Divisions in the Church His Design is the same that Dionysius afterwards had in his Letter to Novation and that he might persuade them the more effectually to desist from their Pretensions he tells them that this was no more than the most worthy and heroick Persons had done before them not upbraiding them too severely with their past Miscarriages and presing it upon them as a Duty which in justice they were bound to and which was the least satisfaction they could make to the Church to forbear those Practices which had caused so much Disturbance but proceeding in a more gentle Method and yet in the mean time not failing to let them know that he required them not to resign any Right but to desist from an unjust Claim which was the least that could be expected of them but if it should seem grievous to Men who had been so long puffed up with vain Expectations and high Conceits of themselves to be thus humbled at last he acquaints them that they must consider that the Chastisements of God must be born with patience in much severer instances than this affliction which they had brought upon themselves and that however irksom it might now seem it would bring Peace and Joy to them in the end But if we understand St. Clement as Mr. Hody does to exhort those who were the lawful Presbyters to resign their Right rather than be the occasion through the Wickedness and Injustice of others towards them of Trouble and Disorder to the Church we must necessarily suppose some extraordinary Circumstances which made St. Clement advise them to this Condescension in their particular Case For it is not to be imagined that he should lay it down as a general Rule in all Cases that a Bishop or Presbyter whenever he is molested or dispossessed must give way to the Intruder for Peace sake but we must of necessity understand this Precept and Admonition in some such qualified sense as we do those Commands of our Saviour himself Whosoever shall Mat. 5. 39 40. smite thee on the right cheek turn to him the other also And if any man will sue thee at the law and take away thy coat let him have thy cloak also For to oblige all honest Men to suffer themselves to be abused and to give up their Rights of any kind for the sake of Peace and Quietness would be so far from being a means to procure Peace that it would be the readiest and most effectual way to all manner of Confusion in the World So that the utmost that this Quotation from St. Clement can amount to is only thus much that for some special Reasons and in some extraordinary Cases it would be an act of great Charity and worthy of a Christian for a Bishop to condescend so far as to recede from his own Right which affords nothing in proof of that Doctrin that this Greek Author is published to advance That although a Bishop was unjustly deprived neither he nor the Church ever made a Separation if the Successor was not an Heretick The Quotations from St. Irenaeus and from the Apostles Constitutions are excellent Cautions and Persuasions against Schisms in general but do not in the least concern the Cause before us And I heartily pray that either their Authority or any other may have the effect which it ought upon those who are most concerned seriously to take notice of them towards the preventing a Schism which seems to threaten the Destruction of the best Church in the World to the Ruin whereof nothing can more contribute than to teach that a Bishop when once deposed tho never so (e) Ego actus ab episcopatu quantumvis per injuriam summam cesso esse vester Episcopus c. Mr. Hody 's Preface unjustly ceases to be any longer Bishop of his See Which are Words now put into St. Chrysostom's Mouth but how much against all reason and probability has been already shewn In the Book it self where it is said that Meletius was p. 1. translated from Sebastia to Antioch Eustathius being yet in Banishment in the English Edition this Eustathius is supposed to be Eustathius late Bishop of Sebastia But in the Greek and Latin Edition Eustathius late Bishop of Antioch p. 4. and a Note is subjoyn'd to inform us that both Socrates and Sozomen say that Eustathius Bishop of Antioch lived till the Reign o◠Valens and that the Arguments which Baronius and Valesius bring to the contrary are not of weight enough to be set against the Authority of these two Historians Baronius argues that Eustathius of Antioch never lived to be recalled from Banishment by Jovian but died in exile under Constantius For if he had been recalled it cannot be supposed that no mention should be made of him in the Synod of Antioch which was held at that time by the Orthodox and besides neither Meletius nor Paulinus would have been suffered by the People of Antioch to be confecrated and reside there as their Bishop if he had been still living without their dividing into Parties about it since a great part of the Orthodox from their great Zeal and Affection for him were denominated Eustathians And if Eustathius had survived his Banishment there is no question but both Meletius and Paulinus would have resigned the See to him at his return For Meletius was put into that See at the earnest desire of the orthodox Bishops after the Banishment of Eustathius and he who was so condescending to Paulinus would have yielded much more to Eustathius himself For all the pretence that Paulinus could have was to be Bishop over a Party of Men who for the great Veneration they had for Eustathius were called Eustathians and who would not live in communion with Meletius because he had been ordained by Arians And it is absurd to think that Paulinus the chief of the Eustathian Party would retain his Bishoprick if Eustathius himself had been yet living unless perhaps we say that Eustathius had wholly relinquished his See to him and that he lived concealed at Constantinople or in some other place from the time of his first Banishment as Socrates and Sozomen say he did in the Reign of Valens till he was a second time banished But to put this out of all Controversie Theodorite expresly (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Theod. lib. 3. cap. 4. says that Eustathius was dead before Meletius succeeded him in
the See of Antioch and his Authority alone without any concurring Evidence is sufficient to oppose to that of Socrates and Sozomen But if it were not besides what has been already said their Account as Valesius observes disagrees from what St. Hierom * Vales ad Socr. l. 4. c. 15. and Theodorus Lector and Theophanes relate concerning this Eustathius So that we must conclude that Eustathius of Sebastia is meant by the Greek Author or else that this is another of his Mistakes In the Greek it is said p. 5. that Arsacius because of the Jealousie of his Brother Nectarius towards him had formerly sworn that he would never accept of the See of Constantinople But in the English this is omitted in the Text and set down only in the Margin with this Note that p. 2. the Manuscript in this place is written erroneously Mr. Hody in the Greek and Latin Edition takes no notice that this is an Error being more tender now it seems of the Credit of his Author and perhaps of Palladius too from Pallad p. 94. whom he had it I wish Mr. Hody had been as careful of his Author's Reputation and of his own too in all other Respects as in this And after such Protestations of sincere and charitable Intentions in publishing this Manuscript it could hardly be imagined that he had omitted any thing which belonged to this wonderful Treatise which he so much values and so highly magnifies But it is an unlucky thing to be engaged in a Cause which no Author ever yet had enough of the Greek in him to maintain and therefore as I am well assured he has left out a Collection of Canons at the end of the Manuscript written in the same hand and by the same Author which shews that the Author is to be understood of synodical Deprivations For since there were no synodical Proceâ—dings in the present Deprivations that part of the Manuscript must be suppressed lest it should make all the rest impertinent to the Controversie arising from the present state of our Church tho it were all as true as I have shewn it to be false The Canons annexed are a sufficient Answer to the Book as far as we are concerned in it and therefore it was great Prudence to conceal them This looks as if Malela were not only fabulous but infectious too and will be apt to make Men suspect that Malela himself is worse in the Print than in the Manuscript And this is all that I shall say and I think a great deal more than was necessary to be said of a Book which instead of being sent into the World with so much Ostentation and Triumph would have been in danger of a publick Censure at any other time but this since the Reformation excepting only that Interval when we had all our Bishops deposed at once And to endeavour to maintain a Cause by such Arguments and such Auâ—horities as are both notoriously false and of so pernicious consequence that they would have been suffered at no other time and any other Cause would have been ashamed of them and then to be forced too upon such Arts as may be very necessary in an ill Cause but would never surely be used in a good one is no less than a Confession of the badness of a Cause and is so far from being a Defence that it is an evident sign that it cannot be defended The CANONS in the Baroccian Manuscripts omitted by Mr. Hody 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The XXXI Canon of the Holy Apostles by a Mistake for the XXXII IF any Presbyter contemning Can. Ap. 32. his own Bishop shall hold a separate Meeting and erect an opposite Altar having nothing wherewith to charge the Bishop in Matters of ‡ or Faith Piety and Justice let him be deposed as an ambitious Affector of Government for he is an Usurper In like manner as many of the Clergy that shall joyn with him shall be deposed and the Laicks excommunicated But all this ought to be done after the first the second and third Admonition of the Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The VI. Canon of the Synod of Gangra If any Man hold a private Meeting Synod Gangr Can. 6. out of the Church and despising the Church shall presume to perform the Offices of the Church †Note that in the Original it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the printed Canons have it the officiating Presbyter not being thereunto licensed by the Bishop let him be Anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The V. Canon of the Synod of Antioch If any Presbyter or Deacon despising Syn. Antioch Can. 5. his own Bishop hath withdrawn himself from the Church and set up an Altar in a private Meeting and shall disobey the Admonitions of the Bishop and will not be perswaded by him nor submit to him exhorting him again and again he is absolutely to be deposed and ought no longer to be treated as a curable Person neither as one who can retain his Honour and if he shall persevere to make Tumults and Disturbances in the Church he is to be turned over as a seditious Person to the secular Power 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The XV. Canon of the same Synod If any Bishop accus'd of any Crimes Eiusd Synodi Can. 15. be condemned by all the Bishops of the Province who have all with one accord denounced the same Sentence against him such a one by no means ought to be judged again by others but the concordant Sentence of the Provincial Bishops ought to remain firm 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The X. Canon of the Synod of Carthage If any Presbyter being puffed up Syn. Carth. Can. 10. against his own Bishop shall make a Schism let him be Anathema 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The XIII Can. of the Syn. of Constantinople called the 1st and 2 d. Synod The Devil having sown the Seeds I◠〈…〉 Caâ— 1â— of Heretical Tares in the Church of Christ and seeing them cut up by the roots by the Sword of the Spirit hath betaken himself to a new way and method viz to divide the Church by the madness of Shismaticks But the holy Synod being also willing to obviate this Stratagem of his hath decreed as followeth If any Presbyter or Deacon under the pretence of accusing his own Bishop of any Crimes shall presume to withdraw from his Communion and not mention his Name in the holy Prayers of the Liturgy according to the Tradition of the Church * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Synodical Judgment and Tryal such a one shall be deposed and deprived of all sacerdotal Honour for he that is in the Order of a Priest and shall usurp the Power of Judging belonging to the Metropolitans and as much as in him lies shall condemn his own Father and Bishop before Sentence pronounced by them he is worthy neither of the Honour nor Appellation of a Presbyter and those who are Followers of such a one if they are in holy Orders even any of them shall be degraded from his proper Honour but if they are Monks or Laicks they shall by all means be excommunicated from the Church until abhorring the Conversation of Schismaticks they shall return unto their proper Bishop 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The XIV Canon of the same Synod If any Bishop pretending an Accusation 〈◊〉 Synodi 〈◊〉 14. against his Metropolitan †〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Synodical Judgment shall withdraw himself from communion with him and shall not recite his Name according to custom in Divine Service the holy Synod hath decreed that such a one shall be deposed if after private ‡ or Conviction Admonition he shall depart from his own Metropolitan and make a Schism For it behoves every one to know his own proper bounds and that neither the Presbyter despise his own proper Bishop nor the Bishop his own Metropolitan 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The XV. Canon of the same Synod These Decrees concerning Presbyters 〈◊〉 Synodi 〈…〉 Bishops and Metropolitans agree also to Patriarchs So that if any Bishop or Metropolitan shall presume to depart from Communion with his own Patriarch and shall not mention his Name in the Divine Offices as is decreed and ordered but shall make 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Separation * before Synodical Conviction and final Condemnation of him the holy Synod hath decreed that such a one be absolutely deposed from all sacred Orders if he offend in this kind after private ‡ or Conviction Admonition And these things are decreed and enacted concerning those who under pretence of any Accusations revolt from their own Superiors and make a Schism * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 In the printed Canon and break the Vnity of the Church But if any shall separate themselves from Communion with their Superior for any Heresie condemned by the holy Synods and Fathers he publickly preaching the same Heresie to the People and teaching it bare-faced in the Church such shall not only be free from Canonical Censure for separating themselves from Communion with the Bishop so called * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before Synodical Condemnation but they shall be thought worthy of the Honour that is due to the Orthodox because they have not condemned a Bishop but a false Bishop and a false Teacher and have not divided the Unity of the Church by Schism but have studiously endeavoured to preserve the Church from Schisms and Divisions FINIS